Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> What is happening with the Bay? |
| Message Subject: What is happening with the Bay? | |||
Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Any word on what the verdict is on Green Bay? Spring hearings are drawing near, would be a shame if nothing was done this year. So what is the news, plans, etc? | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good question... Here's the latest we have heard. After the WMMT authored their response to the emergency moratorium request, it went to the desk of Mike Staggs, Bureau Director for Fisheries. He eventually approved it, and it went to the desk of DNR Secretary Matt Frank and there it has been for the last month, as far as I can tell. I have gotten word through Senator Robert Cowles' office, that Mr. Frank's office has re-written the "official" DNR response *several* times. However as of yet, I have received nothing formal in reply. Last week I had a very good conversation with David Rowe (local Fisheries Biologist) and he advised that he is working on a comprehensive contingency plan to cover as many of the "what if" situations as possible. Basically what he recommends will depend upon what happens when the ice goes out. If there is a larger than anticipated number of dead muskellunge in the bay system, they will have to act swiftly to protect the fishery. But this is really nothing new--my impression is that they would be doing this anyway, regardless of the letter we submitted in January. But as for re-approaching the CC with another 54" size resolution, I believe this is in the works. Greg Wells and Dennis Radloff (the two original authors) are regrouping, and I believe they will be prepared to proceed with another attempt; should that become necessary. I don't want to speak for those fellows (or for David Rowe, for that matter) so I would encourage any interested/concerned parties to contact one of those guys directly for more information. Finally, keep in mind that all of this depends on what the Secretary's office decides. No one I have spoken with has any real idea what he will decide, so we are still in the wait & see mode. Senator Cowles (who is a Green Bay native) has a tremendous interest in this issue, and I am perfectly happy to let his office handle this in Madison--they have been intimately involved from day 1. To my knowledge there are no other political figures involved (at least as far as I have been told anyway), and I think this has been helpful because attention has remained focused directly on the issue at hand. This is obviously a complicated issue, and has taken some time to talk through. But I realize people are getting anxious as the spring hearings approach, and the Secretary's office has been made aware of this as well, through Senator Cowles. That is all I know at the present time. I will ask Greg or Dennis to post an update of their efforts ASAP. TB Edited by tcbetka 3/13/2008 8:32 AM | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Thanks for the update Tom. Keep us posted with anything you hear. | ||
| Ed BZ |
| ||
Posts: 80 | Article in the GreenBay press gazette today on this topic. www.greenbaypressgazette doesnt sound like the biologists think higher size limits will accomplish anything. Very hard to swallow. | ||
| ESfishOX |
| ||
 Posts: 412 Location: Waukesha, WI | http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2008... | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | I think that is actually a very good article. Rowe gives a detailed description of how to properly catch and release a large musky. I applaud him for that detailed description. As for not supporting the 54 inch limit. I'm not really that surprised. He said why, we dont know much about the fish in that system. He is dead on in that assessment. Would we angler like that 54 inch size limit? You bet, but what is our basis as to why that size limit will work? Problem is that when are we going to learn more about these fish in the bay? If it takes to long to learn we could miss that window of opportunity to put a high size limit on there and pump out some true giants. In my opinion, I would error on the side of caution and support the 54 and let it ride for a few years. If studies then show that it hasnt helped anything, its much easier to lower a size limit than it is to get it increased. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | The article doesn't surprise me one bit. I have had several discussions with David, and this has been his position all along--he doesn't have enough information to show that a 54" size limit is warranted. That's his interpretation of the *biology* of it. Perhaps if there was more study data available, then his conclusions would be different--and that's all I ever tried to point out in everything I have written... We simply don't know what we don't know. But the *sociology* of it is that most anglers (1096 yea, 345 nay) in 26 counties DO want a higher size limit. And this is the EXACT SAME REASON that Canada has a 54" size limit on several of their "world class" trophy waters. Mr. Rowe is a very capable biologist, and he is reading the same Casselman data that the Canadians used when determining their size limits. But the people (i.e.; end-users, tax-payers, political constituents) wanted higher size limits, and they seem to be working quite well, according to what guys like Joe Bucher, Pete Maina, Larry Ramsell and Steve Worrall have told me. These guys have tons more experience with the 54" issue than I do, so I simply have to take them at their word. So I say that we should put this issue on a state-wide ballot and let's see what the people of Wisconsin want. My argument for the moratorium was simply what I considered to be the path of least resistance to getting this thing resolved: Shut down all harvest, study the problem and come up with the *best* regulation regarding harvest and size limits, without having the on-going pressure of everyone arguing what they feel is best. I am obviously not going to reiterate 14 pages of my argument, as that is readily available on this site...with references. But I urge everyone to keep something in mind here though--the Secretary has not made known his decision yet. Could he come out and say "no, a moratorium is not needed"? Yes, certainly he could. But he could also come out and say "yes, it is...". Or he could decide for something that lies somewhere in between. The very fact that it's taking so long to get a decision confirms (IMO anyway) that this is an extremely complicated issue and that several options are being considered. And as long as the population is sufficiently protected, then the end justifies the means, if you ask me... TB Edited by tcbetka 3/25/2008 9:43 AM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Have they given you any idea how long they are not going to stock fish because of the risk of VHS in the hatchery? I'd thing that would be a huge factor in this decision. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, no...but I doubt that they know for certain. The fish that we *were* going to get from Ontario this past year, had to be released because (as I am told) there were no over-wintering ponds for them. So they were stocked in Canada. But from what Greg Wells has told me, they are hoping to get another batch from this year's hatch--and in fact I believe they are working on the details of a plan to develop some broodstock lakes in Wisconsin to support these fish. But that means of course, that it will take some time (perhaps a few years, I suppose) before there would be a solid source of eggs for our hatcheries. But I am really not the person to ask about this though, as I am only telling you what I have been told by Greg--he was at the WMMT meeting when this was discussed. I presume David Rowe would have all the details as well, so you could certainly call him and ask about it. That's all the detail I have available--thus I really have no idea of just how long it might be before the hatchery system is back at full strength; and I have not been told that the DNR knows either. (But in all fairness, how could they?) So you raise a good point--whether or not the stocking issue has entered into the decision-making process with regards to the moratorium. Common sense would say that it has, but I haven't heard a single word from the Secretary's office (nor the NRB) about it, since I submitted the request on January 8th.. TB | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| As a Muskie Fisherman who would like to spend more time in Wisconsin it is very frustrating to watch the efforts of so many people go down the tube. Reading the WDNR biologists comments that a 54" size limit does not make sense Biologically is a slap in the face. Someone needs to explain to the WDNR that this is a RESTORATION Project and that protecting large spawners does make biological sense until the RESTORATION is showing progress - which means Natural Reproduction is significant if not self sustaining. The restoration of Elk, wolves etc. did not include an unlimited slaughter of mature females from day 1 - why should Muskies have to endure this? | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Guest - 3/25/2008 8:33 PM As a Muskie Fisherman who would like to spend more time in Wisconsin it is very frustrating to watch the efforts of so many people go down the tube. Reading the WDNR biologists comments that a 54" size limit does not make sense Biologically is a slap in the face. Someone needs to explain to the WDNR that this is a RESTORATION Project and that protecting large spawners does make biological sense until the RESTORATION is showing progress - which means Natural Reproduction is significant if not self sustaining. The restoration of Elk, wolves etc. did not include an unlimited slaughter of mature females from day 1 - why should Muskies have to endure this? Why havent they spawned the previous...oh 10 or so years? | ||
| Shane Mason |
| ||
Location: WI | Cut and Paste from another site "April 2 - Department of Natural Resources Northeast Region fisheries staff will host a public meeting to discuss the management of the Great Lakes muskellunge population from 7 to 9 p.m. at the DNR Regional office, 2984 Shawano Avenue in the Village of Howard. DNR fisheries staff will present and discuss several management activities that have been developed to address the sustainability of the musky fishery. Restoration of the Fox River and Green Bay musky fishery has been a focus of the department since the 1980s. During that time, the regional fisheries staff has successfully managed this fishery and they continue to develop projects to enhance the restoration program. Area fishermen have expressed concern about the future management of this fishery, especially in relation to VHS impacts on the musky population. During this meeting, the DNR will share several management activities with the public and conduct a dialogue about concerns for the sustainability of this important musky fishery. For information contact Michael Donofrio, DNR Fisheries Supervisor, at 715-582-5050" | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wanted to post a brief synopsis of the results of the meeting that was held at the DNR headquarters in Green Bay last night. Thanks to all the people that showed up at the meeting. (This is a copy of what I posted on another site...) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was attended by about 15-20 anglers, and three DNR biologists--David Rowe (local biologist), Mike Donofrio (David's immediate supervisor) and George Boronow (both David's and Mike's supervisor). The local Conservation Warden (Ben Treml) also attended. The meeting started about 7:10pm and went right until 9pm. David Rowe gave a 45-minute Powerpoint presentation, basically reiterating their (the WMMT's) response to our concerns. In a nutshell, they are fully prepared to be reactionary but are choosing not to be proactive, because their data suggests to them that things are not as dire as we (I) have suggested. They conceded that there is much about the muskellunge population that they still do not know--but basically stated that they felt they knew enough to know there isn't a significant problem at this point. So they have developed a "reaction matrix" (I believe that's what they are calling it), carefully laying out a plan to react to whatever the forthcoming season may bring our way. I have a poor fax copy of it, but it doesn't scan well so I have not sent it around. But I can do so if anyone is interested. I am hopeful that David Rowe will publish the version he showed us tonight, as it was condensed a bit more than the one I received earlier. So we (several of the anglers) basically questioned them as to the moratorium request (which still has not yet been acted upon by the Secretary/NRB), and the 54" size limit resolution. They stated several times that, if the public were once again to make their wishes for a larger size limit known to the DNR through the CC process, they would support it--because "that's what the people want." But short of that, they will not act to do it independently. Much discussion was had about *why* the process failed last fall and in the end, they basically (and this was Mr. Bonorow talking) told us that it wasn't their problem (or fault) that it didn't get advanced for state-wide consideration, and thus the process would have to be re-initialized this spring. I didn't hear anything about them being willing to act on last year's results...we will have to go through the whole two-year process all over again. So that's about all there was to it--I heard nothing I didn't expect to hear, and everything I did expect to hear: 1) reactive, not proactive; 2) not enough "biological evidence" to support a higher size limit or the moratorium request; and 3) any increase in regulation will have to come through the full CC process, starting anew this spring. TB EDIT: I forgot to add that, although many of us see things a bit differently than they do, we would like to thank the DNR biologists and Warden Treml for giving us the opportunity to discuss these concerns face-to-face. We are very appreciative of their efforts in this regards. Edited by tcbetka 4/3/2008 9:51 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Call for authors... http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=41... TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wanted to make a correction to my original post. Although I alluded to this in the post, I have now been advised that the document I reported as being entitled a "Reaction Matrix" is in fact called a "Response Matrix." In addition, in reviewing the data presented by Mr. Rowe at the meeting last week, I may have given an impression that the Average Ultimate Length had been increased for FEMALE fish. In fact, this was not the case. The AUL for ALL fish had been reported at 47.9" by Kevin Kapuscinski in his 2006 paper, but David Rowe's follow-up work has now updated this model, and a new AUL for *ALL* fish has been determined to be 48.1" The 53.3" AUL that has been discussed in the past, is actually that of FEMALE fish only. The new data used to update the all fish AUL could not be used for female-specific calculations, simply because the samples were from fish of unknown sex. I want to strive for the most accurate information possible in these forums, and apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please post any follow-up questions that these revisions may have generated. TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | tbcbetka, Thanks for your reasonable and measured reporting and response to happenings on this front to date. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thank you Steve, and thanks again to MF for continuing to provide a vehicle for the discussion of this vital topic. TB | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |