|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Legalize motor trolling on WI inland lakes currently closed to trolling under the following two conditions:
1)On lakes less than 500 acres, only electric motor trolling is allowed. (275 pound or .5hp max trust)
2)No more than 4 lines per boat are allowed to be trolled.
Great discussion on the other thread. This is just another idea to toss out there to generate some more GOOD debate.
Personally I could like this as it does a number of things.
It opens trolling to many lakes where it could help me catch a few more musky and walleye every year.
It keeps the faster trolling off the small lakes, where many want to keep the WI north woods flare.
It allows electric motor trolling on those small lakes. To me this clearly still allows for the traditional methods of sucker fishing and lindy rig fishing, it also allows a pan fisherman to drag a spread of bobbers around a school of fish. In other words it clears up the Position fishing MESS!
The 4 lines per boat gives the people, who are worried about the WI northwoods lakes turning into a tangled mess, something to feel good about.
Lets see how you feel, give me the pros and cons of the above proposal.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/6/2007 11:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Negatron. Leave the trolling where it's already allowed. lol, "we're drifting!"
But could this be compared to a disabled hunter hunting with a crossbow? I'm all for that. I wouldn't motor troll unless I was physically forced to, in other words.
The guest below me says anyone not for it must not want to fish with suckers? I don't see the comparison at all. All the sucker fishing with different people this fall we have never kept the boat in constant motion with a trolling motor, EVER. Unless of course you were to say using suckers is a much more productive way of catching fish? Either way I know the way we fished with our suckers, while doing quite well I might add, we'd never been able to keep an artificial bait in a constant motion (like any of the baits more often used for trolling).
I still can't decide whether more big fish being caught is a pro or con though..so I'm just going to leave it with what I said and not speak of it again:)
Edited by Andy 11/7/2007 12:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
| This is as close to a compromise as you are going to get to clarify the "positon fishing" mess there is now.
Mike, if people are going to like this, they are not going to like anything but something that says NO to fishing, period.
Those that don't go with this must not want to use suckers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| trolling is another way to catch fish. with todays fishemen releasing the greater amount and waters that can support this why not.. open water troling is a very good way to enjoy a day fishing. just my 2 cents |
|
| |
|
| I would see nothing wrong with that. Look at the fish coming out of MN and LOTW, and you can troll all you like there. I never really knew what the real reason was as to why you couldn't troll in WI. I guess I always heard the real problem was the 36" minimum length restriction on most WI waters. Is that still in place or has it been changed? Mille Lacs went to a 48" Minimum and people are trying to get it to 54", but look at that fishery. I guess I would think changing the length restriction would be a more important issue than trolling, but who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | MRoberts - 11/6/2007 11:35 PM
The 4 lines per boat gives the people, who are worried about the WI northwoods lakes turning into a tangled mess, something to feel good about.
Lets see how you feel, give me the pros and cons of the above proposal.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
What if you have 5 guys in the boat sucker fishing? With the size of boatd these days, that could happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Mike, thanks for working on this issue. It seems to me that you're getting close to a sensible and viable proposal. I'm still thinking about the number of lines per boat (or per angler) and whether or not planer boards and downriggers should be restricted on waters less than some specified acreage. I think some exceptions need to be made for the Great Lakes and any other large body of water where there is a large, well-established trolling industry and livelihoods are at stake. (For example, I would not advocate further restricting the number of rods or the use of planer boards or downriggers on the Great Lakes.)
Restricting the use of downriggers for trolling on most inland lakes would minimize mortality caused by rapid de-pressurization when fish are brought to the surface from exceptionally deep water.
Restricting the use of planer boards on most inland lakes would address some of the concerns about trollers monopolizing space on the water.
Choosing enforceable language to restrict the number of rods per boat is very, very tricky. We'll get questions like: "What if I'm casting (a musky lure) with one rod and trolling (a sucker) with the other, and so are my two boat partners?" In such a case, you'd be within the "4 rods per boat" rule for trolling purposes, but there would be 6 rods fishing out of that boat at one time. Whatever is proposed, I suggest that it be designed to provide INCENTIVE (without mandate) to fish with artificial lures (for all species) rather than live bait. And it should maximize angler ATTENDANCE to any live bait being fished. Part of the current problem, even with quick-set rigs, is that the hooks are not set quickly enough by some anglers to prevent deep hooking and delayed mortality of released muskellunge. They are busy casting, watching for follows, etc. And some just let the fish have a sucker too long even when they know there is a fish on.
How about this? "While trolling, each individual angler in a boat may fish with no more than one rod, and no boat may troll with more than two rods at the same time regardless of the number of anglers in that boat." The Great Lakes, Winnebago, and perhaps a few other large lakes with a well-developed guided trolling industry would be exceptions.
I like your idea to restrict trolling on lakes <500 acres to electric motors only. This allows trolling on all waters, but accounts for some of the concerns about traffic and noise on some of our smaller northern gems. I can tell you that a 500-acre lake CAN be trolled effectively with electric trolling motors only, because I did it for years on 530-acre Hazel Creek Lake in northeastern Missouri. I caught lots of muskies while trolling there, all with one line per angler from a small boat. Lots of fun, and more effective than casting (if done right) at certain times of year. Never killed a fish, either. Great option for elderly or disabled anglers, too.
Again, thanks for your initiative on this, Mike. If I can help, let me know.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| 4 lines trolling nut. You could run 4 suckers as the other rods would be used for casting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the really important question could be "what does Dan Meyer think?"
... my reasons are tradition, challenge and not wanting to have guys drive right next to me as happens on other trolling waters ... among many more ...
question for mike roberts or dave n ... is this something that's going to going to vote this year? or is it just internet talk?
thanks
there's more to this one and if/when it becomes a real potential ... it's gonna be a big division among anglers ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 880
Location: New Berlin,Wisconsin,53151 | Trolling for Salmon when it gets to hot in July and August to cast for Muskies. I know that big fish are taken trolling in fact my PB was trolling but theres nothing like the feeling of a follow to the boat and the fish eats on the 1st turn of the 8.
Bruce |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Mike
I would give it a big thumbs up, maybe up the acerage to 1500 or 2000 acres, to help preserve smaller lakes.
The open lines count up on lakes larger than 10,000 acres, thus allowing Winnebago and great lakes anglers the 3 lines.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
| i would vote yes for the first part, but no on the second part.
this means i would vote "no" on it as it stands if it came up at the spring hearings.
AND i would voice my opinion at the hearing and attempt to influence others to vote no because of the (imho) confusion added by the second part.
the lines per angler is a separate/distinct issue, imho, and it unnecessarily confuses things when you try to offer "carrots" like that to gain some votes.
the first part has appeal to anglers of many species, let it stand on it's own merits.
keep it simple and just propose the first part.
|
|
| |
|
| Just word it:
"Two lines per person, 4 lines maximum per boat on Wisconsin's inland waters excluding tributaries to the great lakes and the the following listed bodies of water where 3 lines per person is allowed: Winnebago, Pewaukee,....etc etc etc"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd vote for it as you posted it, Mike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| JONNYSLED: question for mike roberts or dave n ... is this something that's going to going to vote this year? or is it just internet talk?
DAVE: From my standpoint, Jon, this is simply a way of bouncing ideas off people who care. I think of it as an online listening session that helps me to formulate my own views about what specific rule-change language may be desirable and possible. It is too late for DNR to put any kind of statewide trolling rule revision on the spring hearing questionnaire of the Conservation Congress in March of 2008. As far as I know, it hasn't even been discussed yet by DNR Fisheries program leaders in Madison. Of course, someone like Mike Roberts and others could introduce local resolutions to obtain opinions from Conservation Congress attendees next spring, but any vote on such resolutions at that time would not prompt immediate action by DNR. We would look at the 2008 spring hearing responses and decide what, if anything, to propose at the 2009 spring hearings.
I would advise everyone NOT to get too excited about this just yet, one way or the other. It's the kind of rule change that will require careful thought and lots of input over a period of a couple years (unless some legislator decides to hijack the process again). This discussion is only a starting point; and it started, as I recall, with my perception that changes were needed on the Chippewa Flowage. If folks like Mike wish to broaden the discussion, that's great.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I would vote yes as is.
I really think this could work if proposed, but only if you gained support from the walleye guys. My only fear would be that they may balk at the 4 lines. Don't know much about the psyche of the walleye guys, would the 4 lines be an issue? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 62
Location: Mokena, IL | We do a late fall trip on a Polk County lake where trolling is legal. It's usually cold enough at that time that we're doing nothing but dragging suckers on quick-sets. Because of some odd circumstances this year, one of the two boats that usually go backed out this year and I ended up with five on my boat. Because there's no casting, it's manageable on my Ranger 690, but we did have five rods out. The current wording would prohibit us from doing this.....
So, the question about five in the boat is a valid one in my mind.
Brad |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Norm- I would think the walleye guy's would go for it, i.e., they have zero trolling options now. Just a thought. It would certainly remove the sucker fishing issues, i.e., repositioning the boat to fight the wind or working a shoreline while casting and dragging a sucker as you move. Is dragging different than trolling? In my mind (warped as it is) dragging a sucker is intermittant movement of the boat, whereas trolling is constant movement of the boat.
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 11/7/2007 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Sorry, Al, but I think you're wrong on what the walleye guys would think. I think this gets shot down if you keep the 4 lines part of it in. I would vote no, and only because of the 4 line restriction.
Dave, are you going to also recommend banning soft plastics and suckers? Lots of fish are being caught in very deep water on these baits, and brought up quickly. You start introducing all the "What ifs", and there will be no end to the doomsday scenarios. Also, this "Sucker out while casting, is it trolling or not?" has been discussed for as long as I can remember. At least since they rewrote the backtrolling reg to position fishing. It did not originate with the proposed Chip compromise.
The key here is to do away with the stupid no trolling/posisiton law as it is written. I like the proposed number one. Not sure where the 275 Lbs comes from, but ok with me. I agree with lambeau. Leave it stand on it's own merits alone. Leave out the 4 lines per boat, and this stands a good chance. I would vote for, and campaign for it. Insist on the 4 lines, and it will be doomed. Then I'd vote, and campaign, against it.
This will not make the spring hearings. But it could be introduced as a test resolution, much as we did with the 54" limit for Green Bay Muskies last spring. I expect the results of that will be a formal question at this coming Spring elections.
So, as it stands, I am voting no above. I'll put the same poll up on WalleyeFirst, and test the waters over there.
Edited by Shep 11/7/2007 9:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | I agree with Lambeau. Two different issues IMO. It would probably fail if they are both put together like that. I personally would vote yes, but I could see a lot of people that would be for the first part voting no because of the second part.
What about the southern part of the state that can already troll with six lines? All of the trollers down here would vote no.
Dave your one line and allowing trolling on the Chip will not give you the results you are looking for. I have fished up there for over 20 years and I can tell you that the locals would all be trolling suckers with their one line. When I have been up there in November I am the only boat that casts.When I asked John Detloff why nobody is casting his response was that the fish only eat suckers in November on the chip. My response to him was that they don't catch them casting because nobody is casting. Everybody is currently just drifting with suckers up there. If the rules are changed they will all be trolling their suckers.
Edited by Bytor 11/7/2007 9:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | I would vote for trolling on ALL waters only. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
Location: St. Germain, Wi | A big yes, I just want to cast with a sucker out using the electric.. and be legal. Jim |
|
| |
|
| My intention was this would only affect lakes currently closed to trolling. Current lakes where trolling is legal would not change.
The max HP thing on the electric only is to make it clear it is intended for limited electric motor trolling. I can only imagine where some would take it. Not all but some.
Also nothing regarding row trolling should change.
Thanks
Nail A Pig
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I'll simply say that the backtrolling rule was a disaster. This isn't any different. I agree that the sucker issue needs to be addressed but this isn't the answer. Also, if it were going to be law, I don't think the 500 acre limit is high enough, I'd go to 1000 acres. Also tied to this proposal should be a 50 inch size limit if trolling is allowed. The backtrollers really devastated the lakes in the years it was allowed.
Ken K |
|
| |
|
| "I think some exceptions need to be made for the Great Lakes and any other large body of water where there is a large, well-established trolling industry and livelihoods are at stake. (For example, I would not advocate further restricting the number of rods or the use of planer boards or downriggers on the Great Lakes.)
Why even mention something like that??? Personally, I think your opening a HUGE can of worms by opening trolling to smaller lakes but adding contingencies to do it. If you want to open the lakes to trolling, go nuts - doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But if you saying trolling is OK, but only with this many lines or only with this kind of bait, what your really saying is that trolling as Wisconsin currently allows IS NOT OK. Please do not do anything to change the way Wisconsin currently views trolling. I like being able to use 3 lines per angler and (IMHO) making exceptions to what trolling is represents too great a potential for someone else with a "good" idea to wreck that.
"Restricting the use of downriggers for trolling on most inland lakes would minimize mortality caused by rapid de-pressurization when fish are brought to the surface from exceptionally deep water."
There are tons of ways to run baits deep. Leadcore, dipseys, 3-way rigs with a few ounces of weight.... You can even jig water 30+ feet deep. Why bother wasting your time trying to eliminate one way? Again, your messing with the way Wisconsin currently defines trolling and that could lead to bad things later on.
And last but not least, musky are fish. There is nothing wrong with killing a fish from time to time. The only way to be sure you won't kill one is to never try to catch one in the first place. Be careful about placing too much emphasis on fish mortality - that too can be a double edged sword if we aren't careful.
Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers... that is not my intent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | brad b . . . . .
Your last paragraph regarding fish mortality is DEAD ON and something we lose sight of alot around here. If a dead fish bothers a person that much don't fish for them.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| "There is nothing wrong with killing a fish from time to time."
That is true, there is nothing wrong with one person killing the incidental fish on a rare occasion. Putting hooks in them will result in that eventually. What can be a problem is when lots of people do it, its more often than just "from time to time", and it happens on a lake that may only have ~100 muskies in it to begin with. |
|
| |
|
| people who troll don't harvest more fish than people who cast.
trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait.
the "proof" of this is the relative success of fisheries where trolling dominates as a technique in conjunction with catch/release practices. look at Green Bay, look at St. Clair, look at the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers.
the "100 fish lakes" won't be raped. give up that tired old refrain already...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
|
"people who troll don't harvest more fish than people who cast."
Where did I say they did?
"trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait."
And where did I say that, or even imply it?
"the "proof" of this is the relative success of fisheries where trolling dominates as a technique in conjunction with catch/release practices. look at Green Bay, look at St. Clair, look at the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers.
the "100 fish lakes" won't be raped. give up that tired old refrain already..."
If you're basing that assumption on huge bodies of water, and trying to extrapolate that into what will or won't happen on the small lakes, you saying it won't happen carries about as much weight as me saying it will. And I'm not even saying it WILL happen, only that it COULD happen.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| BYTOR wrote: "Dave your one line and allowing trolling on the Chip will not give you the results you are looking for. I have fished up there for over 20 years and I can tell you that the locals would all be trolling suckers with their one line. When I have been up there in November I am the only boat that casts.When I asked John Detloff why nobody is casting his response was that the fish only eat suckers in November on the chip. My response to him was that they don't catch them casting because nobody is casting. Everybody is currently just drifting with suckers up there. If the rules are changed they will all be trolling their suckers."
DAVE: Troy, I agree completely with your assessment of fall musky angler behavior on the Chippewa Flowage. I guess I need to clarify, though, that it is not my intention to do away with sucker fishing. I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker. From my standpoint, if more folks decide to troll artificials than fish suckers, that's fine. But it's also fine if they want to fish suckers ATTENTIVELY and set the hooks immediately by using quick-set rigs properly. I hope that clarifies my thoughts a little. Thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and preferences.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
|
|
| |
