Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Request to contact Wisconsin legislators |
| Message Subject: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators | |||
Matt DeVos |
| ||
Posts: 580 | ken - 9/19/2011 9:33 PM Out of that $10 how much would go for improving musky fishing. Maybe $1 out of every $10. Get the government involved and you won't even get $1 or much of a bang for your $10. Just my opinion. It's great to have an opinion...as long as it is an informed one. In that regard, this muskie stamp proposal basically mirrors the trout stamp program. The revenue generated from the trout stamp appears to have been used very efficiently. See for yourself at: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0810.pdf There's no reason to assume that the revenue generated from the muskie stamp would be used differently or inefficiently. | ||
| Matt DeVos |
| ||
Posts: 580 | jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM more taxes and more regulation = bad thing??? yes More muskies and better muskie management = good thing??? yes A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
Matt DeVos - 9/19/2011 10:02 PM jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM more taxes and more regulation = bad thing??? yes More muskies and better muskie management = good thing??? yes A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids. Matt, explain to me why it would not be around for our kids now? In the last 25 years I have watched the range expand and the fishing get better, why now is there a worry muskies will disappear for your kids? BR | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | while everyone is claiming the musky-world and especially wisconsin is in a crisis ... catching 12 fish in 15 hours happens and that guy from missouri is ruining his new boat with musky slime while the rest of us fish with our fingers on the internet. | ||
| Matt DeVos |
| ||
Posts: 580 | BenR - 9/19/2011 10:14 PM Matt DeVos - 9/19/2011 10:02 PM jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM more taxes and more regulation = bad thing??? yes More muskies and better muskie management = good thing??? yes A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids. Matt, explain to me why it would not be around for our kids now? In the last 25 years I have watched the range expand and the fishing get better, why now is there a worry muskies will disappear for your kids? BR Not saying that it wouldn't be around and not saying that muskies will disappear or that there is a current crisis. But the fact is, as Pointer and other have noted, revenues are down, fishing license sales are down. But the ongoing costs of management are steady or increasing. If budgetary shortfalls are foreseeable, then, as one example, stocking shortfalls are foreseeable. There are a lot of lakes in this state that depend on stocking--basically all muskie lakes in the southern half of the state and most lakes in the NW part of the state. Revenue from a muskie stamp would help ensure stocking quotas continue to be met on such waters into the future. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | you just defined special-interest ... there is a place called muskiesinc for stuff like that, assuming you can get those dollars out of the management and to the fishery. and the wheels on the bus go round-and-round | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | jonnysled - 9/20/2011 7:39 AM while everyone is claiming the musky-world and especially wisconsin is in a crisis ... nelson is catching 12 fish in 15 hours and that guy from missouri is ruining his new boat with musky slime while the rest of us fish with our fingers on the internet. I'm not sure anyone is really claiming a crisis. They are simply being realistic in the fact that there is no money. Continuing to manage at the current level is becoming harder and harder due to lack of funds. As has been stated before, every DNR agency around the US is experiencing it. Being proactive and looking for more ways to generate revenue isn't a bad thing. This idea of a stamp may not be the best option, but it at least gets people aware that management needs help. This could only be a ploy to set the tone for a license fee hike. License sales are down, which means federal sportfish dollars given to the state are down, that is a fact. None of what the DNR does is free. With less people getting into the sport of fishing, and many leaving the sport and not renewing their license, the difference needs to be made up somehow. Nelson catching a bunch of fish really has nothing to do with the conversation. It is a silly argument. Sled wrote: "CC, tribal spears and size limits .... show that you can do the stuff that is free before you come asking for more money ... " You cite getting rid of CC hearings to help walleye populations/habitat. That costs money, and in reality isn't likely to happen. You cite addressing tribal spearing as something that would show the DNR could do something for free before asking for money. What exactly would you want done and how is that done for free? Talk about one of the most expensive things on your list. Size limits, ok great. A biologist would need to do surveys to determine, scientifically, what a good size limit would be to benefit the walleyes AND the other species in the ecosystem. The price tag for such an endeavor doesn't say FREE. I understand your argument about a tax to use a public resource via the stamp. I don't think it is the best idea, a license fee hike would be much better. That would include hunting licenses, not just fishing licenses. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | CC dissolved and give management rights to the DNR = ok beaurocratic legislative cost but gets to the root of the problem and a better solution than a stamp to mask the problem. native spearing and walleyes vs. gaming revenues etc... = grassroots campaign to define the effect on the walleye fishery = yah, i agree pointer ... expensive but worth it size limits = if you apply logic it's free, if you want to employ biologists and interns then the obvious answer could be expensive. a good leader makes it free (apply the Scott Walker paradigm). stocking down = great application for special-interest groups like muskiesinc and the like to raise funds for stocking and provide themselves a fishery directed by the dnr. where does all that money go?? opening pandora's box with another income stream to be increased over time, spread to other species and increased over time as a tax for public-use ... might as well tax trailers, tax landings, restrict motor hp and make em all pay-ponds. my apologies on dropping the "crisis" word ... it came from another site. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | jonnysled - 9/20/2011 8:58 AM CC dissolved and give management rights to the DNR = ok beaurocratic legislative cost but gets to the root of the problem and a better solution than a stamp to mask the problem. native spearing and walleyes vs. gaming revenues etc... = grassroots campaign to define the effect on the walleye fishery = yah, i agree pointer ... expensive but worth it size limits = if you apply logic it's free, if you want to employ biologists and interns then the obvious answer could be expensive. a good leader makes it free (apply the Scott Walker paradigm). stocking down = great application for special-interest groups like muskiesinc and the like to raise funds for stocking and provide themselves a fishery directed by the dnr. where does all that money go?? opening pandora's box with another income stream to be increased over time, spread to other species and increased over time as a tax for public-use ... might as well tax trailers, tax landings, restrict motor hp and make em all pay-ponds. my apologies on dropping the "crisis" word ... it came from another site. I agree for the most part. Unfortunately, not many biologists will recommend a size limit change without some form of data, which they may already have. This would likely be the cheapest route, of the three you listed. And I don't disagree that Wisconsin could benefit from some regulation changes. Another tool could be looking at other size limits around the nation and into Canada. What has worked vs what hasn't. Native spearing is what it is and likely wont change. Way too much money involved. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Tax the rich, they aren't paying their fair share! | |||
| jackson |
| ||
Posts: 582 | Yah, and then they can charge $10 for bass, $10 for walleye... i personally don't like the idea and i am against it. We don't need more taxes that will eventually end up in the gov't sink hole. Once there is a tax, it will just get raised every year like everything else. Kind of like the stadium tax. "oh, we only need it til 2012" yah, okay... Why not just raise the size limit??? there are clubs for this.. if you feel the need to donate, do so, join a club at least that way you would know how the money gets spent and it would most likely do more good. Nothing says you can set up donations for this instead of letting gov't tax everyone yet again. Edited by jackson 9/20/2011 10:54 AM | ||
| vegas492 |
| ||
Posts: 1036 | Here's my two cents worth... I'll pay the $10, but feel that it is in vain. I'll support higher size limits, but feel it is mostly in vain. We are going to give the DNR more money to manage the fishery. HAH! In my opinion, it does no good as long as spearing is allowed. Lakes have a tough time producing trophy fish when the big girls are speared every spring. A 54 inch limit on GB would be nice, but do we really want to tell someone that they HAVE to throw back a 53 inch fish? My word. Imagine telling that to someone in your boat who has never boated a 45, then they stick a 53 and it HAS to go back. Sure they can get replicas made, but I think that it would be nice for a person to make that decision, not a legislator. I disagree with Worral (not too popular, but I'll do it anyway) about the fishing being better today than it was years ago. I grew up fishing the lakes in Vilas county for muskies. I saw and caught larger fish twenty five years ago than I do today up there. In terms of pure numbers, there may be more Class A musky lakes with higher densities of fish, but we do not have the trophy fishery now compared to back then. Just a personal observation.... Will this extra revenue help? Or is it throwing good money after bad money? I'm not sure you can "fix" the trophy fishery up north without addressing the issue of spearfishing. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| So is smelly against the muskie stamp with all his WI success, or are you just using him as an example to further your argument against being proactive rather then reactive stance? I keep hearing how the fishery is improving in WI, which by all accounts I would believe it is. Don't you think that with this improving fishery you are seeing more people fishing for them? Is the only thing that is important what you observe today, and not what logic and history will tell us about what to expect in the future? Do you really want to lay the responsibility of WI future muskie fishery on Muskies Inc.? How far do you think that will get you? JS | |||
| h2os2t |
| ||
Posts: 941 Location: Freedom, WI | This stamp proposal came from a fairly large group including some from the DNR looking to make changes which are needed. Yes there are things that need to change unless you can get the right people to change it will not get changed. The stamp proposal was a way to get funding (funding that is drying up and not about to get better at least for a while) for the muskie program so it can do things that need to be done within the rules out there. It also has a long road to get there as you have to get a majority of the politicians to get on board to do it. It could have been done like the early season and slid through but that is not right. Somebody needed to give it a push and this will hopefully get things rolling. If you do/do not like it make contact with the politicians, your choice. If you have a better option (which there are some good ones) the ball is in your court, jump in with both feet (one group did). | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | JS ... my answer poorly delivered point using sarcasm ... my bad. now, on the subject ... problem statement = budget gaps solution statements = 1. additional use tax via stamp 2. increase current revenue via license sales 3. increase current revenue via increase in license cost 4. special interest funding (the tie-in to muskies inc. and the like) answering your question ... i use sarcasm when asking where the current funding to mi goes because even in that the money doesn't find the water like it should, what makes anyone think it could find a more direct path through a government legislature??? if i could vote on the most significant problem in the Wisconsin Fishery i would be voting on directing funds to the Walleye fishery. but, as is stated above by Vegas492 ... there is the obvious obstacle to all of this that complicates things on all levels. | ||
| Wimuskyfisherman |
| ||
Posts: 229 | I agree that most muskyfisherman would support the musky stamp. I for one think its a good idea. Don't let the nonsense crap talk of jonnysled discourage you one bit. His only job is internet trouble maker... Speaking of wasting time on the internet... Aren't there some LMBs that need a hurting jonnysled? Too much work to stand up and go hook up the boat, so time to play on the internet... With a 6 pack its better than TV- right? John | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Wimuskyfisherman - 9/20/2011 11:22 AM I agree that most muskyfisherman would support the musky stamp. I for one think its a good idea. Don't let the nonsense crap talk of jonnysled discourage you one bit. His only job is internet trouble maker... Speaking of wasting time on the internet... Aren't there some LMBs that need a hurting jonnysled? Too much work to stand up and go hook up the boat, so time to play on the internet... With a 6 pack its better than TV- right? John why not support why you think it's a good idea? ... too many LMB's and they are dominating the Walleyes ... which is a real problem and should be on top of the list of priorities in the Wisconsin fisheries management agenda. you have anything to contribute? or just need to vent a little?? looking forward to your wisdom/drama ... | ||
| hodaghawg |
| ||
Posts: 202 Location: Rhinelander | I have a solution to funding problems, less government. They are creating ways to keep their job. | ||
| Jolly Roger |
| ||
Posts: 49 | Lol........I figured jon for at least a 12 pack.......  good discussion gentlemen......I like the license increase idea first, even though I pay alot more being a non-resident. On the other hand, I have to buy a salmon stamp down here for Waukegan......and I really enjoy the coho's I get out of there several times a year. Without those stamps.....it doesn't happen.....but is fair to compare to muskie ?? Not sure. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | lambeau - 9/20/2011 11:50 AM i use sarcasm when asking where the current funding to mi goes because even in that the money doesn't find the water like it should on the local club level Muskies Inc money absolutely does "find the water", Sled. lots of clubs raising lots of money locally and dumping it (literally) straight into their area lakes through fish stocking, habitat creation/conservation, clean water efforts, etc. you could say the same about the headwaters chapter ... they are a hard-working group that finds the water too. edit ... sorry my copy-paste skills are lacking today ... Edited by jonnysled 9/20/2011 12:00 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Muskies Inc. contributes a lot to the fisheries, especially at the local level. But we scramble to raise the monies we contribute now. Counting on MI to do more isn't going to happen unless a lot of folks join up. $10 a year is cheaper than a yearly membership to MI and if the money is a direct benefit to the muskie fishery it's a much more effective contribution. JS | |||
| jackson |
| ||
Posts: 582 | I also believe that if you have to have a stamp, some people will feel the need to keep the fish. I think its a bad idea all around. And again, once gov't has a hand in the money, there is no way to know who is getting their hands on it year after year. Just look at our previous gov in Wisc... gas taxes = teacher funds.... Mal practive fund = paying for his pet projects, and the list goes on. How soon before the DNR says, "oh we need more $ and next year it will be $20. No thanks.. the musky community has been more successful in CPR than the gov't has been. We can manage ourselves. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | I'm not sure the comparison to the trout/GL trout & salmon fishery is a fair one. In many waters little to no natural reproduction occurs for salmonids. Musky have the opportunity and do successfully reproduce in the wild, though spearing may have a negative effect on the success/number able to spawn. The GL stamp helps fuel the entirely artificial fishery that has been created in Lake Michigan. Lambeau also highlights some reasons why the stamp is not a good idea. Unless there is an air tight lid and those fund cannot and will not be diverted anywhere but muskies, then the stamp would be a horrible idea. I will guarantee that if that money can be dipped into for other expenditures, it will and the muskies will never benefit from it. | ||
| h2os2t |
| ||
Posts: 941 Location: Freedom, WI | Dollar amount can not be changed by the DNR as it is set by the Legislature. If the Trout stamp money can not be raided the Muskie stamp money can not be raided. Here is a little reading for you. Protecting, Restoring and Maintaining Viable and Sustainable Muskellunge Fisheries in North America While Promoting Economic Growth World Muskie Alliance February, 2011 Overview It is common knowledge that we are in a struggling economic climate, especially in most areas of the muskellunge’s native range, where income from tourism based on natural resources comprises a percentage of local, state, and provincial economies. Now, more than ever, tourism-based communities need protect and restore sources of local income. Due to an ever-increasing interest in the sport of muskie fishing and the tourism dollars it generates, the World Muskie Alliance believes that protecting, restoring, and propagating healthy muskellunge populations in select rivers and lakes in North America will result in significant economic benefits to the region. The Sport The allure of muskie fishing has been described in many ways. In short, the thrill and anticipation of the “hunt”, the ferocity with which the species attacks a lure, its greyhound-like jumps and cart-wheeling aerial acrobatics rival anything found in freshwater. The possibility of catching a truly huge fish, and, most importantly, releasing the fish using the safest methods possible to insure that it lives to fight another day for another angler, provide a unique and addicting fishing experience. To be successful, one may hire a guide for just one day out of the year, or collect boats, rods, reels, lures, lore, photographs, and memories over the course of a lifetime venture, in which the rewards go far beyond just “catching a fish”. As the sport has evolved, the thrill of fishing “new water” has become popular with more experienced anglers. The number of fisherman specifically targeting muskellunge is growing. Anyone who has followed the sport even for a brief time knows this. Ask any seasoned muskie fisherman or sporting goods store owner where muskies are found and they will concur. First magazines, then the Internet began introducing more to the sport, providing information on new waters and techniques, and safe methods of catch and release for the fish and the fisherman. In recent years, rod, reel, line, tool, and boat manufacturers have begun to include products made specifically for chasing muskies. Many of these products are made in the United States and Canada. For nearly all muskie fishermen, the desired quarry is the largest, mature adults. Unfortunately, it seems probable that the number of adult fish in many areas can no longer keep up with the demand. Even though there is a concerted effort within the fishing community to promote catch and release and to educate the public on proper handling techniques to conserve the resource, many fish die from delayed mortality, liberal daily bag limits, and state-legislated size limits that do not allow fish to reach sexual maturity in order to sustain natural populations. Compounding the problem, fishing pressure has seemingly increased on waters known to hold significant populations of large, adult fish. The Economics A 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report stated that recreational fishing in the United States generated $82 billion in sales, $24 billion in income, and supported 534,000 jobs. While exact revenue amounts based on muskie fishing alone is somewhat elusive, the sport is commonly believed to have a very positive economic impact where healthy muskellunge populations exist. Well-known boundary waters such as Lake St. Clair, the St. Lawrence River, and Lake of the Woods draw large numbers of muskie fishermen every year. Properly managed and protected areas of Minnesota such as Lake Vermillion, Lake Bemidji, and Cass Lake, as well as recent attempts to restore historical populations of the Great Lakes strain of muskellunge in Green Bay have become huge fishing success stories. Successful propagation of the resource in order to boost tourism can be found as far south as Kentucky and Tennessee, as far east as New Jersey, and as far west as Washington State. Muskie anglers commonly spend money on lodging, food and drink, vehicle fuels and additives, boat, trailer, and truck maintenance, state campground, access and launch fees, and more. In Indiana, native muskies nearly disappeared by the 1960s. Today, with excellent propagation and management, yet with only ten lakes containing the species, Indiana has become a prime muskie destination (Jordan 2008). An Indiana Department of Natural Resources report has stated “Assuming muskie anglers spend $50 per trip (American Sportfishing Association), the economic value of muskie fishing at Loon Lake was estimated to be $29,917 in 2004. The commercial value of 1,100 fingerlings (10-in) stocked each year is estimated to be $7,700 for a benefit:cost ratio of 4:1” (Pearson 2005). At Lake Webster, Indiana, muskie anglers spent an estimated $339,147, “representing 76% of the entire program since its inception and worth more than 10 times the annual cost of stocking ($30,960)” (Pearson 2005). In Minnesota muskies have been aggressively managed as a trophy fishery. A 2005 study was performed within the state showed that muskie anglers spent an average of 45 days on the water compared to just 21 days for non-muskie anglers. The study also reported that 33 percent of the members of Muskie, Inc. (the prominent muskellunge sport fishing based organization) spend $2,000 to $4,999 on fishing expenses every year compared to only 8.6 percent of non-muskie anglers who spent monies in that range (Schroeder and Fulton 2005). The economic impact of muskie fishing in Wisconsin is significant. In 2006, an estimated 1.4 million anglers spent $1.8 billion dollars directly on fishing within the state (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 2006). It is estimated that 25% of anglers who fish Wisconsin specifically target muskies (Simonson 2008). That equates to $425 million dollars spent on fishing for muskies in Wisconsin in 2006 alone. Tim Simonson, fisheries biologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, believes that a 50” fish could be worth in upwards of $35,850 dollars per surviving stocked fish, and take up to18 years for a fish to reach that size (Simonson 2008). The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has listed 794 bodies of water within the state as containing known populations of muskellunge. In comparison to Wisconsin, Minnesota is listed as having only 111 bodies of water that contain muskie. Ironically, the previously mentioned U.S. Fish and Wildlife report states that the same amount of anglers who fished Wisconsin (1.4 million) spent an estimated $2.8 billion dollars in Minnesota – a difference of $1.1 billion. Using the same 25% of total anglers as those who target muskies, it can be assumed that $700 million was spent on muskie fishing in Minnesota in 2006 ($275 million more than Wisconsin with roughly 1/8 of the water). This analogy begs the question – Why? The answer is quite simple. The state of Minnesota, with the help of Muskies, Inc., localized clubs, and countless numbers of individuals who had a collective vision, have made the state’s muskellunge waters a more desirable place to fish. Minnesota has a more proactive management strategy that included raising the minimum size limit to 48 inches. Minnesota fish reach sexual maturity and beyond (required for natural recruitment) and maximum size potential desired by fishermen. It would only be fair to state at this point that mature fish are what the vast majority of muskie anglers target, and they will spend many hours, fruitless days, and vast amounts of money in their pursuit. In retrospect, it has become obvious that fishermen from other states, including Wisconsin, where the muskellunge is the state fish, are leaving other muskie lakes closer to home to travel to Minnesota, remote areas of Canada with “no kill” regulations, or more specific places like Lake Webster to pursue muskies. In the case of Minnesota and Indiana, it is clearly the result of the states’ direction in muskellunge management. The Problems According to a 2006 Wisconsin DNR survey, 12,493 legal muskies were harvested by hook and line anglers (Wisconsin DNR 2008). This number is likely to be higher because of delayed mortality due to handling which could be as high as 30% (Casselman 2005), and legal winter harvest of fish by Native American tribal members (believed to be significant), were unknown and not included in the study. This number essentially equates to 53 legal fish harvested per 1000 acres of muskie water per year. These fish must be replaced each year in order to maintain the present levels of adult fish within the population. This presents a significant challenge to state natural resource officials who tend to rely on stocking efforts, due to high mortality rates of fish spawned naturally, and the likelihood of mortality before sexual maturity. Replacing fish through stocking efforts is risky, considering within the first several months a loss of nearly 70% occurs, leaving few remaining fish surviving to sexual maturity (Margenau and Hanson 1996). Knowing that the species requires 5-7 years just to reach maturity (Margenau and Hanson 1996), and more to reach maximum size potential, stocking alone is clearly not a guaranteed replacement of harvested adult fish. In an attempt to maintain its muskellunge fishery, the Wisconsin DNR stocks roughly 145,000 muskies per year, at an annual cost of over $400,000 dollars (Simonson 2008). Compounding the problem, stable population densities tend to be relatively small. Target population densities of stocked Wisconsin lakes are commonly between .2 to 1 fish per acre, with the average density being less than .5 adult fish per acre (Hanson, et. al., 1986). Logistically, population densities are known to be much smaller in larger bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, making muskellunge especially difficult to study or to assess population densities. Essentially, due to low population densities indicative of the species, muskellunge are easily over-exploited, and have been in many places throughout history. Muskellunge are of relatively old age at sexual maturity, obviously older near maximum size potential. This fact, combined with low population densities, leave populations highly vulnerable to over-exploitation. Documentation in regards to the actual exploitation rates of muskies is limited. However, in one tagging study performed in Peavy Impoundment, Michigan, 7 muskellunge were tagged and released. One fish was reported harvested in the very first year, for an annual exploitation rate of 14%. At Skegmog Lake, Michigan, 2 out of 11 tagged muskellunge were harvested in less than a year, for a minimum annual exploitation rate of 18% (Thomas, et. al., 2009). While the population samples may seem small for this particular study, they correlate well with the low population densities known to exist within these two particular bodies of water. Being the tertiary predator in waters where they are found, muskellunge have been wrongly accused for decreases in other sport fish populations, such as walleyes, and therefore have been targeted for extensive harvest and wanton waste in some areas. Recently, it has been established that the preferred forage of muskellunge tend to be perch, white sucker, and other elongated, soft rayed, non-sport fish (Bozek, et. al., 1999; Williams 2007). The Solutions For years the idea behind bolstering muskie populations was to increase number of stocked fish. While stocking of fish is important, especially where existing wild populations of fish are threatened or where decimated populations have the potential to be restored (such as the success of the Green Bay Muskellunge Restoration Project), it takes funding and knowledge to be correctly implemented. The idea that genetics play a considerable role in the propagation of the species, and that there are strains of muskellunge that differ greatly in life cycle habits and habitat requirements is not a new idea among those who study and pursue the muskellunge. However, the import role genetics play in regard to the species has only recently come to light within most natural resource agencies. Therefore, the proper genetic strain of muskellunge required by the particular body of water for the stocking to be successful must be carefully considered. Again, this requires knowledge, which requires study, which in turn requires funding. The act of raising fish and releasing them into a body of water is only a small piece of the puzzle. Protecting the fish to maturity is also very important to the goals of the World Muskie Alliance. By selectively reducing bag limits and increasing minimum size regulations where needed, muskellunge can procreate successfully, naturally bolstering populations without stocking, and allowing fish to reach the desired maximum size. Taking the idea even further, some bodies of water that have struggling populations of wild, native fish with ultra-low densities (such as the Indian River chain and St. Mary’s River in Michigan) would greatly benefit from mandatory “catch and release” or “no kill” regulations. Lac Seul, Ontario, is a shining example of how the regulation can bolster populations and allow fish to reach their maximum growth potential. The “no kill” regulations could be seasonal or could be implemented for a specified length of time in order to examine how the population reacts or until a true population estimate can be established. These actions have the potential to ease the problem of over-harvest or exploitation and reduce the need for stocking in some areas. Protecting the fish to maturity has a two-fold effect. It increases the likelihood of natural recruitment (MacLennan 1995), which saves money in stocking costs because fewer fish need to be replaced to sustain the existing populations, and it also allows fish to approach maximum size potential. These results help promote a self-sustaining population of various year classes of fish. Sufficient quality habitat is a main requirement for any species. Habitat recognition, restoration, and improvement are part of another well-established plan to help bolster and protect muskellunge populations. Wetland and near-shore habitat protection has been an important environmental topic for decades. This endeavor also requires funding, and time-consuming research, but great strides have been made and many are volunteering to help this cause (Wisconsin DNR 2009). The previous solutions stated above can be tied together in a way that makes sense - a legislatively endorsed Muskellunge Stamp. An idea not new to fish management, trout and salmon stamps, as well as a stamp (or tag) requirement for sturgeon fishing, have been successful in several states for decades. Funding generated by a proposed muskie stamp could be used for stocking, habitat restoration, protection and research, and administration of the muskellunge stamp program. Mandatory registration of each harvested fish would help greatly with acquiring crucial data to help manage muskellunge, including better representative estimates of populations and the assessment of the health of individual muskies brought in for registration, as well as the health of populations as a whole. Recently, Jerry Newman of the World Muskie Alliance has drafted a legislative proposal for Wisconsin, outlining a plan to generate funds through the use of a stamp that could be used as a model for other states and provinces as well. Conclusion In recent years North America has a witnessed an economic decline rivaled only by the Great Depression. In stark reality, every means of bolstering the economy should be explored. The World Muskie Alliance believes that promoting and maintaining healthy, and sustainable trophy muskellunge fisheries throughout the species’ native range, and where tourist and sport fishing-based economies exist, is a viable economic stimulus strategy. It is a strategy that will help our struggling economy, while protecting a valuable resource and meeting the goals of the World Muskie Alliance, preserving the sport of muskellunge fishing for generations to come. Cited Literature Bozek, M.A., T.M. Burri, and R.V. Frie. 1999. Diets of Muskellunge in Northern Wisconsin Lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:258-270. Casselman, S.J. 2005. Catch and Release Angling: A Review with Guidelines for Proper Fish Handling Techniques. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Hanson, D.A., M.D. Staggs, S.L. Serns, L.D. Johnson, and L.M. Andrews. 1986. Survival of Stocked Muskellunge Eggs, Fry, and Fingerlings in Wisconsin Lakes. Jordan, Don. 2008. Indian Muskie Program Producing Big Payoffs. Jordan Communications. MacLennan, Don. 1995. Changes in the Muskellunge Fishery and Population of Lake St. Clair after an Increase in the Minimum Size Limit. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Erie Management Unit. Margenau, T. L., and D. A. Hanson. 1996. Survival and Growth of Stocked Muskellunge: Effects of Genetic and Environmental Factors. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Dept. of Commerce. 2006. Fisheries Economics of the United States. Pearson, Jed. 2005. Impacts of Predator Management on Bluegill Fishing at Loon Lake, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Pearson, Jed. 2005. Current Status of the Fish Community and Quality of Fishing at Lake Webster, Indiana. Fisheries Section, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Schroeder, S.A., and D.C. Fulton. 2005. Fishing in Minnesota: a Study of Angler Participation and Activities. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology. Simonson, Tim. 2008. Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Update. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Thomas, M., J.S. Diana, and G. Smith. 2009. Editors-Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division Special Report. Management Plan for Muskellunge in Michigan. Williams, Duane. 2007. What Do Muskies Eat Anyway? Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2009. WDNR Weekly News. New Tools Help Identify Spawning Habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Anglers Mail Survey: 88 Million Fish Caught, 33 Million Kept in 2006-07. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | so is this a North America initiative? are you wanting to fund the WMA? or save jobs? ... did i read that this was a DNR budget-gap proposal previously? looks like a lot of peripheral dialogue supporting a fund-raiser for the WMA or did i miss it? what you just presented was all over the place and reads like one big run-on sentence ... and looks like a minnesoat vs. wisconsin gap initiative. does it still apply even now when fish in minnesota are sometimes hard to come by? | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 |
This thread was started by Roger to begin a rally of support for Wisconsinites to contact their Wisconsin legislator. If you already feel strongly enough that this is a step in the wrong direction for us as a group of sportsmen, then you should consider contacting your legislator in that regard as well… let the chips fall where they may. I honestly thought there would be overwhelming support from this group, or at least there would be a few legitimate questions without good solid answers before dismissing it. Just so everyone understands, this streamlined muskie stamp version is not the final version, there will still be plenty of time for revisions by us and the WDNR if/when it is approved. A couple things, when we were working on the nuts and bolts of the stamp. We thought it was important to not only generate some muskie specific revenue, but also create a tool for the WDNR to keep track of the kept fish for management purposes. Tim Simonson (of the WDNR) was actually in favor of a muskie kill tag originally, but was willing to go along with this stamp model and mandatory reporting for kept fish. I thought that was a good point regarding the family license with a muskie stamp for $60. This can be easily addressed with only a one stamp per license requirement. We would be sure it is worded that way if passed. Something else that needs to be addressed is that the final revision needs to include something to the effect of the revenue generated from the stamp is separate from monies already allocated for muskie in the general fund. I think it's important that it be made crystal clear that this stamp fund does not reduce or offset anything already in the existing budget. The wording will need to be well thought out, but I can assure you that we will also address this if passed. Otherwise, we could certainly ask Tim Simonson to project the percentage going toward the fishery verses administrative if there is enough interest. Edited by Jerry Newman 9/20/2011 2:25 PM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | on MH it's 4-for 10-against here it's 7-for 13-against looks like lots of confusion. are you confirming that this stamp is the fund-raising effort for the WMA?? | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | jonnysled - 9/20/2011 2:14 PM so is this a North America initiative? are you wanting to fund the WMA? or save jobs? ... did i read that this was a DNR budget-gap proposal previously? looks like a lot of peripheral dialogue supporting a fund-raiser for the WMA or did i miss it? what you just presented was all over the place and reads like one big run-on sentence ... and looks like a minnesoat vs. wisconsin gap initiative. does it still apply even now when fish in minnesota are sometimes hard to come by? Agreed, this was extremely unclear and poorly written. Some of the glaring issues that sled listed (spearing, size limits) were addressed in this article, but no where did the article tie them in to the musky stamp. This seems frivolous without addressing the main issues, almost like trying to apply a wet bandaid in a pool. It really won't help much. It sounds like Simonsen would have supported a stamp exclusively for the harvest of a musky and nothing else, but was coerced into something else. How do you regulate mandatory harvest reporting? That sounds like a pipe dream. Are you going to call each angler that purchase a stamp and rely on them to be truthful? All the musky stamp money would be burned up calling/emailing (whatever) each angler. The success of Indiana is listed, do they have a stamp? If not, then what does that have to do with a stamp. The Muskellunge Symposium: A memorial tribute to EJ Crossman sites the success of Indiana's musky fishery is due to communication and working together, not creation of a stamp. The very next paragraph also discusses the idea of a musky stamp. Comparison is made between the trout stamp and its success, BUT (and this is a big BUT) the book also sites that a potential loss in general funds allocated to musky specific work could happen. In tight economic times you can bet that this would be looked at very carefully. That is a steep, slippery, ice covered slope you simply don't want to set foot on. Once you lose general funds, good luck getting them back. | ||
| Tired |
| ||
| Maybe sled and pointer could do better, lets see what you can do. I am waiting. | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Tired - 9/20/2011 3:28 PM Maybe sled and pointer could do better, lets see what you can do. I am waiting. Raise the price of hunting and fishing licenses. You are welcome. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |