|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Just got back from a two week vacation, thought since the hearings are two weeks away I would remind everyone to show up and vote.
The hearings will be held on Monday, April 14, at 7 p.m. in every county of the state.
Some of the musky related items are listed below. But remember there will likely be hand delivered resolutions that could affect musky fishing. Rumor has it there is a group still trying to overturn the Pelican Lake 50” limit, they may have a resolution in Oneida County. I plan to be there to speak against it, if it shows up, but the more voices the better. Every vote counts!
• Establish a special catch-and-release season for muskellunge in inland waters north of US highway 10 and require that anglers use artificial lures with barbless hooks while fishing for muskellunge during a catch-and-release season for muskellunge.
• Extend the end of the open season for muskellunge in waters south of US highway 10 from November 30 to December 31.
• Simplify muskellunge regulations on the Black river in LaCrosse, Monroe, and Trempealeau counties by increasing the minimum length restriction to 40 inches.
• Increase the minimum size restriction for muskellunge harvest from 34 to 50 inches in Enterprise lake, Langlade and Lincoln counties.
• Increase the minimum size restriction for muskellunge harvest from 40 to 50 inches in Bone Lake, Polk county.
• Increase the minimum size restriction for muskellunge harvest from 45 to 50 inches in the Chippewa flowage, Sawyer county.
• Extend the sunset clause on special regulations for muskellunge and walleye in Sparkling Lake, Vilas county from 2008-09 to 2013-14.
The complete ballot can be seen at the following address:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring%20hearings/2008/2008S...
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2060
Location: Appleton,WI | mike,
Can you explain the sunset clause for sparkling lake?Im not familiar with this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring%20hearings/2008/2008S...
If you go and actually read the ballot, the Sparkling Lake issue is explained in Question 40. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2060
Location: Appleton,WI | that link said the page is no longer available.Do you have a link that works? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20269
Location: oswego, il | Mike, thanks for posting this. I admit I am not from wisconsin. I know the hearings are just a short time away. This year there seems to be little push in the musky community to get out and vote. M.I. is once again non-existant with last year seeing something, finally about it. Why isn't here more push to get out and vote and why does'nt M.I. find any importance in this? I could rant about what M.I. finds important but I don't want to debate that here. Getting the word out is important no matter what lake gets voted on, it's all important. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | E I just tried it and it worked. If for some reason the link doesn't work for you go to the WDNR web site and search the subject it should give you a couple options.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Todd- I can certainly inderstand why there is such appathy on the part of muskie fisherman! Here in Juneau County at the WI Conservation Hearings we muskie fisherman are out numbered by the "other" fisherman around the state and from outside the state whom utilize the WI River as a resource for walleye's, crappies, bluegill's etc. There's even a segment from Chicago that will keep & eat every legal muskie. Below the Castle Rock Dam that's 34". Yet ~ 20' upsteam the size limit is 45". How exactly does that make any sense?
A muskie can't eat 25 blue gill's , or 25 crappies, or 4 walleye's a day (well not the average muskie) However, these "fisherman", and I do use the term very loosely here, these guy's do not hesitate to keep their limit's every day, day after day. Now they complain. " I caught 50 walleye's today & only one keeper!". Where did all the keeper's go? I used to be able to catch my limit in 4 hours now it takes me all day. Right, "the muskies ate them all"! Why would a muskie prefer a + 16" walleye over a 12" or 8" walleye. Especially when there are literally 1,000's of 13" & under food sources swimming in the river.
The DNR biologist and the owner of Dan's Dam Bait Shop both agree the size limit below the Castle Rock Dam should be 45". The biologist would also like to close the whole river section for the spring walleye, pike, and muskie spawn, i.e., make the season the same as the inland lakes. Not going to happen! Why? The fisherman know more about the biology of the fishery than the biologist. Never, mind that most don't speak English or have a high school diploma. We "the people of Wisconsin are stupid for letting our natural resources to be managed in this fashion. Hell, let's just dig a big ditch all the way south from Portage to the Ohio River. Then maybe we could get some of those leaping carp up here! Those have to be fun!
K- enough rant! Yeah, I'm not happy with how we manage our resources. It seems moronic to pay fisheries biologist's & wildlife resource manager's a salary to manage our resources and then to handcuff them from doing their job's. The WI Conservation Congress is a political dinosaur that should be extinct!
I'll be at the Juneau County hearing. I may not win, but I do have a right to my opinion!
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 4/2/2008 9:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Here's where the Spring Hearings are being held, i.e., extracted from the DNR pdf document.
Have fun!
Al
(WI Spring Hearings Locations1.gif)
(WI Spring Hearings Locations2.gif)
Attachments
----------------
 WI Spring Hearings Locations1.gif (72KB - 115 downloads)
WI Spring Hearings Locations2.gif (169KB - 112 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Just talked to a member of the Oneida County CC, he recently talked to some WDNR personnel who recently talked to a group that says they are planning on coming to the Oneida County and Langlade County meetings specifically to protest the Pelican Lake 50” size limit. Right now there is no resolution submitted, but they can bring it to the meeting.
We need every musky fisherman in the area to go to the Oneida County meeting and Langlade meeting.
Please make the time to come to these meetings; resolution vote is at the end so please plan to be there for the entire meeting. Maybe they won’t get organized enough, but we need to be ready if they are.
Thank you!
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | I suspect that there will be a lot of anti there to vote on the wolf hunting season. One year they had dove hunt on the ballot and a lot of antis were there and they werte able to vote in one of their own kind.
So be there and if its like here in Dane County the delegates are voted on 1st. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Represent your sport tonight! If you do not attend the meeting in your county, may jet skis plague you all season long! LOL |
|
| |
|
| I've been hearing that the WI DNR is talking about keeping the general fishing season closed an extra two weeks north of highway 8.
Anybody else hear about this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I have not heard that but there are some interesting questions that I did not know where on the ballot.
Two are Rule Change #21 and CC question #68, #21 would give the Wisconsin River from Rhinelander down through Lake Alice the same regulations as the rest of the lakes in the area. Currently there is no closed season for Walleye, Bass, and Pike. #68 does the same thing for the Tomahawk flowage.
My guess is this will have lots of early season anglers up in arms in this are, because it would force them to drive further south or East for early season walleye action. The reason for these changes is that these sections of the river are pretty small and the high pressure is having a negative affect on walleye recruitment. I will wait to hear what the Biologist says about this issue before I decide which way to vote.
Also make sure you read the early season bass and musky questions very closely. One of the questions ask if you are in favor of all out eliminating the C&R early season bass fishing. And there is the barbless hook issues. There are 2 or 3 questions related to each issue.
Notice that questions 12 & 13 there is no option to NOT have an early season Musky fishing North of Hwy 10. It’s either C&R with artificial barbless hooks or flat out OPEN, that really made me angry when I read it. I don't know if voting no to these questions elimanates the season next year. Considering the wording, that question should be asked at the meetings, by someone. Otherwise we could end up with a season that is just plain open.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/14/2008 11:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | Mike I think the DNR is getting a feel about an early open season. Something that Mr Meyer should have had before place that provision into the bill. And the reason they want to know because of it being a major headache to enforce the barbless section of the bill Mr Meyer place into the bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Yea but check this wording out in the background info of the questions:
“The department is obligated to implement this statute change in its administrative rules and is doing so through the spring hearing process. The department has identified two options for implementing this mandatory change.”
After reading that my fear is that some who may be against this early season all together with show up and vote NO to both questions thinking they are voting NO to the early season.
What could then happen is there may be more yes votes for question 12 which would open the season completely WITHOUT the Catch and Release season.
Then I think we are looking at major problems with people potentially snagging fish. With a C&R season there is no incentive to snag a fish, you can’t keep it anyway. If you can keep the fish those inclined to eat a musky or get rid of one because they eat all the perch, can snag on and legally have it in there boat as part of the daily limit. Way easier to get away with than keeping one when there is a C&R season.
I think this needs to be clarified at the meetings before the vote. Because I think many that say this is a bad idea would agree that if it going to happen anyway C&R is better than just plain open.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| How do these hearings work? Can you show up anytime after 7pm and vote or do you have to be there by 7 and sit through the whole thing?
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Mike
You say there is no incentive to "snag" fish if the season is C & R. I will list a few incentives to snag in a C & R season 1) if you are entered in a tourney(no where is it stated there will be no tourneys in the C & R season) and this fish could make you a winner. 2) if you are in a fishing league and this fish would win. 3) if you were in a club which recognized monthly big fish. 4)if you were in a club which recognized any big fish. 5) if you would just like a picture of yourself with the big one you released. These are all incentives to "maybe" snag that big stressed out, spawned out female just laying there in the shallows, trying to recuperate. Please vote NO on all early seasons.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 144
Location: Green Bay, WI | The way I read 12 & 13, you CAN vote NO on both questions.
12. Want an early season? NO
13. If Not, How about C&R barbless? NO
Reading the text prior to the questions it looks like one or the other is mandated though...I'm confused. Does this mean Mr. Meyer wins and we're screwed no matter how we vote?
Bob
Edited by bobski 4/14/2008 5:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 476
Location: WI | Time to go vote........
My County was "one of those" last time!
Edited by GOTONE 4/14/2008 6:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Kewaunee County hearing went well. No real issues with any of the musky questions, that I could tell. The 54" resolution was matter-of-fact, with only one question from Kevin Naze to the fisheries tech in attendance. No negativity at all, and the process was pretty painless.
No significant discussion on any of the other musky questions, and from what I could tell they were pretty straightforward as well.
One thing that I did NOT like this year--they had the public resolution introductions at the *end* of the meeting, and it seemed as though several people left along the way. An announcement was made that you could simply vote on the questions you were interested in, and then leave. I have no problem with that, but I felt that the citizen-introduced resolutions should have been the second order of business--after the elections. This would have insured the most input from the public, IMO...
Anyone else notice people leaving before the resolutions were introduced?
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | We did have a lot of antis there. We even had two ladies walk in looking like pussy cats. Meeeeeeeeeeow!
Everything went well. Many of the trapping and wolf questions were debated by the antis to no end it seems.
I talked about the GB resolution and Mr Budnik says I didn't mess it up too bad. :D No questions or comments about said resolution. I was disappointed that I didn't see more of our members there.
I did try to get one of our members to ask a queestion when the Bone Lake 50" rule was talked about. I wanted to know if they are going to put a different strain of muskie in there to grow 50"? :D |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | muskie! nut - 4/14/2008 9:33 PM
SNIP...
I did try to get one of our members to ask a queestion when the Bone Lake 50" rule was talked about. I wanted to know if they are going to put a different strain of muskie in there to grow 50"? :D
Ouch!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Got Er Done in Winnebago County.
Thank you Tom for all your hard work and a extremely well written proposal! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | spoke up in clark! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Not sure what happened in Portage county but the 54 was never authored. I would have done it however, I had to work and found someone to cover part of my shift in the last minute so I could make the meeting. I informed Tom that I wasnt even sure if I would be attending the Portage county one as I had plans on possibly going to Langlade to vote the 50 on Enterprise through. Did we not have an author for Portage? I hope that no one was relying on me to do it as I wasnt even sure if I was going to make the meeting. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No, we didn't have anyone author it in either Portage or Clark County...as far as I know. Langlade either.
But we ended up with 20 counties...not bad for working on it for 9 days.
Now the waiting begins.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 282
Location: north west wisconsin | this was the first hearing I have been to and plan to attend more we could vote on the 50 on eterprise and boon which i did. but did not stick around for resolutions now i wish i would have. I am not quite sure how the whole system worksl |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here is the results of the 2007 CC spring hearing vote for the Green Bay 54" resolution. I am listing these so we can compare the results to this year's numbers when they become available.
Barron Co. / 20 Yes & 6 No
Bayfield Co. / 27 Yes & 8 No
Brown Co. / 67 Yes & 15 No
Dane Co. / 92 Yes & 43 No
Door Co. / 25 Yes & 19 No
Douglas Co. / 11 Yes & 3 No
Forest Co. / 18 Yes & 4 No
Iowa Co. / 26 Yes & 4 No
Kenosha Co. / 46 Yes & 8 No
Manitowoc Co. / 38 Yes & 21 No
Marathon Co. / 33 Yes & 19 No
Milwaukee Co. / 49 Yes & 42 No
Oconto Co. / 28 Yes & 9 No
Onieda Co. / 22 Yes & 6 No
Outagamie Co. / 43 Yes & 6 No
Portage Co. / 64 Yes & 13 No
Racine Co. / 44 Yes & 14 No
Sawyer Co. / 22 Yes & 0 No
Shawano Co. / 37 Yes & 11 No
Sheboygan Co. / 58 Yes & 14 No
Vilas Co. / 49 Yes & 8 No
Washburn Co. / 19 Yes & 4 No
Washington Co. / 57 Yes & 14 No
Waukesha Co. / 108 Yes & 18 No
Waupaca Co. / 58 Yes & 20 No
Winnebago Co. / 47 Yes & 14 No
TOTAL: 1451. (1108 YES, 343 NO, 3.23:1 in favor)
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Everything Musky at Oneida County went very well. Only positive comments about the size limit increase for Enterprise and The Chip.
No mention of Pelican, other than when someone talked about the early season. And he thought it was dumb that we are finally protecting some lakes and then a legislator does this. They explained that one of those two options would be implemented next year
Johnnie, I guess I should have said with C&R there is less incentive to snag fish. Not no incentive.
The room was very against the way the change was brought about, I think if they cold have voted it out they would have.
I was quite happy.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/14/2008 11:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 9
| Re: North of highway 10 seasons .
Meyer's earmark legislation created a NEW musky season that must be implemented. The catch and release and barbless artificials (window dressing) could be subject to change because only the season is statutorily required. The DNR will recommend Meyers version (C & R and barbless artificials) as opposed to the non C & R season because it affords more protection.
The C & R bass season was already in place and the Meyers legislative earmark only added the barbless artificial option (which will go into effect with the regular C & R season this year). The DNR supports the C & R season w/ the barbless artificials because it is the closest to the current reg.
In summary the musky season could only be changed back to a late opener, the same way it was changed, thru the legislature and by statute. The bass season was in place already, the legislative change only added barbless artificials, which do not enjoy statutory protection like a season. So technically the bass season and the window dressings (barbless artificial) can be changed by the Hearing process. That is why you had one more option to pick with the bass questions.
I'm sure the NRB will simply apporve what the DNR advises since they reflect closest to what was in place prior to the Meyers earmarks...
The DNR can't just change seasons. Keep in mind that the Hearing process helps meet the DNR's requirement of public noticing for a lot of the things on their side of the agenda. The state's attorneys decided Meyers changes were required to go to public hearing (because it was a natural resource change), even though it was a done deal...truly a cart before the horse scenario. |
|
| |
