There are arguments for both sides of this issue. There are strong opinions on both sides, backed by reasonable arguments. There are also unreasonable arguments, I guess that's the way it always is with a hot button issue.

I personally happen to be in favor of the 50" limits on selected waters, for reasons that I freely admit are 'eletist'. Others are opposed for reasons they freely admit are economic. Others are opposed for reasons they strongly feel are biologically based. Still others are in favor for strongly felt biological reasons

The actual fact is this:

There was a vote. Those who wanted the increase were in the minority. Those who opposed it were not. Sour grapes and throwing stones will not, in my opinion, solidify our position.

Last time I looked, this was a democratic process. What ever opinion was spoken at the meetings across the state was the opinion of the speaker, and at least they had the stones to voice it. That goes for both sides of the issue.

I think the very fact the state allows the public to 'make decisions' that should be up to the experts our DNR employs is not good for the fishery. but that is my opinion, and I am in the extreme minority on this issue.

Regardless of the stand one takes on this issue, name calling, abusive statements, and personal attacks will not endear your stance to those who are watching from the 'center'. These are the folks you might eventually be able to sway to your view of the issue with a careful presentation of facts. That isn't likely to happen if they sense the above mentioned attitude. Ask Tim or Susan.

It is never easy to feel one is right and find one's view in the minority. It is even tougher to look at what the other side is saying, and find a way to constructivley address that.

I would respectfully request you do that here, no matter how strong your feelings either way.

Tom,

No arguments with your viewpoint at all. I absolutely agree that anyone who made the stance against the new proposal should be prepared to defend their viewpoint. 

The fact that you, I, Scott, and ToddM or anyone else supporting the 50" proposal has an absolute right to our opinion doesn't lessen the fact that the opposing side has that right too. We think they are wrong. They think they are not.

The important folks  (the 'silent majority') are watching both sides, and might just join our side of the issue if we present the facts patiently and clearly, with the support of the biologists who have looked into this and want it to happen.  Then again, they might decide to support the folks at the Chamber in Rhinelander if they present their side in an clear, patient manner.

My problem is, I guess, my training in debate. Being 'right' won't win any debate by default.. Presenting one's facts in a convincing, clear, non-confrontational manner without 'attacking' to the other side's stance sometimes will, if one has one's arguments, facts, and presentation well written and the other side can be shown clearly to be incorrect and inflexible.

There ARE ways to meet everyone's needs/concerns up here and try the 50" proposal, too.

There were a couple pretty nasty posts here which are not here anymore. I was referring to those, mostly.

I am sick of confrontational, I-don't-agree-with-you-so-you are- a @#$%^&^%$- debates. Usually the result is a net zero sum, and the issue simply fades away.

The concept we need to injure those who disagree with us to 'show them' is not going to work. Maybe short term there will be the reaction we are looking for from a small group of folks who agree with us, maybe not. What usually happens is the opposing viewpoint moves quietly on with the two to one support they enjoyed, and we continue to lose. Go to any Casino up here on any given evening, and say hello to a BUNCH of folks who you will also say hello to on the water,complaining about the walleye limits.

This isn't over, not by a long shot. We CAN eventually get the 50" limits on some waters if we work toward that goal as a group.

In order to do that, the group supporting this needs  to organize, set an agenda, present the facts to the public, and continue to push forward. We are presenting an IDEA. We would like to have more support for that idea from the general population. Lashing out at the folks who oppose us won't get that done, IMHO.

I will drive up over the next few days and talk to you about what we might be able to do about this. Give me a call Monday if this os OK (715.362.1760), and let me know when might be a good time to meet!

Even from 1000 miles away the silent majority knows the 50 inch limits were for the better of the fisheries and those opossed especialy their leaders did it for personal reasons and not for the bettering of the fisheries in those selected lakes in WI. We all know the kill guides pushed for it so they can keep killing as well as that WMT guy wanted to save his transport tourneys wich he believes if better for the fish then getting judge boats.

I applaud all that plan on boycotting the WMT, but still wonder why they would not wait for them to do without transport as well as summertime tournaments before even fishing 1 event. As well as guides and baitshops that are slowing down the process of better muskie fisheries in WI.

I wish all in WI good luck in the future.

I would guess there were alot of folks who would have voted for the proposal who were not there for one reason or another. Same for those who might have voted against.. I couldn't make the meeting, unfortunately. In fact, the meeting attendance overall was lower than in several years, by a considerable margin.

I was sent an audio link from Wisconsin Public Radio with two commentaries, interesting stuff.

Another Point:

From the DNR website today---

'A fisheries proposal to increase minimum musky length limits on 38 waters in Vilas and Oneida County to 50 inches and three waters in Dane County to 45 inches to manage for trophy musky fishing opportunities had mixed results. Voters rejected the higher limits on the northern lakes but approving them for the Dane County waters.

"We knew that the muskellunge proposal was one that had generated a great deal of strong feelings both in favor of and opposed to the change," said Patrick Schmalz, fishing regulations coordinator for the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection. "That is why we put things out for hearing, so that the people of the state have a say in fisheries management."

There were separate questions for each of the northern lakes or chains, and they were rejected by more than a two to one margin for each lake. The proposals for the Dane County lakes were supported by approximately 1,200 voters and opposed by more than 900 voters.

DNR Secretary Scott Hassett said the vote reflects that there is a broad range of opinions among anglers what constitutes a "trophy" fish and how the proposed regulations would affect both anglers and the musky populations on the proposed lakes.

"While the majority of those who voted were opposed to the more stringent regulations, we also know there were many avid musky anglers who do support more opportunities to catch a musky that is longer than 50 inches, which everyone agrees truly is a trophy fish," Hassett said. "I plan to discuss this proposal further with our biologists, anglers, and others interested in musky fishing to see if we can identify a fewer number of waters that more people would generally agree upon could provide this type of opportunity."

I am calling the DNR in Madison this Monday to see if we can get an online discussion with them, or at least ask them to grant an interview with MuskieFIRST.

If everyone supporting this all stay the course, and move constructively forward, there IS a chance they may get this done, at least on some waters in the State.