|
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Edited by Flambeauski 4/17/2014 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Spoken like a true FIB.
Edited by BenR 4/17/2014 1:34 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you can cast and fish with a sucker and and stay within the law ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Flambeauski - 4/17/2014 12:48 PM
I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Actually 20% would be very high. I live in Wisconsin and fish waters open to trolling already. All of my Walleyes(400ish-kept a dozen or so) came casting. All but 6 Muskies came casting. What is your point? The 6 Muskies I hooked in the mouth with one treble hook while dragging suckers last year are going to die, vs the several I had to do minor surgery to remove the double 10 bucktails that were eaten while casted between noon and 6pm?
The resistance by the general public to any attempt in improving panfish population/size structure dynamics, is disheartening. It is my hope that at some point, our local managers will be allowed to manage a few of their local waters with some modern/much needed panfish regs. Take a couple lakes in a few counties and apply more stringent limits or cnr for a few years. Let's see what happens. My kids love to eat panfish, but they really love to catch really big bluegills. It isn't any secret that the only way to consistently do that is to fish less pressured, difficult to access, or private waters. There are thousands of lakes in the state capable of producing giant Gills(10.5+" fish). Lets allow a few of them the chance to do so. There are also a ton of lakes that once produced a lot of eater sized fish(7-8") fish that struggle in doing so now. I know there are a lot more factors in producing numbers and or size in a panfish pop, and I also know we do have a lot of lakes that are ust fine with limits right where they are, but I see no reason why we couldn't have a number of agreed upon waters to at least experiment with. Kudos to the DNR for attempting to gain support in doing this. |
|
| |
|
| jonnysled - 4/17/2014 1:38 PM
you can cast and fish with a sucker and and stay within the law ...
Its my understanding that currently if you use your trolling motor and move your boat with that sucker out, it is up to a DNR warden's discretion as to whether or not that is considered trolling. Most people would agree with you, but apparently some people were concerned, so that is what was initially brought up, to clarify that it is legal to do so- The politicians decided to make the question about trolling in general...not exactly what was being requested. Now here we are. |
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg - 4/17/2014 1:47 PM
Flambeauski - 4/17/2014 12:48 PM
I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Actually 20% would be very high. I live in Wisconsin and fish waters open to trolling already. All of my Walleyes (400ish-kept a dozen or so ) came casting. All but 6 Muskies came casting. What is your point? The 6 Muskies I hooked in the mouth with one treble hook while dragging suckers last year are going to die, vs the several I had to do minor surgery to remove the double 10 bucktails that were eaten while casted between noon and 6pm?
The resistance by the general public to any attempt in improving panfish population/size structure dynamics, is disheartening. It is my hope that at some point, our local managers will be allowed to manage a few of their local waters with some modern/much needed panfish regs. Take a couple lakes in a few counties and apply more stringent limits or cnr for a few years. Let's see what happens. My kids love to eat panfish, but they really love to catch really big bluegills. It isn't any secret that the only way to consistently do that is to fish less pressured, difficult to access, or private waters. There are thousands of lakes in the state capable of producing giant Gills (10.5+" fish ). Lets allow a few of them the chance to do so. There are also a ton of lakes that once produced a lot of eater sized fish (7-8" ) fish that struggle in doing so now. I know there are a lot more factors in producing numbers and or size in a panfish pop, and I also know we do have a lot of lakes that are ust fine with limits right where they are, but I see no reason why we couldn't have a number of agreed upon waters to at least experiment with. Kudos to the DNR for attempting to gain support in doing this.
I'd have to agree with this. I would sure think it'd be beneficial to try this on a few lakes and see what happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Well said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Considering the number of walleyes caught trolling on Bago and GB I would say 20% is very low.
The point is, reducing opportunities reduces catch, reducing catch reduces mortality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Actually, we do have some information that's worthwhile in these regard: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/rules/MotorTrollingPropos...
If you don't want to read through that, I'll point out a few highlights:
-Catch rates for muskie, walleye, pike are not increased on trolling vs non-trolling waters
-Harvest rates are not increased on trolling vs non-trolling waters
-Average size of harvested fish are the same in trolling vs non-trolling waters
-No difference in the overall size structure of fish in trolling vs non-trolling waters |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 3:05 PM
CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis.
Then why make the same points as last year? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 3:06 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 3:05 PM
CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis.
Then why make the same points as last year?
Perhaps it's because the points are as valid today as they were a year ago in response to the same concerns?
Edit: Did you ever get to read the Beard report, Travis? You claim it's a "poor study", so I assume you did? What did you learn?
Edited by Matt DeVos 4/17/2014 3:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's an easy argument … |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I don't see much in that study that couldn't be correlated to other factors, like the increased popularity of catch and release, increased size limits, improved stocking and conservation efforts, or the fact that many of the resorts that used to dot the lakes have closed and sold their land to developers. Seems to me that while musky fishing has continued to grow in popularity, the overall number of people fishing out there has continued to decline for as long as I can remember. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
| Whether you are for or against trolling anybody who actually does both knows that catching muskies trolling is no easier than catching them casting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| I am not as concerned about catch rate as I am conserving the tranquility on smaller bodies of water. There is a small amount of wake and motor noise associated with trolling that I can do without on such lakes. Those who enjoy both have plenty of waters to choose from, let the others have the choice to go to a lake and quietly cast without it.
Jaimy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 218
| My sense of the issue is that it is more about the potential of conflicting resource usage. People are concerned that trollers will get in the way of other fishermen and recreational boaters on small water bodies. Very few people in the general public actually have concerns about fisheries management. You will notice that outside of local fishing organizations there is virtually nobody with the pull to make changes (chambers of commerce, politicians, etc.) making any efforts on behalf of walleye, muskies, or even the panfish discussed earlier in this thread. Of course there are a few who fear armadas of pontoon boats flocking to the northwoods with 2 fishermen and 6 grandchildren running 24 lines off a boat so they can kill suspended muskies. That concern was clearly stated by Mr. Rizzo at the hearings. A few think that guys will go out and put a hurt on the walleye (with a bag limit of two or three??). I guess I don't see how a boat either trailing a sucker or even pulling a couple lures is going to be any more problematic than the constant parade of martini barges, jet skiers, tubers, skiers, etc. My honest opinion is that we WILL see an increase in trolling for a few years...just because they can. When people catch on that trolling is just another tactic and doesn't guarantee them a giant musky or a limit of walleye it will simply go back to being a technique that is applied on occasion and to allow sucker fishermen to do what they do now without the "grey area" of position fishing vs. trolling. Frankly in the past number of years I don't think I've heard of anyone getting "busted" for trolling while sucker fishing unless they were blatantly trolling. The DNR has made it clear that trolling IS going to happen one way or another. The one line trolling regulation proposed at this years hearings is about as good a compromise as there is going to be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Ditto to Mr Stoltman. Well said Pete! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another ditto. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Dittio thrice Senior Stoleman. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | Pete's summary nails it better than any I've read. Nice job.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead. |
|
| |
|
| ScottiePippen - 4/19/2014 2:11 PM
Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead.
His response is like a true FIB, because he is a FIB. So am I. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | BenR - 4/19/2014 2:14 PM
ScottiePippen - 4/19/2014 2:11 PM
Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead.
His response is like a true FIB, because he is a FIB. So am I. BR
FIB season is right around the corner … it's been a long winter and a nice, quiet Spring … we're all just about starving to death and the rescue can't come soon enough! |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Given 2 feet of snow on the ground in May or FIBs in town I'll take the FIBs. In fact, come on up early. All that hot air is sure to melt the snow and ice ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| FIB season is right around the corner … That is the funniest thing I have read or heard in a while. Thanks Sled! |
|
| |
|
| ARmuskyaddict - 4/19/2014 5:45 PM
FIB season is right around the corner … That is the funniest thing I have read or heard in a while. Thanks Sled!
Don't feed the troll... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I have a troll boat all ready when this thing finally passes, 18' all primer with a silhouette of Illinois all down the side. Four 5hp Briggs motors on the back, no mufflers. You will hear me on the south end of Tomahawk while I am making a trolling pass on the north end of Kawaguesaga!
Edited by ToddM 4/20/2014 7:43 AM
|
|
| |
