|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Don,
That's a fact. We can't say the 50" limit we asked for will work either, so either one would be a noble experiment.
I feel the 50" limit would serve our direct goals better, so why use valuable resources trying to educate the public and get enough support to pass a plan nearly everyone admits to being not much more than 'better than nothing'? If the Muskie community in Wisconsin truly speaks with one voice, we can get the limited waters 50" limit passed eventually, and it's my opinion in as little time as a proposed slot. Perhaps we can ask for a slot experiment on some waters, too, as part of the proposal or another proposal. Heck, shoot for both, and get out the vote at the hearings. Since the DNR is already behind the 50" proposal, and we have a good idea who is in opposition and why, we are ahead of the game moving forward on that instead of trying ONLY an entierly new idea that will undoubtably meet with strong opposition.
I don't have a clue if either idea will get us what we want, but doing neither won't, that's for sure. |
|
| |
|
| I am sure not everyone has given up on it. In fact, I'm sure most of the guys here talking about slots are still more in favor of higher limits. I know I am. Someone needs to take the initiative to get the ball rolling though. I had to do it with the WI river project a few years ago, after it became evident that many wanted it but no one was really doing anything about it at the time. I enjoyed doing it, and got alot of help from many individuals once the process was begun. Another resolution needs to be written by someone from the public(maybe this group) soon so it can be on the ballot in April. I'd be willing to help out again. MRoberts, has anyone from the group proposing the limits last year written anything for this season yet? Has anyone spoken with local fish managers up there to see if we can get it on as a rule change question, eliminating the resolution process, potentially shaving years off the final law change? |
|
| |
|
| Sworrall, your comments are really too tepid, the slot limit could be much WORSE than nothing. The message slots imply and deliver can easily be gotten wrong by the misinformed/poorly informed general public. When you consider that even the proposers of slot limits, themselves, do not seem to understand the philosophy slots entail from a management standpoint, how can we have much optimism about the general public?!
And Don is now taking a familiar tact for fish and game management in WI, the fish managers were not smart enough to recognize the value of this type of regulation even though it has been in use for a couple of decades, but we the anglers are able to see its value and the need to apply it(thus, we once again know more than the DNR). Why, oh why, does not the DNR follow our advice? Of course the spring meetings are wrong, that is because those yahoos AND the DNR are not as smart as we special interest anglers!!! 
Tell me how you are not saying that Don. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| Also, it will not make a difference(slots) with the little johnnie syndrone because if anyone is really paying attention illeagal muskys and walleyes(by size) are the #1&2 violations and the 3rd is illeagal overbagging of panfish. With this along with spearing(ain`t go`in away either) the only way to make a quality fisheree is no-harvest size limits across the board along with alot more PRESS AND EDUCATION. As I quoted early and Steve just now, seems everyone has given up on size for slot! You guys want the DNR to micro-manage certain lakes, ain`t going to happen and should`nt, because with the limited staff that is a job not necessary nor one they will be able to afford. Lets get real, I don`t want my musky fishing under a trail&error system of slots where it has never been done.
One other thing not mentioned is it would seem that a slot would benefit tourny fishers but 50" would not, OH WELL! You want great fishing or tournys ????? That should be the poll!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| One thing that I know for sure.....and that list is short........any harvested fish, no matter what the minimum length, will never see 40" or more.
If you want larger fish, you have to let the small ones go. That seems like some pretty easy logic to me.
Protecting ALL of the fish seems like the way to go in my opinion.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| I don't know where the idea that slot encourages harvest comes from but in my opinion it is dead wrong. When you put a slot in place you are telling Johnny Public that he is not smart enough to release the fish needed to establish a natural producing fishery so the law is put in place to force the issue. The only place IMO that need a slot is the genetically inferior waters like Callahan and such. I would sure hope that people don't support replacing the 45" limit on the Chip, Wisconsin river or the 50" lakes that Wisconsin does have in place with the slot. That would be going backwards. |
|
| |
|
| ChadG - 12/22/2004 10:00 AM
I don't know where the idea that slot encourages harvest comes from but in my opinion it is dead wrong. When you put a slot in place you are telling Johnny Public that he is not smart enough to release the fish needed to establish a natural producing fishery so the law is put in place to force the issue. The only place IMO that need a slot is the genetically inferior waters like Callahan and such. I would sure hope that people don't support replacing the 45" limit on the Chip, Wisconsin river or the 50" lakes that Wisconsin does have in place with the slot. That would be going backwards.
I think here is another case of misunderstanding slots. What good would a slot on Callahan do if you did not encourage harvest of small fish along with preservation of larger fish? And once again, how do you define these populations as genetically "inferior"? I tend to think of them as genetically "fit".
This discussion wanders continually from point to point, but the real value for slots genetically(if there is any real value genetically, and I don't concede that) would possibly be in a lake with a. good natural reproduction. b. good growth opportunity c. a history of producing large fish and some suspicion if not proof that those genetics were being lost due to continued harvest of the larger specimens(and no one has actually proved that to be the case).
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Steve,
You said volumes in your last post.
I would, in a worst case scenario, vote for a slot I would not, however, put forth any effort to get that on any ballot. We would be cheating ourselves and any other musky fisherman in Wisconsin.
I think we are further ahead today on achieving our goals of higher limits than we were at the time of the last vote for the exact reasons Steve stated. In order to achieve our goal though, we need to work at it. Just getting it on the ballot won't be enough. We need to have a campaign to get it passed, much like the anti's did two years ago. The resort owners, guides and business owners need to be on board. We have to supply them with informaton from other areas with high size limits that shows them that their cashflow will increase. Face it, those people will vote 100% with their pocket book. Make it attractive to them and they will favor it making the whole process much easier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| The slot does not encourage harvest but it does allow it. The genetically inferior lakes like Callahan will over time be repaired by ALLOWING harvest of some fish. After the repair work is done you replace the slot with a higher length limit. Most lakes will do better with a higher length limit, 45" or so. You can put a 50" limit on a lake like Callahan today and never catch one until you eliminate the genetic limitations of the fish there. Seems to me that Louis was chasing a monster fish on Callahan when he bought, I mean caught, the big one on Flemings, I mean..... oh you get my point. When was the last time you heard of anyone chasing big fish on Callahan? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF and Handyman, in my opinion you are looking at slot limits strictly as a tool to thin small fish and protect larger fish. I don’t think this would be the case with Musky. As it is already a low density fish and any plan I would ever support would also keep a very low bag limit. 1 per day wether it is over or under the slot. The following are two pieces of text I found.
Just to make this clear I don’t necessarily favor slot limits, everything would depend on the DNR fisheries managers. I am just bringing this stuff up as talking points. My first goal would be high minimums, but if that can’t happen I am wondering if this would be a viable saleable idea.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
From Florida Fish and Wildlife.
Minimum size limits allow fish to mature to spawning size before being
kept by fishermen. For some species this is adequate protection. Slot limits —
which include both a minimum size and a maximum size limit — permit harvest of
fish that fall within the slot size while protecting smaller, immature fish and
larger, broodstock individuals. Slot limits work best for species with large females
(such as redfish and snook ***also musky***) which produce many more fertile eggs than
smaller females of the species. For example, a single mature 25-pound
female redfish will produce more than 1 million eggs per spawn, repeating the
process every three to five days for up to two months. In comparison, a newly-
matured female red produces less than a half million eggs. Protecting larger, more
fertile females from capture increases the odds of a successful spawning season.
From MN DNR
In 1994 we established a slot limit on this sprawling Canadian border lake. Anglers had to release all walleyes 17 to 25 inches long and could keep only one longer than 25 inches. The regulations were designed to protect the walleye population, which was recovering from years of overharvest by commercial and sport anglers.
The slot limit appears to be helping protect several strong year classes of walleyes that are now prime harvest size. Rainy's catch rate has tripled from an average of one walleye caught per 4.5 hours of fishing the 1980s to one per 1.5 hours today. Bookings at resorts have skyrocketed, and on some weeks guides actually have to turn away customers.
In fact, so good is the fishing at Rainy that Minnesota's side is in danger of being overharvested-even with the slot limit. Kevin Peterson, DNR area fisheries manager at International Falls, says that record harvests in recent years have exceeded what biologists believe is the maximum sustainable level on the U.S. side.
In response, we recently tightened regulations further to protect the walleye population. Beginning March 1, 2001, anglers must immediately release any walleyes from 17 to 28 inches long and may keep only one longer than 28 inches. In 2002 the bag limit is scheduled to go from six to four.
The rule change has the support of the Rainy Lake Sportfishing Club, a local angling group and advocate of walleye conservation."We want to make sure this fish population stays as healthy as it is," Peterson says. "These new regulations should help do that."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| Mroberts, Unless I misunderstand what you posted, I don`t see that as a helper toward the slot argument ???? Also hard to see that they would have musky posted in there with redfish and snook. I guess I am still not buying!
Edited by The Handyman 12/22/2004 11:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the info Mike. Interesting stuff. Let me know if and when you/a group is planning on bringing up a proposal to the DNR for this next years hearings. I talked to my friend Chuck schauer last night at length about the topic, and he fully supports higher limits, and would fully support a slot as well, knowing it would be protecting fish, and definately would not negatively impact the fishery. That said, lets keep plugging with the higher limits, and try to push them through again this year!!! Talk to the fisheries biologist up there(if you haven't already) and get a feel for what they want/would accept on the ballot, and lets take it from there. I'm ready to help. It is only December, but April comes quickly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 132
Location: Elkhart, IN | To me it would make more sense for two different groups to be working on both a 50" limit and a slot limit. It is pretty clear that either would not be statewide and tried on only a few DNR selected lakes. So why not work both ideas at the same time. Why does it have to be one or the other? These ideas do not need to compete with each other.
If they both get put in place great. If a 50" limit ends up being the answer then let the DNR scrap the slot. But if it doesn't, than there is no time wasted on the slot idea. Maybe neither will work. Maybe both will work.
Just my thoughts.
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | You guys cant get muskie fisherman to understand how the slot will work, and you cant get them to agree that its a good thing. Now all of us muskie fisherman WANT more and bigger fish....but you cant get all of us (or even 90%) to agree to your views. Now you're going to propose this to every squirrell hunting, panfish frying, wants to hunt everything and anything, man/woman/child and moron who votes in the Conservation Congress system. That is NOT a slam on those in Wisconsin, its just an illustration that this grand plan that you folks propose isnt even overwhelmingly popular with those who hold what you say this proposal is going to help, as important.
Now sell this complicated idea to Joe Fisherman/Hunter/Lodge/Resort/Restraunt owner who only thinks in terms of fish as food, or as a way to get people up to their business. You can't even get our overwhelming support.
The 50" limit didnt pass because it was TOO MUCH, TOO FAST. This is too much, too complicated, for an audience that you wont be able to convince. Whether the plan will work to help the muskie populations is moot, really. When thinking of planning for the future, its MY THOUGHT (and I may be wrong) that you want to devise plans that you can actually get put into action.
Why not try a plan a bit LESS ambitous? Say, try to get a 40" limit passed? If you can get that...and in 3-5 years, the populations are getting better, THEN it might be time to push forward with a 45" or 50" limit?
These are MY THOUGHTS on the opinion, for whatever thats worth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I gotta say that this thread has been going on for a while now and everybody has been pretty cool about stating thier position and letting others do the same. Very little as far as personal attacks or insults.....way to go fellas. This has been one of the only "long threads" that I've actually read in its entirety. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Slamr,
I think your thoughts and opinions are worth a lot. In order for us to make this anything other than an internet discussion (by this I mean an actual proposal) it would be nice if all like minded folks could agree on it. I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that would argue against an experimental 40" limit on select lakes. Heck I would even go as far as volunteer Pelican as one of the first to try it on.
Maybe instead of arguing back and forth about slots we should find something WE can agree on and then set the wheels turning. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| Jason, I can`t beleive you want to try to get this on a ballot for a spring vote! That will just cancel out the 45" on the Wisconsin River, 50" at the bay and the rest of the lakes that are already at 40", which is actally quite afew! That in my opinion is a huge step backwards, just for the sake of doing something that is not proven! Thats ashame in my opinion and I will be getting some info from a biologist after the holidays that was involved in the spot program and as far as he said a slot is way in UNCHARTED WATERS! I will try to set-up a chat at this site if at all possible!
How do we know a slot will not negativly affect the fisheree?? Chuck catches alot of fish but how would that insure a slot is the correct way to progress?? You are all guessing about a slot and endangering the 45" and 50" we already have, stepp`in backwards!
Edited by The Handyman 12/22/2004 2:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Slamr, the kicker here is that the slot would probably be more widely accepted at the hearings than the higher limits in some parts of WI. The little johnny argument was the overriding factor that shot down the high limits in many counties. That is why they call it spring hearings though, and resolutions are all heard no matter how absurd, and the public gets to voice their opinion and vote(even though they should not). My gut says, passing one would be easier than you think.
That said, I am trying to get in touch with local fish managers right now to see how to proceed with high limit proposals at this springs hearings. I think that should be the goal at least for the next couple years yet. if they start to pass, and the public starts to warm to them, keep going. If not, it is nice to know there is another plan that will protect muskies(slot) that we can push for in the future on certain waters up north.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2004 2:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Handy, you may want to go back and read the poll question. (I had to) It just pertains to the same lakes in the Vilas/Onieda area that were tried in the 50" proposal that was shot down. No one is talking about a statewide attempt. Just a test run. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Again Jeff, read my post in full. I am going to push for the higher limits this year and no where did I say I was going to propose a slot on any water. Actually just the opposite. I want to know which lakes are being targetted this year for higher size limits, so I can help get support, and that is what I want to discuss with Mike and co. as they were a big part of getting the 50" proposal on the ballets the past couple years up north. No where did I say anything about proposing a slot this year. We are simply talking about sound management here, and a plan to have in place if higher limits do not pass. Also, it needs to be made clear that there is no way I would ever push for a slot on waters that already have higher limits as that is what we have already pushed for and won!!! A slot on the Bay, or the river here would be absurd as you said, and that is a no brainer. I helped push for the size limit on the Bay, and cut my teeth to help get support for it. Why would I want to change something I spent countless sleepless nights working for? Please don't take my comments out of context, as I want to make it clear that I am still 100% for higher limits and will push for them. That said, I want to have sound biological defense of a slot in years to come if they are ever to be proposed on certain waters, which I think they could be if higher limits continue to be shot down on year after year. No way would I support a statewide slot, just as no way would I support a statewide 50" limit. It needs to be applied to certain waters/watersheds in order to work and be accepted. there has not even been much discussion on which lakes would benefit most from the slots, but the trophy waters are really not the ones I would target for them.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2004 2:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Wow - I was scared to look as I thought some of you would really take me to task on the LOTW stuff, thanks for not sending the guy's in white jackets to take me away.
I think we all need to support any regulation that protects large Muskies. Both High minimum size limits and slot limits. What I am firmly against (today - wind is blowing from the east) is now "mid-size" minimum size limits between 40 and 45 inches that protect only the smaller fish allowing bigger fish to be harvested.
I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes.
Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years.
I agree that there is danger in listening to every barroom biologist (like me), but what I don't see is the real Biologists explaining these growth rates to the Muskie community. I don't see Musky Hunter or Esox writing about it. Keep in mind that many of the people who suggest that my thoughts may not nbe true, are also saying silly little things that "small fish grow up to be big fish" - THIS IS NOT TRUE, and YES - I have the proof. Up till now these growth rates have been pointed at Smaller lakes with limited forage, but this is not the case. These slow growing fish exist in many populations and I believe they are capable of squeezing out the larger growing fish with the aid of man. I knpow they are here in Wisconsin (I have proof) and I believe they are on LOTW. I find no evidence of this in Many of the lakes in Minnesota with the exception of lakes that have Shoepac fish.
Thoughts on High Size Limits for Muskies. It has been implemented - Yes. has it Been studied - I don't believe so. What I see on LOTW is more small fish, not more big fish. This a concern to me. (Limited data yes, but honestly, I think It's the best data available. If there is better data from biologists, I'd love to see it. In any case I doubt they've sampled 7000 adult LOTW muskies) I don't mean to intend to bash LOTW, as it's IMO the greatest Muskie lake on earth. But it's a lake that has had higher size limits, and good data is available for it - unlike many others. No doubt Higher size limits had a positive effect on the fishing - NO DOUBT AT ALL. I'd be more encouraged if the balance of Big fish to Small fish had stayed the same.This makes me wonder if slot limits would not be a better idea. I'd love to see ages and current growth rates of the 35-40 inch fish on LOTW.
There is no doubt that 100 years of harvest on LOTW had a huge effect on the fishery. I fear that the last 20 years when only large fish were harvested due to voluntary C&R, 40 inch and 48 inch size limits had a bigger effect on the size structure than the previous years of "total harvest". One of my main points I'm trying to get across is that I believe that the ability of our lakes to support numbers of large fish is actually much greater than most of us realize. I believe we have repaired the numbers of fish on many of our waters, yet work can still be done on returning us to the size we had in the old days. Ernie Calvert used to catch Giant Fish from sabaskong bay back in the 30's. He did it in tiny boats with tiny motors and cane poles. Dawson was out on Wabigoon, catching Multiple Mid-40lb fish every year. When the fish come back, they come back based on the breeding of the SMALLER fish that were not harvested. The smaller the waters, the sooner this happens. It happens in Wisconsin and Canada. Minnesota should take notice and manage accordingly - Before it happens there too. (I'm watching Elk lake rael closely) Yes a few big ones get through in any system, but it's a smaller percentage than before. I'm not aware of any Muskie fishery EVER that came back from a slaughter with more large fish or Larger fish than ever before. More Muskies - Yes. Some Big fish, certainly. And Yes - Biologists are stating that fish population grow smaller fish when faced with harvest, and they do this relative quickly. They do so on small lakes and they do so in the OCEAN. The thread on genetics shows some of this data if you' don't believe it. (Please do - and don't disregard it blindly.)
NOT ALL MUSKIES ARE CREATED EQUAL. WE HAVE A CHOICE.
|
|
| |
|
| First Six Feet
You suggest I have no basis for my conclusions on LOTW. I'd suggest that 7000 Muskies provides a substantial basis for drawing conclusions. I like that Steve agrees and than provides personal observations on Wabigoon. LOL - but Hey - I do too. I've been spending a lot of time researching these things, Most of what I've stated is based on documents by biologists, of course I've also added my interpretation of what I've read and also my own "personal observations" in 30 years of Muskie fishing.
Many (not all) of the people who object to what I say have done no research on their own - but are quick to point out that I'm wrong. Biologists from all over the country are looking into these genetic issues. we must remember that Muskies are one of the least researched fish in north america. Much of what we do in Muskie management is still based on the original wrk of Art Oehmcke and Gil Hamm - God bless them both. With the advances in the popularity of our sport we need to advance more quickly. We need to look hard at what works for other fish and see if we can adapt them to our sport.
I welcome any and all Information (and Objections) that can be provided, as I believe it'll give us all (including me) a better understanding of this magnificent fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes.
Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years. "
so basically, you're proposing that we should harvest slow growing fish, so that the faster growing fish can.....take over their place in the food chain....be more accessable to being caught......actually, I know what you're saying, but I dont know what you think this is going to do for these fish that will grow faster.
regardless of that, here's a question for you: if you are right, and there is this huge percentage of fish that grow slowly, then maybe we should be harvesting them. BUT, here's the problem with this argument: how do we know which fish is older and X# of inches, versus the younger fish that is X# of inches? I am all for the propogation of a population of larger fish, but I dont see how this is going to get us there. No one here is telling us that there is a "rash" of lakes where the fish arent getting bigger because of a lack of food, so just indescriminantly eliminating fish in a certain size range doesnt necessarily mean that we're eliminating the RIGHT fish. My understanding is that a FISHERIES BIOLOGIST can determine the age of a fish by analyzing the scales (under a microscope I believe) or through a method that takes analysis of the cletherum bone. In the first case, you have to carry a microscope in the boat and know what you're looking for (this is while the fish is in the net mind you). In the second case, most muskies dont do to well after you pull their bones out of their bodies for examination. So, unless there is some way that we can learn to "age a fish" and we can figure out how to educate the public on this new method, basically we're just killing fish hoping that we're killing the RIGHT fish.
Just doesnt make sense to me. It worked on walleyes and bass, but no one can explain to me why this is going to work on muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Slamr.
I think the idea is that 90% of the muskies are released. So the tenth time the fish is caught it goes to the frying pan. The longer a fish stays in the "kill zone" (34"-40" or whatever) the more likely it is to be harvested. Slow growing fish stay in the "kill zone" longer thus eventually being weeded out. The faster growing specimens move thru the "kill zone" quicker and into the protected slot lower their chances of being caught the 10th time in the danger zone. Sure some are going to be lost along the way but sometimes that is the way the ball bounces. We (muskie fisherman) won't need to do the harvesting, incidental catches will probably take care of it.
I don't think this an across the board fix but in some places it should be attempted.
Edited by ChadG 12/22/2004 3:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| But you're also weeding out the fast growers. Slamr is saying you cant tell the difference, and he's right. And if the 34" limit isnt "weeding out" these fish, why is having a slot going to do this?
In the end you all need to wake up and smell the coffee, we need to find UNITED FRONTS to attack problems on. I just checked the poll, the 40" limit is winning versus the slot. You cant convince muskie fisherman, there is no chance this is going to convince the rest of the world of why a slot limit is needed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Sure you are going to lose some fast growers in the slot process but when playing the numbers game the fast growers will win out. The quick growers get to the slot quicker thus lowering the likelyhood there are caught to be kept, once in the slot they can't be kept again until they get past the topend. See, now you have a 10" or whatever range of protection for fish. Allowing them to grow and pass on their fast growing traits. Some fish won't even get to the bottom of the slot so eventually someone fries them for supper. Eventually superior genetics shine thru. Once they do you slap on a 54" minimum and all is good.
You will never get a group of muskie fisherman to agree on anything so no need to worry about that. It is not in their general nature. You just have to get a pill the rest of the general public will swallow.
Edited by ChadG 12/22/2004 4:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd disagree that one cannot get the Muskie community in Wisconsin to speak with one vioce. It CAN be done. What will it take? I suggest this:
Form a committee. That will squash the entire thing! (kidding)
I'd ask Bob, Mike, Norm, Don, FSF and ALL other interested folks get together in the Chat room next Wednesday night, December 29th, to discuss options to get the ball rolling. If we're serious about the effort, then we can begin by acting on it. I'll chair the discussion, and would ask Don, Bob, Norm, Mroberts,FSF and anyone else serious about this discussion to set an agenda by sending me suggested agenda items in order of importance to [email protected]. A simple several sentense suggested agenda will be great!
Bob, by the way, I was trying to show you just exactly what personal observations by a layman mean to a scientist or for that matter, anyone, which is jack squat. You present the data you look over as substantiated, your observations as concrete, and then get defensive when someone questions methodology or conclusion. Get used to lots of questions and challenges if you're going to try to use the items you have used to date to come to what you ask us to accept as scientific conclusions we laymen are to try to use to change the REAL scientists's minds about management on waters across the muskie range. If you truly wish to work towards a goal we all can accept and extend an effort to implement what you are suggesting is good management (slot or genetics or stocking or larger size limit or brood lakes or stripping only huge fish or.... you've suggested all as answers at one time or another)then let's stop the demands/complaints/arguments and begin a dialog. I'll take the lead temporarily to get things rolling and then get the hell out of the way.
OK, folks, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. I'm calling all bluffs, let's make this thing (speaking for the Muskie anglers for better muskie angling in Wisconsin) happen. If it takes us 5 years to get something done the Wisconsin DNR can support and we agree will be good for the fishery, so be it. If it takes a shorter amount of time, so be it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I agree with Steve, let's get something rolling here. Wednesday night....I'm in!! |
|
| |
|
| What time? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 8 PM Central. Thanks, Norm! |
|
| |
