|
|
Posts: 8781
| Tom
I'm sure there are lakes with too many muskies. Selective harvest would do those lakes a world of good.
But to generalize like that and say that higher size limits for muskies is biologically unsound across the board for the entire state? Come on now. The fisheries biologists I've talked to said that every single lake is different, and that the reason you're not seeing 50" fish on a lot of lakes is that the fish don't live long enough to get that big. It's overharvest that's responsible for the small fish in WI. How else to you explain the # of 50"+ fish coming out of MN?
But that's a topic for another discussion.
Tom nobody is here to attack you or disagree with you just for the sake of disagreement. We just all want to know HOW EXACTLY this will mean the end of tournament fishing in WI -- you haven't illustrated that effectively, or perhaps I missed it, but all I'm seeing is that you stance is basically "I run the WMT which means I know what I'm talking about and if I say it is that means it is!!"
If you want people on your side on this thing man, that ain't the the way to go about it...
Show us some numbers, explain to those of us who don't run tournaments how this is going to put you out of business. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we just want to be informed about what this REALLY means for us.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict, exactly! And, I agree wholeheartedly with Shep, he's given real ideas, real data, and an honest assessment of what this means from his perspective. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
First of all, who is talking about Ontario??? I thought we were talking about Wisconsin tournaments and size limits as it pertains to Wisconsin lakes that I have had a conscious problem with. PLEASE STAY ON TARGET WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!! I do not have any information about the muskie populations in Ontario Lakes and the populations of their prefered prey and what the annual angler harvest of all the fish in Ontario is and I doubt very much that you do because I am sure that Ontario's DNR doesn't know either. SO, PLEASE STAY ON TARGET!!!
Yes sir, the WMT has moved to the Moens Chain and it is absolute proof that we are interested in the well being of the muskies instead of the all mighty dollar or the cost of judge boats. We will be having three judge stations on the Moens Chain which is the same number of judge boats that we use on Lake Monona(a 3274 acre lake) and Waubesa and upper Mud (also a good size body of water), so I am sure that three judge boats would have worked for the 3,586 acre Pelican Lake. So if we have three judging locations on the Moens and we would have used three judge boats on Pelican then the cost are the same so why did we move. For the good of the muskies is the answer!!! Because Pelican can get really windy and I didn't want to see muskie after muskies getting beet up in the nets while they waited for a judge boat we moved. If muskies would die at Pelican, it wouldn't be blamed on the wind, it would be a black eye for the WMT and we have worked too hard for that to happen!!! Your offer to supply judge boats to the WMT was a hollow one sir. Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.
As far as the hours that I spend a year on the WMT...well you are not with me during our tournaments when I get to sleep at midnight(if I am lucky) only to wake up at 3:00am. Nor, were you with me during our last bulk mailer when I spent two weeks staight, no weekends off, sleeping 5 to 6 hours and working from mourning until bed to get out the registration forms for 2007. Also, I don't get vacations and Beth and I have not taken a vacation since we started the WMT. No Time for either of us. You have no idea what my schedule is like so don't presume to think that you do, sir!!!
Tom McInnis
|
|
| |
|
| we are interested in the well being of the muskies...We will be having three judge stations on the Moens Chain which is the same number of judge boats that we use on Lake Monona (a 3274 acre lake) and Waubesa and upper Mud (also a good size body of water)...For the good of the muskies is the answer...Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.
my experience fishing a couple of WMT events is that you emphasize safe and careful fish-handling techniques by the participants. you do clearly care about fish being released successfully.
one specific bit of feedback for you since you mentioned Waubesa...you did have three judge boat regions set up on the lake. however, that event was on a cold and breezy day this year and the fishing was slow. it was tough on the judges to stay out there in those conditions, and they didn't. from the time i called in a caught fish, it took 15 minutes for the judge boat to enter Upper Mud lake. why? because he wasn't on station on the north end of Waubesa from where it would have taken him no more than 2 minutes to get to Upper Mud lake.
later that afternoon when i visited tourney HQ to take a bathroom break, all three judge boats were parked at the dock at Christie's Landing, near the south end of the lake, and the judges were sitting inside at the bar. hopefully your concern for the fish will lead you to make sure that your high-quality and high-integrity judges are on station during future judge-boat tournies. for the good of the fish.
If I tell you or anyone that the proposed changes will be the end of the WMT, then that is what it will be. And because we absolutely wont be able to go forward if the changes are adopted, then most fishing tournaments will also follow the same fate as us!
again with the "because i say so" response? you can do better than that, Tom!
right now i don't believe this will shut down tourney fishing, but i can actually be open-minded to the possibility that it might happen. i like fishing tournaments and i want them to continue. however, i'll only be convinced by facts and figures that empirically demonstrate this is worse for the tourney scene than it is good for the resource. a "Father Knows Best" approach might convince some people, but not the ones who think more deeply on issues. if you want to persuade people, use information rather than personality. if you can show me WHY you're right, i'll change my vote.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I have a feeling the Rheinlander meeting might be a good one. |
|
| |
|
| here's the PWT Pro-Am results and pay-outs from Winneconne in April 2006:
Pro Results:
1 Tom Gatzke Merrill WI $50000
2 Ken Van Oss Chilton WI $15000
3 Tom Kemos Oconomowoc WI $13000
4 Greg Golliher Oshkosh WI $10000
5 Jay Weber Annandale MN $9000
6 Rick Franklin Park Rapids MN $8000
7 Todd Frank Pulaski NY $7000
8 Ernie Olson Foley MN $6000
9 Ryan Standke Oshkosh WI $5000
10 Keith Kavajecz Kaukauna WI $4000
11 Ron Seelhoff Burlington CO $3500
12 David Albright Norwalk IA $3400
13 Micheal McMaken Cedarville MI $3300
14 Tommy Skarlis Waukon IA $3200
15 Pete Harsh Sauk Centre MN $3100
16 Chase Parsons Brillion WI $3000
17 Steve Wagner Pewaukee WI $2900
18 Ron Gazvoda Lakewood CO $2800
19 Brad Davis Jackson WI $2700
20 Dan Stier Pierre SD $2600
21 John Kolinski Greenville WI 9 $2500
22 Bobby Crow Paterson WA $2400
23 Delvin Kushniryk Regina, SK CAN $2300
24 Dan Plautz Muskego WI $2200
25 Kevin Madigan Sandy UT $2100
26 Mark Courts Harris MN $2000
27 Jeffery Edwards Shoreview MN $2000
28 Jon LaFontaine Oshkosh WI $2000
29 Carl Grunwaldt Green Bay WI $1500
30 Scott Fairbarin Hager City WI $1500
Amateur Results:
1 Daniel Gosenheimer Wild Rose WI $15000
2 Brian Kern Shiocton WI $1200
3 Richard Buhr Hatley WI $1100
4 Brent Long Youngsville PA $1000
5 Tim Reitan Savin MN $900
6 Greg Krings Saint Germain WI $800
7 Mark Thiel Fond du Lac WI $700
8 David Masse Muskego WI $600
9 Matt Mertens Berlin WI $550
10 Mike Dempsey Eagle River WI $500
11 Jim Clingan Belleville MI $450
12 Paul Beran Geneva IL $450
13 Dan Bongers Little Chute WI $450
14 W. L. Carter Lawrenceburg KY $400
15 Scott Peterson Berlin WI $400
16 Greg Pregrack Libertyville IL $400
17 Curt Stam Larsen WI $350
18 David Pawelkiewiiz Oshkosh WI $350
19 Jayson Schenker Waukesha WI $350
20 Bill Reichert North Prairie WI $300
21 Jeff Brauer Larsen WI $300
22 John Mascarello Plattsmouth NE $300
23 Jeff Roberts New London WI $300
24 Matt Miller Bear Creek WI $300
25 Mike Brannen Burlington WI $300
26 Timothy Lauden Fort Collins CO $300
27 Gary Nelson Appleton WI $300
28 Jerry Zimmerman Appleton WI $300
29 Cory Peterson King WI $300
30 Terry Mackillop Houghton Lake MI $300
this tourney is run by In-Fisherman, and Steve says it's operated at a loss since it's viewed as advertising and a cost to support the multi-media enterprises put on by In-Fisherman.
it's paying out over $100,000 in prizes for a single event.
on a scale like that, why would a couple hundred bucks in fees stop them from coming to WI?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 11/9/2006 2:08 PM
Tom
I'm sure there are lakes with too many muskies. Selective harvest would do those lakes a world of good.
But to generalize like that and say that higher size limits for muskies is biologically unsound across the board for the entire state? Come on now. The fisheries biologists I've talked to said that every single lake is different, and that the reason you're not seeing 50" fish on a lot of lakes is that the fish don't live long enough to get that big. It's overharvest that's responsible for the small fish in WI. How else to you explain the # of 50"+ fish coming out of MN?
But that's a topic for another discussion.
Tom nobody is here to attack you or disagree with you just for the sake of disagreement. We just all want to know HOW EXACTLY this will mean the end of tournament fishing in WI -- you haven't illustrated that effectively, or perhaps I missed it, but all I'm seeing is that you stance is basically "I run the WMT which means I know what I'm talking about and if I say it is that means it is!!"
If you want people on your side on this thing man, that ain't the the way to go about it...
Show us some numbers, explain to those of us who don't run tournaments how this is going to put you out of business. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we just want to be informed about what this REALLY means for us.
BINGO! Well said!
Edited by Pointerpride102 11/9/2006 3:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| You guys are focussing on just the monetary impact on one tourney promoter. I don't care to argue the merits of judge vs transport tourneys here.
SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS
These rules will not directly affect small business, pursuant to s. 227.114(8)(b), Stats., therefore
no analysis will be required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is a Type III action under Chapter NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, therefore no EA is required.
Those two statements are from the authority posted above. These rules will not directly affect small business, and no analysis required? No Environmental Assessment required? This is why I hate government! Who determined that no small busnesses will be affected? Ask the motels around Green Bay, Fond du Lac/Oshkosh, Madison, Eagle River if they wouldn't miss having 200+ anglers in town for a week or two? Or the Gas Satations, or the restaurants and bars? How about the tackle dealers?
Why don't you go to the hearings, and listen. Talk to the tourney anglers there. Talk to the small business owners who will be affected. Talk to those supporting this new regulation, and even those that are anti-tourney and anti fishing. Then try to decide if you are for or against, or somewhere in between. Then get up and testify! Be heard. It's not often that you get to make a difference. Only 40% of us voted Tuesday. The rest of you got no right to complain if the choices we made don't work out for you!
As I said before. These regulations are way overboard. I am in favor of no new regulation.
Lambeau, it's not just the $850 for a single permit. It's also the extra work required to conform to the process, to make sure there is a parking plan, to make sure the AIS plan is implemented. They're gonna want $10 from me to fish in tourneys. I already pay for a license.
Hypothetical. You fish for muskies. Because the State of WI spends more money to make sure you have muskies to fish for, they are going to charge you, and your club extra fees, so that you can continue to fish for muskies. Not only that, but your club is going to have to provide a parking plan at the lakes you fish at. And also provide an AIS plan. The DNR ants to recoup it's money it spends extra on muskies. You gotta pay for that. Are you gonna stand for that? Or are you going to satnd up and fight for your rights? That's all we're doing here.
I don't pretend to understand all the finances involved in running a big tournament series. So when the Charlie Evans, Sonny Reynolds, Tom Mcginnis, Jim Coons, and the Jim Kalkofens tell me they will probably not be able to hold tournaments in WI in the future if this regulation is not defeated, well, I'm paying attention to them.
No new regulation is a good regulation.
Edited by Shep 11/9/2006 3:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Shep, I think Slamr should be celebrated as a god among men.
(obviously not slipping) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Hey Shep, I'm just trying to validate the claim that it's going to put tournaments out of business.
I don't think anybody doubts the revenue we generate at these events! 4 drinks at the bar three nights in a row is $50, add in gas for the truck and boat and that's $120, then you gotta eat and buy snacks, stay someplace, and at least buy something at the local tackle shop....
|
|
| |
|
| Hey Lambeau,
I am sorry to hear that it took 15 minutes to have the judge boat reach you but he was in the area that he was stationed at. He called us to see if Beth and I could take the "flex judge boat" out to measure your fish because if I remember correctly, he was having trouble starting his boat. We were on our way to the boat when he called us to imform that he had started his boat and was proceeding your way. This is a problem that can and does occur with the judge boat format and that is why I have heard in other judge boat tournaments taking over 40 minutes for judge boats to arrive. It has always been our philosophy that the quicker we can measure a muskie and release it, the better it is for the fish. That is exactly why we run transport turnaments in favor of judge boats and did not cave in in the early years of the WMT when we could have been filling feilds if we would have comprimised our integrity and used judge boats. I have said this before and I will say it again "the five fastest measurements in tournaments that I have fished in have been transport tourneys and the five slowest have been judge boats with the slowest being 25 minutes or more. And what you saw at Christies must have been the "changing of the quard" because we always had at least one judge in their area at all times and Beth and I were the flex boat giving the judges a chance to go in for lunch and warm up.
Again, I know the finances for the WMT and we can not incur the high permit charges. We can not pass them along to the tournament anglers with any success. And again, there is a misconception that tournament organizers are making money hand over fist and the reality is that is just not so. The WMT has completed our sixth season and of those six season, only the last season have we opperated in the black. OK...there you go...I didn't want the whole world to know that it has been a financial struggle for the WMT not to mention an emotional struggle. Bob Mesikomer use to run a tournament cicuit until after so many years of continuing to loose money he finaly took his accountant's advice and disband his circuit. Making money at this is very hard to do and again unless your the FLW or Bassmasters I don't know how it can be done! Ya...you can call me a chump for setting up a tournament that pays out as much as we do and not taking anything for Beth and I but I beleive in the long run that the WMT will be a huge plus for muskie fishing, and the muskie fishery. I believe we have turned the corner and we can make this in to something really special, but I know the proposed tournament changes will stop us dead in our tracks and I will not struggle any further!
Thanks again Shep for dragging me in to this...you da man!
You have a good one,
Tom McInnis |
|
| |
|
| Again, I know the finances for the WMT and we can not incur the high permit charges. We can not pass them along to the tournament anglers with any success. And again, there is a misconception that tournament organizers are making money hand over fist and the reality is that is just not so. The WMT has completed our sixth season and of those six season, only the last season have we opperated in the black. OK...there you go...I didn't want the whole world to know that it has been a financial struggle for the WMT not to mention an emotional struggle.
i really hope that the WMT succeeds, it would leave a huge gap in WI for tournament muskie fishing if it were gone.
i can't quite bring myself to believe that 1.7% in fees will shut you down, but if it does i'll be sad.
if the proposals pass, let's both hope that a few years from now i can say "i told you so" since that would mean you've managed to keep things running. 
the proposed tournament changes will stop us dead in our tracks and I will not struggle any further!
where there's a will, there's a way.
i know it's easier said than done, but if you're not willing to reduce payouts or increase entrance fees to cover the charges then someone else will step in. i'm betting if the proposals pass that you'll find a way to make it happen.
you yourself increased your entry fees this year by $5/boat and had MORE participation in your tournaments than ever before. that is with exactly a 1.7% increase.
that's the same amount it would take to cover these proposed costs. ironic, isn't it?
Thanks again Shep for dragging me in to this.
thanks for taking the time here, Tom. you add value and insight to this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, here we go. First, this isn't off topic, we have a Tournament Promoter here making all sorts of claims, and I'm addressing those he directed at me after questioning. Lambeau's point still applies....and I still think the proposed rules are a bad idea.
Tom is personally ENCOURAGING harvest of muskies in Wisconsin trophy waters; he says that a 50" limit will cause overpopulation and over over utilization of forage. The only logical answer in order to halt that certain disaster is to harvest those fish, correct? Great way to 'promote Wisconsin Muskie Fishing'.
Tom, the Ontario MNR set the bar for protecting low density, high quality muskie waters with limits designed to ensure a true trophy fishery. I see several waters in Wisconsin are now protected because of the hard work of folks who understand that trophy waters across North America share one commonality, they will NOT contain many trophy fish if the Muskies get hit on the head when they are 47". These folks work towards that goal with the FULL cooperation and support of our DNR and a complete understanding of the predator/prey relationships in that water.
Can't have it both ways.
If this proposed rules change passes, boat side release will be mandatory for 60 days of the season. This addresses that portion of the issue:
You left Pelican to insure the safety of the fish? OK, first my comment than a question:
Are you trying to tell me it takes longer for a judge boat in a 1/4 area quadrant to get to a boat than it does for that boat to livewell the fish and go basically the same distance or further, dock and tie up the rig at a judge station, and that a judge in that area is faster at measure and release (WHERE THE FISH SHOULD BE RELEASED?) than a judge? OK....
Why does the DNR in many states limit transport events to the angler's legal daily limit, and boatside release events are not? I know the answer, it's because that transported fish was reduced to possession, and has a poorer chance at surviving than one released at boatside. You CAN'T be serious saying a fish will get 'beat up' in a muskie net in the water worse than in a livewell running across that same rough water on Pelican to a dock..then removed from the livewell and released in 2' of water, can you? The Kevin Worrall Memorial has used judge boats since it's inception, and it's NEVER been so rough as to endanger the anglers or the fish.
This event has been run out of Lakeview Inn since the late 70's.
Actually, OUR offer to provide judge boats on Pelican was given despite your personal abuse of Norm and Mike during the process of attaining a 50" limit there, although until this post you pretty much left me out of that circle. How dare you question my integrity, or that of Norm, Mike, or any of the other folks who offered to step up and provide judge boats to the WMT at no cost? That offer was in a spirit of cooperation and good will, something you seem to leave at the curb when it comes to your circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'If muskies would die at Pelican, it wouldn't be blamed on the wind, it would be a black eye for the WMT and we have worked too hard for that to happen!!! Your offer to supply judge boats to the WMT was a hollow one sir. Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That comment can only be taken as a personal attack. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean what you said as it was printed, despite my better judgment. As far as the 4000 hours per year, I made an observation that that was 50 80 hour weeks. It seemed to me excessive. It would to any reasonable person.
I am on target. Don't even presume to lecture me about staying on topic. To that point:
Ontairo MNR folks have a VERY good idea what angler harvest, hours, etc are on many of their trophy waters, and have a good handle on forage there as well. Lots of discussion to that topic at the Symposium this Spring. If you were there furthering your mission to learn about Muskie management at the Symposium designed to bring some of the finest fishery science professionals in the North America together, you would know this.
You use the fisheries in Wisconsin to run your events at the pleasure of our DNR and State. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us who fish tournaments and promote them to follow the procedure those agencies have put in place to let them know what our feelings are about this proposed legislation, and get this stopped. Let's use our future energy to accomplish that goal without all kinds of personal agenda items spilling in. And, lastly, watch your tone in discussions here. Our visitors deserve nothing less. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep, You saw that too, eh? I'm glad Pat attached that information.
Another point, I didn't mean the PWT operated at a 'loss', I don't know that for sure. I am sure the circuit would not be considered a highly 'profitable' business; but I bet the PWT is a tremendous complimentary business to In Fish, both the print media and TV. |
|
| |
|
| it's not just the $850 for a single permit. It's also the extra work required to conform to the process, to make sure there is a parking plan, to make sure the AIS plan is implemented.
i think those are GREAT ideas - in fact, in my mind they are equally or more important than the fees. event organizers haven't been responsible in these areas on their own. they haven't "self-regulated" as you suggest they should be allowed to do. when people fail to do the right thing, regulations get put in place to make them do so.
parking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and the congestion is a nightmare. it can be both dangerous (rigs parked along highway shoulders) and very off-putting to anyone else who wants to act on their right to access public waters.
invasive species plan? if you're bringing in boats from far and wide to fish a certain lake, it should be your responsibility to help reduce the risk of the transfer of exotics. at the Hodag in '05 and the Kevin Worrall in '06 there were people (i think from the DNR) at the ramp checking boats and trailers as well as someone speaking in the rules meeting. that's hardly a tournament-stopper, it's just responsible care for the resource that we all share.
Another point, I didn't mean the PWT operated at a 'loss', I don't know that for sure. I am sure the circuit would not be considered a highly 'profitable' business; but I bet the PWT is a tremendous complimentary business to In Fish, both the print media and TV.
events such as that are being cited as examples for what will stop happening in Wisconsin if these rules are passed. whether they make or lose money, their budget is HUGE for just one event. why should i believe they will stop coming to WI over new costs that would be well under 1% of their total budget? it just seems like a lot of fear-mongering to me to say they won't come back and won't bring their tourism dollars. of course the event coordinators are crying foul, it's self-interest! i still don't hear anyone anywhere laying out anything that shows in dollars and cents why this would be the case. i'm more than willing to listen to "Charlie Evans, Sonny Reynolds, Tom Mcginnis, Jim Coons, and Jim Kalkofens" if they had something to say beyond "believe me because i know best."
Shep, You saw that too, eh? I'm glad Pat attached that information.
i assume you're referring to the analysis that was deemed unnecessary that Shep pointed out?
maybe i should just reply by saying "when the so-and-so's at the State say it's not necessary, well, i'm going to listen to them."??? that seems to be the justification du jour around this issue.
a small-business impact plan would only be necessary if the tournaments stopped coming. clearly the state doesn't believe that will happen either, thus no need for the plan.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Kalkofen did not indicate that the PWT would not return to Wisconsin.
Just for conversations sake I'm going to jump the track and play devil's advocate here....
I already buy a license. I decide, after buying that license, to bet I can catch more fish than you, and put my money up to show you I mean it. The State then steps in and tells me I have to buy a 'Permit' to make that bet. NOPE! Until they issue a permit for every single person who walks through a casino door or buys a lottery ticket in this state, I will refuse to pay the State to exercise my right to 'bet' that I'll win and put my money up on a fishing event as a contestant.
Maybe the smaller events have parking trouble, but my experience with FLW and PWT is the opposite; they already work closely with the community to see to it the event flows smoothly because if it doesn't, they will not be welcomed back. Most and in fact all of what is contained in this proposal is already being done with the larger circuits and those who have it 'together', even some of the smaller Muskie events like the Hodag. The State Invasive Species folks have attended and spoken at most of the Wisconsin events I attended, and had a display there. At many, DNR fisheries folks and Wardens were in attendance. In short, the events out there don't need to be regulated to get this done, it's for the most part already happening. Are you telling me that by LEGISLATING this, it will happen at all the events seamlessly? Come on, we all know better than that, it will simply build a new layer in an already cumbersome bureaucracy.
The No Release part of this means that if a walleye event is permitted during that time frame, it will be mandated a kill event. What does that accomplish? If 50% of the already smaller angler limit in an event are deemed strong enough to release and most survive due to voluntary release by the circuit; but a few floaters show up later, is that biologically or just SOCIALLY better than killing them all? This also is not new, some of the PWT/FLW events I attended last year were 100% kill events, as requested by the fisheries folks in that area. This isn't about a biological impact on the fisheries, for the most part that is so small as to be insignificant.
In muskie angling, biological impact is practically zero. Transporting a muskie probably won't, in most cases, kill it. Yes, that fish has a higher mortality probability, but lets go back to the license I bought. If I decide to KEEP that fish and crush it's head as a non competitive angler OR a competitive, that's OK with the State, but releasing it at a dock with a reasonable probability the fish will survive isn't? We are now in the 'socially acceptable' arena again, a very slippery slope for reasoning behind a law that's put forth as something else entirely. Is boat side release better for the fish? Sure, but if transport isn't necessarily killing the fish, why LEGISLATE mandatory boat side release? The State already allows multiple fish for boat side release events with no size limit, one might even argue that this encourages increased angling capture mortality rates.
The DNR ALREADY has Permit authority and enforcement responsibility, Lake Associations and the DNR already check for Invasives, City or local groups and Police already organize the onsite mechanics with the Promoters, so what is this about? Anti Tournament sentiment by a small but vocal group, and the money.
As to the small business impact plan, it's a bit late to look at it AFTER the major draw events schedule out of Wisconsin for a couple years. They are GONE at that point, and maybe for good. Other states and municipalities WANT them, and are delighted to welcome a PWT to the area without regulating them nearly to apoplexy. If a reasonably well thought out decision is to be made based on reality, that impact plan might be considered.
As to the 'self interest' portion of the debate, I really think that is not the case with the PWT and FLW as far as the minimal permitting fee. This has quite a bit more to do with an event coming to town and finding that process pleasant, within reason for ease of operation, no undue hassle, and, no other way to say it, they want to feel 'welcome'. Just like any other business, if it's indicated by legislation the PWT and FLW are NOT welcome here, they have dozens of other states in an all fired hurry to host an event. There is also the Industry behind those events, Sponsors and Associates. Mercury Marine, Bombardier, G3 Boats, Lund Boats, Ranger Boats, and many more. it is their desire to grow the sport, increase interest in competitive angling and angling in general, and it's tough for them to understand why Wisconsin as a State is apparently moving somewhat in the other direction. If you don't think competitive angling has had a HUGE impact on increasing sales,participation in the sport,tax revenues, and every other possible benefit from business activity associated, ask Crestliner what happened to their business when the RCL (Ranger, Crestliner, and Lund) changed names and sponsorship to the FLW Walleye Tour as Crestliner sold to Brunswick. Look at what is the number ONE fishing program on TV. If Wisconsin eventually legislates this 'machine' out of our State, these folks will take that promotion elsewhere without a second glance back.
Anyone's reality is usually based 100% on personal perception. Perception is many times based on "I heard..." I've been there at the Walleye, Bass, and Muskie tournaments, on site, for nearly 30 years, and do not see what I'm supposed to be seeing according to the folks pushing this regulation, but that's because I look at the BIG picture with each event. As with nearly everything, ACTUAL, PROVABLE, FOR CERTAIN 'reality' is based somewhere in the middle of the debate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| "event organizers haven't been responsible in these areas on their own. they haven't "self-regulated" as you suggest they should be allowed to do. when people fail to do the right thing, regulations get put in place to make them do so."
You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
"invasive species plan? if you're bringing in boats from far and wide to fish a certain lake, it should be your responsibility to help reduce the risk of the transfer of exotics."
No, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE who launches a boat in our state waters. Not just the tourney fisherman. You, the recreational angler, the receational boater, the sailboa racers, the waterfowl hunters, the canoe and kayakers. Nearly every tournament I have fished in has procedures for dealing with these issues, including tourney officials inspecting boats and trailers for AIS, and some even require washing the livewells, and rinsing the bilge with bleach. But tell me why only tournament anglers and promoters are singled out to have a plan for AIS? This is discrimination, plain and simple. Why do I have to pay more to deal with AIS than you, the next target, the recreational angler, or boater.
"parking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and tparking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and the congestion is a nightmare."
Ever been to any launch on the Bago system during the spring walleye or white bass runs? The congestion is a nightmare. it can be both dangerous (rigs parked on the grass, and along highway shoulders) and very off-putting to anyone else who wants to act on their right to access public waters. You can literally walk across the river boat to boat, there are so many boats. And they are not always very friendly people, either.
Most tournaments already limit the number of boats entered. Why do we need to reduce these numbers even further, when there is NO limit as to how many sailboats, or speed boats, or recreational anglers can be on a given water?
This issue is as much about discrimmination, as it is about the economics, and the perceived harm to the resource, and access issues. As I have said before, there is a further adgenda by those that have brought this bill to us. They are succeeding already, with divide and conquer. Get us to argue amougst ourselves, cause the split, get it passed, and then keep diggin for more. You don't believe this? Wait and see.
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Kalkofen did not indicate that the PWT would not return to Wisconsin.
then others shouldn't be suggesting that's the case by saying that these regulations are the "end of tourism" in Wisconsin due to the money that those events bring here going somewhere else. the best point made on this is that the State should do all in can to encourage them due to the economic benefit they provide to the host communities. that appeals to the fiscal conservative side of me. one could easily argue that the sales and income tax revenue alone associated with these events far outweighs the costs.
NOPE! Until they issue a permit for every single person who walks through a casino door or buys a lottery ticket in this state, I will refuse to pay the State to exercise my right to 'bet' that I'll win and put my money up on a fishing event as a contestant.
casinos are regulated and licensed.
every person that walks through the door DOES pay for them through their losses. the costs are passed on to the consumer, we just don't hear/think about it.
experience with FLW and PWT is the opposite; they already work closely with the community to see to it the event flows smoothly because if it doesn't, they will not be welcomed back. Most and in fact all of what is contained in this proposal is already being done with the larger circuits and those who have it 'together', even some of the smaller Muskie events like the Hodag. The State Invasive Species folks have attended and spoken at most of the Wisconsin events I attended, and had a display there. At many, DNR fisheries folks and Wardens were in attendance. In short, the events out there don't need to be regulated to get this done, it's for the most part already happening.
you make my point: whether by rule or voluntarily, these are not difficult things to do. requiring them will not be an overwhelming burden on event coordinators. imho, suggesting it would be this incredible task in time and money is disengenuous and more of the same hyperbole intended to create fear. as you point out, the reality is different that the propaganda.
The No Release part of this...We are now in the 'socially acceptable' arena again
yes. these rules are really about the bass and walleye events and would have no real impact on muskie fishing. Tom McGinnis claimed earlier that he uses a transport format because he believes it's better for the fish and the cost of doing transport would be insignicant to him.
As to the small business impact plan, it's a bit late to look at it AFTER the major draw events schedule out of Wisconsin for a couple years. They are GONE at that point, and maybe for good. Other states and municipalities WANT them, and are delighted to welcome a PWT to the area without regulating them nearly to apoplexy.
requiring a parking and invasives plan isn't exactly "regulating to apoplexy"! especially if the State is just formally asking them to do something that the really big events are already doing. if this is something these events are already doing, why would it chase them away? there are some more local events that really should think about and plan for these logistics in a way that they aren't currently doing.
you're arguing this both ways. on the one hand saying: they already do this, no need for regulation; and on the other hand saying: this is over-regulating and they'll go somewhere else. which is it?
ACTUAL, PROVABLE, FOR CERTAIN 'reality' is based somewhere in the middle of the debate
what are the facts?
i'm still left with the following questions:
will less than 1% increased costs keep major events away? will less than 2% increases shut down smaller?
will the money raised from those profiting from the resource be used to help the resource?
will requiring plans that these event organizers already do as a matter of course keep them away?
i'm pro-tourney, but i'm pro-responsibility as well.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Are tourny guys not the "public" too? If a launch fills because of a tourny, its the same as if it filled by average joes. I'm seeing bigotry here. |
|
| |
|
| "event organizers haven't been responsible"
You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
perhaps if i'd said "some" event organizers haven't been responsible, it would be more accurate. one bad apple spoils the whole dang bunch in those cases. that's just the simply reality.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| So let me get this straight
These proposals are only going to make it more difficult and more expensive to run a tournament, possibly force some tournaments to not opereate, cost tournament anglers more money, create more hassles for them, and do absolutely nothing to protect the resource whatsoever (unless you believe that tournaments are bad for it)
Does that about sum it up? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'casinos are regulated and licensed.
every person that walks through the door DOES pay for them through their losses. the costs are passed on to the consumer, we just don't hear/think about it.'
So are fishermen. Excise taxes, license fees, permits and more. Already. The State takes in a TON of money from us already, and there's nothing in the law stating my 'limit' on a non tournament day is any different than on a tournament day. I object to that proposed provision.
'you make my point: whether by rule or voluntarily, these are not difficult things to do. requiring them will not be an overwhelming burden on event coordinators. imho, suggesting it would be this incredible task in time and money is disengenuous and more of the same hyperbole intended to create fear. as you point out, the reality is different that the propaganda.'
So if it's already regulated we should do 55 in a 55 MPH zone of special interest, say a State Forest Highway, and for the most part we are, it's OK and makes sense to charge every driver intending to drive there an ADDITIONAL permit fee to pay for enforcement? We should require a speed regulator be applied to all vehicles traveling through the area to ensure the safety of the resource?
I also would take exception to the idea those things are 'easy to do'; they are not. A significant effort by Staff, volunteers, and community cooperation make it happen, not legislation.
'requiring a parking and invasives plan isn't exactly "regulating to apoplexy"! especially if the State is just formally asking them to do something that the really big events are already doing. if this is something these events are already doing, why would it chase them away? there are some more local events that really should think about and plan for these logistics in a way that they aren't currently doing.
you're arguing this both ways. on the one hand saying: they already do this, no need for regulation; and on the other hand saying: this is over-regulating and they'll go somewhere else. which is it?'
'It' is where those organizations are welcome, encouraged to do business, and able to do so without undue regulation. Undue and unnecessary fees and taxes, regulations that will be written that make it no longer a manageable plan between the municipality, local DNR, and the event, but now might just be a mandated, must be proven and enforced, STATE regulated PILE of paperwork that actiually accomplishes nothing. Restrictions based on emotion will draw an emotional response. Lambeau, this isn't about just the 'money' or a percentage of operating costs. I firmly believe this issue is based in part on what the FLW, PWT, and many other organizations feel would be a positive atmosphere in which to operate, and this isn't it. Tell you what, call Mr. Kalkofen or Mr. Moore, they are not the enemy here, they are representatives of the In Fisherman Professional Walleye Trail. I did, and I understand what they are saying. They will take their events to where it's a pleasure to do business and everyone benefits, no different than you or me.
Major events do return considerable amounts of money to the resource. They also have done more for the sport than most folks can imagine, increasing awareness of all conservation aspects beyond any easily computed "amount of money" As an example, I photographed the Executive Director of the PWT handing a check for $10,000.00 to the North Dakota DNR at the Championship in October. The Pros took up a collection, and presented the Boy Scouts with a check for $500.00 in appreciation for the promotion and hard work the Scouts undertook in welcoming the PWT to town. It's a 'machine', as I said earlier, and much more complicated than you are attempting to make it. That same North Dakota DNR was openly delighted with the cooperation and efforts of the PWT and the Pros, and sent In Fish a letter to that effect, praising attempts while there to raise awareness of invasive species, conservation, and other important issues. I know of a plaque on a wall at In Fish that thanks them as a founding sponsor to begin the Walleyes For Tomorrow group. Without the amount of assistance conservation groups get from the Industry, their message and perhaps existence would be muted. With no exaggeration at all, the Lindners and the PWT made popular the concept of catch and release Walleye angling; what's that worth?
One should not categorize tournaments any differently than ANY business 'profiting from the resource', be it a bait store, a Guide, tackle builder, fishing magazine, boat builder, or other business. ALL profit from the resource. If biological impact is benign, one cannot demonize any, and should not single only one out for new regulation.
Also, we all must be be careful when using terms like exploitation or 'profit from'. 'To use or manipulate to one's advantage' is pretty strong language to place the UTILIZATION of the resource WE PAY FOR iun large extent by any business or group in an overtly negative light. Our DNR openly manages our resources to maximize business, tourism, and tax/license/fee dollars for the State and our businesses, a great example is the put and take salmon fishery in Lake Michigan. Do you think for a minute we would have the DNR in it's current from if there was no business, tourism, and tax based advantage to the state?
It's the medium sized events that will suffer. Those folks cannot afford the equipment to provide O2 levels in the release tanks at a guaranteed level, may have to totally revamp the stage and equipment for a 'release' event at a large investment, might not have the personnel to research, fill out, and implement the necessary paperwork and proof of conformity to the state, PLUS actually make it happen on the site. I were them, I'd just fold the tent. Most of these events are club oriented, fund raisers for conservation groups, etc.
Responsibility can not be legislated. If it could, things would be much simpler.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I guess it depends on who responds to that Addict! I guess I still really dont know enough to explain what the whole deal is. I guess it is a good thing that I started this thread, I didnt know much about this before now, but it sounds like Shep had posted some stuff previously, I think I need to read things a bit more carefully.
As for the issue on parking, I again will agree with Lambeau. Parking at launches can be chaos. I dont think it is a huge task to organize some sort of parking plan. The idea that doing this instead of just filling up launches is discrimination or bigotry or whatever I guess I disagree with that. Everyone has a right to be on the lake. Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| pretty much, addict.
The biggest complaint I heard from tourney anglers, was why single out the tourney angler to pay extra to use the same resource as recreational users? The small business owners testified that this would impact their bottom line negatively.
Here is the response I got from candidate Roger Roth of the 56th Assembly District. He is now the elected Assemblyman. His opponant did not respond.
Tim,
I'm not familiar with the details on how this legislation came about, but having reviewed the bill, it seems to me that it just created new government regulations of fishing tournaments. I would think that local lake associations or similar groups could put on a fishing tournament without the DNR telling them what do providing they follow existing fishing regulations. Again, having just looked at this bill briefly, it seems to me to be another case of unnecessary government regulation.
Thanks for writing me, and please feel free to contact me with any further comments or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Roger Roth
Btw, I helped elect Roger with my vote, mainly because of this answer. Also because he's a republican!
Lambeau, pretty short answer to my points by adding the word "some".
As Steve said, nobody has said they definately will not bring their tournaments, and the associated economic benifits, to WI if these regulations are passed. But these tourney's are in demand in communities all across the country, and just like any business, the communities that make the most concession, and make it the easiest to do business, will get that business! Once that business is gone, it's nearly impossible to get back.
So let's turn this thing around, and have you tell us how the current practice of issuing tournament permits is bad, and why the state needs this added regulation.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, you said it. Everyone has a right to use the ramp. The parking issue is as much for the weigh in and other on site functions, and ALL the major events already address that with the local municipality or they would not be welcome back. Where in the world are we, as tournament anglers, to load our rigs if not at a launch? |
|
| |
|
| It's the medium sized events that will suffer. Those folks cannot afford the equipment to provide O2 levels in the release tanks at a guaranteed level, may have to totally revamp the stage and equipment for a 'release' event at a large investment, might not have the personnel to research, fill out, and implement the necessary paperwork and proof of conformity to the state, PLUS actually make it happen on the site. I were them, I'd just fold the tent. Most of these events are club oriented, fund raisers for conservation groups, etc.
this is the kind of information i've been asking for, and it's compelling. it's the kind of information people need to make informed decisions. this is the opposite of crying "the sky is falling!" without evidence and just saying "trust me, you don't know what you're talking about and i do." that's what people have been doing here on this issue, and it smacks of the WMRT approach to stocking issues.
it's also not trying to blow smoke about the small costs of the direct fees being too much, or that putting together a reasonable plan is a big and undue burden. get the right information and present it in the right way and you just might convince some people!
it's much easier to see that these rules will impact bass and walleye tournaments to a significant degree in a way that they simply won't for muskie tournaments.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Pointerpride102 - 11/10/2006 11:27 AM
I As for the issue on parking, I again will agree with Lambeau. Parking at launches can be chaos. I dont think it is a huge task to organize some sort of parking plan. The idea that doing this instead of just filling up launches is discrimination or bigotry or whatever I guess I disagree with that. Everyone has a right to be on the lake. Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake.
Mike
Everyone has a right to lake? Not according to some here, and this regulation. Some of us will have to pay more for this access, and be required to DO more for this access. If a tourney isn't involved, it is first come/first served. Even with a tourney, it would still be first come/first served. You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that! |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, pretty short answer to my points by adding the word "some".
lol...that's not all i said...dang moderators!
As Steve said, nobody has said they definately will not bring their tournaments, and the associated economic benifits, to WI if these regulations are passed. But these tourney's are in demand in communities all across the country, and just like any business, the communities that make the most concession, and make it the easiest to do business, will get that business! Once that business is gone, it's nearly impossible to get back.
well...you definitely suggested that they wouldn't come. and Tom stated it flat out.
it's similar in some ways to communities deciding if they want a Wal-Mart to move in. there's benefits, but at what cost? is there a line beyond which a community doesn't want to make any more concessions? i guess i want to find out from the people who proposed this legislation exactly what the money they raise would be used for. with guarantees that it would be put directly back into the resource, i think that's a reasonable demand on money-making tournaments and not a "concession" the state needs to make to keep those events coming here.
Some of us will have to pay more for this access, and be required to DO more for this access. If a tourney isn't involved, it is first come/first served. Even with a tourney, it would still be first come/first served. You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that!
that's not entirely accurate. tourney participants wouldn't be paying extra for access. tourney organizers would be paying for the right to hold an event, and paying on a scale related to the size of the event. (i know, it'll get passed on to participants, so same thing in the end.) it's not at all about using the resource, but using it in a way which generates money for the organizers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Here is a document from Sonny Reynolds of the FLW on the economic impact that just the FLW has had over the years.
I misunderstood what he told me over the phone, when I said it was $300 Million since Oct of 2000. What he actually said that the impact was projected to be up to $300 Million over the next 10 years. just need to set that straight, that I misquoted Sonny previously.
The pdf is loaded now, if you are using IE it's an Adobe format. Save it to Firefox or similar browsers download box, open with Adobe.
Attachments
----------------
 Wisconsin - State Summary 1986-2007 - 110706-1255pm.pdf (371KB - 165 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake. "
What's stopping folks from getting to the launch BEFORE the tourny rigs? remember..tourny anglers are "public" too. |
|
| |
