|
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | I attended the District 4 Conservation Congress spring meeting last night in Mountain WI. In attendance were elected representatives for Florence, Forest, Langlade, Menominee, Marinette, and Oconto counties. We were basically reviewing the spring questions which will be on the questionnaire. There were some “good ‘ol boys” in attendance. Whenever a question was being reviewed about muskies, these boys went on about everything from little Johnnie catching his first 36”er to muskies eating everything in the lake. And boys, we were called “Muskie Nazis”, by a man I am willing to bet never caught a muskie in his life. To make a long story short, we have to get people out to vote at the Spring meetings this April. Passing the 50” limits on Long, Sand, and Kentuck, along with the 54” GB limit are not going to as easy as some think.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
| Unfortunately i could not join Johnnie at the district meeting.
I am coaching 7th - 8th grade basketball.
sorry.
i have started a big push in the clubs i belong to, to rally the troops to get out and vote.
i hope all of us email or get to meetings for any club you belong to.
i have and will continue to rally the boundary waters and headwaters clubs.
there is also a rally meeting in GB at the yacht club on mar. 28 at 11:00a.m. i believe jay zahn is setting this up.
please, please ,please, rally your club memebrs and the troops.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
| Everybody please get out and vote at the spring hears on April 13 in your county. Bring your friends and family that are also in support of the musky fishery in Wisconsin. If the size limits get passed for the 50” limits on Long, Sand, and Kentuck, along with the 54” on Green Bay this would be a huge step in the right direction for Wisconsin.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 91
Location: Wausau | Where can a person go to get the location for the hearings in every county? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
| Click on the link below to find out the location of the meeting in your county. Once you are in the DNR's site click on the link in the first paragraph and scroll down.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | I have been to these for years. It's only one night and well worth the effort. Get your a$$ to the meeting. Do not complain if your not doing your part.
Your support is just one vote BUT if every one showed up it would be Millions of votes. Lets rock the hose this Spring. Get out and vote for yourself and fellow sportsmen. We all can make a difference when we stand together. Get out and vote!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I wish people new the importance of getting the 50" passed on Long,B Sand, and Kentuck. Everybody was so gung ho on getting the 50" inch passed on Pelican then the 54" was next on the bay which we have been working so hard for for 3 years now. But out of the blue this proposal on Long,Sand, and Kentuck came, my musky club didnt even know about it. I know as a musky hunter how important this could be to Long,Sand, and Kentuck that I will be all over it. I just wish there would have been more MEDIA talk about this proposal for these 3 lakes LIKE there was for Pelican and the BAY 6 months ago. I do not believe alot of people know about this proposal and that bothers me. Pass the word!!!! FAST!
Craig U. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I can tell you that living up here now I can see how much opposition there is to it. Your right I think it will be hard to pass. Alot of my customers that live on kentuck do not want it. Good luck with it.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow...interesting to hear about all the opposition up there. I'd say that makes it even more important to get every vote counted in those counties. And any musky-related issue on the ballot is likely to be considered in the same light as those local to that area.
I hope to see as many people as possible at the meeting in Green Bay 3/28.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/7/2009 9:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | For those not wanting to sit through the spring hearing, you can go and get the ballot on the night of the hearing and just fill out your votes and leave. You do not have to stay for the whole meeting. You can just go, vote and leave in a few minutes if you want.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | What John said is very important. You DON’T need to sit through the entire meeting. So PLEASE take a half hour to an hour out of your busy lives and at least show up and fill out a ballot. It is very easy to do, and very important if you want to have a hand in Musky Management in Wisconsin! This is really where us Bar Stool and Internet Biologist get to speak our mind. There is no doubt the system is flawed, but if you can’t fight it, USE IT! That’s what got me started on the Pelican Lake issue and that’s what we need to do. All these rehashed internet conversations, preaching to the choir, don’t mean a darn if we don’t go out and vote where and when we can.
Also LOCAL support is VERY VERY important. Last year the Enterprise Lake 50” limit passed state wide by a pretty large margin. But was voted down in Langlade and Oneida county by a close margin. It was dropped as a rule change because of lack of local support. If you CAN drive to the area that you feel needs the most support. Green Bay area for the 54” limit, and Vilas County for the 50” on Big Sand, Long and Kentuck. If you fish those bodies of water or those areas and really want your support to matter go to the counties where your vote will mean the most. If you live in the area get all the Musky fishermen you know to SHOW UP and vote. It’s very very important to do this.
Craig, I think the reason there is less press on the Vilas County lakes is that it came from some locals that are not regulars to any Musky Internet sites. Pelican Lake was done, by myself, Norm and Steve and we used Muskie First as the vehicle to get as much info out as possible. I also issued a number of press releases to local media to get out the F.A.Q. sheets, out there for people to reference.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/faq.asp?id=69
They are also very relevant to these lakes, not just Pelican.
If you don’t vote you can’t complain!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| Both Johnnie and Mike are right one here. (I hate giving Roberts credit for anything!  ) Local support is key and you don't have to sit through 4 hours of meetings.
Believe it or not the anti musky fishing community in Vilas and Oneida Co. is probably larger than the "pro" musky community. I will definately go out and vote. I have not stayed for the meetings the last few years, but I do go vote.
Musky fisherman are a small group, and the ones that view the internet on a regular basis is even smaller! Word of mouth is the key here. Spread the word.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| So what your saying here if it doesn't pass overwhelmingly in the local area/counties around the lakes they could care less if it passes with flying colors in other parts of the state?
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Craig that is correct, and that is exactly what we where told by the Oneida County biologist when working on Pelican. Local support is VERY, VERY important.
For Example Enterprise Lake 50” limit last year Question #32 on 2008 ballot:
State Wide Vote:
1449 Yes 1053 No 57% yes
Closest three counties:
Langlade where the lake is located:
30 Yes 45 No 60% no
Oneida, lake is just over the border:
66 Yes 63 No 51% yes
Lincoln,
35 Yes 95 No 73% no
This rule change was dropped from legislative action because of lack of local support. I don’t know if they looked at just Langlade or all three counties, but I also know the Enterprise Town board is VERY against this 50” limit, and VERY against and angry about the Pelican Lake limit and would change it if they could. So I am sure they had letters or people in place to help prevent the Enterprise limit. Very small group but very loud.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| i hope all remember kentuck is in Vilas and FOREST County.
i will be at the forest county meeting as a delegate.
dan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | The location for Dane County has moved. It use to be at the Dane County Alliant Engery Center, but site has been moved to The Middleton Performing Arts Center on Bristol St which is just north of the Middleton High School off Parmenter St. See you then. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Well that's horse manure!! Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 90% of the people who fish those 3 lakes are NOT from that area anyways! So my thoughts are they should only count 10% percent of the vote up there! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Craig, if the vote on this issue goes the same way as the Enterprise vote here is what I would do and what I would have done if Musky fisherman hadn’t showed up in Oneida county and got Pelican Lake passed by over 80% locally.
First contact the local biologist and determine where the issue goes next. Natural Resource Board, Musky Management Committee or both. I believe this is an actually rule change question so the Conservation Committee’s should be done with it. Then get as many people as you can and WRITE LETTERS and sign petitions. Get vacation home owners, that aren’t able to vote locally but have great interest and state exactly what you just stated above. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. If it passes State wide if there is a case to be made and enough noise MAY be able to still get the rule change passed.
O-yea don’t forget to get the State Legislators involved. Dan Meyer tried to get the whole early season thing in place so someone was in his ear about the benefits to musky tourism. I know most of us didn’t like that idea, however I’ll go back to use them where we can. 50” limit is a conservation issue and GOOD for tourism someone may be able to get his ear again, this could get him back in the good graces of musky fishermen. Of course based on the last issue he may not want to touch it with a 10’ pole.
The issue needs a champion to keep pushing, more than one spreads the work.
I plan to do what I can and do my best to load up our suburban and head to Sayner and vote in Vilas County rather than Oneida. However, I am also being stupid and running for the school board so I may have a meeting here that would stop me from making the drive up there. Also I need to keep an Eye and Ear on the Enterprise Town board as there are rumors they will attempt a resolution to over turn the Pelican Lake 50” limit. If I hear they might show up with that I will have to go to the Oneida county meeting so I can be there to speak against that nonsense.
We need everybody we can to stay involved and keep a close eye on these issues, and NEVER give up.
So be READY to write letters and make phone calls if it passes state wide but not locally.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Does anyone know if the Headwaters Chapter in Eagle River is taking measures to encourage their members to attend the hearings? With the size of that chapter up there it sure would help to have the majority of the members attend and vote in favor of the higher size limits affecting Vilas/Forest county as well as other musky related questions. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | CiscoKid - 3/16/2009 12:30 PM Does anyone know if the Headwaters Chapter in Eagle River is taking measures to encourage their members to attend the hearings? With the size of that chapter up there it sure would help to have the majority of the members attend and vote in favor of the higher size limits affecting Vilas/Forest county as well as other musky related questions. Travis, great post!! I don't know the answer to your question, however, you make an excellent point about the chapter encouraging its members to attend. My feeling is that it should be brought up at every chapter in Wisconsin beginning well before the hearings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | FYI - many Headwaters Chapter members live outside the area and only live in the area during summer or just weekends. I do know that that group is in favor of the 50 inch size limit as they expressed that at the State Chapters meeting in February. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Understandable many live outside of the area, but I know may live in that area as well. I use to be part of that chapter. Even if half of the chapter members show up to vote that would be a good number. |
|
| |
|
| i agree. all clubs need to step it up along with the headwaters chapter.
if we get half the members of the total wi club population to vote yes, im saying its a slam dunk.
but can we get 1/2 the members to vote yes????? i hope so. in the past many did not get out and vote and we lost.
i have not been to a headwatrs meeting in a long time.
my wife has class on wed. night.
we need a huge turnout in favor and as i said before i will be at the forest cty. meeting where i am a cc member and kentuck is in forest county as well.
i did get my brother to get whoever he can to vote in walworth county. he agreed when i told him you DON'T have top stay for the whole meeting.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| I talked about this last night at the Figure 8 Club meeting. I included a list of locations where people could go and vote and the specific numbers of the muskie related stuff. Shawano County might have an interesting turnout because there is an item regarding rifle hunting south of Hwy. 29.
We have another club meeting shortly before the CC hearings that is traditionally very well attended so it will once again be brought up at that time in order to reaffirm the importance of this. |
|
| |
|
| Please do the right thing. Do NOT support any rule change unless there is a legitimate biological reason for it.
Please do NOT support the 54" size limit on Green Bay. Rules that restrict our hunting and fishing rights should not be passed unless they are needed to protect the resource. Green Bay does not need this protection. There is currently a 50 inch size limit and by most accounts, fishing is pretty darn good. Increasing the size limit further serves no purpose other than to force personal preference into law. That is never a good idea. This rule change has not cut the mustard for several years for good reason - it is not needed.
If the musky on Green Bay can not support the currently, biologically insignificant amount of harvest that it currently does, the fishery should be closed to angling.
Please spend your time, energy, and money trying to help figure out why nature de-selected the musky on Green Bay.
Thanks for reading. |
|
| |
|
| please do the right thing.
support the 54" limit for the sake of protecting a population of trophy fish that is vulnerable to harvest (any harvest is significant when focused on the small slice of the population over 50 inches), currently depending on natural reproduction, and has the potential to achieve truly record proportions if protected.
nature didn't de-select muskies on Green Bay, man's pollution of that area did. now that the environment is cleaner and able to support the fishery, there is no good reason NOT to protect them, and plenty of socially valuable reasons to protect them at the 54" size.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32945
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That suggestion isn't likely to gain much traction here...
One following comment, I do not believe for a second nature 'deselected' Muskies on the Great Lakes, I believe Man and his unfettered pollution and development did. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 409
Location: Almond, WI | sworrall - 3/18/2009 3:42 PM
That suggestion isn't likely to gain much traction here...
One following comment, I do not believe for a second nature 'deselected' Muskies on the Great Lakes, I believe Man and his unfettered pollution and development did.
I'm with you there, Steve. I guess some people's definition of "natural selection" differs from ours quite a bit... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | guest - 3/18/2009 3:20 PM
If the musky on Green Bay can not support the currently, biologically insignificant amount of harvest that it currently does, the fishery should be closed to angling.
Thanks for reading.
Due to man's habitat and water quality destruction they are not able to sustain their numbers even if we close the season. Because we are unable to add new young fish to the population due to VHSv, we should protect what we have now. This will give most fish 5 to 7 yrs more before a chance that someone could/will harvest them. Your idea of not fishing for them is unrealistic as many will be caught by accident while fishing for pike and/or walleyes. As a two time author of the question here in Dane County I urge everyone to got out and help protect this great fishery. Until we get scientific evidence that tells us otherwise, support the 54" size limit on the Bay of Green Bay and Lower Fox River. |
|
| |
|
| I also do not support the increase to 54". It is my opinion that 50" is a good size an reasonably restrictive. I do hear guides and people that stand to profit from the increased size limit hollering from the rooftops but I have yet to see estimates of how many 50" plus fish are actually harvested. The majority of people targeting these fish are going to release them anyway. Catch and Release is a great practice and one I whole heartedly endorse. What I also support is the right of the masses to keep a trophy fish for thier wall should they choose to do so. I am open minded and if I can get imperical evidence that this is needed and not something being jammed down our throat by the industry that stands to gain from it then I will re-evaluate my position. At the end of the day I beleive in a balance between nature and man. |
|
| |
