|
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | BenR - 2/28/2013 2:11 PM
Guest - 2/28/2013 2:08 PM
Wisconsin needs to focus on more important things like legalizing marijuana. Those laws are "old tradition" too. When is the last time you heard of someone that got into a car crash because they were high? Oh that's right, it doesn't happen.
If you want to troll go to a lake that allows it. Just say "NO" at the spring hearings this year.
This is a perfect example of the thought process behind "no trolling", love it. BR
I compare it to public urination. A real pi$$er to enforce and it really doesn't hurt anything, and it would create more urination opportunities, especially for the elderly and others with weak bladders. So we should just allow it. In fact, I plan on going outside and making a statement right now.
Edited by Flambeauski 2/28/2013 2:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| BenR - 2/28/2013 2:11 PM
Guest - 2/28/2013 2:08 PM
Wisconsin needs to focus on more important things like legalizing marijuana. Those laws are "old tradition" too. When is the last time you heard of someone that got into a car crash because they were high? Oh that's right, it doesn't happen.
If you want to troll go to a lake that allows it. Just say "NO" at the spring hearings this year.
This is a perfect example of the thought process behind "no trolling", love it. BR
Thats right. And I don't need you trolling by when I am in a secluded bay burning one down; not bothering anyone and enjoying the serenity. Lol. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | curleytail - 2/28/2013 1:57 PM Why NOT have the same set of regulations? Well, the lakes in my area have different regarding bag limits and size limits, some even different seasons than others. All are based on the lake and what the DNR feels is the best way to manage that particular body of water. I sure hope the wardens we have are capable enough to know the laws on the lakes in their areas and enforce them properly. Heck, if they aren't sure, they can take a look at the regs at the landing which post bag limits and whether or not trolling is allowed. Understood, and the lakes in your area are regulated individually with a real purpose, not because of some tradition. I guess you agree that the WDNR has a pretty good handle on that aspect of it, but not so much their desire to be more consistent/simplify a lot of their regulations with statewide trolling.
I'm assuming that occasionally there are new game wardens, transfers etc. I would find the trolling and positioning laws to be a little confusing myself, statewide trolling would certainly simplify things for them and perhaps they could move on to more important things besides watching the angle of somebody's sucker line while they're casting?
I'll be the first to admit that I want to see trolling because I'm interested in fishing there, kind of selfish… but I'll also be injecting thousands of dollars into the local economies. Now, some of you guys should admit that you selflessly want to continue your traditional casting, and have less pressure on your lakes so you can catch more fish… very understandable.
I'm going to make a few phone calls to get something going with the walleye crowd… who probably overwhelmingly would vote in favor of trolling. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I keep hearing about this nightmare known throughout angling lore..."the backtrolling days." Sounds like comedy to me. Can you imagine how ridiculous you would look in a 620 dual console speed trolling at 5mph backwards? |
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman says.
"I'll throw it right back at you... why not have the same set of regulations for every body of water? Think of the extra administrative work being done by the WDNR yearly, and the game wardens having to keep track of which lakes to enforce for nothing more than a silly outdated tradition. Why is row trolling acceptable but not motor trolling?
“There is plenty of lakes to troll, why not let the other half keep a few casting only lakes?”
There is nothing being “lost”… nobody is taking casting out of the equation.
Obviously the WDNR is of the opinion that it's time to let go of a tradition, or they would not have said what they said. "
It is probably best not to get into a discussion, when you respond faster than you think. It can cause grave injuries when the venue is the wrong barroom, or tavern. Luckily, safer on this discussion board, it only damages your reputation for having any sense, well, if you had a reputation like that to start with.
Three quick things.
Owl Lake has a 28" size limit, and not very many 28" muskies, last time I looked. Perhaps that can cover the uniform statewide regulation nonsense.
As to the "nothing lost", we have "fly fishing only water", we have bow season, we have muzzleloader seasons, thus the case for limited seasons, limited methods, and special areas, have already been made by the WDNR, and the consumers, in the realm of both fishing and hunting.
As for row trolling being accepted, I think most of us accept row trolling as a tougher, more primitive way to fish, even with modern updates on some of the equipment, and even on the quietest lake, how far away can you hear a row troller?
|
|
| |
|
| "even on the quietest lake, how far away can you hear a row troller?"
It depends on what they've had to eat, if you're downwind I'd guess a good ways. Things tend to slip out when grunting on the oars...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Jerry Newman - 2/28/2013 2:28 PM
curleytail - 2/28/2013 1:57 PM Why NOT have the same set of regulations? Well, the lakes in my area have different regarding bag limits and size limits, some even different seasons than others. All are based on the lake and what the DNR feels is the best way to manage that particular body of water. I sure hope the wardens we have are capable enough to know the laws on the lakes in their areas and enforce them properly. Heck, if they aren't sure, they can take a look at the regs at the landing which post bag limits and whether or not trolling is allowed. Understood, and the lakes in your area are regulated individually with a real purpose, not because of some tradition. I guess you agree that the WDNR has a pretty good handle on that aspect of it, but not so much their desire to be more consistent/simplify a lot of their regulations with statewide trolling.
I'm assuming that occasionally there are new game wardens, transfers etc. I would find the trolling and positioning laws to be a little confusing myself, statewide trolling would certainly simplify things for them and perhaps they could move on to more important things besides watching the angle of somebody's sucker line while they're casting?
I'll be the first to admit that I want to see trolling because I'm interested in fishing there, kind of selfish… but I'll also be injecting thousands of dollars into the local economies. Now, some of you guys should admit that you selflessly want to continue your traditional casting, and have less pressure on your lakes so you can catch more fish… very understandable.
I'm going to make a few phone calls to get something going with the walleye crowd… who probably overwhelmingly would vote in favor of trolling.
Jerry, honestly, I am concerned over walleye overharvest especially of trophy class walleyes. Also I am concerned about the flux of trolling on the small waterbodies for suspended muskies, and the direct result more trophy class fish being caught and kept or dying of delayed mortality. Certain lakes will be susceptible to the method. Again Gelb row trolls as it is the most efficient means at contacting trophy fish in WI. Now add in hundreds of other anglers doing it, some of which do not practice C&R all the time. Would not take long to really hurt the size structure of a 300 acre lake when fish that have not been contacted that often in the past are now being hooked more frequently. Some will die of delayed mortality, some will die from anglers keeping them, and some will live. More boated will equal a higher chance of that fish dying.
Yes I am a bit concerned with my basins being more pressured as well as I am sure a lot of guys would love to troll Vilas to tap into the suspended fisheries. Right now us casters will set up drifts so we don’t cross the path of the other drifting boat across a basin. Not sure I can handle setting up a drift to have a troller zig-zag downwind of my drifting line a few times covering that water before I get there. If that’s being selfish so bit it. It’s not exactly an accepted practice in N. WI. Very similar to it being an accepted practice in more southern states to fish on top of one another, and when they come to N. WI and do the same thing people get upset. Not that they are wrong, or we are wrong for getting upset, but it is not the “normal” practice for the area.
Fisheries is my #1 concern though. Walleyes more so than musky.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Well we know the stance of Vilas county lakes. Whats the take on the rest of the Sawyer County lakes? Currently there's only a handful of LARGE lakes that can be trolled over there with the exception of Whitefish. How bout the Chippewa Flowage? There was a motion to allow trolling there a few years ago and to my knowledge that got shot down bigtime. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-16/sports/9305170046_1_t...
Interesting article about the backtrolling days. Bucher and Spence taking some shots at Rizzo and vice versa.
Spence's quote about people sitting on shore cooking hamburgers while muskies swallow the single hook rig is particularly funny. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Sounds alot like the same discussion were all in! LOL.. I'll side with Bucher compromise on the larger lakes and 1 line. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Mr Musky - 2/28/2013 3:37 PM Sounds alot like the same discussion were all in! LOL.. I'll side with Bucher compromise on the larger lakes and 1 line. Agree! Although I can appreciate what you're saying Travis, these no troll fisheries are a state resource, and if they were opened to trolling and then over harvested, the WDNR has shown a willingness to protect the resource by implementing tighter size/bag limits. Although your crusade is valiant, perhaps it's time to let the WDNR be the ones concerned. I think they already are, or they would not have said; "We have evaluated muskellunge, northern pike, and walleye angling success for anglers casting or still-fishing versus anglers trolling. Based on available creel survey data, we have been unable to identify significant differences in angling success or harvest between the two techniques (i.e, casting versus trolling)." "At these meetings a slight majority of anglers remain opposed to trolling." SO, if you're interested in trolling these waters, get out the vote! I'm not taking the bait from one of the previous posts… for clarification, the only regulation that I was referring to and in favor of is statewide trolling.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 71
| It is interesting to me that some of the same people talking about the economic recession in N. WI are also the same ones against trolling in order to keep their lakes to themselves. I live in the TC and would go up to fish N. WI were I allowed to drag a sucker on a non-vertical line. I would also patronize a resort of my choosing during an off-peak season, patronize the bait shops by buying their $10 suckers, patronize the local bars and restaurants, or at the very least the grocery and liquor stores and the gas stations. However, since I am unable to do so, I choose to stay around my parents' cabin in Barron County and fish there. There are lots of guys out there that are in the same boat as me. It would seem to me that trolling could bring additional revenues to a depressed area. The only opposition seems to be from those who want "Their Waters" to be left alone, effectively cutting off their nose to spite their face. |
|
| |
|
| My vote is yes if they do it like Canada 1 Line per angler I think that will be fine I think 3 would be a bit of a problem on 500 acre lake .
SAINT |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | 1 line per angler for trolling wouldn't bother me toooo much. But, is that only 1 trolled line but still 3 non-trolled lines? How many would want to give up dragging a couple suckers, throwing out 2 slip bobbers for walleyes, setting tip ups in the winter?
Maybe multiple lines is a crutch for being a bad fisherman, but I would be sad to not be able to set tip-ups anymore and one line only would just about completely do away with sucker fishing.
Edited by curleytail 2/28/2013 4:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | CiscoKid - 2/28/2013 8:12 AM
12LinePete - 2/28/2013 7:48 AM
I would rather be proactive in trying to keep resources healthy than to be reactive when a resource starts suffering. Trolling will either have no affect on a resource, or will negatively affect it. Not trolling will always have a positive affect on a resource compared to trolling.
It's perfectly okay to dislike trolling, and the "tradition" argument is reasonable enough in it's own way I suppose.
But please don't spread misinformation: the DNR (You know, those fish biologist and fisheries management types? ) says very clearly that it would not harm the fishery. This is evidence-based, not a "best guess" situation. Trolling has not harmed fisheries in other areas of WI or other states.
Not spreading misinformation at all. How can trolling improve a fishery? I said it will either not change it or hurt it. That’s a pretty accurate statement I would think. Also trolling most definitely hurt fisheries the last time it was in effect in N. WI. THAT is a fact that cannot be disputed!
How did back trolling hurt the fishery? Yes there were some big fish caught and kept but that was also the time of single hook sucker rigs that did way more damage to the fish than trolling ever did.
And wouldn't be a shame if some 40# or even 50# fish got caught. Isn't that why we fish for them? |
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman says,
I'll be the first to admit that I want to see trolling because I'm interested in fishing there, kind of selfish… but I'll also be injecting thousands of dollars into the local economies. Now, some of you guys should admit that you selflessly want to continue your traditional casting, and have less pressure on your lakes so you can catch more fish… very understandable.
The pro trolling crowd needs to get their act together, and figure out whether they will "inject thousands of dollars" into the local economy, or the pressure won't increase any. Kind of difficult to make BOTH arguments. See previous post adressing typing faster than your're thinking Jerry.
And yes Jerry, we all want to "SELFLESSLY" continue our traditional casting, while you yourself, want to SELFISHLY troll our unpressured waters, see previous post about typing faster than you're thinking Jerry. Uhm, you may not be cut out for this kind of discussion kid...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | BMuskyX - 2/28/2013 10:43 AM
Plenty of lakes to troll on, no need to change a great thing. I think most of the fun and satisfaction of catching a musky is taken away by trolling. There is so much more pleasure in musky fishing to me than lazily driving a boat around and reeling in an already hooked fish. I've been involved with local government making (non-fishing related) changes in my area, and in most cases if not all they should have left small town "preferences" or "tradition" alone. Just my two cents.
Jaimy
Sowhat you are saying is that because you don't like to troll nobody should be allowed to do it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Mr Musky - 2/28/2013 3:37 PM
Sounds alot like the same discussion were all in! LOL.. I'll side with Bucher compromise on the larger lakes and 1 line.
Agreed. I would support one line per person restricted to lakes over 800-1000 acres.
Interesting article. It's hard to disagree with Rizzo's argument. He makes some valid points.
Most importantly, "more fish will be kept" (of all species I'd argue).
Granted a small percentage, but you can not tell me the following will NEVER happen. Incidental catches resulting from people multispecies trolling will be:
a) kept to eat.
b) kept to mount as any fish over 40" is the biggest fish Johnny has ever caught.
c) released to almost sure delayed mortality from clueless handling.
d) intentionally injured and released to die. (there are still people that hate muskies in thier lakes for eating all of thier ______. You might be surprised what some people will do.)
e) more trophy fish will be caught and kept.
That stuff will NEVER happen?
Some populations can not afford for it to happen! Amen.
Edited by MartinTD 2/28/2013 4:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Jerry Newman says and quotes the DNR,
"Although your crusade is valiant, perhaps it's time to let the WDNR be the ones concerned. I think they already are, or they would not have said;
"We have evaluated muskellunge, northern pike, and walleye angling success for anglers casting or still-fishing versus anglers trolling. Based on available creel survey data, we have been unable to identify significant differences in angling success or harvest between the two techniques (i.e, casting versus trolling).""
They say this but they are, as I pointed out comparing apples to oranges, since there is potentially a lot of difference between a lake that has been historically trolled, and a lake that has not been trolled.
When they come up with some hard data that shows opening a lake to trolling, that has been closed to trolling, will not effect the population, size structure or the fishing success in that same lake, then I think you will have a talking point that is valid.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| FSF - 2/28/2013 4:21 PM
The pro trolling crowd needs to get their act together, and figure out whether they will "inject thousands of dollars" into the local economy, or the pressure won't increase any.
I'm sure that there would be some additional pressure. But between Iron, Vilas and Oneida counties there are 2,000+ lakes. Another 500+ in Sawyer. Obviously, the pressure would be spread out. Local communities though, certainly would stand to benefit economically.
Believe it or not, the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| FSF - 2/28/2013 4:33 PM
When they come up with some hard data that shows opening a lake to trolling, that has been closed to trolling, will not effect the population, size structure or the fishing success in that same lake, then I think you will have a talking point that is valid.
Don't you think that information was gathered by local biologists doing surveys before, during and after the dreaded back trolling days?
The DNR's position can certainly be taken at face value. But if you don't want to accept it, you could request past survey data from specific lakes from the local fisheries biologist.
Edited by Matt DeVos 2/28/2013 4:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Matt DeVos - 2/28/2013 4:39 PM
FSF - 2/28/2013 4:33 PM
When they come up with some hard data that shows opening a lake to trolling, that has been closed to trolling, will not effect the population, size structure or the fishing success in that same lake, then I think you will have a talking point that is valid.
Don't you think that information was gathered by local biologists doing surveys before, during and after the dreaded back trolling days?
Actually, no.
I think the backtrolling thing took the DNR unaware, and had unaticipated consequences and reactions. Nor do I think they got effective data in the face of rising size limits, increasing education, and decreasing harvest, nor do I think two seasons makes for hard data when talking about catch results. Every season is extremely variable, and as has been demonstrated in the past, year classes, and year class survival, also quite variable. I'm always hoping but never optimistic about DNR fish data unless it is really firm, and this data unfortunately I consider, very soft. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Creel surveys are extremely accurate, right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| Guest - 2/28/2013 4:54 PM
Matt DeVos - 2/28/2013 4:39 PM
FSF - 2/28/2013 4:33 PM
When they come up with some hard data that shows opening a lake to trolling, that has been closed to trolling, will not effect the population, size structure or the fishing success in that same lake, then I think you will have a talking point that is valid.
Don't you think that information was gathered by local biologists doing surveys before, during and after the dreaded back trolling days?
Actually, no.
I think the backtrolling thing took the DNR unaware, and had unaticipated consequences and reactions. Nor do I think they got effective data in the face of rising size limits, increasing education, and decreasing harvest, nor do I think two seasons makes for hard data when talking about catch results. Every season is extremely variable, and as has been demonstrated in the past, year classes, and year class survival, also quite variable. I'm always hoping but never optimistic about DNR fish data unless it is really firm, and this data unfortunately I consider, very soft.
Yet, you are talking about the same data they use to effectively manage the resource, right? Spring and fall fish population surveys, creel surveys, etc.?
And just so I understand, are you also insinuating that the DNR completely missed the fact that certain fisheries were significantly harmed from '90-'94 due to the back trolling? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| Flambeauski - 2/28/2013 4:59 PM
Creel surveys are extremely accurate, right?
I was referring to actual sampling through use of fyke netting, shocker runs, mark and recapture, etc., in addition to the creel surveys.
I know that I've been able to get a ton of info by requesting all survey information from different biologists from a number of different lakes. It would be interesting to see this type of info from lakes in Vilas/Oneida that got hit hard during the back-trolling days.
Edited by Matt DeVos 2/28/2013 5:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Matt DeVos - 2/28/2013 4:39 PM
FSF - 2/28/2013 4:33 PM
When they come up with some hard data that shows opening a lake to trolling, that has been closed to trolling, will not effect the population, size structure or the fishing success in that same lake, then I think you will have a talking point that is valid.
Don't you think that information was gathered by local biologists doing surveys before, during and after the dreaded back trolling days?
The DNR's position can certainly be taken at face value. But if you don't want to accept it, you could request past survey data from specific lakes from the local fisheries biologist.
One would think, but I don't think it was (I am not sure though). I agree to be a valid research on whether it hurt or not there needs to be catch data before trolling was implemented, during, and then again after to truely compare how it affected lakes. Creel surveys are not done on every lake every year.
It would be nice to be able to read the "Beard 1993" report that was referenced as a reason for it not affecting fisheries. So if anyone has a link to how I can read it that would be much appreciated. Referencing reports/studies should not mean anything to a reader unless they take the time to read the referenced material. Why? Because an article written using a sited source can be using something out of context to get the authors opinion pushed. You would be surprised at how info is perceived after reading an article, and then read the source and find yourself thinking "How did they ever come up with that conclusion based on the cited material." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Madison, WI | Travis, you wrote the following:
"Also trolling most definitely hurt fisheries the last time it was in effect in N. WI. THAT is a fact that cannot be disputed!"
Making a statement like that - I assumed you had some basis. What is it?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| Here is some interesting data from 1996, comparing catch/harvest rates in '96 with harvest rates in '93-'95 for walleye (look at pages 14-15) in and also comparing similar info for muskies in '96, as compared to '90-'95 (page 16), within ceded territories.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/ceded/walleye96.pdf
From this information, it is pretty tough to make the case that either walleye or muskie were harmed during back-trolling days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | looks like vilas county needs a trout pond ... |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
I'm not in favor of it the way it is currently written. If it were for one line per angler I could live with it, otherwise no. We're on a "no trolling" lake right now so it could change the dynamic on the water quite a bit.
Mr Musky - 2/28/2013 3:02 PM
Well we know the stance of Vilas county lakes. Whats the take on the rest of the Sawyer County lakes? Currently there's only a handful of LARGE lakes that can be trolled over there with the exception of Whitefish. How bout the Chippewa Flowage? There was a motion to allow trolling there a few years ago and to my knowledge that got shot down bigtime. |
|
| |
