|
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | I was at the Warmwater Comm. meeting. A town chairman was present and said two town boards and the lake association have passed resolutions against the present 50" limit. I have been on the Conservation Congress and the Warmwater Comm. for 20+ years. We have more muskie anglers then ever on the Warmwater Comm., but not nearly enough. Most of you realize how the timber wolf is thought of in northern WI. Well, like it or not, the muskie is held in the same position by many non-muskie anglers. As the wolf is believed to kill everything which moves on the ground. The muskie is perceived by many non-muskie anglers, to eat everything which swims in our lakes. Just because we see a desire to protect the muskie, many, many non- muskie anglers, who vote at the spring meetings do not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Johnnie,
There in lies the problem. A whole bunch of us will post on the internet about how this limit should never be repealed and the state should have higher size limits in general, but come April when voices really matter at the spring hearings, most of these same voices are oddly absent.
If you want to make a difference, and I surely hope you do this April, make sure you vote at the spring hearings. The vote in Oneida county will be very important to put these things to bed on Pelican once and for all and 25-30 people could make a huge difference. Please don't count on others, get there and vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20227
Location: oswego, il | I posted this on the other thread and I will here too. You would never read stuff like this in Muskie Magazine. We should be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Just out of curiousity, do these spring meetings allow proxy votes? I think a lot more anglers would be willing to vote doing something like that than actually having to go to the meetings. We could get a lot of signatures off websites like this and others. Not sure if the anti's are as tech savvy or if they mostly consist of "old school" folks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | whynot - 12/8/2009 9:16 PM
Just out of curiousity, do these spring meetings allow proxy votes? I think a lot more anglers would be willing to vote doing something like that than actually having to go to the meetings. We could get a lot of signatures off websites like this and others. Not sure if the anti's are as tech savvy or if they mostly consist of "old school" folks.
No. I fail to see how these meetings are so hard to get to. If you truly care, make time. You can show up, vote and be out of there in a matter of minutes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | To sit through the whole meeting is just 3 hours on a Monday night in April each year.
I don't know how anyone who has the musky passion doesn't go. Last year I was out of town working, so I brought the guys I was working with to the hearing in Stevens Point early and we got it done in 5 minutes. They were grumbling before it but after wards they had a lot of questions about the process, some of the questions and said they were glad they did it.
If you wet a line or hunt in Wisconsin you owe it to the resources to go to the hearings.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| You're in Utah, right Pointer? Are you going to fly up to MN or WI to vote? If you truly cared, you would. Right?
It's not about the length of the meeting or how long it takes to vote, it's about the drive time for some people. Not everyone lives within a half hour of these meetings and very few are willing to drive a long ways to stop in and vote. Just being realistic.
Why doesn't the MDNR or WDNR set something up where anglers can vote online for these things? Input your DNR license number and vote once. How hard is that? Or, do what they do when you buy a small game license in MN and have the selling agents ask people buying licenses some questions and get data that way.
I really think deciding these issues at meetings very few people show up to is a poor way of going about business. Why not have a system in place to allow everyone an opportunity to vote regardless of their ability to make it to a meeting? Then again, maybe I'm wrong as I've never been to one of these meetings. I'm under the impression, though, that these matters are decided by lake associations, anti's and involved musky fisherman (of which there are not many). Doesn't seem like a sound process for determining the use of a public resource.
-Chris |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I think getting out to these meetings and voting there is no excuse for not showing up for most...it is one night a year. it takes all of 10 minutes to get in, place your vote and get out. We all should put the night on our calendar now as these votes do matter and we can make a difference. Esp since the musky fishing population is smaller as a whole the "anti's" have us behind the 8 ball as it is....so it may take an hour there and and back...2.5 hours ...one night... for the future of musky fishing...c'mon.
I went last year, voted on all the musky related questions and bailed....get out and vote people. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Allowing proxy voting or something like it will hurt more than help the minority muskie anglers. You'd also be allowing many more people to vote against muskie issues without having to show up.
Some people may have legitimate reasons, or excuses why they can't go. Unfortunately MN isn't much different than WI when it comes to getting bodies in a room to help make a difference. Funny how they can make it to the boat ramp come hell or high water, but to step up and make a difference doen't seem to be a priority for the majority of muskie anglers.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | These issues ARE NOT decided by Lake Associations or Town Boards, which is what really #%$$@$ off the local Town Boards and Associations. These issues are decided at the SPRING HEARINGS. It helps to show local support, but the only vote that really counts is the Hearing vote.
For Pelican Lake, we originally got Lake Association support nearly 80% of 100+ people in attendance. They were told at that meeting that what really mattered would be the Spring CC meeting. The local support allowed the WDNR biologist to propose the increase directly rather than go through the entire process of Resolution then Conservation Congress, and then WDNR rule change. If a Biologist has local support they can directly propose a rule change which is what happened.
At the next year’s annual association meeting approximately 55% of the 60 people in attendance voted to hold off on further support until more information was gathered, but by that time the Rule Change had all ready passed at the spring hearing again by approximately 80%. As far as I know they never passed a resolution AGAINST the 50” size limit and my dad goes to every association meeting. The town chairman in question is likely referring the vote stopping further support. I know his town board passed something. It wasn’t a township vote just the town board. I never heard the Town of Pelican passed anything. At the warm water meeting did he offer the documentation showing that those resolutions were passed? He didn’t in April.
As has been said IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to vote this down next spring, and the VOTE that matters MOST is the one in ONEIDA COUNTY.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/9/2009 11:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| In an ideal world I'd agree with you Brad, but I just don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to show up to a meeting and vote. Let's say the meeting is in Madison and I live in Superior or even Eau Claire, or the opposite. Do you really expect people to drive that far to vote? C'mon is right!
If the purpose of these votes is to determine the desires of the angling community why not allow proxy voting or online voting or point of purchase questioning? Especially if the majority of people voting simply show up and vote and leave. I'm all for public debate at public hearings, I just think different methods for voting would allow a significantly larger portion of anglers to participate.
It seems like the reality of the situation (that it is tough to get people to show up to vote) is pretty apparent to everyone here, why not work to find a different way to allow more to be involved? If the anti's truly outnumber muskie fisherman by far than maybe my ideas wouldn't be such a good plan if the goal is to further muskie fishing. I just don't think these votes accurately reflect the desires of a state's angling communities one way or another.
-Chris
Edited by whynot 12/9/2009 11:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Chris, there is a meeting in every single county. It isn't located in one area and everyone from the entire state drives hundreds of miles to get there. Each county has a location where the meeting is held. Hence why there is no real excuse, sure there are a few excuses that are truly legit, but these meetings are announced close to a year in advance.
Yes I am in Utah. I don't know if I will be in Wisconsin during the CC meetings but I very well may be. But I think living halfway across the continent might be a worthy excuse. I still do everything I can from writting political officials and WDNR biologists from time to time. For the initial 50 inch vote on Pelican I drove 2 others up to Onieda county to vote. Took up all of my evening and I had to take off work but seemed worthy enough to get up there. So to insinuate that I don't care is bushleague, at best. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| My point is that expecting people to drive (or fly in your case) a significant distance is not realistic, Mike. I wasn't insinuating you don't care, I was making a point. I know you care, so do others who aren't able to attend because of the travel required. If a person were able to vote on another county's issues from their home county, I agree there is no valid excuse for not showing up. I'm under the impression a person has to travel to each respective county to vote on that county's issues.
My main point is that I don't think it's realistic to expect people to travel great distances to vote, especially given our track record. Rather than complain about a poor turnout, why not establish an alternate method that would allow more input from the angling community? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO TRAVEL GREAT DISTANCES TO MAKE THE MEETINGS! No one has to drive from Superior to Madison or Eau Clair to Milwaukee. EACH COUNTY has a meeting. Read that again EACH COUNTY HAS A MEETING. No one has to drive hours to get to a meeting. You can vote EVERY ISSUE in every single county. You clearly need to learn more about this process. The ballot is the same in each and every county. It is clear you don't know much about this process. I do agree that the overall process sucks badly but it is what it is and there isn't much excuse for not attending and voting.
Edit to add: I guess in theory some of the 'authored' advisory questions may not appear at every single county meeting but I believe there are a set number of counties at which they need to be authored. However advisory questions, if passed will still need to make the ballot at the next CC meeting the following year.
Edited by Pointerpride102 12/9/2009 11:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| You're right, I don't know much about the process, nor do most musky anglers I know. Had you explained that each county has a meeting and the ballot is the same at each meeting my responses would have been different. I was under the impression that to vote on the Oneida County issues being discussed I would have to travel to Oneida County.
And hey, how about next time you just explain things in normal font and drop the condescending b.s. You're posts on this website and elsewhere are usually full of rudeness and insults and are mostly lacking in value. Your last post was informative, yet again I find myself focusing on your tone rather than on the content. Maybe it's just your style but I think learning some manners would serve you well.
Edited by whynot 12/9/2009 12:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I heard that the Oneida county vote is more important than any other county's vote. (if Douglas county votes 100-1 to keep it at 50" and Oneida votes 51 to 50 to get rid of the 50" limit they'll do away with the 50" limit) Is this correct? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | whynot - 12/9/2009 12:40 PM
You're right, I don't know much about the process, nor do most musky anglers I know. Had you explained that each county has a meeting and the ballot is the same at each meeting my responses would have been different. I was under the impression that to vote on the Oneida County issues being discussed I would have to travel to Oneida County.
And hey, how about next time you just explain things in normal font and drop the condescending b.s. You're posts on this website and elsewhere are usually full of rudeness and insults and are mostly lacking in value. Your last post was informative, yet again I find myself focusing on your tone rather than on the content. Maybe it's just your style but I think learning some manners would serve you well.
I guess I assumed that since you were posting on the thread on ways to improve the system you actually knew what you were talking about. I dont think being informed about the way the process works before suggesting how to change it is out of line.
Flambeauski....that is sort of correct yet not always true. The county affected by the rule change holds the greatest weight. So it is best to be certain it passes in that county. I'm sure a rule change could pass without carrying the county but it isn't as likely.
Edited by Pointerpride102 12/9/2009 1:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Was it my first post that began with a question on the process that made you assume that? Or where I said I'd never been to one of the meetings in my second post? Or was it my third post where I gave the example about driving all the way across the state?
Considering the reported lack of turnout at these meetings, I don't think the suggestions I made for improving the system are completely irrational even with a meeting being held in each county. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Why can't you expect people to drive a few hours to go and vote once a year???
What is unrealistic about expecting people who are willing to invest thousands of dollars and days of time to fish for muskies to give up one evening to help protect the resource they are using??
What's unrealistic is to have the same small group of people do all the work for the majority of anglers.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Sure you can expect it, John, but how has that worked out in the past? All I've heard about since being on this and other sites for the past few years is how voter turnout is a problem. What's unrealistic to me is to continue to expect people to change their ways. If you can't change the voters' attitudes and actions, change the system to accomodate the voters.
Since we are talking about this stuff, here's another question that hasn't been addressed. Are nonresidents allowed to vote on these measures? (e.g. MN residents?) Can residents vote outside of their county?
And Mike, if the county affected by the rule change holds the greatest weight in the voting process, then it sounds like people would have to drive a great distance to make their vote count. Or is that not the case in most instances?
Edited by whynot 12/9/2009 1:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | And I never said they were irrational. I would love to see a way to increase the turnout/votes. I also feel that if you're going to comment on ways to improve a system you should a vague idea of how the process works, if you don't understand ask how the entire process works not just if one can proxy vote. A simple question is much easier to answer as opposed to assuming you understand how the process works and just aren't sure about proxy votes.
Unfortunately I don't think an online vote would prove all that much more successful. Many people don't go to the meetings because they simply forget about them. The ones that don't deem the meetings worthy of their attendence aren't likely to log on, enter a bunch of info about themselves and then vote. Sadly, much of society is a 'what's in it for me' mentality. They don't see an immediate reward in taking time out of their day to go to a meeting. Unless the WDNR offers some sort of incentive to come to the meetings the turnout is likely going to be the same year in and year out. This whole process is irrational, which I believe you pointed out. Special interest groups shouldn't drive biological desicions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So now we argue over how hard it is to vote?
Get it together, guys, show up at your county meeting and vote; this one will be important in more ways than one. If 50 additional muskie anglers show up and vote for this, it'll be just fine. I'll be there and will be happy to speak in favor of leaving the limit in place.
Voting...it's a democracy issue and the vast majority of folks won't vote on ANYTHING that doesn't impact them directly. Look at the number who stay away from the polls in a presidential election. How does one win? Get the folks to show up who normally wouldn't. That's the ticket. The 'other side' will try to do just that. |
|
| |
|
| if each one of us that actually plans on going to vote persuades even 3 or 4 of our musky fishing buds to do the same we will show up in force...those that are going offer to pick up your buddies etc so they have no excuse...it's usually on a Monday night I think? it doesn't take long...unless you are working, there aren't too many excuses for not being able to go and vote ...except the lazy excuse...and I use to be one of them...not knowing much about the process, when and where to vote...not anymore...send out mass emails the week before, the day of, and get every fishermen you can to go and vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | whynot - 12/9/2009 1:44 PM
Since we are talking about this stuff, here's another question that hasn't been addressed. Are nonresidents allowed to vote on these measures? (e.g. MN residents?) Can residents vote outside of their county?
And Mike, if the county affected by the rule change holds the greatest weight in the voting process, then it sounds like people would have to drive a great distance to make their vote count. Or is that not the case in most instances?
Now I think we've got you on the right track Chris 
I believe anyone is allowed to vote. Just need to show a driver license. I know out of county votes are perfectly acceptable as I did it for Oneida county for the 50 on Pelican.
People can drive great distances to make their vote 'count' more by voting in the county that the rule change would be in. However the vote also needs to carry in the majority of the other counties throughout the state. I don't know entirely how the weighting system works, however I'd imagine is the county lost 51-50, for example, but every other county won by an absolute landslide I'd imagine a case could be presented to the CC and the rule could pass, but I could be wrong.
For me when I voted I'd take a look at the questions that were important to me and contact try and get the local fisheries biologist's opinion on the subject. I generally voted the way they would vote. |
|
| |
|
| Why can't you expect people to drive a few hours to go and vote once a year???
What is unrealistic about expecting people who are willing to invest thousands of dollars and days of time to fish for muskies to give up one evening to help protect the resource they are using??
that's an interesting question John, and one that people get frustrated over year after year after year.
the simple answer is because people just don't behave that way. we all like to think we're independent thinkers, but when studied in large groups we behave in surprisingly predictable ways.
one of the ways in which groups of people are very predictable is that they're unlikely to do anything for which there isn't an immediate and tangible reward. for example, you go fishing, you catch a fish, you'll go fishing again. but you go to a spring hearing to vote and you get...what? a good feeling? the reality is that those abstract kinds of rewards are just not as motivating for most people, even when the cause is worthwhile and even if it's people who care about muskie fishing and spend thousands of dollars on it every year.
so, knowing that the system requires participation...how do you motivate large groups of people to participate?
getting the stakeholders (us!) who do show up to each bring a couple friends along is a great suggestion - people are way more likely to do something when personally asked to do so. Shane Mason's "experiment" at last year's hearings where he personally talked to people coming into the meeting and then stood up on muskie issues and asked them to vote his way demonstrated this.
Edited by lambeau 12/9/2009 2:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| I would think a discussion such as this would be welcomed on this site. This thread is providing information to those who don't already know the process and draws attention to just how easy it apparently is to vote. Who cares if there is a little arguing going on? We're musky fisherman, it happens.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| I don't think there's really an excuse for someone who lives 1/2 hour away to not show up. But from what I've seen, most of the people who fish in Northern WI live down here, 6-1/2 hours away. I talk to pretty much everyone in the bars when I am up in Vilas, and one of the first topics is "so... where 'ya from?" It's about 3 in 10 that don't live in IL...
If these hearings were in our back yard, or even an hour or two away it would be one thing. But when it comes down to having to take a day or two off work, drive 6 hours each way, either stay up half the night driving home or drive home the next day? You can't expect someone to spend that sort of money to cast one vote, on an issue that they may not see passed in their favor anyway, especially now, when a lot people can barely afford to fish... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 12/9/2009 2:28 PM
I don't think there's really an excuse for someone who lives 1/2 hour away to not show up. But from what I've seen, most of the people who fish in Northern WI live down here, 6-1/2 hours away. I talk to pretty much everyone in the bars when I am up in Vilas, and one of the first topics is "so... where 'ya from?" It's about 3 in 10 that don't live in IL...
If these hearings were in our back yard, or even an hour or two away it would be one thing. But when it comes down to having to take a day or two off work, drive 6 hours each way, either stay up half the night driving home or drive home the next day? You can't expect someone to spend that sort of money to cast one vote, on an issue that they may not see passed in their favor anyway, especially now, when a lot people can barely afford to fish...
But you dang Illinois people could just cross the border and vote in Kenosha or one of those counties. Many of you live at least semi close to each other, could carpool. Darn flatlanders |
|
| |
|
| If voting were allowed on the internet then it is just as easy for the "anti's" to vote as well. They are organized and would get a substantial number of votes against any muskie related issue. While the number of people angling for muskies continues to grow, the reality is there are still a lot more people out there that don't want them.
If you get in your car and drive that far to fish, why is it so hard to get in your car and support what you fish for? One trip now makes all of your future trips better does it not?
Get your MI group together and rent a bus.....maybe get a pole in the back and coolers in the front. I bet you convince a few guys to go then!!!!!! |
|
| |
