|
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I hope others have better news than I do. In Langlade County (directly south of Oneida) the proposal got its tail kicked. On the average it lost 11-55 per lake question. Man I hope somebody else has better news. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 78
Location: Pardeeville, WI | I was at the Columbia County hearings and it went horrible. Just plain horrible.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
Location: Land O' Lakes WI | Did not feel real good at Ozaukee either.
Edited by Mark Gostisha 4/14/2003 10:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2
Location: balsam lake wisc |
Attachments
----------------
 polk county bad news also (0KB - 181 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| I think you can thank the wonderful DNR for this. They are against it and have made that known. I think it goes along the same lines as their deer hunting theory. Its all about hunter opportunity, with little regard for trophy animals. Very few bucks in the wild will ever see their 4th birthday in WI. No animals or fish will ever be big without age. They want little Johnny to be able to catch his 34 inch muskie, knock it over the head and be happy and proud. Maybe I am wrong, but I think he'd be much happier if he caught a 44 incher. Its too bad but many of these great fish won't get the chance to grow to 40+ inches. Editor's note: see this link for current DNR Muskie management publications. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/pubs/muskydoc.pdf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Eau Claire County - YES!!! 53-16 in a summary vote for all lakes.
Size limits for Madison Chain Passed too. 28-7 on the first and 29-8 on the second.
Jono
Edited by Jono 4/14/2003 10:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Well boys it’s not good news from Oneida county. I got there about ¾ of the way through the public comment and thought it was cut kind of short. I didn’t get to speak but I did say a word or two on behalf of the Madison chain.
Averages for all the questions 25.6 Yes……. 57.4 No Approx. 31% for the 50 Inch limits and 69% against.
People there in favor where:
John Setellflue (Oneida Esox)
Roger Sabota
Scott Biscobing
Chuck Nelson (Mepps Lures)
And more that I don’t know or didn’t see.
Against:
Gentleman who own Wildwood Bait and Tackle in Rhinelander.
Tom McGininnis, (WMT owner operator) very vocal against both the Vilas/Oneida and Dane county proposals.
At least two officials of the Hodag Musky Challenge, including the director.
And obviously many more.
On Monona and Waubesa 45" size 29 yes.....36 no.
On Wingra 45" size 28 yes.....29 no.
On Holcumb Flowage 40" size 27 yes...39 no.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
P.S. YEEEE…..HAAAA Eau Clair County. Your votes make our two county total 78.6 Yes……. 73.4 No. You washed us lets hope the rest of the state comes through.
I can go to sleep a litter happier. Even though the other counties need some help.
Edited by MRoberts 4/14/2003 10:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Forgot to add that the Holcombe Flowage one passed too. 56-3.
Jono |
|
| |
|
| Just to add a little to what Mike Roberts mentioned about Oneida Co.
Perhaps the 2 most vocal opponents of the size limits were Mark Durkee who owns Woodland Bait and Tackle on Hwy 17 No here in Rhinelander, and Tom McInnis who operates the Wisconsin Musky Tournamnet.
I was also very sad to see Crystal Lake Johnson, the director of the Rhinelander Chamber of Commerce show up to vote against this. I have been to these meetings for roughly 7 years here in Oneida Co. and to the best of my knowledge have not seen an employee of the Chamber there to vote. The reason she was there was to protect the 2 tournaments that are run by the Chamber on Boom Lake and the Rhinelander Flowage. I was very sad to see how soundly this was defeated. God bless.
John Stellflue
Oneida Esox Guide Service
www.oneidaesox.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Presque Isle Wisconsin | The antis wiped us out in Vilas County. Vote was something like 111 to 19.There were the usual walleye guys bitching that the Muskies eat all the fish etc etc.It was very dissapointing to say the least.I know the lakes selected for the larger size limit are fully capable of producing larger fish,but it doesnt look like this is going to be a reality anytime soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Unfortunately, looks like you Wisconsin guys are going to be losing out to other states for tourist and angling dollars. I know how much some Wisconsinites hate the tourists from Illinois coming up there on weekends tying up their highways and lakes......are all these "No" votes an attempt to keep us FIBS from coming up there on weekends? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Portage County:
I believe 12 of the was it 17 questions passed. Minoqua, Big Musk, Rhinlander were a few of the denied. I must say though that the losses were like 79-77, it was very close for all the lakes to say the least( one lake lost by 1 vote). I had not intended of spaeking up but when somebody said "... bottom line 50" muskies don't fit on my grill..." I had to say something! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All we as Muskie anglers can do is continue to propose a more reasoned approach to Muskie Trophy management here. Change in Wisconsin comes VERY slowly. Keep in mind we have severe restrictions on our walleye fishing due to the Treaty Rights with many lakes at a limit of 1 or 2. That killed a huge portion of our tourist economy; who will drive from Chicago or Milwaukee to catch 1 fish over 15" per day? Add to that the fact it hasn't snowed up here enough for a winter Tourism economy since the late 70's. Snowmobilers now head for Northern Upper Michigan. The resorts, hotels, sport shops, marinas, and other tourism based businesses are suffering, and were, even in the better economy we had a few years ago. ANYTHING seen as a possible drain on tourism dollars is bound to be rejected, out of hand, in the areas hardest hit by the factors I have listed. The folks here understand the long term goal of a trophy fishery and the long term improvement to draw in the type of Muskie anglers visiting MuskieFIRST. Obviously, the people voting the proposals down do not, or don't care to wait to see if the proposed management changes realize the results we are looking for. This is more than a simple management issue, it threads deeply through tradition, social structures, and belief structures in an area where all those things have been turned up side down over the last decade. The trophy waters proposals will eventually pass, but it will be a tough uphill battle, in my VERY humble opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Steve hit it right on the head. My observation is that most residents (at least here in the affected counties) view any kind of regulation as a government conspiracy to limit their rights. I really believe a lot of these guys would be happy if there were no fishing regs at all. Nearly all the proposals for size limits on any species were shot down with one notable exception that I can think of. One guy went so far as to state that the DNR has a plan to turn all fishing into catch and release only! |
|
| |
|
Location: Hayward WI | I don't know the voting results for the Vilas Co. 50" proposals here, but results for the local 45"minimum for Dane Co. lakes: Monona/waubesa = 234 for, 67 against. Wingra = 233 for, 66 against.
Mabye for next year the effort should be to work on 1 or 2 lakes a year, it might make it easier for people to accept.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | erico, you are probably right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | I think going for a 50" limit is really stretching what most people are willing to accept at this time. Go for a 45" limit and on fewer lakes and the results could change.
It still amazes me that the state of WI hires people with degrees in biology to work for the DNR. Can someone tell me WHY????? They don't let them use it. If you can count votes you can work for the DNR I quess. What a waste of an education. I know it's not the DNR employees fault because their hands are tied by a bunch of pencil pushing white collar yuppies who wouldn't know what a musky was if it swam up and bit them right in the giblets. Its our system that does not work and those who run it and I must say they both really suck the big weenie. See you across the border until things change. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Marathon County - as I expected all proposals were defeated by something like 70 to 10 except for Trout Lake it was around 50 against and 20 for. Heard all the usual stuff about muskies eating all the walleyes and how muskies are only carp with teeth. One guy even used the rational that only females would be targeted with a 50" limit and it would by his rational hurt the fishery. Somehow it made sense to him that it was OK to kill females between 34" and 50" but not the few that would ever be harvested over 50". Dumb and dumber.
For 20 years I've seen the We Live In The Past Conservation Congress continue to blindly support only longer seasons, bigger bag limits, and just take, take, take, over and over. They believe if it walks, swims, or breaths we must be able to kill it as often as we see fit. A prime example of bar stool politics at its best.
Take up golf.
Buddy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
Location: Hayward, WI | The final results statewide are posted on the WI DNR website at
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/springhearings/results/
It looks like the Dane County lakes will have a new limit (45") as well as the Holcombe Flowage (40") but there is much work to be done up north. I believe smaller steps may need to be taken first such as a 45" limit and in far fewer bodies of water.
In my opinion, a tagging system should be carefully considered. Decisions would be made on fact rather that harvest estimates.
Isn't it ironic that I live in Hayward "Home of World Record Muskies" but would rather spend every minute I can musky fishing in Canada? I'm not alone here ...
Mike Laird |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Somebody enlighten me here. Now that the Madison Chain passed (minus Kegonsa, mendota) we still have to go through some other votes within the DNR is this correct? We are not locked on a 45 inch limit yet...CORRECT?? Somebody educate me on the process. All I remember is the dove season..which is still not happening.
Cory
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Just a note, I saw that the request to increase the size limit on smallies in the wisconsin near Praire Du Sac and Spring green was shot down....shame...some great smallie waters here....they can grow big too! Seen/caught some nice 19-20 inchers in these stretches....also watched in the spring near Sauk people nailing smallies left and right and throwing them all on stringers...try again next year.
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
Location: Hayward, WI | Just so you know, the dove hunt IS happening this year in Wisconsin. It is set to open Sept. 1 with a 60 day season. The decision was just made a few weeks ago with the recent overturn by the Court of Appeals over the previous court decision.
Mike Laird
WFO Outdoors
Edited by Phishhead 4/16/2003 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Until we get the descision making process out of the hands of narrow minded(me me me), misinformed public, our states fishery program will continue to wallow in its own pity. Meat-hounds made up the brunt of the county voters from the counties I surveyed(all size limit increases shot down, bag limit increases passed). WI takes the management out of the hands of the managers and it is time for a change!!!! Aldo Leopold had a good idea back in the day(incorporating a public commission into the DNR's descision making process), but it is seriously outdated, and in need of revamping. For example, in our county, the 50" was shot down by a vast majority. Then a resolution was read that would open musky fishing in Northern WI on opening weekend for catch and release only. This is the idiocy that is evident at these hearings. Another issue was brought up to raise the size limit of Walleyes on a certain Mississippi pool to 18". A guy stood up and said "it is 15" now, and all the walleyes we catch are 14.5" long. If we raised it to 18" we couldn't keep anything." DUHHHHHHHHH, an 18" limit would immediately stack the fish up around 17.5"(which is better than the fish they are catching now). It was shot down.
I hope and pray our rule change goes through next spring for the river, but I will not hold my breath
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20244
Location: oswego, il | Was a bit shocked to see some of the people who were against the rule change. Not going to mention names but shocked. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | state total was 38,470 against and 21,560 in favor. Thats being voted down by a large margin. I think it failed as it was too many lakes in two counties. If spread out over entire state it may have had a chance. For sure it would have I feel if they had only jumped tp 40 or 45 max also.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
Location: Breezy Point, MN | Vilas County was a disaster, as we now all know! However, it should pointed out who was not in favor of progressive muskellunge management here in northern Wisconsin.
For:
Myself
"Ranger" Rick Krueger (Guide's Choice Pro Shop)
Steve Heiting
Ken Jackson
Rob Manthei
Russ Wayre
Doug Smith
Pat Sheahan
HC Meyer
plus a number of others.
Against:
Tony Rizzo
Todd Siebrecht
George Langley (Eagle Sports)
Chuck Altamore
Carol Ashley (Northern Highland Sports)
Tommy Zinda
Kurt Justice and lots of others I didn't know.
Only two "pro" arguments were given the chance, versus at least eight against. Russ Wayre and I each had our hands up to give our counter points to Tony Rizzo's arguments, and were never called on. What a joke, though it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all. Average vote: 150 to 30 in defeat! I am also appalled at the lack of turn out from a number of local musky enthusiasts here in Vilas County. We never had a chance since many of our cohorts didn't care.
This type of turn out (non-musky anglers mainly) is why I still maintain these "popularity contests" are bad for the resources at hand. The people who voted against this proposal didn't have biological facts to back up their claims, even when pressed for them by Steve Gilbert, our biologist. This is precisely why I hate these hearings. We are paying these expert biologists (and they are very good!) salaries to make sound decisions for the whole fishery, yet their expert opinion ultimately means nothing! This is why we should have a system like every other state, where the biologists make the call where they feel necessary, and implement the law.
We have light years to go before things ever change up here...A sad day indeed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Thanks to those on the com. that tried to get this passed but I feel it would fail from the start.
1. Too many businesses felt it would hurt them in those two counties.
2. It was too many lakes in that area. It should have been spread out
over the entire state and reduced to maybe 15 lakes.
3. I also feel that had it been 45 inches it would have a better
chance.
4. To go from 34 to 50 is a huge jump and the people in wisconsin are
used to seeing it going up 2inches at a time. I believe there was a
plan to go to 36 very soon. Where is that at now?
I think if they go back to the drawing board and try again in two years it may pass. These are just not my thoughts but those of many that called in my radio show when I discussed this subject.
Don Pfeiffer
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Probably 99% of the people on this and similar websites practice catch and release all year but we are a minority of those out there fishing. As my kids tell me - you aren't normal.
In Price County on my lake I can take you out on any weekend and show you aproximately 10 docks that have a pole out all day and night with a live bait rig set for muskies or northerns. Any fish caught goes right to the freezer.
All 3 of the Bars on this lake will take your picture and post it on the "brag board" and these are fish that are not released. I've found that if I mention at the bar that I released a musky most of the people there think I'm an idiot for not keeping it. When people here catch something they keep it and I believe that the majority of the fisherman do the same on any lake in this State. The exceptions are people like us on these websites and we don't represent the majority of those that are out there fishing. Can't you tell by these Spring Hearings that there continues to be a "fill my freezer" mentality here in Wisconsin. Don't fool yourself, we are definitely in the minority.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20244
Location: oswego, il | Buddy, I see those things happen too. Just wondering though, are those lines unattended? If so take a pacture and call the DNR. Can't hit them in their bellies, hit their wallett. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| While I agree with larger size limits on alot of lakes, I too, feel that this year tried to bite off too much, too soon. Man, that was alot of lakes, and a huge jump from from 34 to 50. As far as not getting time to speak, I doubt if ONLY those in favor of this proposal got to speak, if the outcome would have been different. People go to these meetings with their minds made up on how they are going to vote on certain issues. This was one of them. We may have to face the facts. Musky fishermen are a minority in this state. We got our butts handed to us, and it isn't because a couple people monopolized the time at the meetings.
This is from Scott Hassert, Head DNR dude.
"While the majority of those who voted were opposed to the more stringent regulations, we also know there were many avid musky anglers who do support more opportunities to catch a musky that is longer than 50 inches, which everyone agrees truly is a trophy fish," Hassett said. "I plan to discuss this proposal further with our biologists, anglers, and others interested in musky fishing to see if we can identify a fewer number of waters that more people would generally agree upon could provide this type of opportunity."
Also, there were only 4800 people who attended the meetings STATEWIDE. Way down from last year. I think we need to take another approach, as has been suggested. Pick the battles that are winnable, and don't expect drastic change in one swell foop. Take what Scott Hassert says as a lead to get this done on fewer lakes, even if it is one or two at a time. Look how long it took to get the Chip limit raised. And now, this year, it is "only" 45".
Also, it wasn't like all those lakes were gonna be changed to 50" even if the vote was in favor. It still has the Conservation Congress to go through, and then the DNR, and then also the Legislature, I believe. A lotta red tape to get things changed. And even after all that, one man can decide to throw it all out. Remember what happened with the dove hunt. Do we have one yet?
|
|
| |
