|
|
| Ken K or Flambeauski
Just wondering how the turnout was in Phillips and how do you think it went
over the trolling issue.
We have a place in Price to and I'm hopeing everybody voted no!!!
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Results of the statewide votes are currently available on the DNR website. County by County vote results should be available Wednesday. All trolling proposals passed statewide by a pretty wide margin.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/13/2010 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Just curious and I'm not trying to stir-up anything here. Why do you not want the ability to troll? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 24 Motor Trolling in Ashland County 1,834 1,136 Yes 62 10 0 0
25 Motor Trolling in Iron County w/ some exceptions 1,787 1,163 Yes 58 13 1 0
26 Motor Trolling in Price County 1,809 1,165 Yes 59 12 1 0
27 Motor Trolling in Sawyer County 1,805 1,192 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| I am against it because there are already trolling opportunities in or very near all of the affected Counties. In addition, the county my place is in (Iron) only has 4 waters over 500 acres, and 2 of them are connected to each other and a third one doesn't have public access. The great majority of the waters there simply aren't large enough to troll effectively without significantly impacting other anglers. Keep in mind, in WI you are allowed 3 lines per angler. A boat with a spread of planer boards 50 yards wide on a couple hundred acre lake isn't good for anyone else who happens to be fishing there.
I would be 100% in support of trolling statewide with a restriction of 1 line per angler. |
|
| |
|
| We mostly fish northern Price county. Except for Butternut (Pike&Round which trolling is already allowed on.) Most prime musky waters on the lakes or rivers
you have 100 yards here or 100 yards there that are the most productive very small areas on very small bodies of water.
Lets say your fishing the flowages around Park Falls in the fall musky prime time
and it's sturgeon season you'll have 15 boats camped out in the middle of the river
and if there's 4 guys in the boat they'll have 12 lines in the water and then throw
some trollers into the mix with all there lines and it's going to get ugly fast.
It's not that i'm against trolling i just believe 90% of the waters in Price County
can not support trolling.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Are these results final...??? EDIT: disregard. looks like I was reading it wrong. but the #93 debacle I believe left everyone confused. This was one of the more passionate questions discussed here on the forum with everyone in Wisconsin and unfortunately, it looks as though it has a YES next to it. This would mean the size limit on Pelican was defeated and will be reduced from 50" back down to 34".  Or am I mistaken? I hope?
Edited by PSYS 4/14/2010 6:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Who in their right mind would troll in a situation like that?
I really don't think that the trolling will have that big of an impact.
I could be wrong ... regardless the vote has been cast and we will have to see if it gets approved in May |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Hunter4, read the locked threads from the last couple weeks.
I'm sure that the motor trolling questions were probably shot down in the local and adjoining counties, but carried statewide. It is a shame that Q93 even made it to the ballot. The whole double question thing and the wording were terrible.
Now I just wish that the DNR would slam-dunk a statewide higher limit on muskies like they did with the motor trolling. Like I said in the locked treads, fix what is broke first. Motor trolling does nothing to help the musky population, it only helps the harvesters take more. It doesn't take rocket science to cover the small lakes in the counties trolling.
Edited by KenK 4/14/2010 7:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | I was EXTREMELY dissapointed in the turnout in Price. The guys who showed up were bear hunters and deer hunters and trappers (surprised?) I wonder if size limits were on the ballot if any muskie fisherman would have turned out.
If I hear any local muskie fisherman complain about trolling if this passes I'm gonna blow my top.
Edited by Flambeauski 4/14/2010 8:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | PSYS - 4/14/2010 6:19 AM
Are these results final...??? EDIT: disregard. looks like I was reading it wrong. but the #93 debacle I believe left everyone confused. This was one of the more passionate questions discussed here on the forum with everyone in Wisconsin and unfortunately, it looks as though it has a YES next to it. This would mean the size limit on Pelican was defeated and will be reduced from 50" back down to 34". Or am I mistaken? I hope?
Rumor has it....Roger Sabota, a CC Delegate in Oneida county said the Pelican vote was defeated soundly in Oneida County, 48-83. Generally on a local rule change such as this the Local vote (Oneida County) has the most effect on the proposals passing. I am fairly confident that you will not see this question again next year.
I realized after reading this that the results may be confusing in my answer. Oneida county voted in favor of the 50" limit, against changing it back to 34.
Edited by nwild 4/14/2010 8:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Thanks for the clarification, Norm. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Results by county are now also up on the DNR website! Price voters voted for the motor trolling change 30 -10. Very pathetic turnout. I would have been there to try to vote it down, but I'm hundreds of miles away! I wish they would allow proxy voting, I'm sure they would reach more people. I guess next time, I need to plan a few vacation days around the hearings. Now I have to live with the outcome.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/indexresults...
Edited by KenK 4/14/2010 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 584
| Might be a dumb question here, but does anyone have any insight, or inside knowledge, as to the effect of the local vote as compared to the statewide vote? For example, and to be more specific, if the Ashland county trolling reg was voted down in Ashland County by 3 votes, but passed on the statewide ballot by a fairly large margin, is the WDNR going to make its recommendation to the NRB based upon three more locals voting "no", rather than the majority of statewide votes saying "yes"? Or, how exactly does that work? (The wording of the actual proposal makes it sound it would only be recommended by the WDNR if there is local support). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Not sure how the local opinion is weighed. That would be a good question for Jordan Weeks from the DNR. Maybe when he has time he can fill us in. I know he is busy in the field doing netting.
Edited by KenK 4/14/2010 11:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | as someone who frequently fishes Price County I am in favor of allowing trolling. I do not think it will be anywhere near as bad as some of you guys think it is. Most of the places I fish see "light" pressure and a few guys out there dragging baits isn't going to change anyone's life one way or another. I have fished the Pike and Round Chain often where trolling is allowed and I have never seen the "zoo" that some of you guys are suggesting will happen. Common sense might have to come into play, and I would certainly prefer a one line limit per angler, but again...I just don't see the doomsday scenario that some of you are seeing. Just my .02.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1308
Location: WI | I fish 3 sub 500 acre lakes where trolling is allowed and it's been a non-issue. I'd be in favor of WI going to 2 lines per angler, but not 1. If it went to just 1, you couldn't sucker fish and cast and that would be boring.
The low statewide size limit is a bigger issue than trolling in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry to here about the low turnout in Price.
I know it passed statewide by a wide margin.
I thought i read somewhere where the trolling issue would be decided by the
local county vote and of course Ashland,Iron, and even Sawyer voted no.
But that wasn't the case in Price where they voted yes.
Shocked yes but surprised no. It just might be time to turn in my rods.
Well on the bright side only 44 more days to the northern wis. opener.
I hope everybody has a dance with a big girl this year.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| We'll see what the warmwater committee does with the trolling regulations. They all passed statewide by a pretty wide margin but they usually give strong consideration to the 'local' vote in the County where the regulation change will take effect. For example, in the County I was interested in (Iron) it was defeated soundly by an almost 3 to 1 margin.
Iron County voters also soundly defeated all the other proposed trolling regulations by margins of at least 2 to 1. |
|
| |
|
| Let's hope that with Ashland,Iron, and Sawyer voteing no and Price voteing yes
thats 3-1 local preferance for no on the trolling issue.
Will see what happens. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | I had a very strong feeling that the trolling regs would not pass locally. I've always wondered on the reasoning behind taking the local vote more seriously than the statewide vote (and not just on this issue because I was in favor of lifting the trolling ban). For example, how many people that fish Sawyer County are from (and vote) in other counties? A few years ago when DNR biologists suggested putting 28 lakes containing trophy potential in Vilas/Oneida under a 50" size limit it passed statewide, but Tony Rizzo mobilized enough people off of their barstools to shoot it down. I live in Oneida County, and the Minocqua Chain was up for the 50. I'm sure their were a lot of anglers from Dane, Milwaukee, Marathon (etc.) Counties that fish the Chain a lot more than I do, and their vote basically didn't count. Why even have these questions on the ballot statewide if the local count is all that they look at?
This system is definitely far from perfect. I also find it disturbing that the turnout numbers are so low. Look at the number of licenses sold compared to the people that actually show up and vote.
Best of luck fishing this summer!
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
Location: Northwoods | Guest - 4/14/2010 12:54 AM We mostly fish northern Price county. Except for Butternut (Pike&Round which trolling is already allowed on.) Most prime musky waters on the lakes or rivers you have 100 yards here or 100 yards there that are the most productive very small areas on very small bodies of water. Lets say your fishing the flowages around Park Falls in the fall musky prime time and it's sturgeon season you'll have 15 boats camped out in the middle of the river and if there's 4 guys in the boat they'll have 12 lines in the water and then throw some trollers into the mix with all there lines and it's going to get ugly fast. It's not that i'm against trolling i just believe 90% of the waters in Price County can not support trolling. The guest here, makes a number of good points as far as fishing on a few specific bodies of water. During sturgeon season, in and around Park Falls, is a good example. If there are 15 boats camped out in the channel, and another fisherman happens to troll by, I can see TROUBLE! You see, the channel is only so wide, and the old-timers who are sturgeon fishing are camped out in their "grandfathered" spots, like a Blue-Tick on a porch. Another poster suggests that common sense be used as to when and where trolling should be applied. I agree 100% with this. But its not what is being used. I see boats racing by now who are oblivious to what's going on, and then leave the channel for lack of common sense, and then you hear nothing...;) ;) ;) Ken also makes a few good points, as he has seen both sides of the issue on Pike/Round. I have a wife who is handicapped, and I would not mind doing a little trolling with her myself, but I'm kind of on the fence on the whole issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 584
| Jason:
Agree 100%, the system has some serious flaws. Essentially, as with the 50" proposal back in '05, a very small but vocal local contingency can successfully prohibit progressive fisheries management for an entire state.
I understand its often a matter of mobilization of voters, i.e., it's a democracy. But weighing local preference above overwhelming statewide support isn't really a "fair" democracy, and I also then wonder what's the point of putting such proposals on a statewide ballot. If we all agree that these resources aren't just "local" resources, but are resources of the entire state, what sense does it make that a couple dozen people (the few local county voters who actually show up) get the privilege of essentially making management decision for the entire state?
Edited by Matt DeVos 4/14/2010 5:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I have an idea, it doesnt matter where your from to vote in ANY county you wish right, well how bout when you get the ballot you should be able to choose which county you want your votes to count for. For instance I voted in Outagamie county to support the 50 inch size limit on Pelican even though my vote held no weight as Jason stated above, I still took time out of my evening and voted. I should be able to vote for oneida county but not have to travel to Oneida for it to count. Not like that would ever happen but an idea. |
|
| |
|
| The fact of the matter is, not many people showed up to thse meetings. Some of the people who are so upset on these forums didn't show up to the meetings. We accused the DNR of mishandling our resources (I am not an employee of the DNR), yet our one night to really make our voices heard AND become proponents of change, we dropped the ball. 30-35 people at a county meeting---embarrassing.
No blame should be placed on the backs of the fur trappers and small game hunters (I am not one) either. Trolling (I seldom do it) is not going to change these lakes. Instead of complaining to a captive audience about trollers, perhaps we should examine our own temperment on the water. Are the trollers that much of a problem, or are we trying to villify their methods. I have fished all my life, and musky fished for the last ten years. I can't think of a time where a troller "ruined" my fishing---and I am from a county where trolling is legal.
I take this as a positive, I think fall sucker fishing will finally be clarified. Can you drag (using that word loosely) a sucker, hit the trolling motor and cast at the same time. No more wondering if you are legal or not.
I think it's time to move on...trollers are not our biggest problem and certainly shouldn't be a scapegoat for the musky community. |
|
| |
|
| 1) Somebody keeps saying that they voted "No" for Sawyer county, but they voted "Yes".
2) Musky people aren't the only ones affected by trolling or no trolling. Many Walleye people wanted to troll.
3) I'm seeing on another Musky website about the Chip that people are talking about this and saying, "Bummer! I wish I would have voted."
Exactly, guys. You had the chance to be heard and influence the results. So if you didn't vote, you probably let the Walleye guys vote the trolling question through.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | Not blaming fur trappers or hound hunters, just pointing out they show up as an organization to support their agendas and we as muskie fisherman (in Price) don't. I hope trolling doesn't change anything, but I don't think it's going to fix what's wrong with our regs. Only higher size limits and better education will do that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Flambeauski - 4/16/2010 10:10 AM ...I hope trolling doesn't change anything, but I don't think it's going to fix what's wrong with our regs. Only higher size limits and better education will do that. I agree. |
|
| |
|
| Well said Flambeauski, we need to be even tempered, educated and driven....not vindictive. |
|
| |
|
| Trolling Comments - 4/15/2010 9:25 PM
1) Somebody keeps saying that they voted "No" for Sawyer county, but they voted "Yes".
2) Musky people aren't the only ones affected by trolling or no trolling. Many Walleye people wanted to troll.
3) I'm seeing on another Musky website about the Chip that people are talking about this and saying, "Bummer! I wish I would have voted."
Exactly, guys. You had the chance to be heard and influence the results. So if you didn't vote, you probably let the Walleye guys vote the trolling question through.
1) Yes it passed state wide but not locally in Sawyer county go to the link by ken k
earlier in the post and go to Sawyer county.
the vote was 34 yes to 93 no. Sawyer, Iron, and Ashland all voted no locally to all
the trolling proposals only Price voted yes. from this site and others I've read
that the WDNR says the local votes carry more weight than the state wide votes
so will see what happens.
2) i'm not agaist trolling i just believe 90% of the waters in PRICE county can not
support it.
3) Your right bummer if everybody felt this strongly they should have voted. In this
day and age maybe one of these years they will put it on-line.
for me personally it would have been a 12 hour round trip to Phillips and back
and i just couldn't do it.
When i stared this post i just was trying to find out what happened in Price county
and after reading other posts ken k and Flambeauski stuck out because they mentioned Price, county and i was hopeing they could answer my question and they did and for that I would like to say Thank You.
Price, county means the world to me six generations of my family where born and
raised in the greater Price county area. In my family it's always been known as
Gods Country and thats the way I would like to leave it.
|
|
| |
