|
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Let me ask you this, just how many times have you heard of guys trying to cheat in a tournament that wasn't penalized sincerely or kicked off the trail permenately?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Shep's assessment of the proposed legislation, but disagree that the digital camera/Dun Right board doesn't work, it does. Hartman's events prove that. Laptop under a shirt during a boat inspection? No, I don't think so, the judge is looking over the rig, the anglers, and can be very thorough. TJ is right, the fear of getting caught and ruining your reputation on a BET you will get enough fish caught to photoshop each day, surviving a boat inspection and no one seeing you out there messing around with a laptop....you get the point.
Another option if the money gets big enough to cause concern would be cameras supplied by a sponsor, no firewire or usb connection, and a seal over the memory card. STILL no 'puters allowed in the rig.
Notice that the REALLY big money events in fresh water fishing are not Team tournaments. Most are Pro/AM events, placing a Co-Angler with the Pro. That puts a new co-angler with the Pro every day, creating a watch dog sort of situation because the two cannot 'collude'.
GMG, the examples you posted were folks who got caught. If someone wants to cheat badly enough, they can tie fish up out there, have fish transported out to them by another non tourney boat in a back cove, ALL sorts of creative ways to cheat. They will get caught, most times. There's other tournament anglers out there too, watching.
SO the digital image format will work if enforcement of the rules is consistent and boat checks well done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Well said Mr. Worrall! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| You only hear about the ones who get caught |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Merckid - 11/9/2006 9:56 AM
Let me ask you this, just how many times have you heard of guys trying to cheat in a tournament that wasn't penalized sincerely or kicked off the trail permenately?
Sometimes the rewards outweigh the risk of punishment. The question should be...How many people actually try to cheat that you don't know of?
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 9:58 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| C'mon people. GMG is not saying that HE would cheat. But we are off subject here.
It's easy to sit back and say sure, regulation would be OK. But WHY!? WHY do we need it? Because of a perception by a very few that tourney fishing causes fish to die? Or that access might be a bit difficult somedays? Or that ONLY tourney anglers need to worry about AIS?
And they're not talking about paying Wardens for checking anglers. They are talking about wardens collecting data from tourneys, and ensuring that tourneys have the proper permits, and parking rules, organizing livewell police, etc. So they want the fees to defray the $76,000 cost for all the admin, and wardens. Exactly how much Warden presence can we get for 60% of that $76K? You couldn't even hire a part time warden for that. Then they'll find out they need to hire people just to handle these new regs, and then the fees will go up higher still.
No new reg is a good reg. But no matter how you feel on this. Get to a local hearing, and let your voice heard. For or against, because once this is done, I won't listen to you complain, if you didn't attend and speak. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | GMG,
In these big money events such as PWT, FLW Bass, they are Pro/Am events such as Mr. Worrall said. After seeing things this summer on the trail, co-anglers ARE NOT afraid to speak up if there is anything in doubt as to when it comes to cheating! Ask Mr. Worrall, he knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Am keeps these guys flying a straight arrow like you wouldn't believe! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | sworrall - 11/9/2006 9:56 AM
I agree with Shep's assessment of the proposed legislation, but disagree that the digital camera/Dun Right board doesn't work, it does. Hartman's events prove that. Laptop under a shirt during a boat inspection? No, I don't think so, the judge is looking over the rig, the anglers, and can be very thorough. TJ is right, the fear of getting caught and ruining your reputation on a BET you will get enough fish caught to photoshop each day, surviving a boat inspection and no one seeing you out there messing around with a laptop....you get the point.
Another option if the money gets big enough to cause concern would be cameras supplied by a sponsor, no firewire or usb connection, and a seal over the memory card. STILL no 'puters allowed in the rig.
Notice that the REALLY big money events in fresh water fishing are not Team tournaments. Most are Pro/AM events, placing a Co-Angler with the Pro. That puts a new co-angler with the Pro every day, creating a watch dog sort of situation because the two cannot 'collude'.
The WMT pays out 10-20k and doesn't have pro/am events, either does Hartman's....cheating there is completely possible because less than 10% of the anglers are fishing more than 2 events. We aren't talking the PWT or PMTT here. We're talking about Wisconsin tournaments only that would be using bump boards and cameras.
Also, how hard is it to get a USB cable or Firewire cable?? Not hard at all. With the sponsor donating cameras and advertising thei participation, it'd be easy to figure out what kind of cable to get. There's a lot of things somebody could do to try to prevent cheating, but there's always going to be somebody who trys.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Merckid - 11/9/2006 10:02 AM
GMG,
In these big money events such as PWT, FLW Bass, they are Pro/Am events such as Mr. Worrall said. After seeing things this summer on the trail, co-anglers ARE NOT afraid to speak up if there is anything in doubt as to when it comes to cheating! Ask Mr. Worrall, he knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Am keeps these guys flying a straight arrow like you wouldn't believe!
For the final time....WE AREN'T TALKING PWT AND PRO BASS PRO/AM TRAILS...we're talking about WISCONSIN TEAM ONLY tournaments. To my knowledge, Hartman's is the only event using cameras. I'd like to know what they do to provide security.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 10:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| TJ, A PWT PRO angler was caught cheating 2 years ago at Winneconne. Cheating has and does happen.
Again, we are off topic here.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I know Shep, but they also paid the price for it.
But you are right, we are off the subject.
Edited by Merckid 11/9/2006 10:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | What's worse yet about these new regs is that they weren't proposed by the general fishing public through the CC, but by a DNR administrator who got his panties in a bunch. over tournys. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep,
Agreed. I am talking to Jim Kalkofen in a few and will report back on the In Fish PWT perspective. GMG, we ARE talking about FLW and PWT events, they will be effected by this too.
We don't need more legislation in my opinion. At worst we need better communication and cooperation between the regulatory agencies and the promoters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Absolutely Steve, I think it would be great for Jim and the PWT to be at these hearings. I'm sure he has at least sent correspondence to Pat Schmalz.
As to how this all began, Tyee from the WF side of things has a better grasp, but it was basically as a result of the Bass Anglers asking for special permission to cull. This got the ball rolling, and then a leberal legislator by the name of Johnrud introduced this bill in 2003. It was AB623, and basically directed the DNR to come up with a set of regulations. Well, the DNR did, through a couple of commitees and worgroups, and in my opinion, went way overboard.
Say good bye to the Pewaukee Classic as we know it. Say goodbye to lots of small club outings, designed to raise funds for stocking, tagging, feeding, research, kids programs. Say goodbye to the big tourneys coming to our state, and bringing boat loads of dollars to our economy.
Get off your butts, attend one of these hearings, and be HEARD. Does no good to argue it here. I say it is bad news. You may disagree. I am on record. Are you? I didn't think so.
I may just try to attend the Rhinelander hearing to make up for missing the GB hearing last night. I'll be in Wausau anyway that day. I'll just need to get directions, and a beer form Steve! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Shep, when are the hearings in Rhinelander? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Wednesday the 15th.
Here's a link to an open letter from the FLW. Good insights here.
http://walleyeleague.flwoutdoors.com/article.cfm?id=145174
All you Illinois Tiourney anglers. There is a meeting in Sturtevent tonight. C'mon up and be heard! You guys are usually good at saying your piece! hehehe |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Thanks Shep, wasn't quite sure when it was, now everyone knows about it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | You must go up to the lecturn and speak in order to be counted as having a word in these hearings...raising your hand in the back of the room to ask a question doesn't count. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Shep - 11/9/2006 10:27 AM
....Does no good to argue it here....
That's where I disagree, Shep.
Arguing about it here is (for me at least) how I get my head around what it is, what it means, whether it's good or bad, and how I feel about it.
Reading the opinions of everyone else here I've gone from being on the fence to being for the proposed legislation, to now being against it. Speaking up is of course how you get things done.
But in order for that to happen you have to first know what you are talking about, where you stand on it, and why.
Your voice will be heard much less clearly if you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
In that respect, forums like this are one of the most valuable tools we have. Get people talking, get people thinking, get people involved, and things will get done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Good point, addict. I overlooked that. Let's argue away!
I just talked with Sonny Reynolds of the Walleye side of FLW outdoors. They have people working on this, and he said their research has estimated over $300 million dollars have been put into the WI economy, as a result of the FLW Walleye tourneys. That is just the Walleye side of just the Walleye Tourneys, since Oct of 2000. Think about that. 300 Million. That's a lot of gas, lodging, food, beer, tackle, clothing, autmotive needs, marine needs, etc. If this regulation goes through, I seriously doubt they will hold tourneys here in the future. That's a lot of money that will be spent in MI, MN, IL, SD, and ND. We won't see a penny of it. Well, maybe the gas to get started, and the fillup upon the return.
Edited by Shep 11/9/2006 11:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
| HEY SHEP!!!!!!!!!!
See what ya got me in to here. I didn't want to repley here. It is always funny to me how folks who never fished a transport tournament or never ran a muskie tournament are experts in the matter and know more then the folks who run tournaments or fish transport tourneys.
MSKY HNR:
Please re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the raising of entry fees $5.00 and the impact it had on our WMT anglers in 2006, even though we raised the pay-outs. The extra $5.00 had a negative effect on a very high number of WMT anglers...end of story!
Pointer Pride:
I never said "that if I had to stop having transport tournaments I would have more costs". Where did I say that??????????????? Never have I ever made that comment! The fact of the matter, that we have been aware of from the very begining back in 2001 before we ever ran a tournament, and the facts are this...if we had judge boat tournaments it would actually cost us less to run the tournament circuit because we would be able to fill all of our tournaments. The facts are: more muskie anglers have a boat suitable to fish in a judge boat tournament and fewer have big enough livewells to compete in transport tourneys, thus by shear numbers, we would have a greater chance of filling tournaments and thus costing the WMT less money to opperate the entire circuit. The reason we chose the transport method because it is the best way to run a legitimate tournament and ensure the safety of the muskies.
Also, do not think for a second that the tourist dollars created by tournaments is insignificant??
The DNR along with another Wisconsin agency researched the tourism dollars created by fishing tournaments in the state. By their numbers, the average size tourney brings in $2,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin, again on average, and that is not chump change! Now, multiple that number by the amount of tournaments held troughout the state, for all species of fish, and you are talking about some very serious dollars. As far as muskie tournaments go, people are always making the mistake and looking only at the tournament itself...not at those other things that attract other muskie anglers to the area, the pre-fishing and post fishing from tournament anglers, and the secondary tourism it generates. I get dozens of emails from non-WMT anglers who see all those photos on our WMT web site and by the results that they read, asking me for lodging, guides, bait shops, ect. How many more hundreds or thousands of anglers who log on to the WMT web site travel to our tournament sites to experience the fun of muskie fishing? In comparison to the WDNR tourism dollars we are concervative in our estamates that our 21 WMT circuit in 2007 will bring in over $11,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin. If the WDNR, Wisconsin Tourism, Chamber of Commerces and other businesses in the state feel that fishing tournaments bring in big dollars to the state of Wisconsin, why can't you??? I would think that you would be proud of the fact that us muskie tournament anglers are an economic force in Wisconsin and herold that fact!
Lambeau:
I have to correct your assumption that I apose higher size limits on lakes because it will force the WMT to use judge boats, costing us more money. For the implied "costing more money" I would like to refer you to the statement that I just made to Pointerpride102. The fact that I do not support higher size limits is that it is biologically unsound to have the top of the food chain preditor protected to the point that it is a vertual catch-and- release fishery when the food prey of the muskies is not protected. This type of measure will create a stunting of the muskies with a cause effect of an ecosystem that can not produce a fifty incher even though the genetics are present! With that being said, I am for and have presented a proposal to the WDNR to set up at least 15 lakes in the state as catch and release lakes of all species of fish. These lakes would be chosen by their size but most importantly by their eutrophication (Oligotrophic,mesotrophic,eutrophic) making for a living laboratory that the WDNR would have the opportunity to study and determine true size limits for each species of fish by the sizes of lakes and their eutrophication. This proposal to create catch and release only lakes is sound fisheries management. Because the WMT does use judge boats on occasions, when needed, should be proof to any one that my opinion on higher size limits are based on my knowledge of Wisconsin muskie research reports that I have studied and from my personal contact with some of the most knowledgeable DNR biologist that it has been my privilege to know.
LAMBEAU:
With all due respect, by your breakdown of cost and pay-outs, you have no idea of the WMT's total pay-outs and how much it cost to run a tournament. You have not included advetising, printing, postage, lodging, cell phones, gas, office equipment, up-keep on judge boat(s) that we have at every tournament, promotion cost, sport shows, ect. ect. ect. this list goes on and on and on. Personally, if you are not the PWT, FLW, Bassmasters, getting some major dollars from corporate sponsors, I don't know how you can make money running tournaments and if their is someone making "buko bucks", I would like to have a chance to pick their brain? Thats right, I spend over 4,000 hours a year running the WMT and have never been paid a dime for my time. Right now it is a labor of love with very little pay-back( the pay-back coming in meeting new freinds and those who grow into family and it has been enough for now and keeps me going) but I hope one day to have an hour TV show, like the FLW or Bassmasters, and get those big corporate bucks. It has always been my philosophy as a tournament angler myself, to have as low a entry fee as possible with as hish of a pay-out as possible. For the entire WMT, we pay-back over 90% and when you add the prizes that pay-back number is 125% to 130%. I don't beleive it is right for a tournament organizer to get rich from the tournament anglers but that is my decades of being a tournament angler myself showing itself. Until you run a tournament, I wouldn't make simplified comments on how they are run, the cost, how much a tournament organizer must be making and things of that nature.
Keeping just 10% of entry fees doesn't even come close to paying the bills to run the WMT and it is a very good thing that we do have some great sponsors, that don't have to but share our dream of making muskie fishing bigger and better, and help us keep on going.
If the new tournament changes goes in to effect, the WMT will no longer be able to opperate. The proposed tournament rules will effect the majority of fishing tournamnets in Wisconsin and that is why the Bass guys and the Walleye guys are voicing their objections very strongly!!! They see the cost involved and its demise of tournaments that they have worked so hard to create.
Thanks,
Tom McInnis
|
|
| |
|
| Good point, addict. I overlooked that. Let's argue away!
the real strength of MuskieFirst shows through when it's members can discuss issues without resorting to calling each other names. this issue is another good example of that: thanks guys!
FLW outdoors...research has estimated over $300 million dollars have been put into the WI economy, as a result of the FLW Walleye tourneys.
did they also mention how much profit they made in Wisconsin since Oct 2000?
what is the comparison in profit over that timeframe vs. what these fees would have been?
If this regulation goes through, I seriously doubt they will hold tourneys here in the future.
if there's money to be made, someone will be here to make it.
when they say "we won't come to WI" they want you to be afraid so that you go along with them so that they can continue as usual. how about some facts and numbers instead of fear tactics?
Tom:
i did in fact say that i don't know your exact expenses, but that on entry fees alone you've got an average of $6000 per event to pay for them. printing, location fees, etc. are you saying you won't be able to run those same events and cover those costs on $5500 per tourney??? come on...
i don't pretend to have run a tournament, but my "simplified" math all came from info published on your website. break it down for us and convince me with numbers instead of saying that i'm not qualified to have an opinion.
i believe you run your trail because you like to do so, that it's a labor of love and not a big-bucks operation. i've talked to you and that comes across in person.
but to say you've never made a dime from the WMT? that's a bold claim, and one that many people don't believe about you or your trail. you're saying this will put you out of business. i'm asking you to prove that's the case: facts instead of fear-tactic hyperbole. "show me the money", so to speak...
i'm not telling you anything, i'm asking you to prove your claims rather than simply making them and responding to questions/challenges by saying "i know better than you."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just got off the phone with the Executive Director of the In Fisherman Professional Walleye Trail. Mr. Kalkofen definitely feels the proposed DNR regulations, fees, and restraints are cumbersome and not necessary, and that the economic multiplier effect of the money spent in the area while a SINGLE PWT or FLW event is held in any Wisconsin Community offsets the 'costs' the proposed fees are supposed to pay. he aslo made the point that if an event is forced to be a 'kill' event, the DNR must bear the brunt of the public reaction to THAT, when under many circumstances, at least a 50% release of the ALREADY reduced tournament daily bag limit might be successfully released.
I also just received an excellent letter to Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Schmaltz from Pat Neu, Professional Walleye Tour angler from Wisconsin. He made a very good point:
"Tournament angling is part of that tourist trade whether you want to believe so or not. Nonresident tournament anglers bring millions of dollars of business to this state each year, and the residual effect from the publicity the state gets as a result of the large tournament organizations airing their television programs to a National television audience creates an even greater economic impact. You will be dealing with an exponential decrease in awareness to the angling opportunities in our state if the large tournament organizations can no longer justify coming to Wisconsin to hold their events!"
I first met Pat when I was guiding in the Boulder Junction area. He was in school, as I remember, and was working at Northern Highland Sports at the time; we met due to me picking my clients up there in the morning. He has continued his lifelong participation in the sport of fishing, and has reached the status as Pro fishing the Pro Tours.
I agree with Pat about money spent by the Tournament anglers. I am also absolutely certain that the media coverage an event receives is great for future tourism, resort trade, retail sales of gasoline, bait, lures, groceries, and much more. Every dollar generated by the resulting increase of awareness from out of state vacationers and anglers multiplies throughout the local economy, and the cost to the resource of that promotion and advertising for the area is minimal.
He also attached a PDF, attached here, of relevant documents.
Attachments
----------------
 DNR_tourn_changes.pdf (508KB - 124 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The anti's don't give a rat's rip about the money...they care about the resource. When 600 bass die and walleyes are washing up on shore for two weeks after a FLW event, people see that and don't care if Joe Schmo's Cafe make s a few extra bucks, all they worry about is how tournys are effecting their fishing.
I think it's wrong to use money as an angle to get people to deny these new rules. Education on tourny stocking and enviormental care is the best way...IMO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Tom,
Muskies are not the top of the food chain. We are. If the muskies are not protect from ourselves some wont even come close to approaching 50 inches. Not regulating their forage bases? I hope that you are not trying to throw out that the muskies are eating all the walleyes because there are numerous studies that have shown that a walleye is not a muskies top forage. Do they eat them, you bet. Where do all the walleyes go in musky lakes? Our stomachs. Increasing size limits have great benefits for the musky fishery.
Also, Lambeau you are very correct in saying what makes MuskieFirst FAR superior to the other musky sites. There is obvious disagreement in this issue between many parties here, but I dont think a single personal attack has been made on anyone and that is pretty impressive. So I just wanted to say thank you to MuskieFirst
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lambeau:
I have to correct your assumption that I oppose higher size limits on lakes because it will force the WMT to use judge boats, costing us more money. For the implied "costing more money" I would like to refer you to the statement that I just made to Pointerpride102. The fact that I do not support higher size limits is that it is biologically unsound to have the top of the food chain preditor protected to the point that it is a vertual catch-and- release fishery when the food prey of the muskies is not protected. This type of measure will create a stunting of the muskies with a cause effect of an ecosystem that can not produce a fifty incher even though the genetics are present! With that being said, I am for and have presented a proposal to the WDNR to set up at least 15 lakes in the state as catch and release lakes of all species of fish. These lakes would be chosen by their size but most importantly by their eutrophication (Oligotrophic,mesotrophic,eutrophic) making for a living laboratory that the WDNR would have the opportunity to study and determine true size limits for each species of fish by the sizes of lakes and their eutrophication. This proposal to create catch and release only lakes is sound fisheries management. Because the WMT does use judge boats on occasions, when needed, should be proof to any one that my opinion on higher size limits are based on my knowledge of Wisconsin muskie research reports that I have studied and from my personal contact with some of the most knowledgeable DNR biologist that it has been my privilege to know."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet the fisheries managers in Ontario will be embarrassed to learn they were wrong all along...sorry sir, but that one makes absolutely no sense. Lakes and rivers that would support a 50" limit should have that limit if it's socially acceptable and a trophy fishery in Northern Wisconsin is the end goal, and those that won't should not.
An edit/update in response to your last post below:
There are distinct differences between population dynamics in Pike and Muskies. Bad idea to use one as an example as to how to manage the other. Some lakes, according to the biologists I have spoken to here ( I have a telephone, truck, and computer, too) might benefit from a Slot limit, Butternut is an example. Some wouldn't benefit at all from any increase from the 34" limit on those waters today. To say in a blanket statement that the WDNR fisheries biologists oppose 50" limits on selected trophy waters is inaccurate, and a disservice to those who desire to conserve the trophy potential of those waters. To state that a 50" limit on low density water sustained by NR where good forage is available is biologically unsound is worse, it's ridiculous. To then forward the old wives tale that Muskies will 'stunt and eat all the forage and panfish' if protected to 50" on that trophy potential water is REALLY irresponsible, and to me something a Tournament promoter should be taken to task for even saying, much less printing in a post here.
I notice you moved your event from Pelican to Moens. So much for judge boats when you need them, we offered to supply them to you at no cost to you at all. You had a superb opportunity to support a strong conservation effort, or at least to try to understand it, yet chose to oppose our efforts at every turn until the bitter end. I can understand the motivation if it's ease of operating your events, but the paragraph above is not even close to applicable.
By the way, as a matter of qualification, I have run, fished in, and administered many muskie tournaments over the years, so I do know a bit about this subject.
4000 hours a year equates to fifty 80 hour weeks; 11.42 hour days EVERY day, with a two week vacation tossed in for good measure. Sir, I enjoy your input, but fuzzy math and wild claims do nothing to improve competitive Muskie angler's stance in this issue, or enhance our credibility when stating why this legislation is a bad idea.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | GMG,
The Committee raised the money issue in the proposal as partial justification. The response from Pat and Jim was to them, not the public. The DNR is very aware that the impact of these events is minimal on the resource and on non tournament anglers, IMHO this is bowing to public perception from a very small group. Do some studying as to WHY those bass died, it's important.
Lambeau,
I can tell you that if profit was a goal with the In Fisherman Professional Walleye trail, it would not be in operation today. The PWT is an extension of In Fisherman and their parent company, and the direct benefit to them is the promotional vehicle the TV show, Walleye Insider, and other like programs provide.
If that is the path the WMT Promoter is following, his journey will be a long one, but just might be very successful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| "Please re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the raising of entry fees $5.00 and the impact it had on our WMT anglers in 2006, even though we raised the pay-outs. The extra $5.00 had a negative effect on a very high number of WMT anglers...end of story!"
You sure it was the $5 and not something ELSE?? I find it very hard to believe that $5 is going to be a deal breaker.
<....In comparison to the WDNR tourism dollars we are concervative in our estamates that our 21 WMT circuit in 2007 will bring in over $11,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin. If the WDNR, Wisconsin Tourism, Chamber of Commerces and other businesses in the state feel that fishing tournaments bring in big dollars to the state of Wisconsin, why can't you??? I would think that you would be proud of the fact that us muskie tournament anglers are an economic force in Wisconsin and herold that fact!>
So let's say it's 11 million. Total tourism revenue for the state is estimated at around $12 billion. So in reality we're looking at less than 1 percent of their total tourism revenue...
$11 million is significant standing on its own, but when you compare it to total revenue you get a different picture.
Not trying to stir up crap for the sake of making a stink here, but we have to look at all sides and not just our own...
Edited by esoxaddict 11/9/2006 12:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Man I'm glad I have no interest n Tournaments. |
|
| |
|
| I can't believe I am continuing with this!!! If someone, and there seem like there is several, doesn't beleive me that the proposed rule changes on tournaments is going to severly effect the tournaments that we presently have in Wisconsin, then they should at least listen to SHEP. Shep is "right on" with everything he says and those who are sitting on the fence with this one should read all of Shep's post on this thread. The proposed tournament changes are not so much the WDNR doing, but legistation that was brought about by a former state's legislator Duane Johnsrude who is notorious for trying to do away with tournaments in Wisconsin for several years. The last time Johnsrude legislation failed in Madison it was reported that he would get his anti-tournament agenda passed through the WDNR. That is right...this proposed tournament rule changes is ANTI TOURNAMENT and I am very surprised to see that some fellow anglers are buying in to this malarkey.
Pointerpride102:
I am sorry that you missed my meaning about the muskie being the top of the food chain preditor. I did not single out any prey fish that is not protected. I did not mention walleye. There are people who do fish agresively for perch, white sucker, red horse, ciscoe, crayfish, whitefish, ect. that are very high on the list in the diet of muskies, not to mention at times some of the game fish that could be on the muskie menu for the day. Not protecting these major food sources when you slap a 50" size limit on any lake in this state is again ecologically unsound! Again, I have had the pleasure of meeting, and talking to at great lengths, with some of the most knowladgeable fisheries biologist in Wisconsin that have told me flat out that the muskie lakes in Wisconsin are over-populated with muskies and stunting is occurring on the lakes that they have studied and raising the limit to 50 inches will just exasperate the problem. It sound contrary to what you might think but in order to get more 50" muskies in our lakes we must start to adopt a selective harvest mentality and in order to accomplish this, we need to revisit slot limits for muskies, and more appropriate, modified slot limits is best. Please do not ask me who I have been talking to because I once use to work for the WDNR and know that employees of the WDNR can not talk publicly or privately against WDNR policies and do not wish to be a source of any grief for these folks who I think so highly of. I know that most people don't have the ability to contact these great individuals but you can read their work and I would suggest these research reports:172, 175, 159, 158, 117, 147, and 169 & Tec Bulletin 104(even though they deal with northerns are very telling about the effects of raising size limits that could have some bearings on whats going on with raised size limits on Wisconsin muskies if you apply the same science and logic along with overpopulation effects). Technical Bulletins #113, 49, and 160 will make for some very interesting reading. And I challenge anyone who wants to raise the size limits on Wisconsin waters to read this imformation I have outlined. I think that if anyone who wanted to raise size limits will change their minds as I had done back in 1999 when I was elected to sit on the board of the Butternut Lake Association to raise the muskie size limit to 45 inches, fortunately for me fisheries biologist Jim Langley(I can say his name because now he has retiered) showed me the light and ever since I have been on a mission to learn as mush about muskie management as I can. That was TWO YEARS BEFORE THE WMT, so what was my motivation back then to vote down the increased size limits??? The answer...HIGHER SIZE LIMITS ON JUST MUSKIES IN WISCONSIN IS BIOLOGICALLY UNSOUND!!! With that being said, I do favor catch and release for all species of fish on given bodies of water...BIOLOGICALLY SOUND!!!
Lambeau:
If I tell you or anyone that the proposed changes will be the end of the WMT, then that is what it will be. And because we absolutely wont be able to go forward if the changes are adopted, then most fishing tournaments will also follow the same fate as us!
That is all I have to say on the matter and I hope all of you get a big buck this coming gun season and try to take a doe, not a button buck, to help keep the deer herd healthy,
Tom McInnis |
|
| |
