|
|
Posts: 8781
| Think carefully about what Mr. Worrall just said here...
The medium sized tournaments will no be able to bear the financial or organizational and staffing responsibilities that would come with the proposed legislation.
If that is true than you can say goodbye to club tournaments as well. Ok so there's a few less club tournaments, I only fish one or two a year anyway, right? What does your club DO with that money they raise during those tournaments, or should I say what would not get done if those proceeds were to suddenly dry up and blow away.
That's right, the clubs DO use those proceeds for stocking, tagging, research etc.
When you start looking at the long term effects here, it becimes pretty apparent (to me at least) is that this would definitely not be good for the future of musky fishing in WI. Even if you HATE tournaments, you have to understand the contributions that would be lost if they were unable to operate in 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.
the attitude that comes across from some tournament anglers that "we have the right to be here so screw you - just show up early, etc." might be based on fact and truth, but it's unhelpful in promoting their point of view or a positive image for tournament fishing. by their nature, people tend to vigorously oppose things when someone else says i'm not interested in what you have to say. think about that when trying to convince others on this issue.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| "it's not at all about using the resource, but using it in a way which generates money for the organizers."
Now who is making things up? NOWHERE in the bill that created this mess does it say anything close to that statement!
Why are you people so against a business making money?! Stop buying gas, and food, because the companies that sell it are using our resources, and MAKING MONEY!!!! Sheesh
Addict, exactly what I mentioned earlier. Say goodbye to the Pewaukee Classic as we know it. Say goodbye to a good portion of the funds it raised every year for muskie research, stocking, feeding, and rearing fish. Will the C&R muskie club be able to hold outings to support all the things they do? If this bill was in place 30 years ago, I'd bet my bottom dollar the muskie stocking that has happened in Green Bay would not be at the level, if at all, it has been. Could the Rhilander Muskie League afford a fee each week? Probaly wouldn't even be able to hold a weekly event!
I could go on, and this is just on the musky side of things. On the walleye side, far more members of fishing clubs and organizations are tournament anglers, than are not. Clubs like Walleyes for Tomorrow, Walleyes Unlimited, and the Sheboygan Walleye Club give back to the resource way more than the recreational angler and boater. And now we are being singled out and will be forced to do more, and pay more. THAT, in a nutshell is what this is all about. Has nothing to do with someone making money off the resource!
Edited by Shep 11/10/2006 12:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | lambeau,
Whoa there, now you are accusing tournament anglers of a pretty unfriendly behavior, and I don't see that at the launches. It takes about an hour to get a full field of PWT boats out on the water at ONE launch with staff and volunteers assisting. It took less than that to get everyone launched at the Kevin Worrall Memorial, and you were there, did you see or hear that sort of attitude? I didn't. And that was with an Invasive check on every boat.
The fact a launch is filled with tournament vehicles on an event day won't change one whit with this legislation. The fact they launch at 7 AM and come in at 5 PM won't change, either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | lambeau - 11/10/2006 11:53 AM
"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.
the attitude that comes across from some tournament anglers that "we have the right to be here so screw you - just show up early, etc." might be based on fact and truth, but it's unhelpful in promoting their point of view or a positive image for tournament fishing. by their nature, people tend to vigorously oppose things when someone else says i'm not interested in what you have to say. think about that when trying to convince others on this issue.
We do have a right to that launch Mike, just as much as the average joe. NOT ANY MORE, the same right. When I know I'm fishing a tourny at 6am, I don't show up to the ramp at 5:45 and expect a parking spot or a chance to jump the line to launch...I get there WAY before to get a spot and launch when I can. Sorry man, but we can't carpool with boat trailers. Nobody thinks of my feelings and perceptions of the "public" when I arrive at a launch and it's filled with non-tourny rigs. First come, first serve.
Parking should be a concern the DNR deals with LONG before they assign a permit.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/10/2006 12:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Ok so we've established that this is not a good thing. We've established that it definitely singles out tournament anglers while recreational anglers are exempt from any such regulations, even if they are fshing the same lake at the same time, and we've established that if anything this is a detriment to the resource, the local economy, the fishing industry, and tournament and non tournament anglers alike...
I know where I stand on this, and it's pretty clear where most of the others stand on this as well.
Is there anybody here who thinks this is a GOOD idea? Anyone in favor of it that isn't afraid to speak up and explain why? If this is affecting the walleye anglers, the bass anglers, and everyone else the same way it would effect tournament musky anglers, then it would seem to me they should need a stadium to hold all the people who will come and speak out against this.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Addict, I'm in favor of some of it. I believe that tournys should be self supporting. If a majority of the public doesn't want their money going twords tournament management and administration, we should respect that. The DNR said they need about 90k a year to tend to Tournament administration. So be it.
|
|
| |
|
| I've been reading the comments on this thread and all the arguing and cannot believe most of the comments. First off, how can you argue when you don't even know/understand the facts? I can tell at least half of the people commenting have not even read the new rules proposed.
Everyone should go to the DNR site and READ all the changes before commenting so we understand what we are arguing about. Too many of the comments are distorted or misunderstood. The site has all the reasoning behind the changes and the cost analysis all broken down so we can understand why the fees are set where they are and which tournaments will be affected and how they will be affected.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether you agree or not. They should not be afraid to comment on this site for fear of being bashed. Lets ALL try to be respectful (including moderaters) just because they bash you doesn't mean you have to bash back! Nobody loves a little educated discussion more than I do, so please don't be afraid to comment.
EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE DNR INFO --HERE IS THE LINK FOR EVERYTHING YOU NEED
and then we can continue the discussion
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/fishingtournaments/fishtournru... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I already read that entire document. I also read the documents linked by Pat Neu. I responded to some claims made by the WMT promoter, which I felt were as excessive as some of the opposing comments, but as I always attempt to do, I tried to balance that discussion with the facts. I then responded as 'devil's advocate' and injected some of my personal feelings on the proposed rules coupled with an interview with the In Fish Exec Director and balanced by Shep's conversation with the FLW Exec Director.
The DNR wants to recoup a $90,000.00 amount spent on a Bass pilot program. I'm expected to pay for that as a competitive Muskie angler. I already bought my license to catch a muskie, and now I'm expected to pay more because on Friday I enter a competitive event. I don't like that idea at all.
It costs the state about $76,000.00 per year to administer competitive events on open water and the ice. The state doesn't want to pay for that from excise tax, license, or other monies, and instead wants to charge me, the event, or both of us the entire amount so the program has a zero sum effect on the state DNR budget. There are countless other DNR administrative programs that do not benefit the state as much economically that are not under requirement to pay for themselves, and in reality we are talking a very small portion of the overall enforcement and regulation budget. Where WAS all this in the past, and why is such a relatively small portion of the budget suddenly so important? Tournaments are not new to the Wisconsin DNR Landscape. I think this is a classic example of bureaucratic tunnel vision looking at cost and ignoring the tremendous benefit, but that's me. it's apparent that the committees are having as much trouble reaching consensus as we are here.
Go back one page and click on the link in my post about Pat Neu's letter.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I do agree that tournaments should be self supporting -- no reason anyone should have to fund something they are opposed to and do not participate in.
But why should I have to pay more to fish a tournament than I would if I just showed up that day? I'm not fishing any longer, any differently, or taking up anymore space at the launch or on the water than I would be if I was "just fishing"...
The DNR has studied the long term effects of tournament angling and there is no conclusive evidence that there is any detriment to the fishery. It's obvious to anyone that there is a positive impact to the local economies. The only people who really are inconvenienced by a tournament are the local residents who most likely just don't want all those boats on "their" lake catching "their" fish. |
|
| |
|
| lNobody thinks of my feelings and perceptions of the "public" when I arrive at a launch and it's filled with non-tourny rigs. First come, first serve. Parking should be a concern the DNR deals with LONG before they assign a permit.
with some exceptions especially in the spring, the average, fishing for the fun of it anglers don't come to a certain lake on a certain day in the same numbers that tournaments generate.
if a tournament organizer is going to, in effect, create intense pressure on parking and launch resources, it only makes good sense that they plan responsibly about how to manage it. whether they/you like it or not, it reflects on all tournaments everywhere. if you wonder why people get upset about tournaments, try to do some perspective-taking about what it's like for them to show up and find 100 or 200 boats on their favorite lake. in point of fact, most people DON'T know there's a tournament going on that day unless they follow the tournament scene.
Whoa there, now you are accusing tournament anglers of a pretty unfriendly behavior, and I don't see that at the launches.
i'm not talking about at the launches...i'm talking about comments made in this thread which reveal and portray a sense of entitlement.
to whit:
- You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that!
- a tourny... the same as if it filled by average joes. I'm seeing bigotry here.
- You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
most people say/type things that are indicative of underlying beliefs. to my mind, the unusual or extraordinary use of public facilities such as is created by tournaments behooves tourney organizers to anticipate and plan for ways to reduce it's impact on other members of the public.
a belief that it's "too bad for you, you didn't show up early enough" might be technically true, but doesn't make it any less rude or dismissive. using up all available parking is absolutely your right as a member of the public, but if you want people to have a positive view of tournaments, you might consider alternatives. give a little bit up to ease the tension it creates. it's called "cooperation", and it goes a looooong way.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict, what if I am not a crappie angler, and want all 'my' money going to walleye management? What if I am anti-hunting, and want all management money spent on administration of Deer Hunting to be applied to bird watching? I'm paying through my base tax dollar for an activity and associated cost I don't want anything to do with. I hear this sort of argument from Lake Association folks all the time, especially when discussing Muskie management. The DNR exists to manage our resources and our combined desired use of same. If the budget needs to be expanded by $76,000.00, then so be it, but to send me a portion of the bill above and beyond what I already paid as an angler living in Wisconsin is a little irritating. As I stated before, for the big events, an $815 fee isn't the end of the world. Need the fee from the Promoter? Fine, implement a fee for ALLLLL events, ALLL ice and open water; the State doesn't HAVE to justify that, they do that sort of thing all the time. Leave the rest as it is so the mid size and smaller events can still carry on with their events after contributing to the fee structure. $250 to $450 won't kill them either. Leave the non profit events like MI Tournaments alone, those help the DNR WAY more than cost them. It wasn't broke, and it doesn't need fixing.
And, as I stated clearly before, most events already do exactly that with the parking issue. Many of the PWT events have off ramp parking lots as far as a couple miles from the ramp to reduce crowding. The event promoters have to find shuttle and vehicle drivers to get the Pro's rig to his boat, or over to the lot. This is an administrative function that is settled between the community and the event promoters in concert with law enforcement WELL in advance of a large event with as many as 120 rigs involved. We don't need a new law and a new layer of enforcement and permitting bureaucracy to accomplish what is already in place.
A 50 boat event on a lake where there is no parking for 50 rigs will not be permitted under the current structure.
I knew you were addressing posts on the board with 'attitude', but that isn't how it read, so I tossed that one in so you would clarify. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "with some exceptions especially in the spring, the average, fishing for the fun of it anglers don't come to a certain lake on a certain day in the same numbers that tournaments generate."
NOT TRUE. Maybe they don't come as a group, but they sure as hell come as a collective. Would I gripe if a lot filled before I got there? No. If that lot on Okauchee doesn't fill with tourny anglers it'll fill with weekend warriors. Most tournys in wisconsin probably draw at most 50 boats on average. You don't think North/South twin draws twice that many in fish-for-fun folks???
"if a tournament organizer is going to, in effect, create intense pressure on parking and launch resources, it only makes good sense that they plan responsibly about how to manage it. whether they/you like it or not, it reflects on all tournaments everywhere. if you wonder why people get upset about tournaments, try to do some perspective-taking about what it's like for them to show up and find 100 or 200 boats on their favorite lake."
Why is this a tourny director's responsibility? Who issues the tourny permit?? The DNR is the body responsible for the "intense pressure". I have yet to fish or help organize a tourny that didn't have an alternative parking plan. I will say this, they weren't plans to help the public's image of the tourny, it was to help the guys paying the tourny fee.
"in point of fact, most people DON'T know there's a tournament going on that day unless they follow the tournament scene."
NOT TRUE. With all the media, print, word of mouth and internet coverage from here to lake link, people know what bodies of water will, could or may have a tourny on them. Nobody is suprised to see a tourny on pewaukee or okauchee on a weekend. Nobody is shocked to see ERC having a tournament. Please don't forget that not every lake here is a tourny body of water.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/10/2006 1:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "cooperation"
It's a two way street. Not one party giving into perception or to create a better image. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorry in advance, but I just got this quote in an email from a friend in the industry:
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, if it
stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| "You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!"
That was a direct response to ONE of your answers in which you totally were wrong. Your response indicated you had no idea what you were spouting as fact. So don't take that statement and generalize it for everything said here.
It's obvious that you support these regulations. Which is fine. Now, how about you get to one of these hearings, and get your opinion on the record. That's what I have been saying all along. Get off your collective butts, and get to one of the remaining hearings. Listen, decide, and let your voice be heard.
I'm going to hang a deer stand!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Mr Worrall
If you are a crappie angler, than you should reasonably expect that whatever costs there are to maintaining a crappie fishery are covered by your license fees. If they are not you should expect that you may be asked to purchase a Crappie stamp in order to help maintain and preserve the opportunities you have to catch your crappies.
But if you are a crappie angler who fishes with a large group of other crappie anglers in the same place at the same time, and there happen to be prizes for your catch at the end of the day, you should then be required to pay additional fees on top of what you have already paid, because you obviously have money to spare if you're willing to pay to enter a tournament. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good one, Addict, that was one of the best tongue-in-cheekers today, and there have been a few.
Someone please turn off the snow switch now.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So basically Steve what you and others are saying is that you dont want your money going to fish you dont fish for. You dont want the money you pay for crappie fishing going to walleye management? Is that correct or am I missreading?
Mike
I'm 21 today and I'm having a drink for all MuskieFirster's! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I don't want to be charged more just because I fish tournaments. There's no legitimate reason for a tournament angler to pay anything beyond the same launch fees and license fees that everyone else pays.
I certainly don't want to see the club tournaments I fish in endure any kind of hardship -- that moeny goes to stocking, research, tagging, etc. and God knows we need all the help we can get funding that stuff.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was making a point about this statement:
'I do agree that tournaments should be self supporting -- no reason anyone should have to fund something they are opposed to and do not participate in.'
It isn't enough to disagree with the proposed rule on the face of it, one has to verbalize what is objectionable and have that mesh with reality. |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau,
Yes, I too hope that the WMT can stick around. Beth and I and all of our tournament anglers have worked too hard and supported the WMT to the point where everyone feels like they are part owners of the tour to have it just slip away. And because more of the Bass and Walleye anglers are a part of the "tournament angler culture" that I mentioned earlier,(more so then most muskie anglers) and there numbers are huge, I don't think there is a chance in the world that the WNDR proposed rule changes will take effect.
On Monday, I called the WDNR and spoke to them about the NR. 20.40 and they assured me that the WDNR did understand the "tournament angler culture" however, they did tell me that the Natural Resource Board did not previously understand the tournament culture. After just a few of the meetings and being inundated by email, phone calls and letters, they are getting a better picture of the magnitude of the proposed changes. The WDNR said that permits will not be effected in 2007, so we have one more year of tournaments in Wisconsin at least.
STEVE,
Once again you have presumed to know my schedule...oh yes...I guess you were there when I didn't spend 126 hours each week (two weeks in a row without taking Saturdays or Sundays off) on our last bulk mailer that was one of our smaller mailers out of the several that we do in a year for a total of 1,512 hours...and I guess you are there when I don't set up tents on the Thursday before the tournaments and move boat(s) in to place, set things up on Fridays for the registration and meetings and getting to sleep at midnight(if I am lucky) to wake up at 3:00am Saturday and again on Sunday, and I didn't take down tents, collect boats and move them around on the following Monday all for 76 hours each tournament for a total of 988 hours...and I guess you were there when I don't drive for several weeks for 12 to 15 hours a day all around the state to distribute posters and brochures at places of business(by the way Saturdays and Sundays are the best days that way I know the resorts, bars, bait shop, ect. are certain to be open and I am the one who hangs them up to be certain that the job is done) for a total of 686 hours that I didn't do...and your there on the Tuesdays and Wednesdays in between our tournaments where I don't work on getting our equipment ready for the next tournament and write and mail out press releases and contact hosting sponsors and handle dozens of phone calls from tournament anglers and so on for 12 hours each day and a total of 312 hours...and I guess that doesn't add up to 3,498 hours that I didn't work on WMT releated stuff in 233 days and that doesn't include the many other things that I don't do the rest of the 132 remaining days!!! Sir, I am glad you are there to call me out and correct me in my lying ways. The WMT is a major tournament cicuit with 21 events and only two people running the show that for any other tournament circuit, would be having a dozen or more as a staff. I guess, according to Steve, that I must be Samantha Stevens and all I have to do is wiggle my nose and magically things get done! That's OK Steve, keep on thinking that, because all I am is someone who started a Wisconsin based muskie circuit before others did so I don't know anything!!
Steve, you need to bone up on the "old wives tail" theories. It was once thought that the top of the line preditors could not over populate and stunt as a result. I am very disappointed in your contradictions to the facts. Also, it is very apperent to me and to others that you are not a proponent of selective harvest even though this is the most progressive wildlife management practices that have been applied to just about every sought after animal and most fish species. If it works for deer hunting, turkey, elk, bear, you name it, why cant it work for muskies??? Lets get out of the stone age thinking that higher size limits is the best management tool. Slot limits, and better yet modified slot limits, are the new progressive way of thinking when it comes to all species of fish! Whey are you still stuck in the anachronism of out dated higher size limits. If you really wanted to make the fishery better on Pelican Lake, then why not make the lake a total catch and release lake for all species of fish. That makes a whole lot more sense.
And FYI Steve, I never asked anyone publicly or privately not to vote for the Pelican Lake size increase. I got in to the mix last year when it was brought to my attention that certain people at the Pelican Lake Association were answering question on tournament organizer's behalf and telling lake association members that the 50" limit would not effect muskie tournaments. My point was that they had no right and that all tournament organizers on Pelican, even the ice fishing ones, should have been invited to speek for ourselves. I do not think that that was an unreasonable request. And when I heard the so called"experts" painting a doom and gloom picture about Pelican Lake's muskie fishery, I had to step in with our data of 67 tournaments in 5 years to demonstrate that the facts are campared to other prime muskie hot spots in Wisconsin, that an arguement can be made Pelican Lake has perhaps the best ballance of all the lakes for its muskie fishery. The garbage that was being spewed out just didn't jive with our very large sample group.
In addition, when an Ontario fisheries biologist tells a WDNR fisheries biologist that they have no idea how many muskies per acre that they have in their lakes and that WDNR biologist tellsme, then I am sorry Steve but I am going to believe the biologist over you. That was my point on that!
As far as what takes longer to measure fish, transport or judge boat then I refer you to that tournament where it was taking up to 40 minutes to measure fish, you know what I am talking about, if not talk to Dennis R., he is still steaming over that, where the final death toll in that tournament was six muskies. I will not mention the tournament because I want to see it stick around and it is not there fault, because things happen. If that was a transport tournament then all those muskies would have been released fine unless one or two swollowed the hooks, loosing a lot of blood and then there is very little that could be done. I perdicted that would happen back in 2001 before the WMT ever ran a tournament and there was a lot of negative talk on web site about how we ran the transport method. Also, if transports were so bad then why do most of the anglers who fish both formats, prefer the transport??? Because of the quicker releases!!! I can remenber back in 2001 when Scott Lewandowski and Dan Dassow caught their first muskie in a transport tournament and Scott turned to me and said "Why don't all the muskie tournaments run tranports"? and Scott is and was back then a very accomplished muskie tournament angler with many wins and high placing with a lot of muskies measured in those tournaments.
Tom McInnis
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I would hope that the DNR is using the proceeds from fishing license sales for fishing and not deer hunting for example, just as I would hope that the proceeds from a duck stamp go to duck hunting, whether I duck hunt or not is irrelevant.
Unless you want to start breaking it dowm by species as we do with trout/salmon stamps, all fishing is fishing, whether its a tournament or not. If additional money is needed in any one area, then raise the license fees to cover it. I buy a license to FISH. I happen to fish muskies with that license. Some guys fish catfish. I do not. I understand that some of the money from my license purchase may go to catfishing, and that is fine. The DNR makes no distinction between HOW I fish, or what species I fish for when I buy that license. They also make no distinction for my reason for fishing, whether it's for money, for food, or just for the fun of it. Therefore I do not see how they can justify charging tournament anglers an additional fee. As stated before my impact on the fishery is no greater during a tournament than it is any other time.
|
|
| |
|
| It's obvious that you support these regulations. Which is fine. Now, how about you get to one of these hearings, and get your opinion on the record. That's what I have been saying all along. Get off your collective butts, and get to one of the remaining hearings. Listen, decide, and let your voice be heard.
you're exactly right that people who believe something strongly need to do more than talk about it. that's the hardest part of motivating groups - getting them to act.
actually, in the past few days i've come to believe that not all of the proposals are a good idea. i simply can't accept it when people say "because i know better." i want to know WHY.
it's interesting watching the progression of this discussion:
at first it was "the fees will shut people down"...umm, not really.
then it became "we don't need regulation"...umm, it's no different than current operations.
and finally it is "it creates an unwelcoming environment and we should do all we can to encourage tournaments to come here".
this is a much more compelling position...sometimes a bit of "i call b.s." questioning helps people to figure out _why_ it is that what they think is right is actually right. if you want to convince more people, do it with a perspective that's both true, understandable, and reasonably presented.
time to put this one to bed, i think.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom,
Sorry about the 4000 hours comment, but that IS an excessive amount of time expended to run a muskie circuit you are paid zero for, don't you think? 77 hours a week, 52 weeks a year IS excessive.
I never said you don't know anything; you are really good at manufacturing statements never made. I also don't really find the fact that you run a Wisconsin Muskie circuit horribly enlightening, that doesn't give you license to abuse others and behave like a spoiled child when you are asked to justify or at least explain the motivation for your sometimes abusive commentary.
We used DNR estimates as to population per acre on Pelican. We conferred with the fisheries folks here, received full approval for the proposed changes thanks to Mike and Norm's hard work, and didn't make a single thing up in our presentation to the Lake Association. I'm sorry you didn't attend, that's not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to beg your appearance. We asked to have a few minutes to present our position, and we were granted those few minutes.
We explained carefully that a format change from transport to judge boats, like the Lakeview Inn Event, was all one needed do to keep a tournament on Pelican. I fail to see where that is misleading. It would have been up to the Association to invite or not invite others, they created and controlled the agenda. This was not a special meeting held just to hear us, Tom.
Pelican will see zero stocking for 10 years at least, and the population looked to drop significantly due to limited NR and high harvest. Since Pelican receives some of the highest angler hours for muskies of any lake in the state, and harvest has been historically very high there, it was obvious to many the lake needed to be protected if a viable muskie population was to be there in 10 years, much less the tremendous trophy potential the lake has displayed. I was guiding Muskies on Pelican, running Muskie tournaments, and watching the lake change as invasives, heavy stocking, and changes to the surrounding landscape changed her forever 30 years back, so don't presume to lecture me on Pelican Lake muskies. I don't really give a #*^@ if you agree and have no intent to try to change your mind; you have demonstrated a distinct lack of willingness to listen to any viewpoint other than your own.
I am not against selective harvest. I never have had a problem with the concept, why would I? A slot limit where density is high and the desire to harvest a number of the numerous portion of the population and leave the larger fish, OR, harvest the smaller and larger fish and protect the middle is sometimes an excellent management option. Neither of those scenarios apply to the current or future situation on Pelican. If the population in Pelican grows beyond what's good for the lake and ANY specie of forage fish is effected as a result during the next ten years, it will be a biological miracle beyond all miracles.
You need to look into the studies on Canadian waters done recently and in the past, including a very interesting study recently completed on LOTW. Until that time, you need to stop insisting the MNR has no clue about population size, density, forage, etc. Wabigoon and Eagle, LOTW and other waters have been the subject of intense study, and two of the Worlds leading authorities on Muskies are Canadian. I'm pretty sure neither just fell off the truck. Dr. Casselman knows enough about the population dynamics on trophy Canadian waters to predict the next record could easily come from the St. Lawrence, and offer 1% upper confidence estimates for several other waters, including my personal favorite, Wabigoon.
As far as the vote on Pelican at the meeting, of COURSE you didn't ask anyone to vote against it, you were, I guess, unaware of the meeting, and unaware of our proposal. Understandable, a guy as busy as you cannot keep the old thumb on the pulse 24/7. If you HAD been aware of the meeting, I bet you would have, and that's not even close to debatable.
You obviously didn't read my transport event comments earlier in this thread, read up.
As to the rest, I had better stop now or I might actually say what I'm thinking...
|
|
| |
|
| It looks to me like no one is going to change either Tom's or Steve's minds.
I think you both need to call each other up and set up a place where this thing can be settled once and for all. Just the two of you on some old logging road in the middle of nowhere! 
Let's grow up a little and leave your personal dislike for each other off the board! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have no personal dislike for Tom at all; I actually think he's a great guy separated from the WMT hype (perbole). I do have an affinity for finding facts, though, and have a severe allergy to bullpucky.
I'm all growed up already, so that's out. I don't know how folks run a debate in Clintonville, but up here we say what needs to be said and keep digging until the last layer of the onion; amazing how the conversation eventually shifts closer to reality.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| Steve, keep sticking up for what you think is right. Because I think you're right on the mark.
Give my 2 cents on the Pelican Lake View tournament. I have been fishing it off and on (more on)
for the last 20 years. I think it has evolved into a very well run tournament. With Steve stepping back
in this year it has gotten a lot better. The only thing I would like changed is that the muskies should
stay in the net and in the water until a judge boat arrives. Also I think it should be the obligation of fellow
fisherman to help get a judge boat when they see a fish caught. Maybe they could win a door prize for helping a fellow fisherman since you had a 100 prizes to give out last year. The one thing that scares me on Pelican is that I see very very few small fish the last few years. Hopefully the size limit will help that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Get to one of the hearings, voice your opinions either way! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's a post from WalleyeFIRST Pro Johnnie Candle contributed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter is very eye opening. I do not live in WI, but as I stated before, these issues scare me a lot. This letter is from the Wisconsin Association of Lakes (WAL) to the state of WI. It is long, but worth the reading. If I read it enough times, I may drive from ND to WI just to vent a little.
Keep fighting the good fight. I have sent my letter and got the NPAA involved. i am on your (our) side.
WAL POSITION ON PROPOSED FISHING TOUNAMENT RULES
Draft 10.06.06
WAL believes that many aspects of the proposed rules, promulgated as required by 2003 Act 249, are positive steps to reduce the potentially negative impacts of tournament fishing on the resource, riparian owners and the public users of the waters.
WAL has concerns about the proposed rules in five major areas: protection of small water bodies; funding of DNR expenses related to tournament fishing activities; control and prevention of aquatic invasive species; mortality in catch and release tournaments; and conformance to local ordinances.
Small water bodies. The proposed rules allow too many boats relative to surface area on lakes less than 450 acres. The table which defines the maximum number of boats would allow 25 boats on a 100 acre lake, or one per 4 acres. The impact on the fishery and on other users of such density, especially considering the size and power of the boats used by most tournament participants would be immense and unacceptable. To address this issue, WAL recommends the following:
(a) Create a separate category for lakes between 100 and 249 acres. Limit the number of tournament boats on these waters to 15 and the number of boat-days to 30.
(b) Require a DNR permit for tournaments having 10 or more boats on waters between 100 and 249 acres.
(c) Clarify the surface area computation for situations where multiple water bodies are not connected by waters navigable by the typical boat used by participants. WAL recommends that the tournament size and duration be limited by the area of the largest water body.
(d) Clarify that the tournament boat days allocation applies toward the limits on all of the water bodies allowed to be used by the tournament participants.
(e) Where small water bodies are to be fished as a part of a multiple water body tournament, establish limits by permit on the number of tournament participants who may simultaneously use them.
Tournament costs and funding. The proposed fees may be inadequate to fully fund the administrative, research and enforcement efforts related to tournament fishing activity. WAL recommends the following to address the funding issue:
(a) Assure that all costs associated with tournament events are recognized, including those for enforcement and research. The fiscal estimate of $76,000 seems to be the absolute minimum required to administer the rule with little left over for enforcement or research.
(b) Establish a fee structure that assures that all tournament costs are paid by the organizers and/or participants. While either of the proposed fee alternatives is acceptable, WAL believes the participants should bear some of the burden and so WAL favors Alternative 2.
Aquatic invasive species. Wisconsin lakes are increasingly impacted by the introduction of aquatic invasive species. Current regulations and those contained in the draft rule are inadequate to prevent the spread of these invaders from one water body to another. Tournament participants fish many different waters on a regular basis and may even fish multiple water bodies during a single tournament. WAL believes the tournament participants and organizers have a special duty to assure that their activity doesn’t cause AIS infestations. WAL recommends the following be included in the rule:
(a) Require the tournament organizers to define a detailed plan for AIS control, including watercraft and trailer inspections at landings, proper disposal of water from bilge, engine cooling systems and live wells, disinfection and other appropriate means to eliminate possible transport of AIS. The DNR should review and approve such plans and be granted authority to enforce the provisions. Tournament organizers should be financially liable for the associated costs. In many cases tournament organizers may find local volunteers to assist in AIS control efforts.
(b) Add a statement to the rule which specifically authorizes the DNR to impose conditions over and above what are contained in s. 30.715 WI Statutes and the associated rules.
(c) Encourage tournament organizers and participants to promote AIS prevention to the general public. Tournament participants and organizers were the leaders in promoting catch and release fishing and they should take the same leadership role with regard to AIS.
Fish mortality. Tournaments conducted under catch and release rules, and especially those where the weigh in was off site, have resulted in significant fish mortality after release. The rules must err on the side of protecting the resource. WAL recommends the following provisions to reduce mortality and to provide incentives to the organizers and participants to properly handle the catch:
(a) Require a permit for all catch and release tournaments with a weigh in, regardless of the location of the weigh in.
(b) Prohibit the use of bags to transport or hold fish.
(c) Establish clear minimum standards for all means of holding and transporting fish. Live well and holding tank specifications for volume, dissolved oxygen and temperature should be included in the rule. The results of numerous studies should be analyzed to determine the standards.
(d) Require verification of live well and holding tank operation by the tournament organizer and DNR prior to the tournament and at random during the course of the tournament. If the live well doesn’t meet the requirements, the participant should be disqualified. If holding tanks don’t meet the requirements, the location of the weigh in should be moved to the water’s edge so that fish can be removed from the live well, weighed and returned within a very short time.
(e) Establish clear authority for the DNR to impose modified rules on a specific event to reflect the current conditions on the water body including water temperature and presence of disease. The authority should include but not limited to disallowing catch and release, moving weigh in sites and limiting the areas to be fished.
(f) WAL supports the requirement for an enforceable plan for disposal of any fish killed during the tournament. DNR should also have authority to keep the fish to be released in a holding area for a minimum of 24 hours following weigh in to assess the impacts of the holding and handling procedures and equipment on mortality.
(g) WAL supports the prohibition on catch and release tournaments with an off site weigh in from July 1 to August 31.
Local consultation. Many local governments, lake districts and lake and river organizations expend significant effort and money to protect and enhance the quality of their water resources. The efforts include AIS control and prevention, stocking, fish habitat improvement, boating regulations, landing maintenance and others.
(a) The DNR and tournament organizers should be required assure that the tournament permit conditions comply with local regulations and that tournament activities don’t adversely impact the work of the local agencies and groups.
(b) Information should be required to be provided to all tournament participants regarding local rules and regulations and the DNR authorized to enforce them.
(c) When a tournament permit is issued, information copies should be provided in a timely manner to county and town authorities and to the affected water body citizen organizations.
-----
Keep the line tight,
Johnnie Candle
#42 |
|
| |
