|
|
Posts: 1270
| KEn beat me to it on posting the link. The link was originally posted by a person with quite a bit of knowledge about the CC and the NRB, I highly doubt he made it up. The poor audio quality is most likely because it wasn't supposed to be recorded!
And NO sportsman should not be forced to learn about the CC when they go through a SAFETY course. The CC has nothing to do with safety. If they are going to force kids to go through hunters safety it should be ONLY about safety and laws, morals and other things should be up to parents, not the government.
You're right I was not there for the Pelican meetings and I'm sure some people did a lot of work on both sides of the battle, and I commend them for standing up for their believes, but if we didn't have the complicated and out dated CC process it might have been done in other ways. |
|
| |
|
| It would be a pity if this progression in WI musky management was voted down to prove a point about the CC or even worse because someone has a "not in my lake" issue. Isn't this a muskie message board? One would think that ANY increase in size liimit would be welcome. It sure doesn't seem to be that way...
I have an idea: if you really want to prove a point with the CC show up and write a resolution to dissolve the CC or better yet, run for election.
This thread kind of proves that some in the musky community will never be be happy...whine whine whine, no 54 on GB, whine, crossbows, whine...
Curly |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Squiko, This is much bigger than a musky size limit issue. It's about the CC doing what they want regardless of how the vote goes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reelman, really. It is not that at all, it's what the ENTIRE PROCESS and every one involved does and the fact you ARE NOT going to get EVERYTHING you want approved. Shut up before you convince folks to not show up and vote. Seriously, are you TRYING to submarine any chance we have at all to forward our agenda? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I've been watching these CC discussions for several years now. Seems to me that the ONLY avenue we have to getting our voices heard and our agendas in front of the people who have the authority to do anything is to attend the hearings and vote. We may not like the process, pretty sure nobody is fond of the politics. And regardless of how anyone feels aboit the CC and the processes for getting laws passed, it's all we've got. I guess what I'm saying is we can preach to the choir here until the cows come home, and it will accomplish nothing, short of perhaps validating our own feelings on the subject. But feelings aren't going to make better fishing opportunities, now, are they?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Curly, I didn't start this thread to bash the CC. I posted it because it was a musky question at the spring hearing and I thought that everyone should know about it. I am a little taken back because most of the lakes are close to me and a I do fish some of them. I'm not whining and I'm not changing my vote because "My Lake" is on the list. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, You are trying to forward your agenda through the continuation of an outdated CC. I am not trying to "submarine" the larger size limit agenda as I would also like to see that happen but our vote doesn't matter, all it does is make us feel like we did something. And yes I am trying to get people to not show up and vote for this or any other question. Maybe after seeing that for one hardly anybody shows up at these hearings and two that our voices are not heard when we vote that they powers that be get rid of the CC entirely. Let's stop wasting tax money on an entity that no longer is needed or is relevant. Let these desicions be made by the people that know what they are talking about and not by the general public and more importantly a bunch of do gooders on the CC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I too fish some of the lakes affected by the 28" limit and WILL vote for the increase to 40. I will just have to do what I can to change one or two of the lakes to 40" down the road IF the resolutions passes.
We should keep in mind this question was put on the ballot by the DNR, not the CC, so if it passes it will most likely go into effect, unlike the 54" limit on GB which was introduced by the CC.
Edited by Flambeauski 2/10/2011 2:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| Before we get all bent out of shape at the idea of a 28" size limit... Those lakes are 34" now, right? Are there many fish being taken out of them as it is? How many more will be harvested with a lower size limit? I could see some of the incidental catches being harvested for the wall, or even the smoker. But it's been my observation that the folks who don't like muskies kill them when they catch them anyway, size limits aside. And the people who fish for them regularly, put them back anyway. So conceptually, yes, harvesting the juvenile males makes sense. But is lowering the size limit really going to cause any drastic changes?
Proposing a 28" size limit on a few lakes sounds to me like something you do to make sure the muskie folks don't come out and vote overwhelmingly for the 40" statewide limit that goes along with it. I could be wayyy off base here, but it makes sense. Propose a 40" statewide size limit to get the muskie maniacs out of your hair, and then add something like a 28" limit on some lakes to make sure nobody votes for it...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | esoxaddict wins the cupie doll!!
I don't see why they needed to add any baggage to this proposal.
But please, VOTE YES!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | reelman,
We collectively as an activist community utilized that very system to ACQUIRE the 50" limits and 45" many lakes now have. As long as it is in place, we can't get changes like that done any other way. A boycott is truly a stupid idea, because our opposition to whatever items are muskie related on the agenda will certainly show up and vote.
If enough people share your feelings (I'd be a vocal lead for ditching the CC) perhaps there is a way to get that movement started. It won't be easy, and won't be quickly accomplished even if there's a landslide movement for the idea which there is not. Tradition in this state has a very strong influence on our legal and political structure, and there is a very strong contingent who will not like losing their 'voice' in conservation matters given to them by the CCC process, and even more who will see it as an unattractive power consolidation for the DNR...in fact, there are large groups of folks who won't like that at all.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, I'm just sick of all the BS with the CC and there seems to be a little bit of uproar in that if not enough people are attending that Walker might consider mooving to do away with the CC. SO while I would love to see a 40" limit, and would prefer a 54", I'm willing to give up my voting and attending of the hearings to hopefully move the process of disbanding the CC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Too much of a risk. I think I expressed why I believe that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | All of this bickering is precisely why I posted above(if that seemed at all self righteous, please reread with the mind set that I have always worked with this flawed system for the 'greater good'). My point has been further advanced, that if this question was split, we would have two threads here instead of one. One on which the vast majority of this sites members agree and applaud the 40" increase, and one in which some voice their concerns about the 28" lake choices. Bottom line, most of the people debating 28" lake choice would be found voicing approval on the '40" statewide increase thumbs up' read.
Based on history, it is rare that a 'two pronged' question goes far in the hearings for reasons listed above. I'll see if anything can be done to split them up.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/10/2011 5:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
| lambeau - 2/9/2011 4:19 PM
A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught. Actually, a 28" size limit is a clear encouragement to harvest fish. For lakes that are overpopulated with small, slow-growing fish, the goal might in fact be to increase harvest and reduce the number of fish per acre until such time as the population is more in balance with what the lake can support. There are lakes where genetics or poor forage base or overpopulation means that very few fish are able to grow over 40" long (gasp!) and a higher size limit would only compound the overpopulation problem by protecting every starving fish in the lake for their entire lifespan. Wisconsin is full of lakes that are full of muskies and no two of them are the same. North Twin and Wildcat are simply not the same thing and shouldn't be managed as if they are. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed.
I think I agree with Lambeau on this. I know of some lakes that are just loaded with Muskies under 30", and have been for years. In spite of some harvest they continue to be teaming with mostly small Muskies. I don't personally know enough about these lakes and the genetics of the fish in them to assume that the Muskies would grow bigger simply because a 40" limit was imposed, or if it would result in even more sub-30" Muskies in the lake---to the point that there is an unhealthy imbalance for all of the species in the lake.
So, I'm not clear why a person would want to vote for imposing an across the board 40" limit on all Wisconsin lakes if that might not be the best management for some lakes. Steve? |
|
| |
|
| Never mind...I missed part of the bills wording. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I think it's safe to say that for the vast majority of lakes in WI, increased size limits would lead to better muskie fishing opportunities. For those few relatively infertile lakes, that are basically full of small muskies and stunted perch/panfish? Well, I'd verture to say you could put a 50" size limit on it and it wouldn't change the fishery for the better. From my conversations with the biologists and everything I've read on the subject, it seems the key to a successful fishery is obtaining a balanced biomass, so the predatory fish are there in the right numbers where they can reach their maximum growth potential. If there's not enough for them to eat, and they spend all their time competing for food and chasing around small meals that don't provide much nourishment. The end result is small skinny fish, and that's true of all freshwater species. Even then, some lakes just simply don't have the biomass to grow big muskies. I don't know anything about the lakes in question, but if that's the case? Some muskie harvest would provide better fishing for EVERYTHING down the road. While I'd rather see a "catch and transport to another lake" provision, that's really not possible with VHS in the picture. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Wausau, WI | Butternut, Solberg, Mineral, English, and Gresham are all lakes that I fish. I will be voting for the 40" increase because it's going to better other lakes that I like much more than these. The 28" limit on the ten lakes necessarily isn't going to "ruin" the lake. I guess we have to have faith in our DNR biologist that he is making the correct judgement. I just don't understand why they are putting the two changes under the same bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg - 2/10/2011 5:25 PM
All of this bickering is precisely why I posted above(if that seemed at all self righteous, please reread with the mind set that I have always worked with this flawed system for the 'greater good'). My point has been further advanced, that if this question was split, we would have two threads here instead of one. One on which the vast majority of this sites members agree and applaud the 40" increase, and one in which some voice their concerns about the 28" lake choices. Bottom line, most of the people debating 28" lake choice would be found voicing approval on the '40" statewide increase thumbs up' read.
Based on history, it is rare that a 'two pronged' question goes far in the hearings for reasons listed above. I'll see if anything can be done to split them up.
One thing you are NOT is self righteous. You are 'the conservation man' on several waters, watching out for all of us. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Hoping once the youngest gets in school, that I can use some day-off time to get more heavily involved again. I did send an email off to Tim and Co at DNR, the WMA, and others, inquiring about/suggesting splitting the question. I included a link to this thread for reference purposes, hope thats okay.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/11/2011 8:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I was told by Jeff (DNR fisheries biologist) it was not possible to split the questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Thanks Flambeauski, sent the email, so at least they can see what is happening amongst this group of readers. It is always difficult to get size limit increases to pass in WI, and anything that can be done as to lessen confusion on any of these questions, is a step towards getting them passed.
Jason Schillinger |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Most complain about our current CC process that we have in WI. Some think that the questions that come about are questions the CC thought up themselves and are pushing to be voted on.
I suggest some people look into the CC a bit, and understand the system. Also before condemning the CC, or DNR, for a question look into where that question originated. Case in point a month ago we learned of the pike spearing question to be voted on by the board, and everyone blamed the CC or DNR. However, those that made the call to their rep learned the question was proposed by the public at one of the hearings. It did not come about by the CC. It did not come about by the DNR. So groups of people got incorrectly blamed.
Complaining about it will do nothing but get people riled up. Honestly if we as outdoorsman want a say in how things are done in WI I feel the CC is a GOOD thing. Watch what you ask for when you want to leave it solely up to “those that know best”. Those people may have the opposite opinion of what you want. However with the CC process WE have the ability to get some things done as we see fit. As Steve mentioned several length changes in the past resulted in it. Schillinger, Robert’s, Wild, and others all used the CC process to increase limit sizes. If we didn’t have the process we may still have those lakes at the size limits they were at prior.
If you don’t like how things are done, or who is in the CC start lobbying for yourself or others to run for a position. Get on the board and from there try to make changes. As in a Democracy the CC should be, and is “for the people, by the people”. We only have ourselves to blame if we don’t like what is being done.
Ask yourself one question. “Would I really be happy if I couldn’t have a say in how I would like to see ______ (insert topic here) managed?”
Be very careful what you ask for!
Like some have said vote for the 40” statewide if you agree with it, and then work towards changing the 28” limits to something more desirable. Through the CC process we have a chance to change. Much more chance than if the DNR just decided upon this themselves and institute it.
Off my soapbox.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Well, I made some calls/emails and found out why it wasn't split. There were individuals that insisted the 28" limit within the proposal to agree to the 40", and that was the only way the team could get the question on the ballot. To paraphrase one of the key members of the Muskellunge team I spoke with today, Its really up to avid musky anglers to get out and support this as without them, it likely will not pass. People have themselves to blame next year, for low size limits in WI, if this doesn't pass.
What folks can and should do(as travis said), is get out in numbers to vote this statewide increase in, and then work on individual waters that went to 28", to get them to the statewide 40", as a number on the list should be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Thanks for posting this John, I didn't know this was on the agenda. I've railed against the muskie haters (they purposely kill any they catch, some even cut gills and throw the fish back in) on Solberg for years. The 28" limit proposed for Solberg is not management based but came as a result of a "Lake Management Vision Meeting" with the DNR and our Lake Association. The night before the meeting I was told by the Haters that they were all going to be there to vote on getting rid of the muskies and to turn a good muskie and walleye lake into a panfish lake. Several years earlier our Lake Association had voted overwhelmingly in favor of a 40" size limit. The person who was supposed to get this on the Spring Hearing ballot dropped the ball due to some influence by the haters.
The haters were smart in that they saw that if they stacked the deck they could get results they wanted and they all showed up and brought their wives. Some of these people don't even fish but just came to vote and support the their neighbor. The guys on the lake that really pound the water were not there to vote, they were out fishing. The votes at this meeting were really stacked against us. I complained to the DNR and was told that this vote is proof that this is what people want. I said if we could schedule a re-vote I'd have all the walleye and muskie fishermen there and he'd see differant results. Fell on deaf ears.
I've fished lakes all over Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Canada for 45 years and Solberg is not what anyone would call a numbers lake. In fact I've been complaining for a few years that I rarely catch any small (<34") fish anymore and was waiting for a population collapse. I just looked through my fish diaries and from Solberg I have averaged 24 over 34" every year since 1996. Since 2003 I only have 11 under 34". If this is a numbers lake, for as much as I fish shouldn't I have more small fish caught? There's enough pressure on the lake so I probably am cutting my own throat, but we've caught some really fat 42" - 47" fish every year. I've gotten 4 larger than that in the last 3 years. There was a picture of someone in a statewide magazine this past month of one over 50". I was from Vilas County and came to Phillips when I got married. Right from the start I was shocked at the amount of people on this lake that hate muskies and any kind of weeds, logs, or stumps. When I first fished here I thought that with all the structure it looked like a fish factory. Most lakes beg for good weed beds and wood, here we poison the weeds and drag out the stumps and logs and wonder where the fish are. Now I'm peeed off again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Fell on deaf ears. '
No, the opposition beat you fair and square. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I just sent the following email...
Tim Simonson: "Trust me, this was the only way our management team was going to go along with this." Tim, you have certainly earned every muskie anglers trust... many thanks!
Although it's a no-brainer that almost every muskellunge angler would prefer to have a statewide 40" minimum and the 40" and 28" limits listed separately on the spring ballot (so they could vote yes and no respectively), we should also understand there obviously had to be a little give-and-take. In my opinion, this is step in the right direction for muskie angling in the state and Wisconsin muskie anglers need to rally on this ASAP.
We can then push for a longer length limits in the future, same business with individual lakes that Jason and Pete mentioned. To say a 40" statewide minimum is long overdue is quite the understatement, so getting the 40" in place this spring so we can work from that platform is vital IMHO.
Regards,
Jerry Newman
Woodstock Illinois
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Legal maybe but certainly not "fair and square". Only 39 people decided the fish management for our lake. That's about 5% of the property owners. Even then I still can't figure out this 28" limit on Solberg. 19 of the 42 voted for "Low or No" interest in muskies and 20 voted for"High to Medium" interest. Sounds like the 20 votes beats 19, shouldn't it? No votes were cast for "emphasis on numbers over size", 18 votes for a "balance", and 9 voted for "size over numbers". Sounds like a vote for a balanced population with a interest in larger size fish. Then 17 voted for "catch and release", 8 for "balance", and 2 for "maximum sustainable harvest".
I guess the 2 that voted for maximum harvest must have clout somewhere.
As a result of that Vision Session conducted by DNR staff the stated goal was a population of low to moderate density with moderate proportions of preferred and memorable size fish. The management strategy was "because the population currently has the desired size structure, we see no need to depart from the statewide 34-inch minimum length limit for muskellunge on Solberg Lake at this time". So why 28" now?
Butternut had a population of 3.7 young of year per mile which is over the 0.15 - 1.5 expected. Solberg had a population of 1.25 YOY/mile. So I can see why they want to increase harvest on Butternut, but where did this 28" limit on Solberg come from?
How do I vote? This is like the soccor team whose plane crashed and that resorted to cannibalism. Eat a couple to save the rest.
Edited by buddysolberg 2/11/2011 11:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Only 39 people decided the fish management for our lake. That's about 5% of the property owners.'
What percentage of the US population decides on our President by showing up at the polls?
If you show up...and vote, in the numbers your opposition does, your voice is heard. Saying 'Yeah, BUT...' after the fact doesn't work too well. Whining about it and insulting the folks who beat you and making somewhat off the edge comparisons in the process makes you look like...well, figure it out.
Why 28" now? I'd bet, from talking with fisheries folks the last couple years, to try to remove what is felt to be an unacceptably high percentage of males from the population increasing the amount of food for the rest of the Muskies there allowing for better growth rates and reassess at a future date. I'd call and ask them, if it was me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Buddy,
Thanks for the straight dope. After all you've been sayng these years about the anti-musky few on Solberg, I knew this was just the DNR caving in to them. This IS a musky eradication program!
|
|
| |
