|
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Wow Steve! So now what do I do? I quess like you say, quit whining. I'll just step back and let the anti's get rid of our muskie fishery here on Solberg. Majority rules, right? Sorry Coach K - I just gave up and will say no more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | So the way it looks is you would rather jeopradize having 700+ some odd lakes with a 40" limit just so your one lake doesn't go to 28"? Sounds kind of selfish, and quite frankly foolish to me. Yes it is not a lake I fish so maybe I don't understand. However, do it to my favorite lake and I would just choose to find a new favorite.
There are other good lakes up that way. Just switch to one of those.
I understand you are ticked Solberg is up to go to 28". However, we can do much more good here than bad by voting for this. Next year propose changing the lake back to 40". Get all your buddies that you say would guaranteee you'll win and vote. Then the next year when it is on the ballot do it again.
Would just be plain foolish to screw the whole state for one, or even 10 lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Travis,
I couldn't agree more with you. Why would you jeapordize hundreds of lakes over ten lakes. Like triping over a dime to make a penny. Just doesn't make good sense. As far as not voting that just doesn't make sense either. We are such a small minority in the sport fishing world that we need every vote we can get. Why dont we' just all take our ball and go home. We finally are going to get a chance at a statewide increase with 10 exceptions and thats still not good enough. I'm very excited to see how the voting goes on this motion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I'll still voye yes, but you guys are just not getting the point. Sollberg is not what they are saying it is! I thought this type of politics only took place in Chicago!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Ken I got it. However, the question is written. It is on the ballot. All the arguing and crying about it isn't going to change that fact. All that should have taken place prior to getting this far! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | I never said vote no. As a group we need to support a "yes" vote. Then I will work on getting the Lake Association as a whole to vote on a 40" limit on Solberg. We did it once around 2002 by a 2 to 1 margin and can do it again, only this time appoint someone to get the measure on the Spring ballot. The point I was trying to get across was that Solberg isn't on the list because it's an action lake. Maybe I didn't do a good job of that. It's on the 28" list because of the results of a poorly attended lake vision session. The anti-muskie group on Solberg accomplished their goal in turning what has always been a walleye/muskie lake into what will be managed primarily as a panfish/walleye lake. Muskies are ranked 5th in importance behind bluegill, walleye, crappie, and perch.
As far as going to another water to fish, I have my life invested on Solberg. We've been there since 1952.
If your lake ever has a vision session scheduled you had better be there to put in your two cents becuase when they ask who has a high interest in panfish - everyone raises their hand. But when they ask who has a high interest in muskies - there will be less hands up in the air. Then let the games begin.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Fish manager Jeff Scheirer sent this leter to me after sending him and email asking him to give me a little in-sight on the reason that the 10 lakes were listed.
Jeff Wrote:
John, I wanted to reply to your concerns about decreasing the minimum length limit on muskellunge in Butternut and Solberg lakes as part of the statewide proposal to increase that limit from 34 to 40 inches on many other lakes.
The musky populations in Butternut and Solberg lakes are different by most common measures of population status. Likewise, there's different reasons for the recommendation to exempt these two lakes from the proposal. In Butternut Lake we believe musky in high abundance are competing among themselves for food in short supply, suppressing their growth rate, and preventing the population from attaining the desired size structure. Increasing the minimum length limit by 6 inches would protect those smaller, older males for several more years and worsen the competition among themselves for available food. This shortage decreases their growth rate dramatically, and they simply won't live long enough to reach desirable size. Unless we can decrease their abundance, most (but not all) will die from natural causes before they grow to 42 or 45 inches. Under the proposed exemption, the Butternut-Schnur Lake Association can continue to promote selective harvest of smaller, slow growing musky until we reach our goals for population density and size structure outlined in the Butternut Lake Fishery Management Plan. The Plan is available through our website at http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/upchip/fisheries/reports.htm.
The reasoning behind the exemption in Solberg Lake was not intended to promote selective harvest of smaller, slow growing musky (as the Butternut-Schnur Lake Association is doing), but rather to chose a musky harvest regulation suited to achieve the goals outlined for the entire fish community in the Solberg Lake Fishery Management Plan, which is also posted at http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/upchip/fisheries/reports.htm. More than a third of the participants in the 2005 planning session said they were interested in occasionally keeping a musky and they were interested in improving the size structure of the yellow perch population. In the Fishery Management Plan we saw "no need to depart from the statewide 34-inch minimum length limit for muskellunge Solberg Lake" when the Plan was finalized in early 2010. In the Plan we reasoned that "anglers interested in keeping a muskellunge occasionally can select from those between 34 and 38 inches long without jeopardizing goals for population size structure. Reducing muskellunge density slightly should in turn decrease predation of the larger yellow perch and improve our chances for success in attaining objectives for perch abundance and size structure" because muskies and northern pike selectively eat the largest perch in the population as one of their preferred foods.
If approved, the statewide proposal before the Conservation Congress in spring 2011 will increase the minimum length limit to 40 inches on all lakes where it is now 34 inches. The rule-making process allowed us to recommend lakes that should be exempted from the statewide 40-inch limit, and those exempt waters would have a 28-inch limit. In my opinion, a 40-inch limit at Solberg Lake would unnecessarily restrict anglers who expressed this unique preference to catch and keep a musky once in awhile, especially young anglers who would be forced to release a 38- or 39-inch fish of a lifetime. I would prefer to keep the existing 34-inch limit, or perhaps experiment with a protected slot range, but the available musky harvest regulations currently do not include options to maintain the status quo or to try a new approach. In my opinion, the best fit from options available to meet the objectives of the Fishery Management Plans was to exclude Solberg Lake from the statewide proposal.
With the catch-and-release ethic deeply rooted in most avid musky anglers, I do not foresee a sudden, increased demand to harvest muskies 28-40 inches long. Mail surveys indicated that only 2% of muskellunge anglers and 11% of non-muskellunge anglers consider some size less than 40 inches to be a "trophy." Based on the preferences of anglers at Solberg Lake and other traditional musky waters in the Upper Chippewa River Basin, we anticipate that anglers will continue to place great emphasis on size and continue to release most of the muskies they catch. Unlike the situation at Butternut Lake, I'm aware of no plan to promote selective harvest of musky in Solberg Lake. Successful live release will be essential if we hope to attain the objectives for musky in the Fish Management Plan, so I encourage you to cast your vote in support of Question 1 requiring the use of quick-strike rigs when using minnows longer than 10 inches as bait.
I'm glad to hear that you and other anglers are catching muskies longer than 40 in Butternut Lake. We've also seen some recent improvement in musky population size structure, based on our 2008 surveys results, but we believe population density in Butternut Lake remains higher than the target level.
I hope this explanation and the information in the Fishery Management Plan outline my rationale for excluding Solberg Lake from the statewide proposal for a 40-inch minimum length limit on muskies. Jeff Scheirer, Fishery Biologist
Edited by John at Ross's 2/14/2011 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Gee, I got basically the same email! I thought I was just special.
Edited by KenK 2/14/2011 12:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | I did not read all the responses here but as I told the conservation congress guy at the show this should have been two separate questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I talked to a CC rep as well and since this is a DNR question they (CC reps) have no say in the wording. I will be speaking with my CC rep about changing this lake to a 40" in 2012 but even if that passes (which it likely won't) the DNR likely won't change it back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I'd think it would be better to get the 40" size limit passed now, taking the 28" limit on a few lakes with it. Might be easier to get those limits changed on an individual basis down the road than it would be trying to get a 40" statewide limit on the ballot again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | lots a lakes overwhelmed by small males ... protection sometimes means harvest.
lay em on a cedar plank and serve with drawn butter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| It's just the perception we have, Sled. Thinning out the small males seems like a good idea to me, and I understand the science behind it, but when I hear "lowering the size limits to 28" it just seems like a step backwards. Harvesting muskies = bad. Now... For the rest of the 700 or so muskie lakes, increasing the size limit to 40"? I'd be willing to bet that will do more good for the fisheries across the state than we've seen in our lifetimes. For that, I might even vote for a 28" size limit on my own lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | slots |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | jonnysled - 2/14/2011 3:05 PM
slots
You support Native American spearing when you play the slots.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| That would make the most sense. It's sure working in Ontario. I could see implementation and enforcement presenting some challenges though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 2/14/2011 3:24 PM
That would make the most sense. It's sure working in Ontario. I could see implementation and enforcement presenting some challenges though.
builds and rebuilds fisheries across the nation and has for many years. why it's not employed in the northern midwest has always made me wonder. proven logic for predator species. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| MuskyHopeful - 2/14/2011 3:20 PM
jonnysled - 2/14/2011 3:05 PM
slots
You support Native American spearing when you play the slots.
Kevin
Not so fast Kev... I think history has proven that the more money you throw at any particular group the less likely they are to do anything that requires any effort. Just sayin'... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Gosh I love Utah. |
|
| |
