|
|
| Matt DeVos - 2/28/2013 5:44 PM
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.
Matt, with all due respect to the WI DNR, they themselves call the data highly variable(ie 20" + walleyes were removed at rates varying from 0-277%), and try and normalize it by pointing out certain lakes throwing the data off, but the truth here is that this is a very limited number of lakes, and I can't see that this proves much of anything. Not even sure why it would be cited as proof that "backtrolling had little effect", but the existance of this data does little to convince me that anything has been shown in relation to lakes which would be newly opened to trolling.
Also, be it noted that we were talking about back trolling in the early 90's and that, as a fishing method, it was only somewhat utilized for walleye and other smaller gamefish and panfish and really hadn't been keyed in as a musky tool until a few guys got out there, took advantage of the regs and began exploiting some populations. Now we are talking about potentially opening lakes throughout the state to forward trolling, which is much more effective and easier to do with any watercraft, and will often include 3-9 rods, where as backtrolling (as practiced by most fisherman targeting smaller species, was generally difficult with more than 2-3 rods). I'm thinking, yes, there will be a difference. Think of clean lakes with well defined weedlines, or darkwater lakes with shallow weedlines, midlake humps, points, bars, and I'm thinking trolling will indeed clear the fish off them in a big way.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| It stands to reason, FSF. There are a lot of lakes where the fish are suspended much of the year and only accessible to guys like Travis who will go out there and fish deep and fish open water. I've only had experience trolling maybe 10 days on the water, but thinking about what you could do to those lakes with a few boards, a few downrigger balls and an out rod on either side of the boat? You could cover a 500 acre lake in two hours, and cover every inch of it, contacting fish that ordinarily would not even see a lure during the season. And you KNOW that if someone went out there and had a 5 fish day that they'd be out there again and again and again. You could dramatically alter a fishery with one or two boats.
Not that you can't do that row trolling, but so few guys row troll with so few boats, that those lakes are and have been relatively unfished. I've fished enough of them to understand that the ONLY reason those lakes have quality fish is because there are only a handful of people fishing them, and often times those few people are fishing shoreline structure that does NOT hold the majority of fish in the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1760
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | I'll vote for no "jake breaking on lakes under 500 acres " |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| FSF - 2/28/2013 9:22 PM
Matt, with all due respect to the WI DNR, they themselves call the data highly variable(ie 20" + walleyes were removed at rates varying from 0-277%), and try and normalize it by pointing out certain lakes throwing the data off, but the truth here is that this is a very limited number of lakes, and I can't see that this proves much of anything. Not even sure why it would be cited as proof that "backtrolling had little effect", but the existance of this data does little to convince me that anything has been shown in relation to lakes which would be newly opened to trolling.
Also, be it noted that we were talking about back trolling in the early 90's and that, as a fishing method, it was only somewhat utilized for walleye and other smaller gamefish and panfish and really hadn't been keyed in as a musky tool until a few guys got out there, took advantage of the regs and began exploiting some populations. Now we are talking about potentially opening lakes throughout the state to forward trolling, which is much more effective and easier to do with any watercraft, and will often include 3-9 rods, where as backtrolling (as practiced by most fisherman targeting smaller species, was generally difficult with more than 2-3 rods). I'm thinking, yes, there will be a difference. Think of clean lakes with well defined weedlines, or darkwater lakes with shallow weedlines, midlake humps, points, bars, and I'm thinking trolling will indeed clear the fish off them in a big way.
The point is that we're still looking for some form of data to suggest that the back-trolling days harmed the fishery. This data might not be conclusive, but it certainly is suggestive that there was zero harm done.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| millsie - 2/28/2013 4:24 PM
Sowhat you are saying is that because you don't like to troll nobody should be allowed to do it.
You are allowed to fish where trolling is allowed now, I'm saying that others have the right to fish lakes without competing with trollers as well. Some trolling lakes.....some non-trolling lakes! Seems like a win win compromise.
Jaimy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I think sled said it best earlier in this thread, when all is said and done it will be voted down. You can bet every single person not in favor will vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | BMuskyX - 3/1/2013 8:42 AM
millsie - 2/28/2013 4:24 PM
Sowhat you are saying is that because you don't like to troll nobody should be allowed to do it.
You are allowed to fish where trolling is allowed now, I'm saying that others have the right to fish lakes without competing with trollers as well. Some trolling lakes.....some non-trolling lakes! Seems like a win win compromise.
Jaimy
It is. But people who troll want to troll on waters they can't. No different than a snowmobile club telling the forest service they want to use the cross country ski trails. Their own trails are too noisy and overcrowded. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| Wow I've heard some good comments. Some that bring attention to thoughts in issues that I am not aware of. But there are some people who really need their fingers stapled together. I can see both sides of the story. I do both, but I have watched a walleye lakes That had little structure and deep water forage get overharvested. On a small lake word travels way too fast. It was not only the trolling but the ice fishing that did the damage also. Too many people sit out there day after day with 3 tip ups filling there limits. I would love to troll statewide but I know there are issues.
" Just when I thought you couldn't be any dumber, You go ahead and totally redeem yourself!"
" Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go ahead and totally redeem yourself!"
|
|
| |
|
| I think those who make an economic arguement for trolling are not looking at the whole picture. One of the reasons folks still come in large numbers to Oneida and Vilas counties is for the relative peace on those bodies of water. Yes, on hot summer days you have pwc, skiiers, etc. but that is really not a big part of the fishing season. I have a place in Oneida county and maybe 10% of the muskie season sees recreational boating. Nothing at night and very little when the air temps are below 75. Take a look at the weather history charts and you will see that is not a big part of the season.
With trolling, you will have lot more motor boat activity, it will be at night, on cold days and in the fall. Many folks come north for peace and quiet. Motor trolling will not improve that. Motor trolling enthusiasts are far outnumbered by the casual fisherman who is looking to relax. I believe if this passes, you will see fewer, rather than more visitors. I do not have emperical data to support this opinion but I have been going to N. WI for over 4 decades and know what people tell me about why they come north. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| I wonder if you [WI] guys would even be having this discussion if it wasn't for the 3-lines/person allowance. Trolling 6, 9, or 12 lines behind a boat, although tough to manage, could give darn-near every musky a tooth ache on a small lake in a day. To me, three lines per person is just silly. But I'm from MN, so what do I know? I personally can't imagine walleye fishing without trolling being legal. For muskies, I could do without it, if I had to.
I think it's nice to have certain lakes where NO motors are allowed whatsoever, just as it is to have some walking-only forests. With those relations I can understand the desire to have casting-only lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | I love when everyone gets all riled up ... it means the ice will be off soon.
Edited by jonnysled 3/1/2013 3:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Is there water skiing and such allowed on these lakes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Gelb gets ready for Autumn muskie fishing by pulling water skiers around in August in his row boat. |
|
| |
|
| Yes, Ben there is water skiing allowed on these lakes. But, as I said in an earlier post, that represents a very small percentage of the musky season or the fishing season for that matter. With motor trolling it does not stop because the temp is under 75. I have a place on the water in Oneida county, a class A musky lake. We probably have 4 or 5 weeks out of the year where there is much water skiing or pwc activity. But, we have fishermen on the lake regardless of the weather from ice out to ice up. With trolling there will be motors running from early May to late November. Big difference there but I think you refuse to acknowlege it.
What I get a kick out of is how water skiiers are always a bugaboo for musky fisherman but yet the time of year and day when they are most active is when the water temps are such that we are told we should not be fishing for muskies. Please note, I don't water ski or have a pwc. |
|
| |
|
| I was just curious, the hiking, cross country skiing, sledding comparison seemed odd to me unless the casters are rowing to their spots;) BR |
|
| |
|
| For casters only a small percentage of time is spent with the outboard running. The last full weekend I fished last year, in late October, we spent about 18 hours on the water. At most, the outboard was running 45 minutes all together. Had we been trolling, it would have been reversed. Again, it is personal preference, I simply would prefer not to have motor trolling. But I have no scientific reason to oppose it. |
|
| |
|
| BenR - 3/1/2013 3:26 PM
Is there water skiing and such allowed on these lakes?
In our area, yes. But there are restrictions. Personal water craft hours are 11:00 am to 4:00 pm. Water Skiing is allowed between 11:00 and 5:00 pm. It is also illegal to operate a ski boat or personal watercraft within 200 feet of a shoreline (except when leaving from/returning to shore) or within 200 feet of another boat. |
|
| |
|
| So the only people who do not use motors are basically row trollers. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| BenR - 3/1/2013 6:02 PM
So the only people who do not use motors are basically row trollers. BR
You're welcome to use a motor all you want. But you must operate your boat in a "no wake fashion", defined as "as slowly as possible while still maintaining steering control" within 200 feet of any shoreline, including islands.
It would be pretty entertaining to see how one might troll effectively without violating any of the local ordinances... Pretty difficult to not be within 200 feet of something in a lot of places. |
|
| |
|
| I'm glad I read this thread. Never knew all I had to do was go out and aimlessly troll and have a legitimate enough chance to catch every fish in the lake in a single afternoon that everyone would worry about me doing so. Fish must just jump at any bait pulled by them. Never knew it could be so easy, or that there were thousands of people waiting to rush north as soon as trolling would be allowed. I feel enlightened to the fullest. |
|
| |
|
| Hmmm…just read through this thread. (And I did read through all 7-8 pages) I’m in no way a policy expert, so I have a question. If the DNR is (or isn’t?) the agency who decides on what fishing regulations are on the books regarding legal seasons, size limits, bag limits, etc---why would they need a public vote to make a change in policy (law) regarding what lakes can be trolled or not? |
|
| |
|
| This is also a real chance to work with resorts, I recall that trying to get higher limits many resorts were not in favor of. A partnership with resorts to create a situation to generate more business might go a long way in keeping their support for further positive regulations for muskie management. BR |
|
| |
|
| Question - 3/1/2013 6:43 PM
Hmmm…just read through this thread. (And I did read through all 7-8 pages) I’m in no way a policy expert, so I have a question. If the DNR is (or isn’t?) the agency who decides on what fishing regulations are on the books regarding legal seasons, size limits, bag limits, etc---why would they need a public vote to make a change in policy (law) regarding what lakes can be trolled or not?
What else would keep Wisconsin's vast array of armchair biologists occupied? |
|
| |
|
| Question, might it be that we live in a democracy? Just a wild guess there. |
|
| |
|
| North of 8 - 3/1/2013 7:04 PM
Question, might it be that we live in a democracy? Just a wild guess there.
That didn't seem to impact writing the rest of the rules into the books?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Hmmm…just read through this thread. (And I did read through all 7-8 pages) I’m in no way a policy expert, so I have a question. If the DNR is (or isn’t?) the agency who decides on what fishing regulations are on the books regarding legal seasons, size limits, bag limits, etc---why would they need a public vote to make a change in policy (law) regarding what lakes can be trolled or not?'
Why?
The Conservation Congress. Look it up. Not armchair biologists for sure...just attend one this April. Changes have been made and will continue to be made, and some of us here hope the DNR Fisheries folks will end up being able to do what they do best in the future.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 57
Location: Janesville wi | Rules and confusion turn people away from fishing. If state wide trolling gets rid of any confusion or grey areas I'm all for it.
Trolling and casters would learn to deal with each other. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 3/1/2013 8:07 PM
'Hmmm…just read through this thread. (And I did read through all 7-8 pages) I’m in no way a policy expert, so I have a question. If the DNR is (or isn’t?) the agency who decides on what fishing regulations are on the books regarding legal seasons, size limits, bag limits, etc---why would they need a public vote to make a change in policy (law) regarding what lakes can be trolled or not?'
Why?
The Conservation Congress. Look it up. Not armchair biologists for sure...just attend one this April. Changes have been made and will continue to be made, and some of us here hope the DNR Fisheries folks will end up being able to do what they do best in the future.
Thanks Steve...that helps. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Without rules, there'd be nothing left to fish for... If there's one thing that history has proven, it's that letting people do whatever they want, wherever they want and whenever they want will cause them to do exactly that. And they will do so without regard to anyone or anything except themselves and their perceived "rights"... |
|
| |
|
| wiswimbait - 3/1/2013 8:27 PM
Rules and confusion turn people away from fishing. .
No, not really, there have been rules and confusion throughout regulated fishing, and it is amazing that some of the more illiterate states have some of the more complex regulations, still plenty of fishermpeople.
|
|
| |
