|
|
| "trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait."
And where did I say that, or even imply it?
you imply it when you say that trolling will put "more hooks in fish" and therefore result in more dead fish and therefore result in the destruction of small lakes.
If you're basing that assumption on huge bodies of water, and trying to extrapolate that into what will or won't happen on the small lakes, you saying it won't happen carries about as much weight as me saying it will.
ok...Wingra. Waubesa. Redstone.
DAVE: I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker.
Dave, i'm a bit bemused by your idea that casting is such a distraction from sucker fishing that it leads to muskies swallowing the sucker and rig before the hook can be set. this is simply not true.
i routinely fish with 2-3 suckers out while i and my partner cast. i've never had a sucker swallowed by a muskie, and i don't know of anyone else who has had this happen by accident. a properly set up rod/reel with bait alarm will alert you the moment the sucker is picked up. muskies simply don't swallow suckers within the 20-30 seconds it takes to reel the cast in and set the hook on the sucker.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Do we think that if we legalize trolling there is a large group of "trollers" out there waiting to infest the lakes? My guess is that if there are 100 anglers who fish a lake now, and we legalize trolling those same 100 anglers will fish the lake, but some of them will troll on occasion as another option, without really increasing the fishing pressure. Heck it could actually open up more areas for casters, versus waiting in line to fish an area.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Mike, those lakes are considered "put and take" fisheries, they are stocked regularly. If you take 100 fish out and put 100 fish in you've still got 100 fish. If you take a lake where trolling currently is not allowed, and you allow trolling, it's not that far fetched to presume more fish will be caught. Think about it. You can get baits down in the strike zone and keep them there longer, you can cover more water, and you can do it more quickly. Some days, as you know, casting isn't going to put fish in the boat. If you can't troll, you won't catch fish that day, and it's likely that nobody else will, either. Allow trolling and you will catch fish during times and under conditions that you otherwise wouldn't.
I'd be fine with that if we could make sure those lakes had a higher size limit, or there was supplemental stocking, or the populations were carefully monitored to ensure the wuality of that fishery was not diminished, but we all know that the DNR doesn't have the time, the money, or the personnel to deal with issues like that, especially when it comes down to putting effort into something that isn;t currently a problem. We can't even get larger size limits passed on the lakes that really need them, how would we make sure those "little gems" continure to shine?
You mentioned Wingra. 300 acres, desnities of anywhere from 5 -7 fish per acre a few years back, stunted panfish, there's a lake that was (and still is) in desperate need of a population reduction. The population today is what, 2-3 fish per acre? Yes, the fish in there are finally starting to show signs of life, they look like they're actually eating now compared to a few years ago. There was no organized effort to move or cull those fish. If trolling pressure (and fishing pressure in general) has no effect on the population density, than let me ask you this: Where'd all those fish go?
And I believe it was you that mentioned a 40 that you caught out of there that was tagged and hadn;t been caught as far as you could tell. Where was that fish stocked? Where was it last netted? Not saying it was or wasn't in Wingra this whole time, because I don;t know. But did you ask the DNR where that fish originated from? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Great post esoxaddict. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Dave N - 11/7/2007 3:48 PM
DAVE: Troy, I guess I need to clarify, though, that it is not my intention to do away with sucker fishing. I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker. From my standpoint, if more folks decide to troll artificials than fish suckers, that's fine. But it's also fine if they want to fish suckers ATTENTIVELY and set the hooks immediately by using quick-set rigs properly. I hope that clarifies my thoughts a little. Thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and preferences.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Dave
I , like Lambeau, disagree with what you perceive to be happening with people who cast and use suckers (quick sets) at the same time. I fish with suckers a lot in the fall. I catch my fair share of fish on the suckers and I have never deeply hooked a musky on a quick set rig. I often drop my rod that I am casting, depending on how far out my cast is. I do this not because I am worried about the musky swallowing the sucker before I reel my line in but because I know that the sooner that I get to the rod the greater my chances are of catching that fish. I believe that single hook swallow rigs should be banned. Quick set rigs can be safely used while casting. If you are ever in the Madison area in late October or November who are welcome to fish in my boat. We will get a fish or two... or four on the quick sets and they will all be hooked in the corner of the mouth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I'd be fine with that if we could make sure those lakes had a higher size limit, or there was supplemental stocking, or the populations were carefully monitored to ensure the wuality of that fishery was not diminished, but we all know that the DNR doesn't have the time, the money, or the personnel to deal with issues like that, especially when it comes down to putting effort into something that isn;t currently a problem. We can't even get larger size limits passed on the lakes that really need them, how would we make sure those "little gems" continure to shine?'
I won't even point out the inconsistent argument RE: size limits. As far as the DNR monitoring and caring for the Muskie lakes up here...On that one you are out of the park left field. The DNR in our area works on the lakes you are worried about regularly.
Increased size limits have to be passed by the CC. Overall management strategies for stocking/not stocking/maintaining a population of muskies in any given 'gem' will not.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mike, I'd vote yes. I would agree to a 4 line restriction, but would want to get a feel for what the public would agree to. If more people were in favor of openning lakes of a certain size to trolling(maintaining current regs on lakes already open to trolling I might add here) and keeping line limit to 3, I'd go with it.
Dave N: This discussion is only a starting point; and it started, as I recall, with my perception that changes were needed on the Chippewa Flowage. If folks like Mike wish to broaden the discussion, that's great.
RH: Just wanted to quick clarify this as I believe this topic doesn't relate the Chip trolling proposal. To the contrary, this began with a debate on what is and isn't legal regarding the use of live bait in conjunction with an electric motor. Several attempts have been made on this board to draft a proposal to clear this reg up, and I think Mike really has something here. This proposal would simply make it easier and plainly lawful for those of us who like to drag multiple suckers around while we cast artificials. Suckers, by the way, that never even come close to being swallowed while on a quick set. To that end, it is often neccessary to give a fish a bit more time than it takes to set the rod down and get to the live bait rod and reel after a hit on the sucker. Allowing the fish to swim off and 'correct' the line angle for the hook-set. Apparently we should all check out Mike Hulberts new quick set some time. They give the fish even more time than that, and they never have swallowing issues. I think he calls it the Hulberto.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/8/2007 4:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | 4 lines is to make who feel good about it. What happend to one line per angler and no pl. boards. It was multiple lines and pl. boards that got backtrolling tossed off the rule books. Backtrolling was so abused that had doubts the d.n.r would ever consider any form of it again.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | What is the difference between FISHING, and TROLLING. How about that?
Edited by Andy 11/7/2007 10:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Trolling is a fishing technique. You don't have to like it, but you should respect the views and opinions of those who do. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Trolling is an "advanced technique". Yeah I've got top of the line equiptment but I still cast. No need for trolling on our waters here, that's my view. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Fish with Mike Koepp or one of the other versatile anglers out there and you will see just how advanced the technique can be. There's a heck of alot to learning the technique and applying it well.
The Walleye Pros have refined sport trolling to a science, literally. Attend an FLW or PWT as a Co Angler and you will see what I mean; and you may gain some respect for the technique.
I don't troll much either, and respect your position, but I don't troll much for a different reason... because I'm not very good at it. But it's a blast to watch Shep or Zach or Mikes Extreme or any one of a number of others I've fished with work that rig. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don’t think one line trolling would ever have a chance as both anti trolling and pro trolling advocates would vote against it. I again want to make my suggested language clear: Legalize motor trolling on WI inland lakes currently closed to trolling under the following two conditions:… There is no intention to mess with WI Lakes where trolling is currently allowed, especially the great lakes including Winnebago. That being said, Shep why wouldn’t you want to open more lakes for trolling even if those NEW lakes had a 4 line limit. It is not clear to me why you are so against this. Is there a fear that the line limitation would spread to lakes where there currently isn’t a line limit other than the 3 per angler. As Reef Hawg pointed out my number one goal is to try and fix the position fishing mess, from my research the intent of that law was to allow the fishing lindy type rigs around structure, casting while dragging suckers and bobbers around schools of pan fish. In my opinion electric only trolling would clearly allow that. This was a poor attempt at compromise when they outlawed backtrolling, on the same group of lakes I am trying to address with this language. If anything is done, I think we need to at least address this issue. As Reef Hawg said in a PM it is getting tiresome constantly looking over ones shoulder because the law is interpreted differently by almost everyone. Most likely though, this will fade away as the lakes start to turn hard and wont be talked about again until next September. One thing I would like to learn more about is the events and issues that lead up to the outlawing of backtrolling. Both KenK and Pfeiff seem to have strong opinions on what happened then. I know what I have heard and it exactly parallels the points I think Addict is trying to make; a small number of anglers learned to do it very effectively and they where catching a large number of LARGE fish from many of the small lakes. At the time most of these fish were kept. If anybody knows Herbie well he could be a good source on this, as I believe he is one of the guys that really figured it out, and was singled out. Was this unfounded fear, brought on by jealousy, or did it have any merit at a time when C&R hadn’t really caught on yet. I would like to learn more about this. Nail A Pig! Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/7/2007 11:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | MOST wardens do their job. others, have a point to prove.
God Bless them all, for they do their job( most).
I have 2 oz. of weight on my suckers. Lines are straight up and down.
Fine me, I dare you. I run a tan Fisher, with "Pursiut" on the rear end.
No bobbers are trailing. positon fishing at it's best.
Tempting fate, with every breathe i take, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I don't know but think the d.n.r must hate these boards. We give them all this input and then argue among ourselves. Many of us think we can manage the fishery better then they can. I have to point finger at myself there at times.. I don't think most of you really have a clue as to how hard of a job it is to manage all the lakes in the state. Remember musky anglers are a small percentage of the state fishermen. We would like to have this and have that and don't think about the other types of anglers or people who use the water or live on the lake. I look at what we have now and and have to say its pretty darn good in wisconsin. I think trolling on lakes of under 1000 acres should never be allowed. I am looking into buying a lake home in the future and I know that the activity on a lake will be a deciding factor. Waterskiers, jetskies. speedboats and now trolling. Do we really need it? We complain now about the weedbeds getting torn up, spawning areas being disrupted and you want to legalize something that could cause more of this. I can picture the boats now trolling right in middle of a weedbed trolling spinnerbaits that ride above the weeds. The prop cutting weeds as they motor on trolling the baits.. I just don't feel that the legalization of trolling is such a good thing. I have fished pewaukee alot and I see the above scene played out all the time and see all the weeds floating. Hear anglers complain how hard it is to keep the weeds off the lines. I think this needs to be thought out alot more befor it would become law. I have to say if you want to troll go to one of the lakes where it is allowed now.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| I would vote against it just because of the 4 line rule. Why make it any different than the current 3 rods per person rule?
Shouldn't we be saving these good discusions for after the musky season is closed? What else are we going to talk about this winter if all the good topics are already taken? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | since when did a "quick-strike" rig become an "emergency quick-strike" rig ... getting to a rod immediately? fish don't eat suckers like a 10-year old eats a cookie. my goodness, let's keep it real. you've got plenty of time to get rods and the boat ready to hit a fish on a quick-strike.
it's nice to hear that mike koepp is a great troller and i'm sure it's completely true, but what in the world does that have to do with the trolling regulations in northern wisconsin?
precisely why this debate makes absolutely no sense and i surely hope that it's not used as any evidence in any decision-making for determining fishing regulations. i've seen nothing but personal feeling on both sides of this argument ... and comparative speculation on whether it will or will not have an effect.
"burden of proof" ... how does the burdon of proof get determined from one side or the other. back in debate class we picked it out of a hat and then started the argument ... here it seems to have been decided by the owners of the site based on their opinion and then get forced onto those that disagree.
this post isn't an argument steve ... it seems the minority here are against the trolling, but deserve the same respect as you've requested ... if you had to edit all the words that are speculation, heresay or opinion on this thread, the thread would be condensed down to less than half a page ...
"trolling" regulations used to solve the sucker situation ... aren't they two totally different subjects?
so-far i see we should allow trolling because it's another way to catch fish, all the other places allow it, it solves the sucker thing, will strike against the traditionalists and further allow 50" size limits on lakes because the traditionalists have finally been beat, and mike koepp is really good at it ... and i'm sorry but i'm raising my hand like tom hanks in Big ... "i don't get it" |
|
| |
|
| "burden of proof" ... seems to have been decided by the owners of the site based on their opinion and then get forced onto those that disagree.
read more carefully, Sled.
i'm not an "owner" here, more of a "manager" if anything. but Steve W. and i hold different opinions on this (he's in favor of allowing it, i'm opposed).
i happily argue both sides of the fence, as i believe that actually helps those who hold the same position as i do to refine their case. (as i've done with EA, because i believe he's making the right case but for all the wrong reasons.)
there's hardly a MuskieFirst "party line" going on here, as we don't even have agreement amongst ourselves. all we ask, nay, all we require is that the discussions remain respectful.
i'm opposed to allowing trolling on small lakes up north, and i haven't felt disrespected. if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it, but the issue is open to any and all opinions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| MIke Said, "That being said, Shep why wouldn’t you want to open more lakes for trolling even if those NEW lakes had a 4 line limit. It is not clear to me why you are so against this. Is there a fear that the line limitation would spread to lakes where there currently isn’t a line limit other than the 3 per angler. "
Exactly. Like the old saying, be careful what you wish for.
I agree with several on the inaccuracy of the statement that casting distracts one from the quick strike rig. Dave, have you actually ever fished a quick strike?
Look, I understand the need to get the reg rewritten to allow sucker fishing while casting. But really, are you guys really that nervous about getting a ticket. Looking over your shoulder? I am not. That could be one of the best ways to get that reg changed. Get the right judge, and he'll toss it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was refering to steve in that comment ... i thought you were a moderator and not one of the owners. my challenge was to steve to stay on subject and keep it fair and open ... and let it grow from both sides without bias.
"dragging" suckers and trolling are mutually exclusive ... solving one by making the other legal is a slippery slope ...
fair enough ... "if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it" ... let's hope that rings true ... often times though it does not and ends up in edit ... |
|
| |
|
| fair enough ... "if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it" ... let's hope that rings true ... often times though it does not and ends up in edit ...
if it "ends up in edit" it because it's a bash or a personal attack, and not because it's a fairly stated opinion. you know this full well.
again:
all we ask, nay, all we require is that the discussions remain respectful.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'so-far i see we should allow trolling because it's another way to catch fish, all the other places allow it, it solves the sucker thing, will strike against the traditionalists and further allow 50" size limits on lakes because the traditionalists have finally been beat, and mike koepp is really good at it ... and i'm sorry but i'm raising my hand like tom hanks in Big ... "i don't get it"
-----
OK, Sled, I'll try once more to make the points I've been making all along.
1) There is absolutely NO evidence trolling harms any muskie population anywhere trolling is legal. I n fact, many waters where trolling is legal that are not huge lakes seem to be exceptional fisheries. The argument that 'more fish will be 'caught' may or may not have merit on a uptick in handling mortality, but isn't catching fish the general idea for manageing them?
2)Mike Koepp IS a very accomplished troller. That comment was in response to a statement that insinuates trolling is a very simple and elementary technique, and those who practice it are less sport minded than those who cast or soak suckers or bank fish or use any other legal method.
3) No, sucker position fishing is a result of the change in trolling laws here. That's obvious. If one gets a citation for misusing ( in the eyes of that warden, that day) position fishing, it's for illegal trolling.
Strike against traditionalists? No, that's not my point at all. The very reason you, Addict, lambeau, and others do not want any trolling allowed on 'small' Wisconsin lakes in the North IS tradition based, and that has been made very clear. No one has come up with anything (as you pointed out) based on data from any fisheries program anywhere that indicates trolling will cause any problems with the muskie population in the area we are discussing. Some folks just plain do not like the idea! Your own statement that this argument is based almost entirely on emotion IS my point. If indeed my argument seems to be somewhat overbearing to you, push your chair back for a few moments and analyze why that may be. I've simply asked those with objections to explain their position, and when the positions are based on emotion I ask for a better reason. I seek to discover the true motivation of the opposing viewpoint. many have done a great job expressing opinion one way or the other. Some have been just plain rude and tried to make their points by abusing the atmosphere here. You know what flies in a reasonable debate and what doesn't, right?
What wrong with traditionalism? Nothing, absolutely nothing. On several outdoors sports subjects, I'm a traditionalist.
I've been trying very hard to point out that in this state, what you describe as a minority, in this case based not on good biology or population dynamics or management or ANYTHING science, can stop a proposal from going through by political activism and 'loading the crowd' at the CC hearings. It was that exact scenario that was the death of the 50" proposal a few years back. My point has been and will be that the majority HERE seems to want a change in trolling law, the minority doesn't. The problem?
It will not be our fisheries biologists or managers who make that decision. It will be a few folks FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE who take the time and make the effort to be politically active and get to the CC meetings, bringing friends. Many of the votes yay or nay will be cast by folks at the meetings because they like cats, or doves, or whatever,know NOTHING trolling, but are there to influence THEIR agenda of that day. They will vote based on the winning argument presented in 2 freaking minutes at the hearings by someone who speaks well on the trolling issue. I think that's a REALLY bad way to manage our fisheries made even worse by lawmakers who decide to manage our fisheries for ALL of us, including the scientists, by adding law to a budget bill..
And that, Sled, is why we don't have a 50" size limit on several trophy potential lakes in northern Wisconsin. AND, it is why we can still bait for deer up here. I believe from your posts you would have liked to see the opposite. So would have most of our DNR folks close to those issues.
I personally can do with or without the trolling issue (mostly because I'm not very good at it), but will support power trolling up here if it comes to a vote because I can't find a solid ground scientific reason why it shouldn't be passed.
I assisted in an effort years back for a black powder season for deer here, and the opposition sounded surprisingly like what I've read here; I know several folks who insisted it would be the end of deer hunting here as we know it who now really enjoy the sport.
If not discussed and debated here...then where? |
|
| |
|
| All of this is because musky fishermen want to be able to be on their bowmount and drag a sucker around while casting from the bow?
First off, that IS trolling. Position fishing is using your bow mount to counter the effects of the wind to remain over a specific spot on a lake or in the case of a river, to ensure that your boat is floating down stream at the same rate as the current. If you are using a motor to move from spot to spot on a lake and your dragging a bait while you do this, your CLEARLY breaking the law.
Secondly, with the vast number of musky anglers preaching catch and release, I find it very hard to believe that any fishing technique is ever going to have a significant impact on even the smallest body of water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | bradb,
I wish the position fishing law was that clear. If that was true, a friend of mine would have received a ticket a couple days ago. He had a warden speak to him at the landing after fishing, and asked him ( he had been watching my friend maneuver the boat on a rock bar) if he had been within the law. he said YES. The boat was clearly moving slowly perpendicular to the wind. Another warden, another day....that could be a ticket.
The discussion is about a proposal brought here by a fisheries manager to allow trolling on the Chip, and perhaps elsewhere. The Position fishing 'rules' and all the other issues plus that proposal morphed into the discussion we have now.
One more point, again to Sled. A few of my comments of late have been removed or edited by our moderation staff as well...we all get a bit too fired up sometimes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Sled said: "dragging" suckers and trolling are mutually exclusive ... solving one by making the other legal is a slippery slope ...
Sled I disagree here, if you get a ticket for dragging a sucker you are getting a ticket for illegal trolling. The position fishing rule is in the “Motor Trolling” definition in the WI Regulations. To address it something has to be done with the definition of Trolling, over the last few years of thinking about this, my opinion is either opening up motor trolling or making it electric only and limiting the size of electric are the only options to make it clear. Without getting into a reg. that has to define a bait type and method and then there still are the other topics the Position fishing reg. is there to address, for walleye and pan fishermen.
Limited electric only, I think is the best way to JUST address the position fishing reg. I added in trolling because there apparently is a large number of people that would like to see that also and obviously many who wouldn’t. The point of my two posts on this topic were to see what people are thinking, if something is really ever going to change on this topic someone will have to run with it. It will not be me, at least on the pure trolling issue, I just don’t have a big enough opinion one way or the other. Position fishing is a different story, but even that I only do a couple of times a year.
If you have a different idea on this topic I am sure many would love to hear it. I am open to anything that could clear that up.
Shep Said: “But really, are you guys really that nervous about getting a ticket. Looking over your shoulder?”
Shep, first off thanks for your answer to my questions above. As to your question I would say YES that is the reason there is multiple posts on this topic EVERY FALL. The deal is there are actually people out there calling the DNR tip line based on their opinion of the law. Some have even asked if they should do just that on this web site. People will put large amounts of lead on a line directly over the boat to keep the line vertical, and use electric motor to move around structure, but will chastise someone doing the exact same thing with a bobber 20 feet behind the boat.
I personally don’t have the time or money to take on a ticket, I would do it if it came about, but I can only imagine the conversations I will be having with my wife. She would say something like this “YOU CAN REMEMBER THE BAIT, LOCATION, DEPTH AND WEATHER ON EVERY MUSKY YOU HAVE EVER CAUGHT, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW THE RULES, AND NOW WE HAVE TO SPEND THIS MONEY FIGHTING A TICKET FOR A STUPID FISH………MORON !!!!!!!!
I would really rather avoid that situation.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I think the rule is clear to the wardens that have taken the time to learn it or care to enforce it. I spent a fair amount of time with several different DNR officials a few years ago regarding the position fishing rule and it was rather surprising to find out how many of them had NO clue what the rule said or meant.
If anyone here gets involved with a re-write of the position fishing rule, PLEASE don't forget that it is this law that allows us to use our bowmount electric motors while vertical jigging a river. We definitely want to be careful we don't mess that up. |
|
| |
|
| "To address it something has to be done with the definition of Trolling, over the last few years of thinking about this, my opinion is either opening up motor trolling or making it electric only and limiting the size of electric are the only options to make it clear."
I'm confused.
Are you saying that when I'm pulling 6 boards on Green Bay at 1.3 mph with my bow mount electric I'm not trolling, but the guy using his gas kicker is??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The discussion is about a proposal brought here by a fisheries manager to allow trolling on the Chip, and perhaps elsewhere. The Position fishing 'rules' and all the other issues plus that proposal morphed into the discussion we have now.
The proposed ideas from Mike would not have any effect on any waters where trolling is legal right now. We are looking at the lakes and rivers here where trolling is not legal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | I really don't have a strong opinion on either side of this as I don't fish in WI much. When I do, it's in western WI where trolling is already legal. On the lakes I fish, most people still cast, even when it's perfectly legal to troll. One particular lake that I fish is less than 300 acres and I have never seen any concerns with trolling on this body of water.
So I'll just throw this out there for those that are concerned about the effects of legalized trolling. Bone (1700+ acres) and Deer (800 acres) are two lakes where sucker fishing is very popular and trolling is legal. Do these lakes see any positive or negative effects as a result of legalized trolling? I don't have an answer or an opinion on that, as I don't fish these lakes. But I have to believe they would be a good barometer. I have to believe that these two lakes see as much or more fishing pressure than most other musky lakes in the state. So any adverse effects could likely be seen here?
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Brad b, I don’t understand why you are confused, both would obviously be trolling. No where have I said trolling with an electric wasn’t trolling.
Curious, what size bow mount do you have and what do you have for batteries? How long can you troll 6 boards at 1.3mph with that set up? What lures are you using?
That exact situation is one concern many would have with allowing electric only trolling on LAKES CURRENTLY CLOSED TO TROLLING.
That was the reason for my max trust limitation. Running a boat fast enough for a wide spread even with a 36 volt bow mount I think would limit the effectiveness of the spread, because my thought was batteries would not last that long pulling this type of load for any length of time. Row trolling would still be more efficient, which could be a good goal especially for the smaller lakes. A walleye set up may be a different story as the loads would be significantly lower.
Maybe I am off base here, but that was my thinking. I do know they make some pretty large electric motors in the 2 and 3 horse power range. Mostly to power big sail boats, but I am sure fishermen would be willing to hook them up to a fishing rig to kick up the spread if it was electric only, hence the max trust limitation.
Trying to beat the negatives to the punch, if this actually moves ahead.
Electric only trolling would allow you to hold position in any situation and vertically jig, you could actually move up and down the river or move against current with out any further interpretation needed.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
