|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | jonnysled you sia reasons for not to allow trolling in a few post back. One of the reasons is the catch and keep number of muskies. Wisconsin has a terrific catch and release record. The number of muslies that are kept in wisc. I believe does not really affect the sport here. To say wisconsin is backward is so wrong also. Wisconsin has over 900 musky lakes to register compared to less then 100 in Minn, fewere then that in any other state. They have many different size limits to manage all these lakes. Now they appear are willing to slot limits on some lakes. They have forged ahead and introduced the spotted musky here in several lakes.
Wisconsin is doing a very good job with the progarm. I guess if there is a problem its not always fast enough or big enough for some.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| What next, HP limitations? I'm all for that. All you guys that don't troll, would have to get kickers, and then, well....as long as you got kickers, we might as well troll! Oh, wait, no trolling allowed.
Peace and quiet. I understand to a point. But the new kickers are so quiet, you can't even here them. Certainly less so than 90% of the big HP motors. There are no hour restrictions on a pontoon boat cruising the shore line, is there? Certainly makes more noise than a boat trolling a shore/break line.
Here is my suggestion. HP limit of 10 HP on all lakes 200(300?) or less. Speed limits on all lakes 1000 Acres or less, between the hours of 7PM and 10AM. Motor trolling allowed on all lakes. 3 lines per angler, 6 per boat, max. Abandon the Position Fishing joke rule, prohibit single hook kill rigs. Let the biologists set size limits based on science. Get rid of the Conservation Congress and the Spring Hearings as we know them. Prohibit attaching stupid stuff to bills in the legislature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| SLED: "...i think the north is unique ... and should remain so. it's the type of place where the game is played in a way that is rewarding, peaceful and enjoyable ... changing it is exactly that ... change. some things should stay the same because they are that good in their own way. "
Amen, brother.
Yes, trolling is far more complicated than just tossing out some baits and dragging them behind the boat. Yes, trolling is a legitimate and viable method of catching more fish. Perhaps all of our judgement is a bit clouded on this one -- the trollers want to be able to troll, and with good reason -- some of those little gems in N WI could give you a string of multiple fish days were you allowed to troll, and big fish to boot. Running 6 lines ups your chances by 5 over casting, and you can get your baits in places you otherwise wouldn't. Add in the sheer amount of water you can cover, and an accomplished troller could and likely WOULD encounter HUGE success.
That said, I can see whay people want to troll in N WI.
Then there are the "purists"... a mold from which Sled and I are apparently both cut from. It ain't broke. More people catching more fish in more places does not always = a good thing. The jet-skiers/pontoon boats, big motor brigage, etc. element people are talking about? That certainly is a disruption, one that we accept reluctantly because we have no other choice. But suggesting that you may as well allow troling because the pontoons/etc are already out there anyway? Hey, the floor is already dirty may as well just crap on it too?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Uhhh, that last sentense is emotion all the way. Give me a REAL reason other than "I don't like the idea."
Our state has had natural resource management decisions put into the regs by small, vocal groups for a very long time, without any real basis in science or reality except tradition.
As I pointed out before, this sort of management is why we don't have 13 lakes here in the north with a 50" limit. Complain when this system defeats an important, biologically sound and well backed proposal you personally approve, then celebrate it when it stonewalls a proposal you reject with no scientific standing or backing based primarily on tradition and emotion, and you can hardly call yourself a 'purist'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Steve, I never said a word to support the way the system functions, nor did I imply that our resource decisions are made by the right people, or in the right manner. If they were, you would HAVE your 50" size limit. Upholding tradition is not in and of itself a valid approach to managing resources unless the end goal is preservation, conservation, and protection of the resource. 34" size limits are "traditional". So are single hook rigs and shooting muskies at boatside with a .22. It's not the tradition that matters here, it's preserving the aesthetic appeal of the Northwoods lakes. And whether we like it or not, nearly all the regulations we have or do not have at this point come down to who (hopefully the majority) likes the idea or does not like the idea.
If I could troll, I WOULD catch more fish in N WI. For the sake of preserving the aesthetic value mentioned above, however, I am opposed to the idea, at least on small lakes anyway. (Small being ohhh, maybe 507 acres??  )
If motor trolling were to be allowed on smaller bodies of water, there is no doubt that it could realistically put a strain on those fisheries in a very short time. That's my scientific and rational basis for my argument. Of course even if you could prove that it would have no impact on the fisheries or the quality of my fishing experience, I still wouldn't like the idea. There is a time and a place for trolling. "Everywhere" is not that place in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I said....:)
Think about it. Almost every other lake in the country and Canada is open to trolling. I just don't see any of those waters failing as a result of thousands of anglers rushing in the fire up the 9.9. On the contrary. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | The reason you don't have 13 lakes with a 50 inch size limit is that more people spoke out against it then for it.. Lets be real on that. It was poorly presented to the public. It appeared that we the musky anglers were force feeding it to the d.n.r and john doe public and it did not fly. As musky fishermen we need to take the general population thoughts into consideration on any changes we would like. We need to present all the facts and do it right. If we do this we can get the home owners on the lakes and lake associations on our side..
This has been gone over way to often. I have heard all the arguements about it and tired of the the complaints about it. If its worth doing ....do it right, the proposal was not done right,plain and simple and it failed.
Pfeiff
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Don, that's exactly what I said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | oops, sorry steve misunderstood your post at first reading. I agree.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i don't understand why, how it's tied to the 50" lake limit? aren't the two mutually exclusive issues/topics?
and Don ... not sure where you came up with the "wisconsin is backward" theme ... surely didn't come out of my mouth or keyboard.
anybody reading should get this summary ... steve and i wholeheartedly disagree ... although we do agree on lakes below 500 acres ...
i'm interested to see how making trolling legal for lakes over 500 acres is going to 1. add more 50" limit lakes and 2. make fishing better than it is right now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | also ... after a statement like "almost every lake in the rest of the country and canada are open to trolling" ... does this mean you are wanting "all" northern wisconsin lakes open to trolling or are you still on 500 acres and larger? ... doesn't make sense because if you make a distinction then there's a reason for it ... right? you can't have it both ways and get any support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) I said Wisconsin's procedure for changing fishing and hunting regulation is backwards. The CC creates a situation where a very small vocal minority can effect changes that neither the majority of the anglers or the biologists managing the resource can make sense out of.
2) Almost every lake in the rest of the country IS open to trolling. No dire consequences, no end of the quiet late fall fishing, and the fish do just fine. No water use issues I am aware of, and in fact until it's really cold, not as many folks are trolling as one might think. Witness many MN and NW Ontario lakes.
3) I said I was in favor of new trolling regs on lakes over 500 acres. I said why, too. Nothing I've said since would confuse that issue. Read more carefully, or stick to what I actually say, and it'll be clear, I think.
4) I've been trying to make the point that traditionalists defeated the 50" proposal. That is an absolute fact. That speaks to the 'backward' theme I posted earlier. I made the point (carefully, I thought) that the very fact a vocal group of 'traditionalists' using a sky is falling argument could SOUNDLY defeat a proposal that would have been great for those lakes and was supported by the fisheries folks here indicates the depth of the CC issue. And, we have the legislature adding management regs into budget bills, the Governor vetoing just a word....what a mess. So I made the point that any self proclaimed 'purist' claiming trolling will ruin the peace and destroy the fishery has to examine their stance in the framework of our current system, and be ready to support those who defeated the 50" proposal in order to fight a proposed trolling reg based on nothing more than tradition and emotion. How did defeating that 50" proposal make fishing 'better'? Answer that question, and you answer yours. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | a couple things i see this morning
1. there are "traditionalists" that don't fit that definition ... that are in-fact in support to higher limits where they apply and are against trolling on any more waters than currently allow.
2. an 8- point buck nose to the now snow-covered ground chasing the girls around the yard while i sit here at my "office" ... the best place in the world to work ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Define 'traditionalist' any way you wish, the system is what it is and it's abused. Many of us celebrate it when we look to forward our agenda and can win based only on emotive argument from a tiny minority, and then condemn it when others are successful in exactly the same manner defeating an issue we are trying to get passed.
A very well thought out, biologically sound proposal that is arguably economically very sound and has the full support of the fisheries scientists may be defeated by political process by a small group of folks using the same style and content of argument many anti-trolling advocates use.
Scrape away the rest of this, and that is the core of what bugs me.
Hope to see a buck like that tonight... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Steve, you are clouding the issue with your obvious disdain for how the system panders to a vocal minority. Again, nobody is saying that there aren't great flaws in the way things get done.
I don't think anybody is applauding the system itself. We're not cheering "the system" when things go the way we would like, only the end result. Lake associations, politics, and all the bureaucracy that we have to deal with, it's there, and we have to deal with it.
That said, show me a well thought out, biologically and economically sound proposal that details how allowing trolling on a 200 acre lake will not have a negative impact on that fishery, on the local residents, and on the users of that lake, and I will support it.
I will add this: I think anyone with any sort of disability/injury that prevents them from being able to cast should be allowed to troll. Not trying to take fishing away from anyone here, but I am a firm believer that giving the general population more ways to catch fish is something that needs to be considered very carefully. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I said 500 acres, so stop, really. And. there is NO information I can find that indicates trolling is any more detrimental to the fishery than casting or live bait fishing.
If a proposal is presented, it will go through the CC process. It unfortunately is probable it won't pass or fail determined by 'biologically and economically sound proposals that detail how allowing trolling on 200 acre lakes will not have a negative impact on that fishery, on the local residents, and on the users of that lake'. It will pass or fail based on emotion and activism, just like the 50" proposal of the past. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| "It will pass or fail based on emotion and activism, just like the 50" proposal of the past."
Ok, so let's look at that for a moment...
If that's how things get done, than what do we have to do to get the things we want done to happen? Activism? Are you saying that we have to show up and make noise whether we are right or not? |
|
| |
|
| That said, show me a well thought out, biologically and economically sound proposal that details how allowing trolling on a 200 acre lake will not have a negative impact on that fishery, on the local residents, and on the users of that lake, and I will support it.
I will add this: I think anyone with any sort of disability/injury that prevents them from being able to cast should be allowed to troll. Not trying to take fishing away from anyone here, but I am a firm believer that giving the general population more ways to catch fish is something that needs to be considered very carefully.
as i noted earlier, i'm no longer in favor of allowing trolling on small lakes in northern WI, but it's for purely emotional reasons. most times i'm a pretty rational guy who likes to rely on science and logic, but i'm also the guy who's likely to vote at the CC hearings in an emotional way on an issue like this.
notably, the burden of "proof" does not lie with showing it will not have a negative impact on the fishery/residents/etc. in fact, the burden lies on those who want to show it will have an impact.
the reason is in the second half of your statement above, EA. trolling increases fishing opportunities for many people: the infirm, the old, the very young, the people who just like it better. more opportunity is a good thing. therefore, the burden of proof is on those who wish to say the negative impact would outweigh the benefits of additional opportunity.
again, i'm learning to like trolling, and see a place for it on larger lakes up north. but i'm also the guy who likes tradition and i'm not in favor of it on the smaller lakes up there.
the beauty and the problem with the Conserv. Congress system is that i don't actually have to have a rational reason for voting one way or the other.
i'm very swayable on this issue, but saying "just because" doesn't convince me. and if you can't convince me during a long written discussion, you'll never convince the people who feel more strongly about it one way or the other when you get 2 minutes to present you case in person at the hearings.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Pointerpride102 - 11/1/2007 11:26 AM
Shallow water trolling? Last I heard about your trolling skills was you had to head halfway to Michigan over 200 fow....hehehe!
That's pretty funny.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Are you saying that we have to show up and make noise whether we are right or not?'
At the Spring CC hearings, that's exactly what happens, yes. Say your piece and vote, hoping to influence others at the meeting who may know nothing about your issue at all to vote your way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | Addict,
I challenge you to prove to us in detail how it WILL negatively impact the fishery, etc. on the small lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| trolling = more fish caught
More fish caught = more fish killed (its inevitable that a certain percentage of fish we hook will die)
If you give more people more opportunities to catch fish, it stands to reason that it certainly will have an impact, ESPECIALLY on a small ecosystem. Open up trolling on a 200 acre lake, and how long before nearly every fish in it has been caught? And of angler X decides to troll that lake for the first time, and has a 5 fish day, what do you think he will do? What would YOU do? And suppose that same angler X decides to post the pictures of all of his fish here on MuskieFIRST, bragging about his 5 fish days on lake ____. How long before you have three or four guys, or perhaps more out trolling day after day after day? It doesn't take much anging pressure to affect a lake of that size.
Fishery aside, think about a 200 acre lake. Think about you personally fishing it, casting a weedline or whatever. Add in a couple trollers. Now what? You can't tell me that that won't affect your experience. You can't tell me that additional lines out, and being able to cover more water and a greater rate of speed isn't going to have an impact. And you can't tell me that even you wouldn't go out there, see three boats trolling, hang your head and say $^%&, so much for this lake today, lets go somewhere else.
You can't add more people, more lines, covering more water on a lake that's that size and expect it not to have an impact. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Your entire post is absolutely RIFE with assumption.
1) There is absolutely no evidence that trolling is more effective a method of catching fish than casting for muskies on smaller lakes. Some days the casting crowd kicks the troller's collective fannies. It's simply another technique. In many cases, trolling would be far less effective than casting or drifting with Suckers on a small lake. What if the guy has a 5 fish day casting? Why is that different? Why would there be 'more people'? To hear it from some NO ONE is Muskie fishing WI any more.
2) Why would it be a problem if there were boats out trolling? They probably will not be trolling where you want to cast, in most cases. You would leave because you don't like others fishing in a manner you don't like on 'your' lake? That's a classic emotional argument.
3) How many are saying trolling should be allowed with 3 lines per angler on a 200 acre lake? So far I see 48, with a total of 48 voting trolling with some restriction. I voted limiting trolling to larger lakes. 43 folks voted as you apparently would. 86 pro trolling in some manner, 43 against. if this came up in the Spring hearings, and all 43 against showed up as a ratio in the state, your viewpoint would win the day. If, however, the 48 for trolling-no restrictions showed up and your crowd didn't...
4) If trolling is damaging as you seem to assume, would not all the lakes other than those in N WI that are smaller muskie waters be ruined by now? Just because it's LEGAL to troll doesn't mean everyone will, and all at once....
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 11/6/2007 12:43 PM
trolling = more fish caught
--- Do you have PROOF of this?
More fish caught = more fish killed (its inevitable that a certain percentage of fish we hook will die)
--- That is fishing. As fishermen we assume the risk of injuring or killing a fish when we hook it.
If you give more people more opportunities to catch fish, it stands to reason that it certainly will have an impact, ESPECIALLY on a small ecosystem. Open up trolling on a 200 acre lake, and how long before nearly every fish in it has been caught? And of angler X decides to troll that lake for the first time, and has a 5 fish day, what do you think he will do? What would YOU do? And suppose that same angler X decides to post the pictures of all of his fish here on MuskieFIRST, bragging about his 5 fish days on lake ____. How long before you have three or four guys, or perhaps more out trolling day after day after day? It doesn't take much anging pressure to affect a lake of that size.
--- How about a new poll asking how many people would troll "X" sized lakes? How many people would flock to northern Wisconsin to troll anyway?
If any angler did have a 5 fish day, I would like to see them duplicate it on some of these waters. I did it trolling up here a few years ago. Told some guys about it, took them out and could NOT duplicate the results in 3 years. We are getting them casting though.
Fishery aside, think about a 200 acre lake. Think about you personally fishing it, casting a weedline or whatever. Add in a couple trollers. Now what? You can't tell me that that won't affect your experience. You can't tell me that additional lines out, and being able to cover more water and a greater rate of speed isn't going to have an impact. And you can't tell me that even you wouldn't go out there, see three boats trolling, hang your head and say $^%&, so much for this lake today, lets go somewhere else.
--- Once again, how many people are going to troll a 200 acre lake? Okay, now this question. How many people are going to be able to SUCCESSFULLY troll a 200 acre lake? If it is going to be that difficult, why not allow it. That way once this passes guys will be able to use suckers on it without an issue.
No, I would not hold my head in disgust. Why, because with casting I will be hitting spots that they won't be. Don't you DARE tell me how I or anyone else would act. This seems to be more of a self benefiting argument for you than anything else.
You can't add more people, more lines, covering more water on a lake that's that size and expect it not to have an impact.
---Who is to say that there will be more people on a lake? Can you tell us how many people we can expect to see on the smaller lakes (and larger lakes) in northern Wisconsin? Please give us a number.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| To all those who think trolling is so easy have you ever done it? It takes as much, and I will even say more skill than casting. Sure anybody can drag a bait behind a boat but to really do it correctly it is not as easy as you people think.
You think that trolling will be able to decimate the population because you think trolling is so effective. I am not a sucker fisherman but to me it sure does seem easy and a good way to catch a ton of fish. Maybe we should outlaw suckers? This is the sam logic as you guys are using.
If being to effective is a reason to not allow something then should we outlaw Double CowGirls or BullDogs? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Been reading this for a while, here's my two cents if anyone cares.
I fish Northwestern WI lakes where motor trolling is permitted, and I troll sets or cast depending on the conditions and time of year. As far as ease of fishing is concerned, trolling is not really dumbing it down if you're doing it right. Running even a 2-line set through productive water is as much if not more work than casting a bait and bringing it in. As far as mortality goes, what is the difference if a fish hits a bait propelled by a motor or propelled by you?
Sled brought up a point. What if you get a double? Personally, I have enough trouble keeping a fish pinned when I see it hit a bait and hammer a hookset, let alone one that grabs an artificial 40 feet from the boat while you're fighting another fish and can't get to it to set it.
All things considered, I don't see any possible way that trolling harms the population whatsoever. And if trolling disrupts the northwoods, lets concentrate our efforts on waterskiing and jet skis. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Reelman, are you my long lost brother? |
|
| |
|
| I agree with others that say trolling won't harm the fisheries per say...it's not like it's some magical way to easily catch fish... I don't think allowing trolling lakes in WI that you can't do it now is somehow going to decrease the populations just because trolling is allowed...my opinion like many others is purely based on emotion and just liking the fact we can fish some small lakes in the fall with barely a sound...now I agree that a boat or 2 or even 3 trolling the lake might not make it "that bad" but what if it's some loud, noisy, old 1985 merc on the back and he seems to take a liking to the weedline you are working...well that would make the experience less enjoyable for me...again, selfish, emotion based...i would vote it down.
do any of us really expect to see trolling allowed in our lifetimes up there?
i just don't see it happening.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Steve Worrall - 11/6/2007 1:02 PM
1) There is absolutely no evidence that trolling is more effective a method of catching fish than casting for muskies on smaller lakes. Some days the casting crowd kicks the troller's collective fannies. It's simply another technique. In many cases, trolling would be far less effective than casting or drifting with Suckers on a small lake. What if the guy has a 5 fish day casting? Why is that different? Why would there be 'more people'? To hear it from some NO ONE is Muskie fishing WI any more.
2) Why would it be a problem if there were boats out trolling? They probably will not be trolling where you want to cast, in most cases. You would leave because you don't like others fishing in a manner you don't like on 'your' lake? That's a classic emotional argument.
3) How many are saying trolling should be allowed with 3 lines per angler on a 200 acre lake? So far I see 48, with a total of 48 voting trolling with some restriction. I voted limiting trolling to larger lakes. 43 folks voted as you apparently would. 86 pro trolling in some manner, 43 against. if this came up in the Spring hearings, and all 43 against showed up as a ratio in the state, your viewpoint would win the day. If, however, the 48 for trolling-no restrictions showed up and your crowd didn't...
4) If trolling is damaging as you seem to assume, would not all the lakes other than those in N WI that are smaller muskie waters be ruined by now? Just because it's LEGAL to troll doesn't mean everyone will, and all at once....
You say that there is no evidence that trolling is more effective than casting. Trolling is effective, and at times that will mean the difference between a great day and a zero day. Yes, it is another technique. Adding another technique, whether it works every day, or one in 5 days WILL result in more fish being caught. Trolling WORKS. Sure in some cases you'd be wasting your time, just like some cases you are wasting your time casting. Again, my point being that adding methods of catching fish means more fish will be caught. How can anyone dispute that?
As for why it would be a problem if more boats were out trolling, as I said in my last post -- we're talking about the small lakes here, more of ANYTHING be it casting, sitting on shore, live bait fishing, or dynamite will have an impact. Those lakes provide excellent fishing, because few people are fishing them and the methods in which they are allowed to fish them are limited.
You ask: "Why haven't the lakes where trolling IS allowed been ruinied?" You don't know how much better the fishing would be on those lakes if trolling were not allowed. Nobody knows at this point because the only way to find out is to open up lakes to trolling that haven;t been, and close lakes to trolling that have been open to it and do a long term analysis of the quality of the fishery.
The bottom line is that no matter what you do, taking more out without putting more in is not the way to improving the fisheries in WI, or anywhere else.
And just to be clear, it's not about "MY" lake, Steve. "my" lake is one of the bigger ones, where trolling would likely be allowed if there were lake size restrictions. And its also popular with the skiers and jet skiers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Lambeau, watching people troll the hell out of Wingra is partly why I am opposed to trolling on small lakes. In fact I caught my first muskie trolling on Wingra. And it just doesn't seem very sportsman like to me. And let's really look at that -- 4 rods, two lines out on boards, and you say that that doesn't affect the experience of guys wanting to cast that lake? Suppose you wanted to get off the weedlines and cast off both sides of the boat, East to West down the center of the lake. If one or two people were trolling out there, that would be the end of your day unless you changed lakes.
And no Lambeau, I am not the "barbarian horde that's taking over" because I am not out to change it, disrupt it, bastardise it, or turn it into minocqua. My intention is to enjoy it as it is, for what it is, and how it is, and not interfere with the peace and quiet that drew me there in the first place. And for the last time, the land I own, its on a big lake, where pontoon boats, water skiers, and jet skiers like to do their thing. The lakes I wish to protect are the ones down the street, which I would feel the same about whether I owned land there or not.
The truth is I don't want to see any lake anywhere turned into a zoo. I don't even like hearing the MN guys complain about what's happened there over the last few years, and I don't even fish there. I think people in general have done too much damage, made too much noise, and generally messed up too many things that were fine as they were in too many places already, and that won't change no matter where I or own property. |
|
| |
