|
|
| There is no doubt that people come to GB and spend money specifically because of the musky (I certainly do) but to suggest a corelation between a 42 year old study on a lake in NY and spending on Green Bay today isn't a great idea IHMO.
And while I'm thinking about it, are there significant numbers of musky anglers on the bay at any time of year other than late fall? Does anyone try to catch these fish in June and July, or is it simply a Sept/Oct/November thing? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, as to the validity of the data Larry mentioned--I think any data showing how valuable musky fishing is to a local economy is better than NO data. If we can find recent data for *any* musky fishery...great! We'll use it. But I cannot seem to find anything at all; at least that directly pertains to musky fishing specifically. So we are pretty much forced to use whatever we can find to make our case.
As to your second question, yes--people fish out there all year long. Not in the numbers we see right now, but I fished out there several times this summer, and saw a good number of boats trolling for musky. But you raise a good question, because we really don't know just how many people are fishing for them! In fact, that's one of the things we are proposing in our plan...improve creel census data collection through volunteerism at the major landings. There are enough folks involved with the Green Bay Musky Coalition now, that it shouldn't be too difficult to develop and implement a plan to have someone stationed at the landings regularly; at least on the weekends.
I don't think we would have to have someone there 24/7, mind you. These sorts of studies are done on a limited basis, with extrapolations to determine an estimate of total angling success (and harvest). But the 455 fish caught (and 6 harvested) in 2006 (data mentioned in the 2007 report to the Great Lakes Fishery) is a gross underestimate, I am afraid. And of all the members in our Titletown MI chapter, not one has ever told me they have been asked to report their catch at the landing.
Yet another example of how we don't know what we don't know...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/28/2007 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that the hearings held by the DNR last winter RE: New tournament regulations generated some interesting figures on how Muskie angling in general and tournaments in specifics effect local economies. Eagle River and Rhinelander had a rep at our local hearing at Nicloet College, try them to see if they still have those figures. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Steve. Would you happen to have any specific names? That might make it easier to bird-dog that information, as (hopefully) those people would still be available.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey Tom,
Here is a link I've stumbled on that talks about how muskies have become a great source of income for the state of Maine. Not sure if will be helpful to your needs, but might be worth a look.
http://www.fortkent-muskie.com/catch.html |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's a wild link--I don't quite know what to say after reading it, lol. It's an interesting read, to say the least. But it seems as though they are trying pretty hard to convince someone that they aren't harming the fishery with this tournament. It would be interesting to know more about some of the circulating "confusion and misinformation" that necessitated this statement...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Tom,
You might be aware of this already, but maybe not. It might be of some use to you.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Musky%20regulation%20change%20factshee... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Mike,
I did see that, a while ago as I recall. It's many years old, judging by the stuff in there about raising the limit to 40 inches. I can't recall exact when that was, but the limit in Green Bay was increased to 50 inches in 2003, so it's probably older than that.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | We were actually creel surveyed by the DNR several times at the metro launch this fall, giving them valuable info. Saw them there quite a bit. They definately do not get a count of everything going on, but from what I saw, they did a fair job this fall down there, if anglers were honest about what they caught..... One thing that could happen(that I have seen at other lakes and hunting areas) is to have a survey form at the landing to be filled out upon return each day by choice.
That said, the days I saw the DNR surveying, there were fish kept(they actually borrowed my bump board for one of them one day for some reason...), so they did get a count on some harvested fish in their survey as well.
Again, it may have just been chance, but we were surveyed multiple times this fall, or about 20% of the time we were there. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Cool. Thanks for the report.
I was out there 20+ times this year, and never talked to anyone. Several guys I know were out there about as much or more, and you are the first to tell me they were surveyed. But I am glad to hear it's taking place, and one of the things we would like to see happen is for additional effort to be devoted to surveying anglers at the launches. Hopefully we can work with the DNR to do that, although I am certain it will take some volunteer work to accomplish--and of course I realize that we will never survey 100% of the anglers. But there's always room for improvement.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No doubt that there can be more surveying, hence my suggestion for types of surveys, and surveying methods. This could be something that need be done by a local club or organization though, unfortunately. The DNR might be getting ample numbers for their work through their survey frequency. That said, I'd be glad to help you come up with a plan of action on that end, as I've thought about conducting a similar survey on the WI River system here. Just wanted to reitierate that I wasn't trying to play devils advocate in my last post. Out of about 15 trips this fall(down from most years with the kid now......), we did get surveyed a few times by the same dude(student at UWGB if I remember correctly). All surveys we were part of were during the first week of November on week days. I think Shane Mason mentioned that he knew you. He was with me on one or two survey occasions and might have the name of the guy doing the work.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/30/2007 10:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks. I will talk to Shane about it when I see him next. I would bet he'll be at the meeting for our MI chapter in a week or so, otherwise the meeting on the 29th for sure. I will try to get the name and call the creel survey fellow to see how many times he's been out there. But weekdays are probably *not* representative of the degree of activity out there. I have been out there on weekends with 30 other boats, only to see it go down to about 10 boats on Monday and Tuesday...
But we can help with this effort. There are enough clubs involved with the new group that each could maybe take turns or something.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| OK, so we've talked and talked and talked about this. I haven't kept up with every post.......is there a 1, 2, 3 plan here, what steps have been taken, what steps WILL be taken, and where are we at now?
Just looking for the Cliff's Notes of this whole topic.
Thanks,
Eric |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, there *is* a 1-2-3-(and 4) plan here as a matter of fact. But it isn't published yet, so I cannot really go into it. But the presentation from the meeting on the 29th will be published on the site here, so anyone that wants to see it will be able to. But I cannot publish it until after the meeting though...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 12/5/2007 2:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Why the secret?
Be nice if Titletown had someone who kept up with the website, you could publish it there, which, no offense to M1st, seems more appropriate, since Titletown has been very involved with everything that relates to the Bay area. Obviously M1st will get more traffic.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, there is no "secret" per se, it's just that I haven't finished the presentation yet. But we can certainly post it on the website after the presentation.
As far as the Titletown website goes, I agree that it needs to be updated--and in fact, that is supposed to be happening as we speak... Jay Zahn (chapter President) has told me that someone has volunteered to do this, although I don't know when they were actually going to be finished. I got the past website fellow to put my contact name and number up there when this whole thing started a few weeks ago.
But if you want to know more about the content of the presentation, just call me. My number is on the our website. I will tell you as much as I know, lol.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, the cat's out of the bag...lol. We are starting to get some press here locally. The other day a local TV station ran a piece on several newscasts, and I was interviewed. Unfortunately, they pretty much made it sound like it was a "tourism vs. DNR" deal and totally missed what I was trying to tell them in the 45 minute interview. They only used about 30 seconds of what I said, and that just happened to be the little bit we talked about the possible impact on tourism. They also interviewed a local tourism-related official in Green Bay and the Regional Fisheries Biologist from the area (who basically said that the DNR is confident that there is no danger to the muskie population, and that they were "hopeful" that natural spawning would take over.) Here's a link to the story about that interview...
http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=7467910
...there's video with that link as well--just click on the little camera icon near the story title.
Then this morning there was a nice piece that appeared today in several newspapers around the state. The writer (Jim Lee) has been out there fishing with Brett Jolly (great job Brett, btw) and sees the real issue--and wrote it up that way. Here's a link to his piece:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007...
So the wheels are turning towards 12/29, and it appears that we really need to ramp up our efforts to educate those not intimately involved. I guess in a way it's good that these stories have hit now, because that allows me some additional time to clarify things via the PowerPoint presentation I will be giving.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 12/9/2007 8:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| "I'm open to a 54-inch minimum," said David Rowe, Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist at Green Bay and the person responsible for managing the spotted muskie fishery, "but I just want more biological information before making any decision."
Dr. Tom Betka, a Green Bay physician and muskie angler with an undergraduate degree in aquatic biology, believes a moratorium should be placed on muskie harvest until the potential impact of viral hemmorhagic septicemia is known.
"If VHS hits southern Green Bay and the Fox River during the spring when muskies spawn, it's going to kill a lot of fish," Betka contends. "If we eliminate harvest, it's going to allow more muskies to survive the virus."
The survivors, he said, are likely to be fish whose genetic makeup allows them to withstand the disease. Those fish will be critical to the future of the muskie fishery.
Cut/pasted the above snippets from the article.
I think they're great points. But between the above paragraphs, and what has been said about the media turning this into a "tourism" thing rather than a "save the fish thing," it sounds like we're really hanging our hat on VHS. So, if VHS DOESN'T rear its ugly head, the way its been portrayed here, seems like the stance from an outsider could very easily be "well, crises averted, no need for this limit change."
I guess I'm just a little concerned that for whatever reason, the focus has been shifted away from protecting the fish for the sake of protecting the fish....to concern about tourism $$$ and the threat of a disease.
To me, that's the hurdle: protect the fish so we can all enjoy them and so eventually we can "see what they've got" in terms of growth potential. It almost feels like the track has been rerouted so we now are avoiding that hurdle and are instead faced with tourism $$$ and VHS being the obstacle/factor now.
And, perhaps those are better trump cards than what we started with. Maybe it doesn't matter what specific thing it is that gets attention. I just hope that we don't wind up with a temporary limit increase or moratorium with a sunset date built in...after which, we'll be back to square one.
Carry on.
-Eric
Edited by muskie-addict 12/11/2007 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Hey Eric, is that a really a bad thing? Trying to convince people to want to protect a fish that relatively few people care about or even know about seems like a lot bigger challenge to overcome than protecting tourism dollars and the possibility of VHS. What I mean is this - if our objective is met through reasons other than our own, it's still works in our favor. In a perfect world, it would be about the muskie fishery for its own sake, but I'd rather see it happen because of toursim, or because of the possibility of VHS than not at all. It's an easier sell if you can attach money and unknown potential viral disaster to it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Eric...
However I will add one thing. This issue has been addressed (to some degree) in the past 54" size limit proposal, via the spring Conservation Congress resolution process. As you are aware, it passed in all but one county where it was introduced. So, sociologically speaking anyway, it seems to be favored. But then it was defeated in the Great Lakes Committee meeting of the CC in September. Why was it defeated? Biology, or the lack thereof. Ron Vanderloop (GLC Chairman) told me personally that the reason the resolution failed was, essentially, a lack of biological support.
So while I agree that we cannot hang our hats solely on VHS, I think we do need to consider all of the biological evidence that supports the concerns that we have. And to that end, the presentation I have put together does just that. I am not saying that I have exhaustively explored each & every biological issue mind you, just that I brought some biology to the table for this meal. I don't think the focus has been shifted from "protecting the fish for the fish's sake" at all; but rather I just think that we are finding new (more objective) ways to express that sentiment.
Oh, and I don't know what to tell you about the whole "threat to tourism" angle...I certainly didn't stress that in the 45 minutes that I was interviewed. Certainly this issue has ramifications for the tourism industry--but it's MUCH bigger than that. But unfortunately, that's not the angle the local TV folks played.
Anyway, thanks for the post.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey, I was on TV! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | LMAO...was wondering how long it would take you to figure that out! You are also in a newsletter. Check this out:
http://www.mroutboardsnewsletter.com/tips/dec07.html
TB |
|
| |
|
| After every one of these I read, I just can't help but feel you guys are missing the boat on this.
IMHO, the role of fisheries management should not to protect fish for the sake of the fishermen that want to catch more and bigger fish, it should be to protect the fishery. A 50 inch fish has had SEVERAL opportunities to spawn. If natural reproduction has a chance to take off, it will with this limit.
Instead of spending the time and effort to increase size limits (which may or may not increase the size of the fish significantly), why not spend your time educating people on selective harvest, the benefits of catch and release, or even better fish handling techniques to decrease the chances of post release mortality?
After 50 inches, I see no reason why an angler shouldn't harvest one if he/she so chooses. For myself, I would never keep a musky unless it had no chance to survive the release. But I sure as heck would hate to be forced to release a 53 inch fish when I knew it was going to die. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Would it be any better if you had a 49"er that was going to die?
I agree that protecting the fishery is important, but in an instance like this when there is little to no natural reproduction, and the fish exist only by stocking, "protecting the fishery" means protecting the fish.
One of the goals, I believe, is to someday have natural repo, but I don't think anyone believes there's any successful spawning.
I, and I think alot of others concerned about this, are seeing what's going on, have witnessed that GB has become a high-profile place to "put one on the wall," and realize that alot of these "wallhangers" aren't even 12 years old yet and have not had a chance to see their maximum potential. |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | muskie-addict - 12/14/2007 5:54 PM
One of the goals, I believe, is to someday have natural repo, but I don't think anyone believes there's any successful spawning.
I for one believe there is natural reproduction going on. Many of the guys who catch fish out there will tell you they do catch fish without fin clips.
They have only been there a short time now, not long enough to see how well it is going. But I have seen enough for myself. And we are still picking up barred fish on occasion,
Its going to take awhile to see how self sustaining this fishery can be. Every year they seem to be taking steps in the right direction to develop a self sustaining fishery. This was not designed to be a put and take fishery. The efforts to diversify the genetic pool, stocking areas with a greater chance for natural reproduction. All done because they want to establish a self sustaining fishery.
Its one lake in Wisconsin, out of over 700 you can go thump your trophy. But then again you have to define trophy. To me it would be like going to the zoo to shoot an elephant for the wall. Only I have to stare at that elephant everyday and sleep at night.
But there are guys who wouldnt think twice about it. As long as they have the head on the wall and can say, look what I did.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 135
| I guess I'm just puzzled why anyone would want to keep any fish they're not going to eat if you can get a replica made?. This whole discussion of size limits is based on people keeping fish that they don't need to keep, and having the right to do so for some reason.
Everyone likes to stand by the statement "It's their right to do so" But honestly, what are they gonna do with that fish, eat it? Let the dog eat it? A waste is a waste, and just because the DNR or whomever is too politically careful doesn't change that. As sportsment we all know not to let our kill go to waste. I think so many folks hang onto a fish in the heat of the moment, then later on do nothing with it because a skin mount costs alot of $$ (and so does a replica, even more, I admit), they don't know how to go about preserving a fish for mounting, or they just "get over it" by the time the big fish high fades. I've seen it alot, mostly, thank god, 10-15 years ago. When faced with the decision boatside to keep or release a fish that's the biggest you've ever seen, let alone caught, I can see how the uneducated angler might keep it 'Just in case". I suppose that this is where education really shines, if it's common knowledge that you can get a replica that looks amazing, and that will last longer than a skin mount, then you can decide whenever to get that trophy.
That's what we get with the rapid growth of our passtime. Education is the key, and while I agree that you can't win many folks over by "guilting them" or finger wagging, I still have to ask Why would anyone keep a huge fish that they are never going to eat or do anything with? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Proposal from the Coalition to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board is now in the articles section here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38...
I'll leave it to Tom to move the discussion from this point, he has the timeline in better perspective than I and is up to date on reactions so far from our DNR and the NRB.
SOme have been a bit critical about the time it has taken to publish this document. It was my opinion that the documents needed to be in the hands of all the intended recipients for consideration for a period of time before publication as a necessary courtesy to those it is hoped will seriously consider this proposal.
|
|
| |
|
| In response to whit65, I disagree w/ you .....I believe there alot of educated anglers that decide to keep there fish and have great reasons to. I have fished muskies for the past 30 years and have kept a 54" musky and have no regrets... It my right, and its legal. My reasons: One the real thing is better than a replica, a replica is easy to pick out in my opinion. ( had my fish done by Ron Lax and have seen good replicas.) Second, I have boated many fish over the years and released many, so I had no remorse for keeping it. Third, the chances it would die after the release or speared eventually is there. Financially it is cheaper not to go the replica mount. And the meat was saved and eaten.
Plus, people put alot of undue pressure on people keeping a musky to mount, when it is no different that mounting any other fish species or even animal. Especially when you consider a high percentage of sportsman have something mounted!
Also, look at Tom Gelb one of the great musky fisherman, one of the most educated, has put more time in the sport then most. I'm glad he kept his trophy, he deserved it! Yet he gets criticism from people in the same sport for keeping it. Mostly by people w/ very fews years in the sport, epsecially when compared to him. Its very unfair to a person that has given to sport tremendously.
I feel most people who criticize and point at others for keeping a fish is not good for fishing in general and have no right to judge others. That is somebody I feel is not very educated, and someone who is jeolous. It bothers me to see someone wreck memories for someone who has possibly caught his trophy of a lifetime, to be harassed or pointed at. That is something I think people need to be ashamed.
I beleive in catch and release, but I think it has gone way out of control. Just be happy there is a 50" size limit.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tail dancer,
Are you from Minnesota? |
|
| |
|
| I hope not |
|
| |
