|
|
| Hi everyone,
Just got back from a very positive meeting held here in Eagle River with a number of key DNR biologists. Lots of local guides were present along with Steve Heiting, Roger Sabota, Rob Manthei, Kenny Jackson, and myself plus a number of other avid musky anglers. Quite a few different fishing topics were discussed covering everything from walleyes to bass to trout. Most importantly though, the musky size limit issue was dealt with head on and some passionate pleas were heard and answered by the DNR group that was present.
A real positive for us musky anglers is that a couple of these DNR employees are also avid musky hunters who understand exactly where we stand and what we are trying to accomplish. We told them repeatedly that in order for our area to reclaim its old status of the "good ol' days" regarding trophy muskies, we truly need to do a better job with trophy management. We simply can not hold a candle to Minnesota, Canada, and other states the way are fisheries are set up now, and they do realize that to a degree.
The proposal being considered is to select 15-20 lakes with trophy potential and history to have a 50 inch size limit installed. This will be a tough battle because it would still have to pass lake associations (which will be the toughest fight!) and the annual DNR Spring Hearings in April. Many of you know my feelings on these hearings but they are a way of life for us here in Wisconsin. Personally I wish the DNR could simply set the laws on what they deem is necessary since they are the experts on fish management, not the resort owners or individuals at the spring hearings. The hearings all too often become a "popularity contest" of sorts and great ideas get shot down by people who frankly do not have the biological background to really make the ultimate correct decision for a given body of water.
If you all would like to see this happen, we will have to convince the lake associations through education and good salesmanship that a 50" size limit will be in the long run a better commercial draw for the resort areas, etc. We also have to get as many musky anglers as possible to attend the spring hearings to be heard! We all need to get out and vote and say we have actually made a difference in musky management in Vilas and Oneida counties. The future definitely looks brighter here than it did even five years ago, but we still have a few tough battles ahead to see this thing through!
Tom Dietz
|
|
| |
|
| Tom, Great post.
I am behind you 100%, what ever you need from me or MuskieFIRST for that matter. Just keep us informed on how to help.
The future depends on it.[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Tom, thanks for keeping us informed. Youn would think simple economics and competition would be enough to sway them. I guess they need to look west and see what could be taking their business away in years to come if they don't change their ways. |
|
| |
|
| Tom, thanks for the update I was suppose to go that meeting tonight, but some other "issues" came up. Keep everyone posted
Brad
breuerguideservice.com |
|
| |
|
| Great information. Tom I suggest you guys approach the local County Commissioners to see if you can get a resolution passed. In MI this is a very good way to show legislators (the real decision makers in our state) that they need to pay attention to, suppport and pass an initiative/law. In your state the WI DNR can set laws?! Or, does the WI DNR make recommendations to the WI legislature? WI-MI boundry waters may be included? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
| Tom: I couldn't agree more, By targeting only those lakes with true potential and History working together we may be able to bring Vilas Cnty back to the Musky Destination it once was
I know of a few lakes that would be perfect for this
|
|
| |
|
| I'd love to see it and I'm glad that it is being addressed.
The one thing that sticks in my craw is the rights and imput of 'lake associations'.
Since when do the people who own land have the right to decide what happens in that lake? These are public waters and belong to all of us, not just those fortunate enough to own property on the shore. I think lake associations are a joke. Last year I watched weeds being sprayed by people hired by a lake association....with DNR permission I was told. They were trying to stop the spread of milfoil, a noble jesture, but it went further. By fall, a 200 yard stretch of good healthy cabbage that grew in the area was dead and decaying.
Leave lake management to the professionals and let lake associations know that they don't have governing rights over public waterways.
Beav |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys, is there a way to form a petition here on the site so our voices can be heard at the Spring hearing even though we are not present? Could it be posted on all the musky sites, so all of us concerned anglers can be heard?[:praise:] |
|
| |
|
| Beav,
I couldn't agree more with you. This has been my biggest gripe with our system here in Wisconsin. The fact that Lake Associations have so much power is disturbing, period. These people are not biologists, and while they should be allowed to voice their input on decisions, the DNR ultimately should have the ability to set the laws for particular lakes. We, in essence, have too much government and red tape here and the DNR is hindered by having to go through all kinds of hearings and approval processes. We have the same problems regarding deer management issues here. It's a joke!
The biologists are the experts, and as I stated above the Spring Fish/Game hearings are a farce. These hearings are truly skewed by whoever shows up at a particular location. For example, when I initially proposed Steve Heiting's 40-48" slot limit on muskies for all lakes over 1,000 acres four years ago at a spring hearing up here, a prominant resort owner (and famous musky guide) recruited a bunch of other resort owners and friends to attend this hearing to shoot down this idea out of the blocks because as he stated "I don't want to tell one of my customers or guests that he or she can't keep a 40" musky". Well, the problem with this way of thinking is that this is the exact reason out of state anglers are headed to Minnesota or Canada now. This regulation proposal never got a chance because of selfish thinking by a group of friends who couldn't and wouldn't try to realize the economic impact of the allure of a trophy musky fishery here in Wisconsin. This 50" size limit impact is already being felt in Hayward, where resorts like Angler's Haven are booming now compared to ten years ago.
Sorry I got off on a tangent but I am very frustrated obviously. All we are trying to do is improve what we have in terms of a musky fishery, and help out the tourism industry up here that is still reeling from the walleye/spearing disaster from ten plus years ago. As I stated earlier, this will still be a tough battle, but through all of our efforts, perhaps we can make ourselves heard at these hearings. Thank you all for your support and lets make a difference!!
Tom |
|
| |
|
| I too am puzzled over this. The DNR has regulates all hunting regs. and it goes through the government. you dont see the landowners association dictating how the hunting limits are. So why should lake associations be allowed too. All they are worried about is making money. I have the same problem here with a lake association and all thier in it for is so they can zoom around on thier power boats and jet skies and never once think of the eco system that they could be preserving. I think its time we as citizens stand up and tell the government what needs to be done. instead of them telling us.
Later
Jim
Next time Ill type a little more proffesional. Im just to mad at our government right now.............[:(] [:(] [:(] [:(] |
|
| |
|
| Gee, imagine a post like that from an anonymous poster. Wow, that really suprises me.
When are you and the rest of your faceless friends ever going to realize that resticting the number of fish taken improves EVERYBODYS odds of catching more and bigger fish. Even you. Whoever you are.
Beaver
|
|
| |
|
| Imagine the musky fishery we would have today if a 50 inch minimum was set 10 years ago on select lakes, it was about this time when C&R started to gain popularity, I think that we would really have the potential for a new world record in Wisc.
|
|
| |
|
| I think what you are trying to state here is that you shouldn't be able to dictate to anyone what size limits there should be on a specific water? Well, musky fishing has evolved a great deal since the" hold 'em through the eyeballs days" of the past. This fish has a cult following and the goal here of establishing these new limits on CERTAIN SPECIFIC waters is to try and allow some of these fish to reach their maximum growth potential. There will still be plenty of lakes around with standard size limits if you want a fish for the grill.
Tom |
|
| |
|
| Gee, another shot from the masked man.
How nice of you to quote me.....too bad I don't enjoy the same luxury since you enjoy to hide behind your mask.
At least I have the guts to let people know what my opinion is, whether they agree or not.
You can have your opinion too. However it doesn't carry any weight since you really don't exist.
So, regardless of what you say, I think lakes with true trophy potential should be managed that way.
I also think that lake associations should not be allowed to micro-manage or impose rules or restrictions.
Those are my opinions. So now you can twist them and skew them any way you please. And make sure to add the part about 'one for the wall', since you're the only one going off in that direction. People looking to catch trophy fish are going to take a picture and let them go so anonymous people like you can also have a chance to catch them. You should thank people looking to improve the fishery instead of sniping at them from behind your mask of anonimity.
Beaver
|
|
| |
|
| BE NICE!!! |
|
| |
|
| I have long encouraged management of the Muskie fishery by those that are capable; the DNR Fisheries Managers. Emotion rules the day many times during the hearings in the Spring, and many times what is best for the lake or river in question becomes secondary to what is perceived to be reality by some of the public. However...the folks that say their piece at the hearings in the loudest collective voice usually win the day. So it is in a Democracy.
Anonymous--The collective 'we' used in the beginning of this thread is reflective of the majority opinion of the folks responding to Tom's post. MuskieFIRST is a bit different than some of the other websites out there in that we WELCOME ALL others to comment, including you.
Your opinion counts here to us all, but you need to examine the tone and structure of your posts. Attacking the concept of a 'managed trophy fishery' out of hand as elitist, and then taking it past what has been said in an accusatory framework is not going to hold water here. Simply try to state your opinion, backed up by your beliefs, without going personal or attacking others exercising the same priveledge.
I fish several waters that are managed for population protection and trophy potential, as do many others in Oneida county. Pelican has a one bass over 18" per day limit, and a sign at the landing asking that all Smallmouth there be C&R. Thunder has a limit of 18" on Walleye, and a one per day bag. I enjoy both lakes, and will continue to look for my next 7# Smallmouth from Pelican!
It is a given that statewide management of the Muskie population MUST reflect the waters under consideration. It would be silly to have a 50" size limit on many of the lakes, that simply would reduce those waters to a zero harvest situation. That is not the goal here.
The overall WIsconsin bag limit went from 50 to 25 on panfish; many welcomed, others condemned the new rules. So it is in a Democracy.
Bottom line--it is not a problem to remain anon here, as long as one considers the content of one's posts, and keeps things clean, fair, and above the belt![:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Chilly down, anon.
There's a 200 acre lake in our area, surrounded by undeveloped public land, that doesn't allow ANY fishing. It seems a group of folks convinced the local government that they wanted a lake to frolic on where the natural fishery is not impacted by fishermen. They didn't say fishing is bad, rather, they said an unfished lake would be kinda cool. They got the rule established, plus no gas motors on the water and no hunting within a couple hundred yards of the lake. It really is a very cool place and lots of people go there. The local sportsmen and women are fine with the situation and there's been zero talk of applying the rules to other local waters.
My point is to suggest that there's plenty of water to manage in different ways and still ensure the health of the ecosystems. And, I've never met a musky guy who wasn't concerned for the welfare of our waters.
ps Anybody want to do some night fishing with me? Um, no lights allowed, you need to be able to see good in the dark. |
|
| |
|
| Tom I would like to what lakes are being considered. I don't know how anyone can say tes without knowing what lakes. I do agree that there are several lakes in vilas that could be trophy lakes. If you have the names of the lakes would you post them please.
Don |
|
| |
