|
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have a question for the anglers fishing Wisconsin Waters. If a proposal came up at the CC hearings asking for a 50" limit on a lake that would definitely benefit from that change, has the backing of the DNR, and the backing of a significant number of the area residents, would you vote for it even if you never fish that water? Would you vote against it for any reason, if it was explained carefully before the vote? Just curious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1536
Location: God's Country......USA..... Western Wisconsin | Vote for it from me. I may then fish the lake rather than some others. I have seen what catch and release with larger length limits has done on some lakes in MN. Smallies in the St. Croix River between MN and WI, total catch and release after early Sept. has made this a Smallie factory. Seems to work other places why not WI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I'd vote for the 50". If the DNR biologists gave the OK....why not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | I would vote for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I will be voting for it.....when are the CC meetings? I know the lake you speak of and would love to see it up at a 50" Limit.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8864
| I can think of no reason to vote against it provided that the lake in question meets the criteria you mentioned.
Would I vote even if I didn't fish that particular lake? YES, and here's why:
No matter how it turns out, it helps us further understand what needs to be done to produce and maintain healty ecosystems.
The results of doing the wrong thing are that you learn what should not be done and you don't do it again
The results of doing the right thing are obvious
The results of doing nothing are exactly that -- NOTHING
|
|
| |
|
| i would consider voting for it.
i'm not in favor of "blanket" 50" size limits, as i don't believe they are realistic for many WI waters.
however, if i was shown evidence that this particular water would benefit from a high limit such as that and has the ability to consistently produce fish over the limit, i would support it.
if the DNR supports it, and the local associations support it, i'm assuming they are doing so because they've seen the kind of evidence i'm talking about: that it's a good idea for both the muskies and the rest of the fish present in the system.
i'd like to hear at least a synopsis of that evidence at the CC meeting, but then i'd probably vote "yes".
in fact, if i was aware of the evidence beforehand and believed in it, i'd probably stand up at the meeting and ask others there to support it as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | If I ever fished the lake or not would not affect my decision. If the area supports it I would vote in favor of the change.
If I was not to vote or vote in opposition ,I would not have a leg to stand on when asking others to support proposals in my part of the state.
Edited by FredJ 2/6/2006 1:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: mad chain | I would vote for the 50" size limit. The only issue I have with it is, we have seen it on the ballot before and the area in noth central wi voted against it, the people who benfit the most from it vote to stop it. I'm not saying every lake should have a 50" size limit but the lakes that DNR say would support it sure would be nice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1294
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Given the above criteria-yup! |
|
| |
|
| Just being the devils advocate here,,,would that cause MORE pressure to be brought on that ONE lake,,,granted if it was a huge lake it could handle it,,,Theres an opinion that you need to have it state/ county wide or the more talented anglers will flock to these single 'trophy" waters and fish could suffer because of continued hooking stress,,Ive heard this expressed by some of our Minn DNR guys,, |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I would vote for it...Happy Hooker, there are lakes in WI with very high size limits and they don't have any more added pressure on them than others..in fact there are a couple I know of in the heart of musky country than have 10% of the pressure some of the big name lakes do.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1936
Location: Eau Claire, WI | I would vote for it based on the fact that I am most always in favor of anything that has the potential to have a positive effect on WI musky fishery.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point | I would vote for it under the given circumstances. I agree that it is not appropriate for every body of water in the state. But I would vote for a 50" limit here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point |
Edited by BRIANSWENSON2004 2/6/2006 3:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Absolutely YES |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| I would vote for it. I am looking at the future of the sport right here in Wisconsin.
That being said, the problem is not with the people who are in the know on any given subject. I have seen this happen first hand as I'm sure others have. The CC meetings come up, everybody goes to the meeting and everyone votes on every question whether they know what they are voting for/against or not. I'll use one example. About 3 years ago, I went to CC meeting. A guy was there in support of some type of trapping change. He talked, voted for his change and then I could hear him talking to himself...going down every other fishing and hunting related question and vote against every change the DNR supported, from musky size limits to Smallmouth size/refuge changes etc, you name it. I will admit that the first couple CC meetings I went to, I voted my mind on all the issues as well. But, as I got older and wiser I changed my ways. I don't know a freakin' thing about trapping. So how could I possibly vote one way or another for the change of a sport that I know nothing about. Thank God I changed my ways years ago. Now, we have to get all others to do the same.
On the same line is the general contempt/distrust for the DNR. I have also seen voters vote against every attempt to limit or regulate any type of hunting or fishing change only because the voter thinks the DNR already has too much regulatory authority. The voters therefore don't want to allow the DNR any more authority whether or not it's good for the resource.
Scott |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2085
| rarely ever fish Wisc.... but why are many against a blanket 50" or 54" for that matter ..isn't it a catch and release resource? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | For it all the way. |
|
| |
|
| i'd vote for it on the right water ... i think some fisheries were overstocked with the same size fish that won't/can't get any bigger because there isn't any stratification and they can't grow out of the masses .... of the population and a slot kill should be put in. problem is people won't kill them to eat them so the places where some 35's should be taken won't and the wrong fish are getting harvested for the wrong reasons.
|
|
| |
|
| I'd vote yes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
Location: Antigo, WI | Steve, I don't know if your question is just a coincidence or not but I had mentioned to Norm in an email last night that I thought this would be a hard sell at the spring hearings. This would not be a difficult question in the minds of those on this board or any musky board but the spring hearings that I have attended have been dominated in years past by sportsman who are more concerned with bear and deer hunting regs. The average Joe who might drop a sucker in the water one or two times a year is the guy who will not support these changes. We need everyone to get out at the spring hearings to make your voice heard and try to educate those who could also provide support. You have my support, but Musky Nuts seem to make up a very small percentage of the vote at the spring hearings, atleast down hear at the Antigo hearings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | My short answer is yes I would vote for it.
The only problem I see is how are you going to establish or determine whether or not a particular lake would "definitely benefit from that change". How will this be determined? What exactly will this be based on? Who will make that determination and based on what information and from where?
Thanks
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20278
Location: oswego, il | I am for it too. I will bring this up again, since I think it is extremely important. Why is Muskies Inc and it's wisconsin chapters not involved heavily in all of this? Why is their not a MASSIVE push to get their members out to vote during the spring hearings? Chapters in the past have even scheduled meetings nd other events that day. It completely puzzles me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I think this question should be asked to other non musky people. Seems they are the ones who's majority shot it down last time the group of lakes went to the CC hearings.
I wouldn't think many who frequent M1st would vote against it. Just how many would make it a point to be there to vote for it?
I will be there with my yes vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Not surprisingly I would vote YES!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Steve,
Under the context I believe you are talking about, I would support it 100 percent. I like others just need a little bit of education on circumstances. However, I think at this point in time I would support in on ANY lake just to see the results and learn a little bit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Yes, I'd be very supportive. As others have noted there are a lot of "sportsmen" who attend those meetings and vote against anything that they view as restrictive. This time I will fill my car up with musky friendly folks including my wife and son to vote too. I agree with Todd, it's a shame that MI chapters can't seem to gather more than a few members to back these issues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gentlemen,
Now, let's talk about the 'rest of the story'. I know most here would vote for the 50" limit, based only on what I've said. The next step IS to educate the rest of the public, and do so before the hearings.
Norm, Mike, and I presented this idea to the Pelican Lake Association this July during the regular summer meeting. We presented the facts, and though there was some misunderstanding at first, a majority voted to protect the muskies in Pelican, and a majority of those votes were for the 50" limit. The DNR has supported this size limit change for Pelican Lake; I'll defer to Mike and Norm to post the details; as all the hard work was performed by them.
The issue on the table is ONE lake, a lake that can and will support the limit, and a lake that without that protection could very well be in trouble in the not too distant future. The lake sports a tremendous panfish population and a very good walleye poulation, despite high angler harvest and above average overall use. This body of water is a CLASSIC example of the fact muskies do not negatively effect panfish and walleye populations when in balance, and could serve as a model to educate the public about the relatively few other waters across our state that would support a high size limit.
I see this as an opportunity to begin the state wide educational process that was, in my very humble opinion, somewhat missing during the last attempt to change en mass mulitple lakes to a minimum of 50". I believe most of the negative vote was out of misunderstanding and fear of change. It is not our goal or desire to change all muskie waters to 50"; only those that would benefit strongly and support a trophy fishery, and only with the help and approval of the majority of local anglers and the area fisheries managers, and support of sportsmen and women across the state. I believe if a grass roots group were to take the lead in other areas, as Mike and Norm did here, we as Muskie anglers MIGHT be able to encourage protected trophy muskie waters all across the state, one at a time, with the full support of the sportsmen and women living in each area. I believe it's time we step up and help our DNR help us gain and protect trophy muskie angling opportunities in Wisconsin. This might also serve as an early statewide model to encourage interaction between the user groups and biologists and fisheries folks, ecouraging positive change by consensus.
We certainly are going to take our best cut at it. How about you? Would you educate your deer hunting buddies whom you know are going to attend the CC hearings? How about the varmint hunters, duck hunters, and turkey hunters? The special interest groups, like Chambers of Commerce and tournament promoters? Would you take a few minutes of your time and attend the CC Hearings this spring, and bring some friends to help make this not only a possibility, but a reality? If an informational piece was distributed via email, would you help get to those who matter? If so, I think Norm and Mike could use your help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
You said "We presented the facts, and though there was some misunderstanding at first, a majority voted to protect the muskies in Pelican, and a majority of those votes were for the 50" limit."
First let me say that I am 100% in favor of 50" size limits where appropriate.
My question is this. What information is/was being used or presented to these people and where did it come from? Can we see it?
Thanks
EJohnson |
|
| |
