|
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | As you could probably gather from Steve's post, yes I will support this.
Pelican, has all the right ingredients to make this happen. Pelican is the largest lake in Oneida county. It is currently on the DNR's no stock list. The musky population is currently being left to self sustain. The lake has a very good biomass, consisting of suckers, bullheads, shiners and panfish. The musky is being managed as a low density predator. The lake has a great history of producing big fish. The most local population, the Lake association, is very in favor of this.
Nearly all of the arguments one could have against this proposal, are addressed in this short paragraph. If you have any questions or concerns regarding why we are doing this or how we got to this point please feel free to ask either here or via email.
[email protected]
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | If this an opportunity could we think strategically and get PETA (I know, I know don't start - just thinking out of the box) or other like minded groups to push this or other things like this through? In the end they would have the same goal as us, limiting the harvest of fish, and can bring people out in droves.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I think the idea of approaching this a lake or two at a time is a very good concept. I noticed in 2003 that the idea of a large group of lakes was viewed as "the camels nose in the tent". However, when issues came up about specific bodies of water I heard comments like "well it's their lake let 'em do whatever the heck they want". In other words, if it's not in your own backyard the locals don't really care so much. As we know, the CC will pay more attention to the voting in the county that is directly affected. For this proposal to pass I believe a majority of the effort has to take place in Oneida with the surrounding counties as a very important but secondary priority. I think the idea of an informational publication would be excellent. It would be even more important to get coverage in the news media like TV, radio, and newspapers. People will pay a lot of attention to a 30 second interview than they will spend the time to read the facts. There are a number of you guys in the area who are well spoken and can present the issue in a non-threatening manner. I think timing is an issue too. When people have too much time to think it allows all kinds of "what if" arguments to come up. This also permits people opposed to the proposal time to marshall their own resources and use the same kind of tactics that happened in 03 against us. A media blitz the last week or so before the hearings would be great. Sorry if I sound a bit cynical but having been born and raised in Chicago I understand a little bit about politics. Don't go for a vote if you don't have the winning number! 
Edited by Pete Stoltman 2/7/2006 2:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 332
Location: Neenah, WI | I am for this all the way . I think this will make Pelican a better fishery than it is now!!!
Hook'em Hard
SAINT 1 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| I'm in favor of the 50" limit.
Whether it's the mystery lake or a well known fishery, if it has true potential for producing big muskies, let's protect them.
But several guys on this board proved last year that big fish can come from small places as well.
Let's protect them from all negative influences, not just anglers.
CPR is working because of our promoting it, now we need to keep promoting it so it becomes commonplace.
Let's protect them wherever and however we can, and let's continue to educate.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 90
Location: Florence, Wisconsin | Yes vote for me. If it is a potential trophy fishery, why not.
Bo |
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | Just yesterday I was paging through a fishery report for the dead sea, yep 50 inch size limit is indeedy a good idea for this particular body of water, seems that when I parouse thru the Wisconsin Outdoor Journal paper there is always at least one big fish picture be it 50" or not that came out of the sea and shall not swim in those waters again. Good luck people and you have my vote!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | When is the vote? Where?
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok, LockJaw asked for it. What follows is the entire proposal as presented to the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association at the annual summer meeting. This is traditionally the best-attended meeting of the year and is usually the 3rd weekend in July. The proposal was put together with input from the WDNR and the final draft was reviewed by at least 5 fisheries professional before it was presented.
>
>
Pelican Lake in Oneida County has proven to be a high-quality musky fishery, with a long history of producing quality fish. The lake is located in an area that receives heavy fishing pressure, an area average of 34 angler-hours/acres/year. The last creel survey on Pelican Lake showed it to have nearly double that pressure, with 62 angler-hours/acre/year. For years Pelican Lake musky populations were sustained through natural reproduction, supplemented with stocking. (Over 20,000 fingerling, an average of 1,549 per year, from 1985 through 1998.) The supplemental stocking program was suspended in 1998, forcing the lake to rely on natural recruitment to sustain the entire population. Considering stocking has been halted, spring spearing, and the large number of anglers visiting the lake, long touted as “The Home of the Musky,” there is concern that the musky population may be adversely affected. With the WDNR’s limited budget and manpower, they will not be able to complete a musky population survey until 2011 & 2012, this is14 years after the stocking program was halted. This has the potential of creating 14 years of recruitment problems, an entire generation of musky.
With its vast forage base, Pelican Lake has the potential to produce excellent musky. The goal is to protect these fish to a larger size, allowing them more opportunity to pass on their quality genes. These fish would be protected through their most prolific spawning years. This would maintain or improve the musky fishing without negatively impacting other species, as has proven to be the case for many other lakes in northern WI, MN, and Canada. It would also improve the chances the lake will sustain a naturally reproducing population of musky. All the while giving anglers the opportunity to catch and release the fish as they grow.
To continue the storied past of Pelican Lake, we propose a resolution to protect the population of musky by one of the following options:
OPTION 1:
Increase the size limit for musky from 34 inches to 50 inches.
From survey information, the WDNR collected from all species fishermen, the majority of anglers consider a trophy musky to be 50 inches or larger. This is the most desired length, and will give the fish the best opportunity to reproduce year after year. Pelican Lake fish have proven they can reach this size and surpass it, if given the opportunity
OPTION 2:
Increase the size limit for musky from 34 inches to 45 inches.
The 45” size limit is a compromise. By setting the limit at 45” it does not protect the fish completely to the desired-survey, size. However, it does allow the fish to grow to a size that will result in an improved angling experience, while giving the fish more years to spawn.
OPTION 3:
Institute a protected slot limit for musky from 40 to 50 inches.
The slot limit is a compromise by allowing limited harvest of fish between 34 and 40 inches. Young anglers, multi-species anglers, and others, will still have the option of keeping a smaller musky. As the musky matures past the 40 inch mark, it is protected until reaching 50 inches. Giving the larger fish more opportunities to spawn while improving the overall musky fishing experience.
We have the chance to protect and improve the fishing on Pelican Lake for everyone, and local anglers, young and old, that have been surveyed are very excited about the prospect of a better, self-sustaining, musky fishery. Maintaining Pelican Lake as a class musky fishery, will have positive economic benefits for both local businesses and property owners.
The following area businesses support this proposal:
Musky Mart, Pelican Lake
Nelson’s Choice Bait and Tackle
Christian’s Pit Stop
Lake View Inn
Suick Tackle Company
Fittante Taxidermy
MuskyFirst.com (Steve Worrall)
Wild’s Musky Guide Service (Norm Wild)
Oneida Esox Guide Service(John Stellflue)
C&R Guide Service (Roger Sabota)
>
>
Our original intent was to bring this proposal to the Conservation Congress as a resolution if we got the backing of the Lake Association. But since we had worked so closely with the Oneida County Fisheries Biologist and since the proposal had such strong backing by the Lake Association he decided to take the initiative and write a rule change question for consideration by his governing committee for this years spring rule change questioner. The committee approved his proposed rule change and as a result it is on the ballot this spring. The following was the first draft of his proposed rule change, I am not sure if this is exactly how it will appear on the ballot, but it should be close to this.
>
>
Pelican Lake muskellunge regulation – Increase the minimum length limit to 50 inches on Pelican Lake, Oneida County.
Pelican Lake has a naturally-reproducing muskellunge population (no stocking since 1998) of low to moderate density with a track record of producing a few exceptional fish. However, under the current 34-inch minimum length limit, Pelican Lake is not reaching its full potential to produce quality-size muskellunge. The last creel survey (1990) found that angler effort on Pelican Lake of 62.3 hours per acre is nearly double the Oneida County average (33.7 hours per acre), with 18% of total effort directed at muskellunge. The survey estimated that 146 muskellunge were harvested. Muskellunge reproduction may be insufficient to sustain this level of harvest. A local proposal by interested muskellunge anglers and guides received a favorable reception at the July 16, 2005 annual meeting of the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association, where 78% of the 89 attendees supported a higher minimum length limit, while 18% were against and 3% indifferent. Furthermore, a 50-inch minimum length limit (57% of positive votes) was more popular with Association members than either a 45-inch minimum (24%) or 40 to 50-inch protected slot (19%).
Do you favor increasing the minimum length limit to 50 inches for muskellunge on Pelican Lake, Oneida County?
>
>
I think that’s a good start for supporting information, if anyone has any questions please feel free to post them, I will do my best to answer them.
The vote will be held April 11th wherever your county Conservation Congress meets. If there is anyway you can get to Langlade or Oneida county the vote will mean more. As they will look most closely at these two counties considering the location of Pelican Lake.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| Depending on what lake, If it is a lake that cannot handle a population of large muskies, then no. You can't pi$$ of local fisherman if they start eating all the "other" quarry, you will see dead muskies floating around with slit gills and whatnot. so if the lake has a large base of suckers, shad, cisco, bullhead, a better means of diet for muskies, I would be all for it, hell yes.
There are a lot of lakes in WI that need higher limits, but then again I know of a few that you can go there and catch 10 skis that are all 25-30. they never get any bigger, year after year. this lake needs help in other ways. There are toooooo many skis in this lake and not enough of a "good" forage base. They bite no matter what, whenever, on whatever you throw. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
Location: Milwaukee, WI | If it was on the CC ballot at the hearing in my county, I would consider voting in favor of the limit.
If I believed there was a valid reason to vote against it, I might vote against it.
A reason like: New anglers catching & wanting to keep their first musky is NOT a valid reason to vote against it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
Location: Wauwatosa, WI | I will vote yes
Bob Ryan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | That's a yes vote on 99% of the waters in the state. |
|
| |
