|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | All you Wisconsin anglers and interested parties, don't forget to head out to the annual Conversation Congress hearings on Monday night. There are some important issues to be discussed this year, including some state-wide trolling advisory questions. You can also of course run for a spot on the CC at the meeting as well.
Here is a link to the hearings for this year:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/
TB
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Bump. Get out there and vote WI guys... |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | How come nobody is talking about the changes Walker made to this process? Adding another step and getting the legislature involved is pretty sad imo.
Edited by Bytor 4/9/2012 9:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32902
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good question. Not the same process, for better or worse. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Because it really didn't matter, the CC was always a group that did as they wanted regardless of what the people voted. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | And it sounds like it just got more diluted...
I'll have to wait for the convention to hear more about it, but what I did hear tonight didn't sound at all encouraging.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | reelman - 4/9/2012 9:26 PM
Because it really didn't matter, the CC was always a group that did as they wanted regardless of what the people voted.
Well now the CC can't really do anything. They are sort of put in the spot the sportsmen were previously. Now the sportsmen have even less of a voice than we had before.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
| I believe I heard the trolling motion passed.
Statewide trolling? |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | WTH? Wisconsin going with higher size limits, now statewide trolling? Are the dark ages ending in Wi? We can only hope...
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32902
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the statewide trolling concept is generally OK with the DNR. Someone have better insight? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/11/2012 7:44 PM
I believe the statewide trolling concept is generally OK with the DNR. Someone have better insight?
I am still shaking my head at that one, actually...
The DNR's three questions about trolling were ALL defeating--handily. But then, down the ballot a ways, on the CC side, their statewide trolling was FAVORED! So how can people shoot down the DNR's suggestions to troll, yet then favor the CC question? It's like people didn't even read the darned ballot.
Here is a link to the results:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2012/Results...
Check out questions 18-20, and then question 75. I know it wasn't approved by a large margin on the CC side, but it was certainly favored more than the DNR's questions were disfavored. It's crazy.
I'm on the soap box here a second, but in case someone wonders why the CC process isn't given as much credence as folks would like? Just take a look at the schizophrenic responses on this issue. It's like people voted NO just because the DNR asked the question(s). Sheesh...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sorry I forgot to answer your question Steve...
The DNR *is* in favor of statewide trolling, for the most part. Tim Simonson and I talked about it at length last week, and he sent me the informational document he prepared. He said I could disseminate it, but it's too large for attachment here. But it's a PDF document, so I cannot split it--so I'll email it to you, and you can maybe upload it to the site so folks can review it.
(Email sent.)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2012 9:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Interesting (and disappointing) that there were only 4611 sportsmen in the state who cared enough to show up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | I think that # is only going to go down. I used to attend and vote but didn't go this year as I no longer have any confidence that it will make a difference given the Governor's diminishing of the role of the CC.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| tcbetka - 4/11/2012 9:45 PM
sworrall - 4/11/2012 7:44 PM
I believe the statewide trolling concept is generally OK with the DNR. Someone have better insight?
I am still shaking my head at that one, actually...
The DNR's three questions about trolling were ALL defeating--handily. But then, down the ballot a ways, on the CC side, their statewide trolling was FAVORED! So how can people shoot down the DNR's suggestions to troll, yet then favor the CC question? It's like people didn't even read the darned ballot.
Here is a link to the results:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2012/Results...
Check out questions 18-20, and then question 75. I know it wasn't approved by a large margin on the CC side, but it was certainly favored more than the DNR's questions were disfavored. It's crazy.
I'm on the soap box here a second, but in case someone wonders why the CC process isn't given as much credence as folks would like? Just take a look at the schizophrenic responses on this issue. It's like people voted NO just because the DNR asked the question (s ). Sheesh...
TB
I saw the same thing and it left my head shaking! People oppose using 1, 2, or 3 lines for trolling but favor general trolling statewide!!! I'm in favor of trolling statewide but the responses left me shaking my head.
I see that the "trailing a sucker" question passed. Hopefully the DNR changes this and actually words it so that there is not the HUGE gray area like there was in the past about it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | We need to do a better job as *citizens* to get our sh*%_^$ together on this stuff. Last I heard, Wisconsin is the ONLY state in the country with something like the CC. Certainly other states' DNR-type organizations get feedback from their citizens...but come on people! You're right: 4611 people?!? That's ridiculous.
Then again the people who did show up were (at least the majority) to some degree schizophrenic. The statewide trolling issue was just one example. People need to take this more seriously, or it will just go away. And it seems to be doing just that!
I was appointed to serve out the final year of one of the Brown County delegates who resigned. Then next year I will need to get re-elected. I'd like to think I can actually make a difference...at least in fishery-related issues...but one never knows. And given the lack of consistency seen in the responses this year, we have A LOT of work to do if we are going to turn this back in a positive direction. IF that can even be done.
More to come...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | tcbetka - 4/12/2012 9:48 AM
We need to do a better job as *citizens* to get our sh*%_^$ together on this stuff. Last I heard, Wisconsin is the ONLY state in the country with something like the CC. Certainly other states' DNR-type organizations get feedback from their citizens...but come on people!
TB
I used to vote too. But why can't we just let the people that are educated to make these decisions (WI-DNR) do just that?
You see what you get with the C.C... the people voting couldn't even understand the same question asked in a slightly different manner.
Personally, I'd like to see statewide trolling legal but limited to two lines per angler. |
|
| |
|
| The results regarding trolling aren't necessarily schizophrenic. They might actually represent broad support for dragging suckers with an electric motor and some support for statewide motor trolling, but with mixed opinions on the number of lines to allow. The confusing way the questions were asked skews the data.
For example:
Person A is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 2 lines so votes "Yes" to question 19, and "No" to questions 18 and 20.
Person B is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 1 line so votes "Yes" to question 20, and "No" to questions 18 and 19.
Person C is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors allowing 3 lines statewide so votes "Yes" to question 18, and "No" to questions 19 and 20.
All three people favor statewide motor trolling but their votes on the number of lines to allow would cancel each other out and create the appearance that they're being inconsistent, when really it was just a bad survey design.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | BGH - 4/12/2012 10:05 AM
The results regarding trolling aren't necessarily schizophrenic. They might actually represent broad support for dragging suckers with an electric motor and some support for statewide motor trolling, but with mixed opinions on the number of lines to allow. The confusing way the questions were asked skews the data.
For example:
Person A is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 2 lines so votes "Yes" to question 19, and "No" to questions 18 and 20.
Person B is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 1 line so votes "Yes" to question 20, and "No" to questions 18 and 19.
Person C is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors allowing 3 lines statewide so votes "Yes" to question 18, and "No" to questions 19 and 20.
All three people favor statewide motor trolling but their votes on the number of lines to allow would cancel each other out and create the appearance that they're being inconsistent, when really it was just a bad survey design.
Somewhat true. But the problem yet is if someone voted YES for the statewide trolling question, then they should have at least voted YES for 1 line per angler.
If person A votes YES for 3 lines per angler, they should have also voted YES for questions 19 and 20. Therefore, the number of YES votes for one line per person (question 20) should encompass all voters from 18 & 19 and should be relatively close to the same number that voted YES for statewide trolling later. Am I wrong? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | MartinTD - 4/12/2012 10:01 AM
I used to vote too. But why can't we just let the people that are educated to make these decisions (WI-DNR) do just that?
You see what you get with the C.C... the people voting couldn't even understand the same question asked in a slightly different manner.
Personally, I'd like to see statewide trolling legal but limited to two lines per angler.
The CC isn't there to replace the DNR, or make decisions for (or instead of) them. As I understand it, it's simply to give the citizens of WI a voice with the DNR, and provide an avenue that allows citizens to have input into new fish and game laws. There's a system:
1) A citizen introduces a resolution at his/her local county hearing. People vote.
2) If it "passes" that litmus test, it goes to the appropriate CC committee that Fall.
3) The committee considers it further, and requests input from the DNR as needed.
4) If the proposal is considered valid, it then goes on the statewide ballot the next year, so all citizens can vote on it.
5) If it passes statewide, it then gets handed to the DNR for their evaluation and consideration.
At no point in that process are the citizens of WI supplanting the role of the DNR. People need to realize that. You can't just show up at a Spring hearing site, introduce some (possibly obscure) resolution, convince the majority there to adopt it...and then expect it to be a new law. But some folks talk like they think that's the case! There HAVE to be checks and balances. Other people need to consider the resolution, because it potentially affects the entire state!
In the case of the Green Bay musky resolution, it was introduced at the hearings in 2006, but then the committee process broke down in the Fall. It *should* have been passed on, to appear the next Spring on the statewide ballot. Mistakes were made, mainly because people assumed too much. This is serious stuff and the committee, having no additional guidance or source of information, voted conservatively. In other words, they defeated it. So we had to start all over, and I re-authored it that next year. A lot of people then did a LOT of work (hundreds and hundreds of hours) to get the committee to support it, and then get it approved that next year at the statewide level. Then we had to convince the state's biologists that this wouldn't be a *bad* thing for the state. But you have to realize something: This is a paradigm change for Wisconsin! They did not have a 54" size limit in their management tool set. But they listened, and they are now supporting it.
My point in this story is that a lot of people spent a lot of time getting comfortable with a VERY significant rule change proposal. But we worked together, and did it. No matter how you feel about the DNR, they did what they were supposed to do--protect the resource. They had no choice but to be critical of our proposal and our arguments. And you know what? I am glad they were. I want the process to work. I want people to review my work. I want to know that, when we finally achieve what we worked so hard for, it is going to be the best thing for the resource..biologically and socially. Even though the DNR initially thought that the 54" size limit wasn't biologically necessary, they were willing to listen--and also change their thinking to now consider the social ramifications of such a potential trophy fishery. And THEY are the ones that will take the heat for it, if it falls flat on its face after a few years! We're just a bunch of musky guys who "just wanted more big fish to catch." So although our proposal is more restrictive than the current regulations, they are the ones taking a chance with the state's resources...not us. That is huge, IMHO.
In the end, the "system" worked. But none of this would have been possible without the Conservation Congress process. It wasn't easy and it isn't over yet, because it needs to go on their questionnaire next Spring. If it's approved then, it will go to the legislature and very likely become law in 2013...seven years after the process began. We're almost there!
But people need to do their homework, and just follow the procedure. Good things come to those who wait.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/12/2012 11:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | BGH - 4/12/2012 10:05 AM
The results regarding trolling aren't necessarily schizophrenic. They might actually represent broad support for dragging suckers with an electric motor and some support for statewide motor trolling, but with mixed opinions on the number of lines to allow. The confusing way the questions were asked skews the data.
For example:
Person A is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 2 lines so votes "Yes" to question 19, and "No" to questions 18 and 20.
Person B is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors limiting it to 1 line so votes "Yes" to question 20, and "No" to questions 18 and 19.
Person C is in favor of statewide motor trolling and votes "Yes" to question 75. He favors allowing 3 lines statewide so votes "Yes" to question 18, and "No" to questions 19 and 20.
All three people favor statewide motor trolling but their votes on the number of lines to allow would cancel each other out and create the appearance that they're being inconsistent, when really it was just a bad survey design.
Valid points, and theoretically possible. You are definitely an optimist...I'll give you that. I didn't do that math though, so I am not sure how *likely* your scenario might be. But when you consider that only 1576 people voted NO on the CC's statewide trolling question (#75), yet an average of 2207 people voted 'no' on questions 18-20, it seems like those people in your scenario wouldn't have been able to account for this disparity on their own.
So while I'd like to think you're right, because it indicates that there might yet be hope for a statewide trolling policy, something tells me that it was a likely indicator of something more ominous. Incidentally, there is another question on there (#51) that specifically addresses the position fishing issue. That one was indeed favored.
But here's another example that may be illustrative of the schizophrenic answers I fear we saw...
Check out questions 21-25; specifically numbers 21 & 25. How can 94.5% of the respondents (3543/3748 = 0.945) answer YES, they prefer printed regulations...and then have 89.7% of those same respondents (3151/3512 = 0.897) say they typically don't check fishing regulations? Huh? Question #21 specifically asks how people "access fishing regulations," but question #25 then specifically asks how many people don't bother! There simply weren't even people answering the questions to explain this disparity.
And we wonder why the folks in Madison don't always seem to do what we want...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/12/2012 11:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Utah has something similar to the CC. We have the RAC (regulation advisory council, or something like that). People can vote on things at the RAC meetings and then they go on to the Wildlife Board. We can make recommendations to the Board. It is a semi convoluted process like the CC, and I don't have much to do with them so I don't know how the entire process all goes about. But states have similar things to the CC. It is simply a way to give the public a voice. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Mike...I haven't researched it myself, and was only stating what I've been told in the past. But as I mentioned, other states obviously have ways to get input from their citizens--whether it's a formal process or not.
Our CC process may not be perfect, but it is what it is. We just need to make the best of it, and try to change what we feel isn't working. Otherwise it's just a huge waste of time, money and energy.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/12/2012 11:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Seeing 2 to 1 numbers supporting a sandhill crane hunting season was not a waste of time regardless of the turnout. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Ulbian, are there too many Sandies in Wisconsin? That's the first I've heard of that?
They are good eating.... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | A guy there said they called them "flying rib-eyes."
I had no idea.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | tcbetka - 4/12/2012 2:28 PM
A guy there said they called them "flying rib-eyes."
I had no idea.
TB
Rib eye of the sky. Absolutely fantastic. I might actually come to WI to hunt if they set up a season. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | tcbetka - 4/11/2012 9:45
I am still shaking my head at that one, actually...
The DNR's three questions about trolling were ALL defeating--handily. But then, down the ballot a ways, on the CC side, their statewide trolling was FAVORED! So how can people shoot down the DNR's suggestions to troll, yet then favor the CC question? It's like people didn't even read the darned ballot.
TB
Once I saw the design of the questions, I thought this would happen. They should have only had one question, allow trolling statewide yes or no.
Many people would have voted no on one or two of the 'line' questions after voting yes on allowing trolling. I know that is what I did. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, but then you would have had to take those questions out of order, because the "allow trolling" question (#75) was on the CC side; but the "allow trolling with 'X' lines" questions were numbers 18-20. So I am not sure I follow your logic on that.
I *will* agree that I thought the DNR questions should have been written better in that sense. And of course since the "allow trolling" question was on the CC side, it would have had to have been introduced by a citizen at last year's hearings--otherwise it wouldn't have been on the statewide questionnaire this year. So I can understand why the DNR asked their questions--as they were interested in finding out (since the CC question didn't specify) how many lines people would vote for, or vote against. But I am not sure how they could have made it clearer as to what they were after, and I certainly don't think they expected to see these kinds of results, LOL.
I sure the heck didn't...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/12/2012 7:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I had a conversation with one of our local DNR guys and he shared that many of his colleagues were not happy about the vagueness of questions on many of these issues. |
|
| |
