|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Conservation congress vote is tonight....if you fish for muskies in WI get out and vote....the one night a year we can make a difference in the future of fishing/hunting in WI.... for those that b*tch about things in WI if you don't take tonight to go vote..shut your pie hole..! 
Questions 1 and 2 are probably the most important issues we have had to get changed...
Musky questions:
Question 1: Require the use of Quick-Strike rigs on minnows larger than 10"
Question 2: Increase minimum state-wide size limit to 40"
Question 5: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on Rice and Stump lakes
Question 14: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on two brood lakes - Archibald and Anderson
Question 18: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on Redstone Lake
Question 20: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on a third brood lake - Big Elkhart
Question 82: Allows an extended gamefish season in northern Wisconsin (I think by one week)
Question 83: Deals with questions on a muskie survey
7pm tonight..
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/2011Loc...
Edited by BNelson 4/11/2011 12:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. |  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| Question... Do you need to attend in the county that you reside in or can you vote in other counties? If anyone knows that would be helpful for me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| I'm pretty sure that u have to vote in the county that u live in |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| So I called the DNR... You can vote on the questions in any county, but you need to be in the county you reside in to vote for the delegates. Hope this is helpful to others... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | Kiedro - 4/11/2011 4:10 PM
So I called the DNR... You can vote on the questions in any county, but you need to be in the county you reside in to vote for the delegates. Hope this is helpful to others...
DITTO!!! I also called..& you dont even have to be a WI resident to vote on tonights survey..
Edited by jerken jimi 4/11/2011 4:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | How was the turn out tonight? I would have voted but I had night school tonight so sadly I couldn't |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| I'd guess about 50 people @ the Vilas County hearing. A little debate over the statewide 40 inch size increase, but other than that it was relatively uneventful at least for the first hour. I left after that... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | Only about 30 people at the Langlade county meeting. There was a short debate over the proposal to eliminate lead shot and that was about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | Up here in Hayward there was (guessing)50-60 people including some of the well known names out there-Larry Ramsell-Pete Maina-Ty Sennett & Steve Genson.
Some debate on the 40''state wide limit that also included lowering some lakes to 28'' including Spider lake,to which there was a written resolution turned in buy MUSKIES INC & OTHERS..Other than that at least were attempting to make some progress here in Wisconsin...
Results of these hearings will be available online Wednsday April 13 at
dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/
Edited by jerken jimi 4/12/2011 7:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Twice as many in Price as last year, at least 50 maybe more. Some debate over single hooks. Some debate over the 40" question. All the old lines, "what about little Johnny? Single hooks are Northwoods tradition. They're eating all the walleyes, crappies, etc. I used to catch lots of walleyes. They're taking over my lake." Our fisheries biologist didn't have our back either. Looked like a deer in the headlights when questions were asked. I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Flambeauski - 4/12/2011 7:47 AM I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say. Sadly enough, I agree. It's a completely different mindset and thought process these days with "our" generation and especially the up 'n coming musky hunters. I've seen that deer-in-the-headlights look from a lot of DNR Biologists and Game Wardens when asked about the crappy deer herd conditions here in Wisconsin, as well. While I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen and the job they do, they don't seem to do very well when put on the spot and/or asked difficult questions. And with all due respect, isn't that part of their job...? |
|
| |
|
| Flambeauski - 4/12/2011 7:47 AM
I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say.
Good luck with that. Those "old guys" LOL! take the grandkids and sons out fishing every summer. teaching thier little secrets, hot spots, and ethics. And if they are following the laws. They have the rite to do as they wish. Nah... I think your best bet is to do what you are trying to do. change the laws. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | PSYS - 4/12/2011 5:53 AM
I've seen that deer-in-the-headlights look from a lot of DNR Biologists and Game Wardens when asked about the crappy deer herd conditions here in Wisconsin, as well. While I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen and the job they do, they don't seem to do very well when put on the spot and/or asked difficult questions. And with all due respect, isn't that part of their job...?
There are few that are both good at the science as well as public speaking. You have to remember that these guys are trained basically as scientist/police officers not salesmen. If you think about it, there are very few people in general that are any good at public speaking, especially in a possible confrontational crowd such as these meetings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nice comments, gents, that's how one makes a difference.
If I was a DNR biologist, and 'old guy' or a kid reading this I'd tell you all to go pound sand.
No, that's NOT part of their job to address the public and mediate arguments; they are not PR people, they are scientists. There's no point arguing with people at the CC meetings and as I understand it, they are not supposed to. Present the item, allow for debate, and move on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | * deep sigh *
Actually, last year I attended a WI Deer Hunting Safety Course (first time deer hunting here in Wisconsin) directed by Mr. Steve Burkhardt who has been with the WI DNR as a Game Warden for 27 years. And yes, he DOES do public speaking and he DOES field questions and actually WELCOMES them by the public. While I am unable to speak on behalf of the biologists, perhaps if they don't like fielding these sort of difficult questions than someone else who doesn't mind public speaking should be attending these events and leave the biologists to their field work? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's a meeting in EVERY county. The DNR doesn't have that large of PR department available and each county CC meeting isn't about PR; arguing with the people one way or the other is not the idea...the people are there to argue with EACH OTHER over the proposals presented by having their say.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Steve, we know you aren't one of those "old guys" I was referring to, in fact there's probably more old guys muskie fishing than "old guys", if you catch my drift. And I understand it isn't the biologists job to PR, well, kind of, but he shouldn't need to answer questions by reading off the ballot book. I understand not wanting to be confrontational with that crowd but it would have been nice if he'd have explained biological and financial reasons for the size limit increase rather than saying it was what the guides and Muskies inc. wanted. |
|
| |
|
| Actually fellas, PR IS one of the major parts of any fishereis biologists job...unfortunately it is also one of the most difficult parts of the job and there are few in WI that can do both the biological part (easy part-fish don't ask stupid questions) and the social part (extremely hard). The really good ones, like Frank Pratt (Hayward-retired), Steve Gilbert (Vilas Co), Kurt Welke (Dane Co), and Dave Vetrano (retired-La Crosse area), to mention some, are few and far between. It takes a special person to be able to relate complicated biological concepts to a largely uneducated audience in a few sentances. At the same time DNR reps are bound by instructions that tell them to only provide fact. Unlike the CC members who read the question then tell everyone how to vote (this isn't supposed to happen but does in nearly every county).
Furthermore, many of these questions are local, and if the DNR person isn't from the area the question concerns, how do you expect him or her to be an expert on the subject? Statewide questions are different, the reps should have some basic information (which is provided to them) to relay to the public. However, It is unrealistic to think that the representative in each county (which includes many technicians) knows everything there is to know about every fish or wildlife question in the packet.
For those of you complaining, take a little personal responsibility and contact the DNR biologist prior to the hearing if you have specific biological questions. Get your answers, ask the "tough" questions. That way you can speak to the crowd and influence the vote on your own.
Guest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | I completely agree.
I'm simply saying that it's ignorant to think that many passionate fishermen and outdoorsmen (like us) are going to go to this meetings and simply remain mute. I would hope that the DNR rep. on hand is going to be expected to field and answer a few questions that are inevitably going to be brought up. I'm well aware of the purpose of these meetings, but to make a broad statement that the DNR isn't there nor is it their job to answer questions... I'm afraid that's false in every sense of the word. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
And, to answer this:
'I'm well aware of the purpose of these meetings, but to make a broad statement that the DNR isn't there nor is it their job to answer questions... I'm afraid that's false in every sense of the word.'
The CC meetings are not 'DNR biologist question and answer' meetings. Important to know how the meetings are structured by the State and the Conservation Congress so you can see why this process is so static in it's execution. The DNR ISN'T there to argue or defend any one point of view in public debate.
It's a Conservation Congress meeting to vote on multiple issues the CC saw fit to ballot. Some are so far beyond any scientific justification, the biologist's response may not be very well received by anyone there, and you have a trainwreck argument that's near impossible to contain..
Remember the feral cat vote?
Dove hunting? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | sworrall - 4/12/2011 11:26 AM ...Remember the feral cat vote? Dove hunting? Dammit Steve... you got me. OK. I agree. The feral cat vote WAS ugly and there's no amount of money anyone could've paid me to be a WI DNR Rep. at that time. ;) Yikes!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Best laugh I have had this week...thanks! |
|
| |
|
| The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
I was told that one of the reasons is that most fish don’t actually reach sexuality maturity until they around 38" or so. So that is why they are trying to move up to 40" so we can have more fish reproducing on their own. .....Right or wrong? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | Guest - 4/12/2011 12:37 PM
The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
I was told that one of the reasons is that most fish don’t actually reach sexuality maturity until they around 38" or so. So that is why they are trying to move up to 40" so we can have more fish reproducing on their own. .....Right or wrong?
That was the reasoning listed in the description/info on the question. Even then, that only gives them a few years to spawn. IMO, 44" or 45" would make a lot more sense but good luck getting that to pass. Hopefully the 40" min. will pass statewide, it's a step in the right direction anyways.
Edited by MartinTD 4/12/2011 1:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| A 40" minimum sze limit protects 95 % of the FEMALE muskies to maturity. Meaning nearly all the female muskies get an opportunity to replace themselves by spawning at least once before they can be harvested. Males mature at smaller sizes so are protected by this rule.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Unfortunately, there are a considerable number of waters in Wisconsin where there's no appreciable NR and a stocking program is responsible for any muskie population, so that issue is moot there. Most of the waters where there's good NR and big fish potential are already carrying a higher size limit. There are also waters where a 40" female is very rare at any age, because the growth rate is so slow due to water chemistry, forage, and more. Some of those systems were looked at for a variance, and some were requested, and some were requested addressing social issues.
Sexual maturity is reached in most WI waters at about 35", I believe. That's what I remember reading anyway, without a search on the subject. Again, 35" or 38", if it's a lake with no NR, it doesn't matter. The 40" limit achieves only one thing in that situation...it allows the muskies to get much bigger before anyone can harvest them and allows that a significant number of muskies to never be harvested because they will not ever reach 40" (some of the male population in some of the smaller waters). Purely a social issue.
And, of course, before some well meaning citizen goes off on me, one I very much support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | Doesn't most everyone release muskies anyways? Let's make it 100" and get it over with. I'm tired of hearing about "little jonnie". If the only joy "little jonny" can get out of fishing is killing all of the fish that he catches, I don't want him fishing anyways. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is the exact expression that causes us as Muskie conserationists to lose at the CC hearings, town board and lake association meetings, and anywhere we try to move public opinion to the side of conservation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| Great discussion on this topic. Waukesha County turn-out seemed pretty good to me as I'm sure there were over a 100 people (although not sure how that compares to a typical year). Only one person commented on the 40" limit making a good comment about not liking the add on to the question with the other lakes reduced to 28", but he would vote for it anyway for the overall good of the state.
There are plenty of discussion points to be made around the 40" size limit and most of us on this forum are obviously somewhat biased. I have tried to help push locally to get as many votes out there as possible to vote for it and I sure hope it will pass. A statewide 34" size limit in the state considered the home of the musky is really somewhat of a joke and needs to be updated with the times. As an avid catch-and-release musky fisherman, and with guys like Fittante out there making unbelievable replica mounts, I too wish it were even higher (even if they won't grow that large in certain lakes), but I'll take 40" over 34" any day.
Does anyone know when the spring hearing results will be available? |
|
| |
