|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
as Larry Ramsell stated before too ... there are bodies of water where there needs to be a harvest ... i know of one i'd like to see some fish come out of ...
balance ... moderation ... keys to logic ... which it seems is void in most of these arguments.
a guaranteed outcome is the result of thinking with your heart ... i could take this into politics but would end up being deleted, but ... apply principles of balance and moderation to any situation and you can achieve better results.
i doubt there will be an issue with an out-of-control population of 56"-60" fish ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
it was in response to jeff aka essoxaddict ...
"it's a bell-shaped curve" = populations of fish.
the 54+ are outside the 3 sigma limits = fish bigger than 54" in this species are rare (< 3%)
"so similar to Eagle Lake you establish potential" = the 54" limit allows you to see how big a fish can grow
"i would be surprised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose = if there's a problem killing too many 56-60" fish in the future ... i'm suggesting it's likely not going to happen
you state this is hard to understand. did that clarify?
the rest of your patronizing b.s is transparent and if you continue to lead with the attitude that comes from your posts you might find similar results as those found by the now defunct wrma.
looks like somebody pumped you up to the point where it seems you've believed it. i'd like you to be successful but like the wrmp, i'll be surprised if you can't move past go with your patronizing style.
i particularly enjoyed your lessons in statistics ...
your boy pointer seemed to understand ... maybe he can help you out. he goes to school for this kind of stuff right?
if you need definitions for any of the words let me know and i'll help. i'd look forward to another statistics course from you too.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 5:17 PM
it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
SNIP.
That's my point--how do you know this? how do you know that the "54+ are outside of 3 sigma?" Support your statement. No rhetoric.
But I think you are confusing the term "patronizing" with my attempt to make you accountable for your statements. I was not trying to be condescending towards you or anyone else here--I am just trying to get you to stand behind your rhetoric. It seems to me as though you are trying to imply that those who don't exactly take everything you say as gospel, are patronizing you.
Look, we seem agree on many things--but I operate on facts and science. And I simply do not agree with your assertion regarding the SD statement. It's not about ego here; and if you are right and I am wrong, then I am wrong and you are right. That's all there is to it. But that assumes facts not yet in evidence, and the jury is still out in this regards. I would simply like to see your math.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Why is it our right to keep the fish? Did we ask them? Did we personally put them in there? Where did this right come from?'
Hoo boy.
Yes, actually, some of the folks visiting here DID have a significant hand in stocking the Green Bay fish, financially, and personally.
Anthropomorphism at it's absolute worst.
And like it or not, most waters out there are managed for harvest or they would be listed as C&R only. Because you don't like it doesn't make it socially unacceptable by the majority, biologically harmful, or as one particularly off the edge individual suggested, 'stupid'. Not liking the regs simply means you wouldn't harvest a fish that has been determined by good science to be perfectly acceptable to take home based on the management goals on that water. If the Goon was supposed to have zero harvest, it would be CPR. If the idea is to SEVERELY limit harvest, the limit would be...exactly where it is. If the generally accepted upper limit on the Goon was 60", I would bet the farm the limit would be alot closer to that.
Bottom line, reality check here, is SOME folks are Pro Harvest and SOME Anti Harvest, and those to extremes. Most are in the middle and think either extreme is off the edge. It's the middle, which also means majority, the 'extremes' need to win over to get things extended in the direction they desire. Mike and Norm did that very well in a very tough environment working with EVERYONE involved in a democratic process to get Pelican Lake to the much needed 50" limit. If ONE SINGLE STATEMENT made by either had mirrored the above, argument over, we lose. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
The premise is the big fish of the Bay of Green Bay may have not yet reached upper confidence limits and may indeed reach 56 or more inches. Why would this water NOT be equivalent to the Larry? Faster growth, perhaps, but that even is unsure. The premise is that the harvest levels of fish over 50" out of an area where the majority of the larger fish present are perhaps concentrated is unacceptably high when factoring in :
1) The admittedly social desire to see how big those fish can get.
2) The assumption NR is not present to any degree accepted by the DNR so the only fish that can reach the sizes some feel is possible are stocked, numbers are definitely finite, and the future of that stocking in question.
3) The future health of the fishery is in question due to the possible introduction of mortality from VHS.
4) The sheer numbers of anglers and fish caught indicates that angler related mortality is going to be high, and if the traffic increases to a very concertrated fishery as most feel it will, will be higher. (I know, I know, bear with me here) creating a situation--- where the finite numbers available after natural, angler related, and other factor driven mortalities are considered--- place to these folks a VERY high value on the remaining adult population.
One possible solution is to stop fishing muskies altogether. That, since much of the Green Bay project was sponsored by Muskie clubs, isn't likely to get much support.
Another is to ask for a higher size limit so more fish can reach the upper anticipated level. That was already done and passed by the public, with all the Wisconsin trappings, but was in the end stopped... basically in committee.
Another is to ask for a temporary moratorium on harvest and unilaterally as a group find funding for a careful study, since our DNR cannot at this time fund what would be a very comprehensive and expensive project. When the study is completed, the DNR can do what they feel is right setting the limits...hold to 50" or increase to 54" as the public has already accepted through the CC, or go to C&R, or..???
Did I miss anything?
No one is really sure how big these fish can get. Not yet. Time alone will tell, and not a whole bunch more time at this point.
No one is really sure if NR will ever be at an acceptable level to maintain any fishable population. Only time will tell that, too.
No one is really sure what effect VHS might have on the adult population there, only time will tell. Hopefully....
No one is really sure what the total population might be, but there are some experts who have a good idea. Study would be great, and study takes money, and....time.
So, in a nutshell, a few folks are looking to be proactive to try to get answers to all these questions, are trying to be proactive with the cooperation of everyone including the DNR to the point of offering to raise the money needed to put the study into action, and are, so far, meeting with all the obstacles one might expect when basically 'butting in' on the normal process by running up a caution flag. They expected it, I believe, but are truly motivated.
Am I correct, Tom?
If not, I'd be happy to edit and correct, drop me a PM.
So, back to the original question...
Argue it either way, but do so reasonably. If someone disagrees with you, that means neither YOU or THEY are right or wrong, just that you disagree. As the future of trophy Muskie management unfolds, you may BOTH be wrong. One thing for sure, it's those folks in the middle and those who know how to get their attention and understanding have a better chance at things going their way than those who choose to intentionally alienate.
And I really hope I never have to ask a fish anything; the Crappies I caught last night would have been PISSED!
The right came from our fish and game laws, and it isn't a right, it's a privilege and that's a fatct. Break fish and game laws, and it's a privilege you will lose for a while, not a 'right'.
I'll protect that privilege of harvest in fishing and hunting with everything I have, but to the limits to which all of us (scientists, biologists, anglers, etc) agree. Giving up that privilege to some anthropomorphic concept is a sure road to disaster.
At least I think so, and like Maxey, my opinion won't get me a cup of coffee tomorrow morning.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Thank you Steve, for so eloquently making some of the points that I was trying (unsucessfully) to make...
Our opinions mean little. Our words, and the way we present ourselves mean EVERYTHING. If we are to accomplish anything, we have to do it collectively. And as difficult as it is, we have to be polite, accomodating and intelligent about it. Admittedly, the nazi reference was over the top, and I apologize to anyone I may have offended over it. I think we need to be aware that perceptions like that ARE out there. When we start the process off with an opposition that sees us and thinks "oh no, it's those elitist muskie freaks again!" what chance do we have?
WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE?
Thankfully there are cooler heads at the helm than myself out there, taking steps to make great things happen in our fisheries. Think about the possibilities of a world class fishery in Green Bay for a monent. Not 13 hours away in Canada, RIGHT HERE. It's easy to get worked up over wanting it to be the best it can be, as proven above.
Understandable, but counterproductive. Again, we are our own worst enemy in this. If we can't even be civil with each other, even when we have the same goals in mind? How are we going to persuade the decision makers to support what we believe in? Unless we present ourselves in a friendly and intelligent way, is anyone going to even listen to what we have to say?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | You guys are making it WAY more complicated than it needs to be.
Right now there are fish being caught and seen over 54 inches.
Right now there seem to be many fish being kept over 50 inches.
A 54” limit will allow all fish the “Possibility” to grow to over 54”. They need the genetics but there is the chance and some are growing that big now.
It is likely that not all fish will grow over 54” but the ones that do are sure to be heavier, giving the system a better chance at producing world record class fish.
By protecting the fish between 50 and 54 it “hopefully” allows more fish to live in the system at that size, thus increasing opportunity to develop a naturally reproducing population, which inter usually means a healthier fishery.
And a MAJOR benefit, there are more fish over 50 to be caught, giving more people the opportunity to catch and release these fish as they grow.
Even if only 3% of the population gets to 54” there are still lots of fish in the 50 to 54 inch range to play with. The fish don’t need to be kept to provide a positive trophy fishing experience.
If so many people are keeping 54” fish that it becomes a problem I see that as a good thing and it means the limit was successful, and if need be it can be addressed at that time. At least that’s the way I see it.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thank you for the post Mike, I obviously agree with what you have said...
I wanted to respond to your comment about "making it too complicated" though. First of all, I agree--I, for one, do tend to make it complicated. But I do this knowingly, and I will tell you why. For one thing, it's a tremendously complicated issue. After studying this problem for more hours than I can count, that fact is even clearer. Sometimes simple works, but then other times...it just doesn't.
But the other issue here (for those that may not know this), is by calling out guys that make unclear statements, I am attempting to maintain focus on the true issues. And in the preceding discussion with JohnnySled, I have tried to do just that...eliminate confusion. I took issue with the statement that a 54+" fish is 3 standard deviations outside the mean--and I took issue with it mainly because we do not know what the true mean length of these fish are. Mr. Sled and I have communicated via PM a few times, and I apologized for any possible offense I may have implied. My only purpose is simply to present the most accurate information, and keep the discussion factual.
The problem is that I seem to be the one that receives phone calls and email messages from members of the press, asking what I think about this "fact," or that "statistic"--and often these facts & statistics are simply things that have been read straight from some post on a musky forum. You see, often times these reporters are interested in the issue alright, but they don't possess the background information to know which information is factual, and which...isn't. So it takes time to go through these things with these folks--simply to make sure the information is accurate. So I am making this more complicated than it probably has to be, simply to do my part to make sure that the most accurate information is presented. But sometimes I come across like (as Mr. Sled put it) I am patronizing people. And although I make every effort to avoid that sort of thing, I make no apologies for being the keeper of accurate facts.
But I did not mean to patronize neither Mr. Sled, nor Mr. Bulldawger, and apologize if they felt that I did. I would request however (as mentioned eariler in the thread), that both of them redouble their efforts to make their posts as clear and concise as possible--simply to avoid confusion in the future. Both of these fellows sound like they have the best interests of the musky fishery at heart, and I certainly applaud their efforts in that regards. Right or wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I feel strongly that there is something to be learned from everyone; whether they agree or disagree with my comments regarding this issue.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Some good stuff here from Steve, Mike, Tom.
I agree Tom with the "unclear statement" statement thing since you covered most of it I wont rehash it.
But an unclear Sled statement I dont think you touched on I though was
"guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting."
The word "overall" is what caught my eye. Was overall meant to infer a majority? If so you might want to do a little more research on that one. See Dan Meyers wasnt even brought into the equation untill after it failed to receive majority support on multiple occasions. If the majority would have supported it nobody would even know who Dan Meyers is.
Tom since my name was brought into it.
"And if you talk to the guys who have been out for years fishing muskies (Shane Mason and JoMusky are just two that immediately come to mind), I think you will find that they will tell you how the "average size" of the fish they have been catching has been increasing steadily--and that 2007 was pretty much the best year they've seen for big fish."
I will say you very much correct.
Its been proven that the spotted muskies grow faster, and get longer. Ryan Dempsey's fish from 3 years ago was already 56.5"
Each year since the spotted restoration, things have gone way up, I am floored at how fast these fish grow. Next couple years are going to very interesting.
the DNR said it best themselves in the 2007 Lake Michigan management report.
"If the present growth and survival
rates continue, a higher harvest length limit would be desirable (54 inches such as Canadian great
lake waters)"
Full Report here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/Great%20Lakes%20Fishery%20Commissio...
To answer the original question.
Personally I would congratulate the guy with his one over 54. If he feels the need to wallpaper the room with every one over 54, that will be another story.
Personally I am 100% C&R and that includes guiding. However I grew up eating these fish, (havent ate one since the early 80's and never took one for the wall) However there is a culture in Wisconsin, a very deep rooted one, that those who didnt grow up in it, or from outside Wisconsin dont understand. And many of these guys werent muskie fishing before C&R became commonplace. And many of these are the guys who seem to lack compassion. But I think its mainly because they have never known any other way
Edited by Shane Mason 2/5/2008 1:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | my case will completely rest after this final writing ...
my original post was in response to jeff (aka essoxaddict) who suggested that if a 54" limit is achieved, how long before there is a need for a 56 or 58" limit ... or some such post ... in-fact i think it even included the number of 60" ... the famous "3-sigma" comment was meant as a mathematical inference (painting a picture if you will) suggesting that 1. it's not likely that a chronic problem of people keeping multiple fish of those sizes would occur and 2. that if the fish can indeed reach those numbers, that they would be a small percentage and rare to the overall population (the famous 3 sigma inference) of the same species of fish (based on what i would expect most have seen from comparable waters with similar laws) ... never once was it implied or stated by me that the fish would not be "able" to reach those numbers but that the fish that do peak would be a small number as related to the total population and therefore the inference. the "3-sigma" word was used as an analogy to define the words with a picture ... my bad came when i forgot that people don't see the same mental imagery as a math geek chem e. mba ... it makes sense to me, but might be greek to others that read. i was surprised to see what made perfect sense get so far out of context and made such a riff.
as tcbetka mentioned, the water has gone well past the bridge and i hope this clarifies things a bit.
otherwise, i'm not surprised that this has become an argument based on vocabulary gymnastics ... maybe it's by virtue of the message board medium. i don't think there could ever be a subject on the internet that doesn't become an argument, even amongst people who agree .... i'll never understand that part ...
if somebody is going to claim that we'll be swimming in 54-60" fish by merely limiting harvest at 54" (which is what i felt jeff was implying) ... i felt it fair to throw out a challenge to the claim.
it would be great to prove that wrong eh? ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Thanks for the clarification, Sled. Now, as to what I was implying, I guess I should have stated that more clearly.
1. Why 54"? Sled explained that nicely.
2. The second part of my question was pure speculation, WHAT IF. I'll try to be more clear:
I'm not expecting that 54" fish will ever be "common" no matter what we implement as far as laws. If it's not happening on Eagle, Lac Seul, etc, than there's no reason to think that Green Bay will have some magic ability to create giant fish. There is a limit to how big a muskie can get even under ideal circumstances. "Swimming in 54" - 60" fish, Sled? Not on this planet my friend, maybe in heaven...
But let's say that we DO pass a 54" size limit. And lets also say that large numbers of fish DO start showing up over that size (which again, I do NOT expect). The same poeple that are harvesting them now at smaller sizes, are going to be harvesting them at and over 54". WHAT THEN? What is the response from the Muskie crowd going to be? Will we be right back there trying to get the limit pushed up again?
I agree, it would be a great problem to have and it would indicate that the green bay fishery had indeed become a smashing success.
But would WE be happy? Would we EVER be satisfied?
|
|
| |
|
| It's really too bad that things can't work like they do in Ontario and other places.
Ontario saw Lac Seul being pillaged of it's big fish and PRESTO, all C&R implemented to save the big fish and the muskie fishery, sure this is a huge body of water with little to no stocking and not the same as GB but that was almost TWENTY years ago...and here we are in 2008 and unfortunately this body of water sits in WI ...if it was in Ontario how many of us would bet they would slap a 54 or C&R reg on it no questions asked...seems crazy things like early season c&r north of highway 10 can somehow get slammed thru but a exploding trophy fishery like GB can't go the same route....
I for one would vote for all C&R up there if it ever came up for vote...why not have ONE like that in WI???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | BN, I agree.
Why not have "ONE" in Wisconsin?
Great thread and great information. Keep it going.................. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great point bn...and many of us working on this effort have wondered about the very same thing.
To the question of "why can't we have a 54" limit on Green Bay," one of the answers I have gotten from the DNR was "because that would be a 'special' size limit in the state." By this they meant that Wisconsin has in place a size limit regulation structure, and the 54" limit isn't currently a part of that. So that's perhaps another reason why there has been some resistance to the proposed size limit increase. But if we want to raise the bar for musky size structure (and overall growth potential), shouldn't we be willing to break new ground? There has to be a tip to the spear, and why not Green Bay?
I think an addendum to Sled's post should be that, since muskies don't grow as fast towards the upper end of their natural size structure, that there are many more 50-54" fish *now* then there would be 54+" fish *then*, if we were to have a 54 inch size limit out on the bay. After his last post (which was much clearer, thank you Mr. Sled!), I agree with the point that I think he is trying to make. But this isn't a bad thing at all--so there are fewer >54 inch" fish to protect with a new limit, than there are now with the current 50" limit. But the point is that there will be *more* 54+" muskies if we do raise the limit. So I argue that, at least in this case, the end may well justify the means...
The only way to get 54, 56, 58 or 60-inch fish is to allow the smaller fish to grow bigger. And one of the most effective ways to do that is through size limit restrictions on the harvest. Canada does it, and look where it has gotten them. I personally agree that Wisconsin needs to accept the concept of "thinking big" when it comes to musky harvest regulations--if they want to get back in the game. I think that the current system is based on the days when the fishery was beset with years of unbridled harvest of any & all musky over 'x' length. But that was then, and this is now; and you have to realize that a 50" musky, while still a tremendous fish, isn't what it used to be. Minnesota, New York & Ontario have all shown us that there is MUCH more that is possible, and we cannot be afraid to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall. If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere. We cannot be afraid of being perceived as infringing on the tradition of the mystical "50 inch" mark. Look around, it isn't what it used to be...because so much more is possible! But dead fish don't grow bigger.
So it's going to take widespread public support to get it done here in Wisconsin, and it may indeed take going *back* through the Conservation Congress process once again to make it happen. Like it or not, that is the reality.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Ok, so how do we get that support, Tom? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | We may have to do the same thing that was done last year--authors for each county, presenting it at the spring hearings, go back through the Great Lakes Committee, and then (hopefully) to the whole state on a ballot. But it's too early to tell if that will need to happen, as there are some things in the works right now. However I cannot go into detail at this moment, but I can tell you that Steve is working on a progress report for the site here, and it should be available within the next couple of days.
Sorry to be elusive, but I simply don't have additional information at this time. Suffice it to say that the announcement will explain a lot of things, and will also include documentation to further support the effort. As I said, look for this within the next few days...
What we need to do to garner support for this effort over the next 2-3 months, will depend (to a large degree) on the result(s) of what's pending at this very moment.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Are we prepared to have the 54 limit on the ballot for this spring's CC meetings? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | If the 54" Movement requires data... what data currently exists and what data are we missing to help "justify" the cause?
If $$$ is needed to collect the data... can we focus some energy towards fund raising? Since VHS has terminated stocking efforts... perhaps the money that WAS being spent on stocking could be applied towards getting the DATA needed?
I find it hard to believe that with all the fyke netting done the past few years... a size distribution "bell curve" is not available somewhere. And that DATA would help convert EA's 3 sigma speculative statement to fact or fiction.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Mike & jlong...these are all good questions. But I think we should table them for the rest of the week. As I mentioned, there are wheels in motion right now in Madison on this issue--and there have been for over three weeks. I would anticipate some sort of report on the status (from Madison) within the next few days, and Steve will describe the current activities in much greater detail within the next day or so.
I apologize for sounding evasive, but you'll just have to trust me when I tell you that it will become very apparent to everyone when Steve makes the announcement, and we make public the documents that detail the recent goings-on.
We aren't trying to hide anything from anyone, but I really want everyone to have the same information at the same time.
TB |
|
| |
|
| "We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall."
While I doubt it was your intent, that sounds kind of arrogant....
No one has shown any significant harvest of any kind on GB and here your stating that we NEED to worry about incidental harvest from childern?
And what would it hurt to let people know what is cooking in Madison? Or are you trying to hide what's going on so that people who don't agree with your position don't have a chance to voice their opinion on how OUR natural resources are managed? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No arrogance intended Brad... I simply believe that the paradigm of entitlement needs to change. We are *all* entitled to keep a legal fish--one per day. It's legal. Fine. How long do you think the population would last if that were to happen? If the fishery continues to gain in popularity and more people start fishing it because, as everyone knows, "it takes no skill to catch a 50" musky while trolling on the bay" (don't laugh--you wouldn't believe how many people have told me that), then sooner or later there will be enough number anglers catching "the fish of a lifetime" and keeping them--and there goes the numbers. It will happen if we don't take steps to prevent it; but don't take my word for it, ask the guys who have seen it happen in other fisheries. Call Joe Bucher, Pete Maina, Steve Worrall or Larry Ramsell and ask them.
Also, please define "significant harvest." I admit--if there are 250 fish over 50" out in the southern bay and the Fox, and only 25 are harvested yearly (I made those numbers up, btw), then it isn't likely that the population will plummet entirely because of the harvest (but there are other factors in play here, too). But that assumes that there are enough fish to absorb the harvest without any major impact. But what if there only 100 fish over 50" out there, or 50...and the harvest removes 25 of them? See my point? The ability to withstand the harvest is dependent upon the total number of fish eligible *for* harvest. And the problem with that is that we really have no strong estimate of how many 50+" fish there are in the population.
Finally, I don't know how to respond to your last paragraph, other than to say that I have given all of the documents I prepared to Steve Worrall for upload to the site here. When it's uploaded, everyone will know exactly what has gone on. And by the way--you don't need to have *me* tell you...you can call or write the DNR folks in Madison just as well as I can. It's your legal right, just as much as it is mine. You are the one that said it's "OUR natural resources" that are in question. No disrespect, but to me it's *your* statement that sounded arrogant...suggesting that I am possibly trying to hide something. My previous post has clearly indicated that Steve will be making the announcement, not me.
TB
EDIT: And by the way Brad, I just went back over my previous post (with the "little Johnny" reference) and reviewed what I had written. You completely missed my point! The point was not to pick on the "little Johnnies of the world" but rather that I feel there is no better place to start planting the seeds of C&R than with the youth of the sport!
"If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere."
Edited by tcbetka 2/2/2008 8:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Proposal is now in the articles section here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.02.2008/1294/Emergency....
I'll leave it to Tom to move the discussion from this point, he has the timeline in better perspective than I and is up to date on reactions so far from our DNR and the NRB.
I will say this much; it was my opinion that the proposal needed to be in the hands of all the intended recipients for consideration before publication as a necessary courtesy to those it is hoped will seriously consider this proposal.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for posting it Steve.
The date of submittal is as indicated on the document.
After the meeting on the 29th, there was overwhelming sentiment from those in attendance that a request be made *directly* to the Natural Resources Board (as mentioned in the PDF document of the PowerPoint presentation) as soon as possible. Therefore I continued working on the emergency resolution, and over the following 10 days I finished the document seen referenced by Steve, and it was submitted on January 8th.
Prior to submitting this document it was reviewed by 8-10 other individuals, including many prominent and concerned anglers. (Many of their names can be seen under my name near the end of the document.) I then submitted (via email) the document, along with letters of support from both Joe Bucher and David Cates (current President, MI), to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. Within an hour of submitting the documents, I received notification from the executive assistant to the NRB that all the board members had been emailed the document.
Approximately two weeks ago I was notified by Greg Wells (past President, MI, and co-author of the original 54" size limit proposal), that the Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team was asked to draft a response, and in fact they had done so. Then last week I was notified by the office of Senator Cowles, that the matter had been advanced to the desk of Matt Frank, Secretary of the DNR. To date I have not received formal notification of any decision or recommendation from the DNR.
In addition, about two weeks ago I personally met with David Rowe, the local Fisheries Biologist here in Green Bay. This was after the emergency request was sent to the NRB, and the WMMT had drafted it's response letter. We discussed the entire issue for over an hour, and Mr. Rowe advised me that he had been the one to actually draft the response letter on behalf of the WMMT, but he did not share the content of the letter. He also advised me that he would be happy to discuss the issue with any concerned individuals, should they wish to do so.
So basically, that's it: A request for an emergency moratorium on musky harvest was submitted by myself, on behalf of the Green Bay Muskellunge Coalition. However to date we have not received a formal response. Much discussion was had to determine the best time at which to make public this request, and it was decided *not* to make any announcement until such time as the DNR had enough time to formulate their response, without undue pressure from other concerned parties. Once we were informed that the matter was forwarded to the DNR Secretary's desk, we felt that enough time had passed, and thus the decision was made to make public the events leading up to tonight's announcement.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Thanks for the update Tom.
I still want to pose the question, are we prepared to take it to the CC spring hearings if we have no word from the NRB? I feel if we want to get the 54 passed for sure we need to get it on this spring's hearings. Even if we need to do authors like we did last spring, we need to keep on top of the ball. I'd be happy to author Portage Co.
Thanks again for all your hard work Tom! I'm sure it has been very stressfull for you.
|
|
| |
|
| "We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall. If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere."
No, I did NOT completely miss the point you were trying to make.
I simply felt that your choice of language was rather poor. Emotions often run deep on topics such as this, and I find it very important to watch what you say closely. More than that, I think your wrong about who your message should target.
Personally, I consider it my job to teach my children values - whether those values be the importance of hard work or issues relating to outdoors conservation. I'll listen to most people that present a reasonable argument on how to manage our natural resources, and if *I* think its appropriate, I'll share that with my kids.
If you want to REALLY get someone's chili hot, tell them how to raise their kids. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Brad, let's try to stick to the subject matter at hand.
I don't see anything here contrary to raising a child to appreciate CPR and protecting our natural resources.
I understood what Tom meant, he explained it again, and I bet you do too.
Back to the subject at hand please.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Wow...where's does anyone begin after taking the time to read this whole thread...it's amazing that even with it's length (and it being the middle of winter...very much so here in Alaska) the subject has for the most part stayed in the center of the thread. I offer my totally unsolicited opinion as an infrequent musky angler (although I would love to do more) and totally seperated from the local politics down your way in the northern midwest to east.
First off I would certainly be for the 54" limit but would never denigrate anyone for keeping a legal fish. And I personally disagree with anyone who feels a reproduction is the same, or better looking (when done by a top taxidermist), than a skin mount....(I do have a tiger and a natural musky replica)...but I can tell a repro everytime. Anyway....that's off the subject.
The one idea as I read this thread, not being a diehard musky fisherman, is how out of contact with reality are those who are adamant about total C&R and having no patience with anyone that disagrees. Why so much adoration for the musky? If we C&R all the walleye wouldn't the average get bigger too......or bass...or crappie or whatever. Are those who fish for these "lesser" species somehow diminished because they can't bask in the glory of the noble muskellenge? Sorry for the tenor of my remarks but hopefully you get my point.....musky fishermen are, and always will, be in a decided minority of total fisherman. So within that knowledge you have to work....if you hope to get anything accomplished.
In the western states in the last 30-40 years there has been a great wave to restore native trout to their original habitats. It has not been an easy task as the rampant stocking of "generic" rainbows and nonnative brook and brown trout have nearly run many native species and subspecies to the brink of extinction. People still have argued they have a right to the put and take hatchery fish to the detriment of the native fish.....or even wild trout. Montana took the bold step of ending all stocking of rivers in 1974.....we vacationed and fished there from the mid 1960's. We were devasted....we were pissed off, like all the other fishermen because there would be no trout. The limits were decreased and some restrictions in areas applied as far as gear, and low and behold those stinking biologists were right.....the fishing is better than it ever has been (although, granted, much is from nonnative rainbows and browns....but even as wild fish they have done great).
How many waters being stocked are outside the native range of the musky? Certainly this has impacted the indigenous species of fish. It seems that the most consistent, productive large fish water is in Canada where, as far as I understand and I could be wrong, most of the reproduction is natural and within the native range of musky.....food for thought. Also, unless someone starts to do some genetic engineering (as they have done with the miserable triploid trout monstrosities) don't you believe enough musky have been caught and measured over the last century to have an indication of what size their genetics allow? Sure you will get an extremely rare huge fish but it is decidedly the exception.
A second thought also occurred to me (two thoughts in one day....my wife wouldn 't believe it) about why so persistent on keeping upward increases of the size limit when perhaps many more musky could be saved by closing waters when the water temperature gets too high? This has a much greater effect of most fish than keeping a few. Don't know of any specific temperature experiments with musky....but on trout when the temp hits 70-72 degrees the delayed mortality increases from 4-5% to OVER 40%.....now that is a dramatic difference.
As an outsider the vehement position of you better release everything or I am going to harangue you until you capitulate doesn't do much for me wanting to comply. I really think the education of C&R has come along ways in just the last decade with musky because of all the effort.....remember moderation....not intolerance.
By 4 bits worth,
Brian
PS: Don't take an Alaskan Native fishing with you if you plan on releasing everything you catch here as they find the practice extremely disrespectful to the fish.....they don't believe in "playing with your food"  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Brian, thanks for the post... I lived in Alaska for a year in the early 90s, and flew all over the state flying charter and fire-fighters. Incredible scenery, and an incredible fishery.
I read your posts and agree with you, for the most part. But that I mean that, as I don't have much experience with trout, I cannot really comment intelligently on the management of the species. But please don't think that I am an advocate of a strict 100% catch & release on muskellunge anywhere, and anytime. That simply isn't the case. If you read the document Steve linked to, I have laid out the reasons supporting the request for the emergency moratorium. Yes, I am advocating a complete catch & release status for musky in Green Bay and its tributaries for the next few years--but this is *not* a request for a permanent change. I would ask that you simply skim the document Steve referenced, if you haven't already, and that should allay your concerns. But thanks again for your post.
And for Brad...
I wasn't trying to tell you how to raise your kids! You seem to want to find something to take issue with, no matter what I say. But I submit to you that the same ideals that were practiced by our fathers & grandfathers, aren't going to cut it anymore. In the days of GPS and high-powered electronics (underwater viewing systems and Humminbird's Side Imaging sonar are just two examples that immediately come to mind), the scale has *definitely* been tipped in favor of the of the angler, and away from the quarry. So in order to insure that the harvest doesn't overwhelm the population (in this case musky, but you could say the same thing about walleye or perch, I suppose), we are going to need to redouble our efforts to educate folks that there isn't an infinite supply of *any* of these species. That's all I am saying. But I am not the only one who feels this way, I'll bet...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pointerpride102 - 2/2/2008 10:38 PM
Thanks for the update Tom.
I still want to pose the question, are we prepared to take it to the CC spring hearings if we have no word from the NRB? I feel if we want to get the 54 passed for sure we need to get it on this spring's hearings. Even if we need to do authors like we did last spring, we need to keep on top of the ball. I'd be happy to author Portage Co.
Thanks again for all your hard work Tom! I'm sure it has been very stressfull for you.
Mike, for the most part...yes, we are ready to re-approach the CC if necessary. But keep in mind that we have requested a temporary moratorium on *all* harvest of musky out here, and thus to argue for an increased size limit is somewhat schizophrenic! You either want to allow harvest, or you don't...
That being said however, if the emergency moratorium request is denied, then I suppose we will have no other choice but to readdress the 54" size limit increase via the CC. It passed by more than a 3:1 margin in the past, so obviously the majority of the citizens who voted in the 26 counties were in support of it. It should have, at the very least, made it to a state-wide ballot for ALL interested citizens to vote on. But somehow that process broke down (and that's a whole other discussion), and thus many people have expressed frustration that the effort wasn't given its due course. However after researching the issue for many hours, I discovered (and presented) many other concerns that hadn't been previously explored, and thus the group elected to first proceed in the direction of the emergency moratorium request.
But thanks for volunteering to author the Portage county proposal. The offer is duly noted. If the need arises, I am sure we can use your help.
TB |
|
| |
|
| "So in order to insure that the harvest doesn't overwhelm the population (in this case musky, but you could say the same thing about walleye or perch, I suppose), we are going to need to redouble our efforts to educate folks that there isn't an infinite supply of *any* of these species. That's all I am saying. But I am not the only one who feels this way, I'll bet... "
Then educate anglers. Pushing for a law to restrict harvest is not education, its forcing them to comply with your thoughts on the topic.
And STOP suggestting that angling pressure on GB musky is going to overhelm the population. ALL fish less than 50 inches are protected. Even if it were possible for anglers to harvest a significant number of the fish over 50 inches each year (10, 20, or even 50% of the population OVER 50") that is STILL a small percentage of the overall population. Comparing that scenario to the perch and walleye populations where the majority of the population is available for harvest (and that rely on natural reproduction) doesn't make any sense.
And while I agree with you 100% that it is very important to the future of our great sport to encourage people to use exercise responsible harvest, this is not the way to further that goal. Allowing personal feeling to enter into the fish and game management arena is EXACTLY how the unpopular spring C/R musky season got passed into law.
I do respect the time and effort that many of you have put into this, but I do not agree with what you are trying to do. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I disagree with your assessment. I feel the increasing pressure on that water coupled with other factors will DEFINITELY have a negative effect on the fishery there. I will continue to support at the very least a 54" limit there to slow the harvest and protect the upper confidence level fish for a few more seasons as was overwhelmingly approved in 26 counties last year, and would like to see a period of study on that water to determine the level of NR if any, determine a best estimate at the real population, and look to the future stocking restrictions/possibilities to see if the fishery can be maintained at anything like it's present state. This sort of moratorium on true trophy potential waters has precedent.
You are absolutely incorrect about the new C&R Muskie season. That season was brought into law by a lawmaker in Eagle River, not the DNR or NRB. The public had voted that proposed season DOWN in the past, and there was little support statewide for the idea.
What do you think the Conservation Congress IS, other than a conduit to effect fish and game mamagement in Wisconsin by public opinion (aka personal feelings)?
So I'll choose to KEEP suggesting the major increase seen and inevitable growth in pressure and related increase in harvest coming (you haven't seen anything, yet...) may have a major negative impact on the upper tier of the adults muskies there. Add the rest of the concerns brought up by the coalition, and one has what amounts to a great argument for at the very least what was already approved by the public in many counties in Wisconsin...a 54" limit.
So I guess I for one will not STOP suggesting what I believe to be the issue at hand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/4/2008 10:18 AM
the upper confidence level fish
"the upper confidence level" when discussed by statistitians usually defines a % outside of 3 Sigma limits when describing a population of data ... i used the same reference and got blasted steve ...
|
|
| |
