|
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | The Wisconsin Conservation Congress Hearings are this next Monday, April 12, 2010 at 7pm
The hearings are held in each county statewide. Here is the list of locations:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2010/2010%20...
You don't have to stay for the whole hearing process and question reading. You can get there early, vote and leave, please make sure to look at the write in votes which will be posted on the wall at the hearings. If you have the time and patience, staying for the whole thing and voicing support for the musky issues would be good.
The big musky issue is on the Conservation Congress Vote Section, the property owners are asking for putting the Pelican Lake size limit back to 34 inches from the 50" we got passed just a couple of years ago. It is most important to get this voted down in Oneida County. If you can make the trip, please go there. At very least go to a hearing anywhere in the state and get your vote in. Voicing your support in a thought out PC manner when they read the question goes a long way with the voters also. I will be making my statement at the Winnebago hearings and the C & R Musky Club members will be covering the other local counties.
You don't have to attend in the county you reside in.
Other musky questions are to keep the 45" size limit on Little Saint Germain and question # 94, to change the 34 inch mimimun length on Whitefish Lake to 50 inches. Question # 96, states that property owners on Lake Redstone want to change the mimimun from 40 inches to 50 inches.
Here is a copy of the hearing book:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2010/2010%20... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | thanks for the heads up, Joe. I'll plan on attending one of the meetings... probably the one here in Winnebago County. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Please vote NO to all of these!! There are way too many smaller lakes that will be impacted by allowing trolling. I don't think allowing trolling on all lakes is the way to go.
QUESTIONS 24, 25, 26 & 27 – Motor trolling in Ashland, Iron, Price and Sawyer Counties Currently motor trolling is only allowed on the Kakagon River and sloughs in Ashland County, Pike Lake and Round Lake in Price County, and Chetac, Grindstone, Lac Courte Oreilles, Nelson, Round, Whitefish and Windigo Lakes in Sawyer County. Opening all waters in Ashland, Iron, Price and Sawyer Counties would allow motor trolling in approximately 700 additional waters. Prohibitions on motor trolling are socially-driven and have been handled by the Department of Natural Resources on a county-by-county basis in line with local preference. Currently motor trolling is allowed county-wide in 18 of the state’s 72 counties. Motor trolling poses no other biological threat to muskellunge, walleye, or any other species than conventional angling, and the Department of Natural Resources endorses removal of motor trolling prohibitions wherever that removal is locally supported.
Do you favor allowing motor trolling in all waters in Ashland County? 24. YES _______ NO ______
Do you favor allowing motor trolling in all waters in Iron County, excluding Etna, Grey, Lost, Minette, Oriole, Pardee and Sherman lakes, which straddle the Iron-Vilas County line? 25. YES _______ NO ______
Do you favor allowing motor trolling in all waters in Price County? 26. YES ______ NO ______
Do you favor allowing motor trolling in all waters in Sawyer County? 27. YES ______ NO ______ |
|
| |
|
| Honestly, I'd like to see more trolling allowed in waters in WI. You feel small lakes will be impacted by trolling? Impacted how? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Guest - 4/6/2010 8:45 AM
Honestly, I'd like to see more trolling allowed in waters in WI. You feel small lakes will be impacted by trolling? Impacted how?
Steve/Slamr ... is there a place where i can go and search all of my posts that were deleted so that i can copy and paste into the argument that's about to happen on this thread? LOL
just got a boat with a kicker ... somebody shoot me if i ever use it!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | It's purely selfish on my part! Some of these smaller flowages and lakes are nothing but a widening of a river. There just isn't room for casters and trollers. I own a cabin on a 500 acre flowage that is really two narrow 250 acre basins. In the legal backtrolling days, there were many problems with people working a drift accross a piece of structure only to have a troller basically pass you, cut you off, and troll accross the structure you were working. Not cool in my books. I would support trolling on bodies of water over 1000 acres, but not ALL lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Hey Sled!!
I was thinking the same thing!! I've got the arguement going on 2 boards already and I'm waiting for the 3rd to start anytime now!!
Edited by KenK 4/6/2010 9:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Is it even an option to just 'vote in' the right to troll in some of these northeastern counties? It was my understanding that the regulations of counties in the Ceded Territories are somewhat governed by Tribal agreements. So, if part of that agreement is "no trolling", then can it just be voted on and changed? Anybody up to date and clear on that care to share? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Hawkeye,
It's on the official ballot, so I don't think that Tribal aggreements affect hook and liners rights to troll. The agreements with the tribes are more geared toward the safe-harvest levels of a lake. If the tribe spears more, it just lowers the bag limit for other anglers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | For me, personally... I'll probably vote - NO.
'm pretty much a die-hard caster. Always have been and I feel more "connected" in a way to my fishing experience. Driving around aimlessly on the lake with a couple of lures behind the boat... well, I don't know... I guess I don't really see the skill in that. Again, for me, personally... I'd rather feel more connected to the experience and cast.
And on a smaller body of water, it is a bit frustrating when attempting to work an area by casting and you're constantly being strong-armed by a couple of guys trolling. Seems like once the kicker motors are in operation, all functional boating etiquette goes right out the window. But that's just my experience.
Edited by PSYS 4/6/2010 12:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The following is what I plan to present at the hearings next week, my parents have owned property on Pelican Lake since the early 60s, in the town of Enterprise. There is NO big LOCAL effort to lower the size limit. The Question is very misleading and regarding the Lake Association and Town of Schoepke flat out FALSE. It is very disheartening to me that this question was worded the way it was without any supporting documentation.
We need to show up in MASS to vote this down, it sets a VERY BAD precedence if this is allowed to advance to the next step. WE NEED TO STOP IT NOW!!!! Please GO VOTE! All previous increases could be in jeopardy!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Musky Resolution Position Paper, Pelican Lake, 2005
Pelican Lake in Oneida County has proven to be a high-quality musky fishery, with a long history of producing quality fish. The lake is located in an area that receives heavy fishing pressure, an area average of 34 angler-hours/acres/year. The last creel survey on Pelican Lake showed it to have nearly double that pressure, with 62 angler-hours/acre/year. For years Pelican Lake musky populations were sustained through natural reproduction, supplemented with stocking. (Over 20,000 fingerling, an average of 1,549 per year, from 1985 through 1998.) The supplemental stocking program was suspended in 1998, forcing the lake to rely on natural recruitment to sustain the entire population. Considering stocking has been halted, spring spearing, and the large number of anglers visiting the lake, long touted as “The Home of the Musky,” there is concern that the musky population may be adversely affected. With the WDNR’s limited budget and manpower, they will not be able to complete a musky population survey until 2011 & 2012, this is14 years after the stocking program was halted. This has the potential of creating 14 years of recruitment problems, an entire generation of musky.
With its vast forage base, Pelican Lake has the potential to produce excellent musky. The goal is to protect these fish to a larger size, allowing them more opportunity to pass on their quality genes. These fish would be protected through their most prolific spawning years. This would maintain or improve the musky fishing without negatively impacting other species, as has proven to be the case for many other lakes in northern WI, MN, and Canada. It would also improve the chances the lake will sustain a naturally reproducing population of musky. All the while giving anglers the opportunity to catch and release the fish as they grow.
We have the chance to protect and improve the fishing on Pelican Lake for everyone, and local anglers, young and old, that have been surveyed are very excited about the prospect of a better, self-sustaining, musky fishery. Maintaining Pelican Lake as a class musky fishery, will have positive economic benefits for both local businesses and property owners.
To continue the storied past of Pelican Lake, we propose a resolution to protect the population of musky by one of the following options:
The above proposal was presented at the July 16th 2005 Pelican Lake Property Owners Association Meeting, where 78% of the 89 attendees supported a higher minimum length limit, while 18% were against and 3% indifferent. Furthermore, a 50-inch minimum length limit (57% of positive votes) was more popular with Association members than either a 45-inch minimum (24%) or 40 to 50-inch protected slot (19%).
At the 2006 Association meeting there was again a vote on this issue. After discussion a vote was taken on whether or not to withdraw the previous support of the association. A vote passed stating that the association would remain neutral on the issue and a letter would be sent to the WDNR and the Conservation congress stating such.
NO vote has ever been taken at the Lake Association Meetings to support going back to a 34” size limit on Musky, as the proposed question suggests.
Also to my knowledge no letter was ever received by the Conservation Congress or by the WDNR that said the Lake Association or the Town of Schoepke ever passed resolutions supporting lowering the Musky Size Limit, as the question suggests.
The Town Board of Enterprise, which borders the western end of the lake did vote on such a resolution, however that town board is chaired by the author of this proposed question and the actual citizens never were able to vote on such a resolution. Just the limited members of the Town Board lead by the author. These rules changes are open to the public comment and vote at these spring hearings and in 2006 at this very meeting Oneida County passed a 50” size limit increase by approximately 80% and now we are back again without even giving the rule change a chance to show results. All the same potential problems still exist on Pelican Lake as they did at that time.
The question as worded is very misleading as to how the local residents feel about the 50” size limit, there is NO consensus by a large group opposed to the 50” limit and no documentation other than that from the Town Board of Enterprise has been presented showing support to lower the size limit. The residents of the Town of Enterprise were never given the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The lake is going to be studied over the next few years, please give the biologist a chance to determine what is best for the lake based on good science, not on the words of a few people opposed to change.
And regarding the argument that children aren’t able to keep and enjoy their largest fish under the current regulations:
Even a 34” minimum prevents a child or novice from keeping his first or largest if it is 30”. The opportunity to educate the novice or child on the benefits of catch and release and the great feeling you get from releasing a top predator to fight another day are flip side benefits. Many anglers believe that a truly large musky is too valuable to be caught only once. That fish of a lifetime might never have been there if another angler had chosen not to release it. A reproduction is an excellent option for someone wishing to memorialize a past accomplishment. Many of the best taxidermists now offer reproductions at the same price as skin mounts and it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between the two. With higher limits, and a naturally reproducing population, more people will have the opportunity to catch that first or personnel best musky.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Very well written, Mike! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | Yup, well said Mike, and if I didn't have to stay home in Price and try to shoot down this trolling BS I'd definitely go to Oneida to shoot down this size limit BS. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | Trolling won't hurt the fishery. This is another social issue and not science based. You can't argue science just when it fits your arguement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Do you remember the backtrolling days? Can you imagine fishing a 200 acre lake and along comes a troller with a spread as far as the eye can see that cuts off your drift and proceeds to run this spread accross the structure you are working? It's bad enough having casters cut you off, but a boat that looks like he's trolling in Green Bay or something doing it? C'mon get real!! Not what I want on my home waters!! Limit it to lakes over 1000 acres and you get my vote!! It's bad enough with the low size limits, limited stocking, and native spearing, now you want to give the Little Johnnie group yet another way to catch and kill muskies? Not on my watch!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | Two issues I have with trolling: As Ken said our lakes and river are too small to troll, and the CPR ethic in these counties is some of the worst in the country. Increasing opportunities to harvest muskies is not a good idea around these parts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Flambeauski,
My cabin is in Price too!! When I bought 10 years ago, I was appalled by the dead musky pictures at the bait shops and the general lack of CPR compared to say Vilas or Oneida. I hate to say in 10 years, very little has changed. The same ones keeping are still keeping and teaching their children the same. Allowing trolling without regard to lake size or size limits is the wrong way to go!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| Now because I troll I am a "Little Johnnie" and kill every fish I catch? And worse yet, on YOUR waters. Give me a break. People present arguments that are this pee poor and wonder why cannot change the minds of others. Ever think that maybe it is your tact, or lack there of. I think myself, like many could get on board with the limiting of trolling to lakes over a certain size, but them you don't stop when your ahead and you keep talking. Was on the fence about this one, but now know which way I will vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | scares_fish - 4/6/2010 1:59 PM
Now because I troll I am a "Little Johnnie" and kill every fish I catch?
never saw you being singled out there scares_fish.
Edited by jonnysled 4/6/2010 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| "now you want to give the Little Johnnie group"
Singled out, no.........casted (no pun intended) into a "group" that simply "catch and kill muskies" because I use a certain legal fishing method.......... yes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Mike, any way to put what you wrote onto a nice 1 page handout? It sure would be nice to handout what you wrote at the meetings. Those on the boards here can make printouts, and hand them out prior to the meetings starting. I am sure you could get several volunteers in counties across the state to stand at the doors before hand to distribute the handout.
Just a thought.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | scares_fish - 4/6/2010 2:16 PM
"now you want to give the Little Johnnie group"
KenK ... just look at his avatar ... he's sending out good vibes and kumbaya. sure it's legal to troll ... keep at it where it's legal. i'd imagine you have plenty of great places to do that including the bay of pigs. it's a legal way to enjoy the sport.
up-north it's legal to row-troll and it's really cool ... try that too
casting is a gas especially on lakes that only have a weed edge or a handfull of productive zones.
plenty of zen headed your way ... no reason to get all antsy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | scares_fish,
Never said that! Just saying that the group that will keep, will just have another tool to use! Small lakes cannot take a hit like that. Wisconsin has too many issues already, native spearing, 34 inch size limits, reduced budget, reduced stocking, etc. and without fixing them first, the introduction motor trolling is a big mistake! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| Plan on taking 4 or 5 outdoor enthusiasts to vote pro musky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | what Ken said
Edited by Flambeauski 4/6/2010 2:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was going to mention in the first post that anybody can and should print out my original post and use however you want.
The best way to get a document would be to copy and paste my text into a word documents.
As is, it’s a two page doc at 12pt. If you drop it to 8pt it will fit on one page. Feel free to streamline it however you want for your particular meeting.
If someone could read it at the different counties that would also be great.
Thanks
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Here is what I'm going to bring for ammo to the Winnebago County Hearings:
Thanks for all the info Mike. Please correct any of the following if it is inacurate.
Facts:
1) The Pelican Lake Association has not recently voted in favor or not on changing the size limit back to 34". In 2005 the lake association voted 78% in favor of higher size limits. In 2006 they voted to be nuetral.
2) This rule change proposal was written and submitted by a chairperson of the Town Board of Enterprise with support of other board members. Residents of Enterprise were never able to vote on the resolution.
3) At spring hearings of 2006, Oneida County passed the 50" by 80% and it also passed statewide by a large margin, thus the regulation change.
4) Pelican has not been stocked since 1998. The musky population estimates have shown drastic decreases in numbers. Recent capture rates of small (naturally reproduced) muskies is very low. We need to protect the fish we have left.
5) The 50" limit has only been in place for 2 seasons. We need much more time to be able to see a difference.
7) The WDNR biologist for Pelican lake is in favor of the 50" limit for biological reasons.
7) Pelican Lake is locally touted, "The Home of the Musky" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I found this when searching the internet for Pelican Lake musky information:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2009/resolut...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Joe, your bullets points are correct and look good except in #4 there will not be an official pop estimate until 2011-2012, however anual fall shocking studies (done by the tribes) have shown very few young of year musky, few enough that the biologists that look at those studies have taken notice and have some concern, tribal and WDNR.
The item you attached to the second post is the actual resolution voted on in Oneida county last year. It is full of false hoods.
There was not a room full of people up in arms at any Lake Association meeting. In 2006 there were a couple guys that wanted it revoted on and they used every negative argument in the book to try and justify their argument. After long decision it turned into a he said, she said argument and the 2006 vote was taken to remain neutral and it passed by a 39 to 26 margin. Much closer than the 2005 vote in favor of protecting the fish, which passed by a 69 to 16 margin. The Lake Association never had wishes to remove the 50” size limit and NEVER took such action. The current Association Boards position is that depending on who shows up to the meetings the support could go either way therefore they will not discuss the issue as the place to do it is at the CC meetings, and they have bigger issues to deal with like Aquatic Invasive Species.
After talking to the Town Clerk of Shoepke yesterday and today a review of meeting minutes going back to 2004 reviled that there was never Town Board action taken on this issue one way or the other and no letter could have been sent without it. The WDNR never received any letters from Shoepke and the CC members I know never received letters from Shoepke. The only letters were from Tiger Guth and the Town of Enterprise. I don’t know if that was official Town Board action or just Mr. Guth sending the letter, but at no time was resident input asked for.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | We're planning on attending the Oneida County hearing to support the Pelican Lake question along with others.
And please, everyone out there open your mind and vote 'yes' to the trolling proposal. It's time (way overdue) for Northern Wisconsin to step out of the dark ages and allow anglers to fish with a widely accepted sportfishing technique. The no-troll law is an absolute joke, please get out and vote to hopefully bring this to an end.
JS
|
|
| |
