|
|
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | NO trolling law on the Bay?
You would then outlaw trolling for all species on any part of Lake Michigan associated with Wisconsin.
Boy, you would LOSE BIG on that one. Present that somewhere serioulsy and you would first get laughed out of the place and then tar and feathered.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | davidd said:
If the dollar figure above is anywhere near that for the Green Bay/Great Lakes Spotted muskies per individual fish...........WOW. The question is then where do those monies come from? If it is all DNR then they make the call - but if it is raised funds do those groups have more heavily weighted input on conservation decisions such as size limits? Or do you hand the money to the DNR and trust them? Not sure how that works and would be interested to hear if anyone has any insight there.
Maybe instead of tags, if want to keep a fish you just have to pay to replace it
You make donations to a PROGRAM, which happens to be managed by the DNR. But as far as I know, there is no implication of authority when it comes to management decisions. I don't believe the State of Wisconsin would consider selling its resources if it meant they would lose control over their well-being.
As much as some would like to think so, donating money to help the DNR support a program does not imply expertise in managing it. While I do not agree that we should blindly hand over large sums of money on a regular basis, I vote that we let the people trained to manage...manage. Of course I would expect them to be receptive to our concerns, but that doesn't mean that the biologist is going to call the MI chapter President to "run it by him" whenever they are contemplating a management decision. But I would hope that they take enough interest in the organization to already know how we feel--but that's a two-way street...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 8:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| NO trolling law on the Bay?
You would then outlaw trolling for all species on any part of Lake Michigan associated with Wisconsin.
Boy, you would LOSE BIG on that one. Present that somewhere serioulsy and you would first get laughed out of the place and then tar and feathered.
notably, this is NOT a place where anyone gets laughed out of, nor tarred and feathered. to this point, this discussion has remained friendly and respectful. please take care to keep it that way.
as far as no trolling on the Bay? yes, obviously not going to happen as there's way too much investment in created fisheries (other than muskies) that are only really able to be targeted by trolling.
however, the suggestion speaks to the issue at hand: how do you protect the muskies that so much work has gone into placing and producing? no trolling is no more or less of a legitmate way to do so than a 100% catch/release rule would be. either way would mean far fewer fish being removed from the system.
imho it really comes down to each individual's definition of "trophy".
for many people, a 45" fish is wall-worthy. for some it's 50". for a much smaller number it's up at 54" or 56".
how did the GB system come to have numbers of 50"+ fish?
have subsequent year-classes been stocked at the same rates?
if follow-on year classes are equally healthy in numbers, the harvest of fish over a certain size (currently 50 inches) isn't jeopardizing the whole fishery - it's only jeopardizing the likelihood of numbers of fish making it to their ultimate potential. let's keep things in perspective, we're not talking about the doom of the entire fishery, just a threat to a certain portion of the fish arbitrarily defined as trophy class fish.
if your goal is to help to get more fish to the 54"-56" range, the best way to do so (imho) is to get other people invested in this as the goal. unfortunately, i think you'll find the special interest group of people who share this goal is relatively small and hard to mobilize, especially when talking about a fishery that already has a 50" limit in place - something that's already beyond what most "average" fisherman in the area consider a trophy.
when the DNR looks at limits, they generally respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen). this is what happened when the board denied increasing the limit again: they recognized it as the desire of a small slice of the total fishing population and they acted on their value that allowing someone to harvest "the fish of a lifetime" is a good thing. (not saying i agree, just that i understand!)
20 years ago, it was an uphill battle for people to spread the idea of CPR on smaller fish. the new uphill battle is getting people to do it on big fish in order to make huge fish. it was doable then, it's doable now, and imho a better strategy than trying to continually raise the limits.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 65
Location: De Pere Wisconsin | That is what I thought as far as input goes but wasn't sure. Does the spotted program rely on outside funding to survive? Or are the raised funds used for going "above and beyond" or in other words making a good program better?
I would like to have a shot at catching bigger muskies than just 49.9999 inchers in several years, if the "big" ones continue to get pulled. Pointer Prides fish from a few weeks ago that had the data posted was very interesting since that year showed 120 yearlings planted at that location. In the last 12 years there has been 1100 yearlings roughly planted in that general area. The number of fingerlings (10" roughly at planting) is a much larger number, but mortality is substantially higher also, according to former Dnr fisheries biologist Kevin K.
There are alot of fish in the water, but not an indefinite number. You only need to look at the actual number of fish stocked and then think about how many ways a 12 year old musky could die and the numbers start to look a little scary.
I would love to see how big these fish could get and think 54" is reasonable - where does 54" come from would be my next question...how about 56" to be safe  |
|
| |
|
|
Limits should always be put in context of fish potential.
Elk lake (200 acres) in Mn had a 48" limit. The first few years of stocked fish got to large size, fish in the 52-54" range were kept for mounting.
After a few years, the fish in that lake all topped out at 49-50". Anything over 50" was a rarity, even in the DNR nets.
Now that lake has been C&R only for 3 years, and I know of two 50" + fish caught this fall.
50" is probably to small a limit for GB.
John Skarie
|
|
| |
|
| In a big city like GB with all the internet hype and pictures you'll have first time musky fisherman and walleye fisherman targeting musky. If my first musky was a 50" and I didn't know about CPR i'd keep it too. Each year you will have a new wave of fisherman who have never fished musky out there. The guys keeping the fish probably are not reading MH, EA, or MF.
|
|
| |
|
| 54 inch size limits... musky tags... no harvest... eliminate trolling.... Man, and I thought the deer hunting elitists were difficult to please.
PLEASE be careful about trying to get new rules passed. They often times have implication far beyond what was originally intended. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I said i was done with this, but, here are a few more thoughts:
1) In WI, you need a stamp to hunt Pheasants, ducks, turkeys, as well as to fish Trout. I do not mind paying another $10.00 to fish musky. You paid x= amount for your boat, you spent x= amount for your baits, etc.
2) Why not make musky totally catch and release (other than in waters where they are stunted), so little johnny's rich parents can have his 26" mounted?
With the realism Lax puts into his craft, I'd rather have a rep done that is going to last into my grandkid's rec room, than to save money to have something done that would not out-live me.
It is the meat (or skin) hogs that this fishery has brought into our addiction that scares the crap out of me.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Make that 3 fish you know of 50" from Elk This year |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | BenR - 11/20/2007 12:32 AM
Why not just keep stocking it? It seems to be working fine...If I recall one guy kept a bunch last year and I am sure a few others did as well...Now this year seems even to be better than the last...Seems like people are trying to fix something that is not broken...
How long do you think that would last Ben?
It takes *at least* 12-13 years to grow a 50" musky out in Green Bay--and that's substantially faster than in many other places, from what I am being told by guys from other fisheries. So how long can the system sustain repeated harvest of 50-54" fish before we run the numbers way down? Certainly there are fish being stocked yearly--but the DNR would like to stop that at some point. It's expensive and labor-intensive, and I believe it's generally agreed that a self-sustaining population is healthier for the fishery in the long run. And why not shoot for a self-sustaining fishery? There's habitat, improved water quality and LOADS of forage! In other words, there doesn't appear to be anything preventing that from happening--so let's not make over-harvest a factor.
Sure, it may seem better out there this year...but that proves nothing, other than that more guys are fishing this year. The system can stand some harvest, certainly...but how much harvest? How many 50"+ fish can be *safely* removed? I don't believe anyone knows--that's my point. So wouldn't it be prudent to take immediate action to protect the resource whilst we figure it all out? Keep in mind that the first year of significant stocking was the 1988 year class (stocked in '89), so most of the remaining fish in the early years of stocking are just now reaching that magic 50-54" size range. So it doesn't seem like rocket science to protect them as much as possible, and see where it takes us over the next 5-6 years.
If, in 5 years, the largest fish being caught are no longer than 54 or 55 inches...then maybe the size limit can be eased back a bit. However if these fish (like their cousins to the east) can reach out to 56, 58 or even 60(!!!) inches--then we will have fish that big! Just think about that for a second--that has tremendous implications for the local community. And what a success story that would be for the DNR's stocking & management program; as well as the businesses, clubs and private individuals that helped to support the program. It would be a win-win-win situation.
I will say (in the interest of total disclosure) that I have heard that the DNR has some preliminary data suggesting that these fish may not reach lengths of that proportion. In 2006 Kapuscinski (et al) published an article that reported that their analysis to that point indicated that these fish may not reach record lengths, but that they *may* in fact reach record weights. I am still trying to obtain the full article for review, but it seems as though there is a very real possibility that we could see muskellunge of enormous proportions (dare I say...55-60 pounds or more?) within the next 5-8 years. And remember, that paper was written in 2005, with data probably collected from 2004! So we have had 2-3 more years of growth. And shoot--we have already seen one from the river; Ryan Dempsey's 56x33.5 fish from April 2005. I wonder if Kevin knew about that fish (or the 59" monster caught and released from Sturgeon Bay in 2005) when they wrote the article?
Let's give these gal's sisters a chance to show what they can do...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/20/2007 8:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau said: “…if your goal is to help to get more fish to the 54"-56" range, the best way to do so (imho) is to get other people invested in this as the goal. unfortunately, i think you'll find the special interest group of people who share this goal is relatively small and hard to mobilize, especially when talking about a fishery that already has a 50" limit in place - something that's already beyond what most "average" fisherman in the area consider a trophy.
when the DNR looks at limits, they generally respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen). this is what happened when the board denied increasing the limit again: they recognized it as the desire of a small slice of the total fishing population and they acted on their value that allowing someone to harvest "the fish of a lifetime" is a good thing. (not saying i agree, just that i understand!)”
That’s a great idea Lambeau and that’s exactly what happened, but it was more than a small group of special interest. Here are the county vote totals from last year on the 54” topic.
Here is the list of each county the Green Bay 54" Size Limit increase was proposed in with the votes.
Barron Co. / 20 Yes & 6 No
Bayfield Co. / 27 Yes & 8 No
Brown Co. / 67 Yes & 15 No
Dane Co. / 92 Yes & 43 No
Door Co. / 25 Yes & 19 No
Douglas Co. / 11 Yes & 3 No
Forest Co. / 18 Yes & 4 No
Iowa Co. / 26 Yes & 4 No
Kenosha Co. / 46 Yes & 8 No
Manitowoc Co. / 38 Yes & 21 No
Marathon Co. / 33 Yes & 19 No
Milwaukee Co. / 49 Yes & 42 No
Oconto Co. / 28 Yes & 9 No
Onieda Co. / 22 Yes & 6 No
Outagamie Co. / 43 Yes & 6 No
Portage Co. / 64 Yes & 13 No
Racine Co. / 44 Yes & 14 No
Sawyer Co. / 22 Yes & 0 No
Shawano Co. / 37 Yes & 11 No
Sheboygan Co. / 58 Yes & 14 No
Vilas Co. / 49 Yes & 8 No
Washburn Co. / 19 Yes & 4 No
Washington Co. / 57 Yes & 14 No
Waukesha Co. / 108 Yes & 18 No
Waupaca Co. / 58 Yes & 20 No
Winnebago Co. / 47 Yes & 14 No
See the entire thread on this topic at the following:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=34...
Even the don’t over-regulate me old timers up in my area Oneida/Vilas county passed this proposal.
In my opinion the DNR board DID NOT “…respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen).” In fact based on the above vote totals from the vaunted spring hearing they did the exact opposite. In my opinion you live by the sword you die by the sword. They hold up the spring hearings as the only way to get new rules passed, but when the politicians don’t like the result of those hearing they do a side step around them.
If the board would have done there job the “overall pool of customers(fishermen)” would have had another shot to shoot this down. Last years vote was a resolution vote, why not put the resolution on the rule change ballot and really let the people State wide vote.
If I had to guess a small group of special interest GOT to the board and convinced them to prevent the moving forward of this proposal even though it’s what the majority of spring hearing attendees WANTED!
THE SPRING HEARINGS ARE A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was said before and I’ll say it again, the best thing to do is buy a politician. It works from local school boards all the way up to the President.
BenR said: “Why not just keep stocking it?”
What the Politicians would say: “Well you see with budget cuts and VHS stocking Green Bay at past levels just isn’t possible, but don’t worry I am sure it will be fine, local business interest say more and more people are coming to fish it. Isn’t it great. If there’s problems well worry about them later, lets ride the gravy train while we can!”
And remember “…each fish can only be harvested once. Casselman et al (1996) suggest that with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population.”
That being said don’t give up, THE ONLY WAY TO EFFECT CHANGE is to work with the system we have, eventually they will have to listen if enough people speak up.
One other thing is to make sure this doesn’t get muddied up anymore. Stick with what has already been voted on which happens to be something Canada is proving WORKS.
Fast growing fish that are be heavily pressured, simple un-risky solution to increase the size limit to let them grow bigger, makes total sense.
Look at what John said about Elk lake again:
“Elk lake (200 acres) in Mn had a 48" limit. The first few years of stocked fish got to large size, fish in the 52-54" range were kept for mounting.
After a few years, the fish in that lake all topped out at 49-50". Anything over 50" was a rarity, even in the DNR nets.”
If there is extra vigor going on right now in GB, doesn’t it make the most sense to protect this first large class of fish to see just how big they can get. The Size limit can always be lowered later if needed. But wouldn’t the fish eventually leveling out at 53-54” be better than leveling at 49-50”, especially if the goal is a long term trophy tourist destination.
Why can’t we learn for the past experience, even if it is from other States or Countries, and be proactive for the future rather than waiting to react to negative situations on our own.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| That’s a great idea Lambeau and that’s exactly what happened, but it was more than a small group of special interest. Here are the county vote totals from last year on the 54” topic.
Here is the list of each county the Green Bay 54" Size Limit increase was proposed in with the votes...
i disagree with your assessment. people are sheep...if someone speaks up at a meeting in favor of something, and no one speaks up against it, most of the people present vote in favor. also, a very small percentage of overall outdoors consumers attend the hearings, representing a select group of especially invested people. it's simply incorrect to assume that the hearing attendees and vote totals represent broader outdoor consumers' opinions.
it's the system we've got, and i agree it's a bad system, but let's not say "hey it's good" when we like the outcomes, and "hey it's bad" when we don't like them.
If I had to guess a small group of special interest GOT to the board and convinced them to prevent the moving forward of this proposal even though it’s what the majority of spring hearing attendees WANTED!
so why not "get to the board" or even better yet, get ON the board. it's not really that hard to get elected and get on committees if someone wants to get involved in the actual Congress side of the process.
If there is extra vigor going on right now in GB, doesn’t it make the most sense to protect this first large class of fish to see just how big they can get. The Size limit can always be lowered later if needed. But wouldn’t the fish eventually leveling out at 53-54” be better than leveling at 49-50”, especially if the goal is a long term trophy tourist destination.
again, it comes down to defining what a "trophy" is, and what a person should do when they catch a trophy. those of us who see "trophy" and "ultimate potential" as interchangeable terms are a very small group compared to those who see 50" fish as harvestable "trophies".
it would be VERY easy for someone to argue that creating a long-term tourist destination includes making the harvest of a trophy accessible. ie., some would argue that raising the limits might actually keep some people away from the area because they want to be able to keep that fish. this kind of argument would resonate with "general" fishermen much more that higher and higher limits because most people believe we're over-regulated already.
i'm not saying this is what i think or agree with, just that this is where the resistance is likely to be coming from.
imho, in light of the success of that resistance in stopping the limits from increasing, the best way to protect those fish is to actively educate - reach out to the people who aren't reading EA/MH/MF. write a guest editorial for WI Outdoor News or Wisconsin Outdoor Journal or your local paper to reach the broader fishing audience.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau, I listed documented proof that 68.5% of interested Wisconsin sportsmen in counties where the proposal was presented voted in favor of the 54” limit.
Do you have proof that there is a larger overall resistance to this?
The WDNR board is made up of Governor Appointees; it is not an elected position. If I am not mistaken this proposal was tabled there not at one of the elected Conservation Congress Committees.
I gave up on fighting and complaining about the Spring Hearing system and made the decision a few years ago to start using it.
EVERYBODY said this is the system and we need to work within it, regarding the Multi Lake 50” proposal back in the early 00’s. “Musky fishermen and WDNR biologists didn’t get the word out, it’s our own fault it didn’t pass!” So now musky fishermen are using the system going by THEIR RULES, and what happens a small group of people side step the system, I.E. WDNR board and Legislators (see the early season C&R season) which has been shot down at the hearing on multiple occasions.
If the WDNR board would have done there job this would not have been LAW it would have been a rule change question on the WDNR rule Change Ballot this Spring, the people who opposed it would have had every opportunity to garner support and show up and vote against it. Just as the people in favor of it could show up and vote for it. In stead a small group of appointed Politicians tabled it. For what reason, and persuaded by WHO?
It’s not about saying "hey it's good" when we like the outcomes, and "hey it's bad" when we don't like them.” It’s about working within the rules they set up and then having them change the rules to their liking.
It’s not about definition of trophy, (which by the way WI all species fishermen have agreed upon is 50”according to a WDNR poll), this is Wisconsin’s first potential world record musky fishery, why not protect it as such. At least until the VHS and stocking issues have been resolved and it’s true potential is know. That is what was voted on by the attendees of the spring hearings last year, that is what should have been given the chance to become a new rule this year. By the way the vote last year was before the added scare of VHS.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, I listed documented proof that 68.5% of interested Wisconsin sportsmen in counties where the proposal was presented voted in favor of the 54” limit.
Do you have proof that there is a larger overall resistance to this?
no, i don't have "documented proof" that there's resistance to it. however, it is my perception from talking to people about catch/release issues, that there's generally resistance from many people to anything that prevents them from harvesting a fish when they want to do so. we're talking about people who choose to keep low-40" class fish - the idea of raising a limit to 54" that's already at 50" is complete nonsense to these people.
clearly, the "proof" that this exists is in the fact that someone was able to influence the board to torpedo this proposal. it resonated with the RIGHT people.
my point is that when dealing with people who are willing use their power to arbitrarily dismiss the CC system in the way that happened on this issue, trying to argue "widespread support" based on the hearings isn't going to fly because it's too easy to ignore such a small number of people who bothered to offer any kind of opinion on the issue, and the decision-makers have already shown a willingness to do so!
1108 people in favor or raising the limit.
343 people opposed to raising the limit.
a total of only 1451 people voted statewide.
how many fishing licenses were sold in WI last year?
the CC hearings are an exercise in democracy that WI residents are _allowed_ to entertain themselves with. if there's an issue that holds meaning to someone in power and they want a different outcome than the hearings suggest, it's very easy to side-step the process either beauracratically or legislatively.
this is why, imho, trying to protect fish beyond the current "trophy" limits is a good goal, but really it's a secondary goal - it's too easy for those opposed to stop it or for the regs to be changed again. imho, the primary strategy should be getting people to buy in to the idea of releasing these fish, because then you've accomplished a much more durable goal.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
Location: Syracuse, New York | Just wanted to offer a quick opinion, from someone outside the area:
First, based on the #'s and sizes being reported it seems that you have a trophy fishery that has been well managed and is beginning to reach its potential. Everyone fortunate enough to enjoy it should be greatful and applaud those who have worked to make it what it is.
Secondly, managing a fishery based on consensus opinion is never a good idea. It leads to mismanagement based on widely held, but often inaccurate beliefs/assumptions. Allow the scientists (and the agencies that employ them) to do what they feel is best for the fishery. Your DNR has published guidelines to direct the management of musky fisheries that appear to be in the interest of all fishermen, so allow them to manage this fishery as they see fit to meet those guidelines. It seems they have done an excellent job thus far. Try working with the groups managing your resources rather than against them. It will accomplish more in the long run.
Plus, while it is easy to point to fisherman and keeping fish as the biggest factor in determining fish populations and trophy numbers. Recreational fishing is highly visible, but often less significant. On large bodies of water, Natural causes (weather, VHS, changes in forage) will have far greater impact.
With that said, I'd personally like to see them all get released, in case I ever get up there to take a shot at 'em.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | MRoberts - 11/20/2007 11:20 AM
SNIP...
If the WDNR board would have done there job this would not have been LAW it would have been a rule change question on the WDNR rule Change Ballot this Spring, the people who opposed it would have had every opportunity to garner support and show up and vote against it. Just as the people in favor of it could show up and vote for it. In stead a small group of appointed Politicians tabled it. For what reason, and persuaded by WHO?
So Mike, are you saying that the 54" resolution was *tabled*? I wasn't able to follow that train of thought all the way through. The last thread I saw mentioned that it had passed and would be presented to the full Congress at next the hearing next spring. Do I have that incorrect? If so, can you please point me to the thread (or a URL) that discusses this?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| Mike,
How do you propose we get the non-muskie angling crowd on board with C&R? Preaching to the choir here won't do much. As others have stated, the audience we need to reach isn't reading the muskie magazines or the muskie related websites. Though I have no clear evidence to support this, I suspect that the incidental muskie is the one that most often goes on the wall. Putting myself in the shoes of the casual angler here it's very easy to see why telling someone they shouldn't keep the biggest fish they have ever caught would seem stupid.
The goal here is obvious -- maximizing the potential of our muskie fisheries. Despite the flaws in our current system, I feel like legislation is the best way to accomplish that. Telling people they shouldn't do something, even when presented in the best way possible, is not nearly as effective as telling them it is unlawful to do something.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "54 inch size limits... musky tags... no harvest... eliminate trolling.... Man, and I thought the deer hunting elitists were difficult to please.
PLEASE be careful about trying to get new rules passed. They often times have implication far beyond what was originally intended."
BINGO! |
|
| |
|
| The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| Tcbetka, why are you alarmed by this? you're not actually suprised by this, are you?
tomcat
Edited by tomcat 11/20/2007 12:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| No Name - 11/20/2007 12:30 PM
The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites...
Hmmm....
"MuskieFIRST.com"
If we're not supposed to talk about Muskie Fishing, what then?
How about this:
Geeen bay sucks, there's no muskies in there!!!
is that better? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | muskie! nut - 11/16/2007 8:11 PM
54" size limit will not happen. The NRB committee will not allow the increase the size limit from 50 to 54 even though it won (almost statewide) vote by 2/3 vote.
I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done.
I believe I read it someplace else also, I will ltry and find it. There is more info on this at "The Next Bite" on there Muskie/Pike forum under the thread Green Bay. Pete Maina echoed whate Muskie! nut said above.
Lambeau, a 54" limit is VERY NEW territory for the WDNR, my guess is the NRB got scared, because they don't know enough about the topic, but that is why the have a Muskellunge Management Committe novel idea how about using them. Just becasue it's new doesn't mean it wrong.
What upsets me the most is the maniplation of the system. Your argument above regarding votes was used against us with the 50" multi lake proposal, (from the oppiste side) they shouldn't be able to have it both ways as I already pointed out.
hitchcos, the system takes the management out of the hands of the biologist, that is the major concern all of have now matter what side of his issue we are on. If I am not mistaken this proposal had the support of the Biologist incharge of GB at the time of it's writing, (someone please correct me if I am wrong) That person has since left the positon and it was vacant when this was going though commitees and the NRB.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/20/2007 1:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No Name - 11/20/2007 12:30 PM
The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites...
I understand your concern. But the fact remains that Green Bay has been well-known as an emerging fishery for the last few years. So it's been gaining in popularity over that time period as well. And remember--while more anglers can certainly mean more muskies caught, it only takes a few anglers harvesting 50 after 50 after 50 after... to decimate the population.
So which is it: Keep things hush-hush and let a certain few of the people who already know about it continue to harvest big fish after big fish; or we "hit the panic button" about the concerns regarding possible over-harvest, and start to garner increasing support to protect the fishery *while there are still big fish left*? Yes there is a risk that we are exposing the fishery to more potential anglers--but if they support the cause, then wouldn't that help things out?
What should we do? We need to act before things go too far. Take immediate action, and arrange for additional data to be gathered so a more informed decision can be made in the future. As I have said before--I cannot imagine that the folks who conceived the reintroduction of muskellunge into the Green Bay system could have ever known things would play out as they have to this point. But this is the end of the fishery, and (hopefully) no permanent or irreparable damage has been to the fishery. Yes, dead fish are dead fish, and nothing will bring them back. But the system can tolerate some harvest--no one here seems to be saying that it can't. The main concern is simply that we are letting things go too far without taking steps to insure that permanent damage is NOT being done.
TB |
|
| |
|
| "I understand your concern."
To be honest, I'll probably never fish GB.. Just thought that word is going to spread fast, and much, much faster when these topics continue on the internet.. I have watch what the internet does to the waters I fish in MN... Only an FYI... Good luck on the challenges you face.. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No Name - 11/20/2007 1:16 PM
"I understand your concern."
To be honest, I'll probably never fish GB.. Just thought that word is going to spread fast, and much, much faster when these topics continue on the internet.. I have watch what the internet does to the waters I fish in MN... Only an FYI... Good luck on the challenges you face..
No sweat...thanks for the post. I would have preferred you make it non-anonymously, but that doesn't diminish the content of the post. We don't live in perfect world--and there always seems to be an upside & downside to everything. But people know about this stuff. One guy sees it online and points it out to his friends, who tell their friends, etc. Pretty soon many, many people know about it, and it's impossible to tell who got what from where.
I'm sure that others share in your concern, so it was good to air it.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I apologies for further spreading miss information please see this Email conversation I just had with Tim Simonson chairman of the WDNR Muskellunge Committee:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:31 PM
Tim, if you have the time, what's the scoop on the GB 54" limit. Lots
of talk about it on the internet musky forums. Many different versions
of what happened going around. If you have quick and dirty scoop I
would post it so people could stop speculating.
Basically the way I understand it is the NRB tabled it, as being to
restrictive. Even though it made it through all the necessary
Conservation Congress resolution steps and committees. Is this correct?
Thanks Tim hope you have a great Holiday Season.
Mike
Reply: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:42 PM
Mike - That's not correct. It's never been before the NRB. As far as I
know, the Conservation Congress still has it. I believe it was assigned
to the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress. I don't know anything
else first hand.
You can look up the chair and members of the committee here - no phone
numbers, though:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/committees/
Tim
So there you have it, all this anger based on flawed info, you have to love the internet, but the other good thing is it’s easy to get the correct answers fast if you know the correct people to contact.
That being said it doesn’t mean this is going to be a question on the Rule Change ballot, someone with all the proper info needs to contact the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress and be the squeaky wheel, it may already be to late for this year. As the ballot may be set, the NRB does review and approve the ballot at some point or another.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | BenR - 11/20/2007 1:26 PM
If you continue to stock the fishery it will last as long as you stock it...Keeping a 50plus inch fish doesn't stunt the growth of the younger fish stocked in the fishery. It appears that this fishery is made to grow larger fish...So I really don't see what the problem is...Each year new fish reach 50 inches and from the reports over the last few years....more are getting to 50, than are being taken out....
Except when something like VHS happens, and the state puts a hold on future stocking for an indefinite amount of time! Sound crazy? Well it's not...because it essentially has happened. The restriction got eased here a few months ago, but could easily go back into place at the sign of more problems.
Continuing to stock a fishery that could sustain natural reproduction is simply putting all your eggs in one basket... (No pun intended, lol.) And as I said, if something happens along the way and the yearly stocking efforts are not able to be maintained, then you will have gaps in those year classes down the road.
Keep in mind that the wild card in all of this is the upper bay itself. How many fish are up there? Who knows... According to Kapuscinski et al (2006), since 1989 there have been 113,130 fingerlings, and 2762 yearlings, stocked into Green Bay and its tributaries. But we still don't have a good estimate of the population of muskellunge in that system--it just hasn't been studied, apparently. So how serious is the problem? Who knows... And how do the fish in the upper bay interact with those in the lower bay and the Fox River--are those fish simply "money in the bank" for anglers fishing the lower bay? Who knows... (Do you see a pattern here?)
We don't know what we don't know. I have been saying it all along. We need to find some answers, before bad things happen while we do nothing.
By the way--if anyone is interested, that Kapuscinski reference is: "Population dynamics of muskellunge in Wisconsin waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, 1989-2005." It was published in Environmental Biology of Fishes, July 2006.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI |
MRoberts - 11/20/2007 2:00 PM
SNIP
So there you have it, all this anger based on flawed info, you have to love the internet, but the other good thing is it’s easy to get the correct answers fast if you know the correct people to contact.
That being said it doesn’t mean this is going to be a question on the Rule Change ballot, someone with all the proper info needs to contact the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress and be the squeaky wheel, it may already be to late for this year. As the ballot may be set, the NRB does review and approve the ballot at some point or another.
That's what I though Mike, thanks for clearing it up for me. I spoke with Tim about this last week, and he basically told me the same thing--and I been posting as such. So when I saw your post about it having been tabled, I went "oh-oh."
Glad that it has been cleared up.
EDIT: I have found the local representative on the Great Lakes Committee, and have a call in to him as I type this. I will find out where this stands ASAP and report back.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/20/2007 2:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
| BenR, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
I think most people need to realize Green Bay is a stocked fishery at this point. A put and take fishery if you will, the number of fish stocked in past years seem to be an incremental number. So I expect the harvest of 50+" fish will increase respectively.
Yes, I realize the goal is a sustainable population of naturally reproducing mukies.
Alarming trend, no. Just a simple equation of more 50" fish and more people fishing for them.
The size/age structure of these fish question is just a guess at this point. I don't think anyone has the answer at this point, metabolism and the ability for a species of fish to deal with water temps and forage all play into this equation, not somebody's desire to catch a word record fish, or set the bar higher for a "trophy".
Lambeau, I favor your approach of promoting catch and release of large muskies. I just wish more guys in the muskie community were as diplomatic as you. Kudos.
I find it very difficult to swallow to admitt that I'm associated with some people in these muskie fishemen circles. Name calling, shameing, threatening, etc. etc. etc. I don't think is a good way to encourage catch and release. I've always believed you can catch more bees with honey.
Some of the biggest proponents of the 54" size limit really need to sit back and look in the mirror and ask themselves if they would honestly agree with a person that said the same things they have said to some of their fellow fisherman....that's right, fellow fishermen. Not fellow musky fisherman. |
|
| |
|
| so WHO is going to do what is needed to find out what can be done about getting it on the ballot? Maybe some of the guys fishing that water all the time should be the spearhead and do something rather than rant and rave on the internet. |
|
| |
