|
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Does anyone have an explanation on why the FLW Tour is not going back to Oconto? From what I've heard it was the most popular event with the biggest crowds in attendance. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | No idea Jerry but I am more upset that they did not have all 4 qualifiers on Bago... |
|
| |
|
| There was a article in the local news paper that the FLW was returning to Oconto but stated that dates have not been set. A few days later schedule comes out with no Oconto???????????? |
|
| |
|
| Oconto was a great host for 2011, but the host city for 2012 must have a Wal-Mart.
|
|
| |
|
| Is the slot back for Michigan water and is it the same as the previous one??? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 580
Location: Green Bay, WI | I read that it is the same. Here is where I saw it first.
http://www.outdoors911.com/reports/showthread.php?24027-Slot-Limit |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | It will go into effect for the 2012 Walleye opener starting May15,2012. Signed back into law October 13th.
|
|
| |
|
| simple as dnr and vhs laws. that's why no more big tournaments till the laws are changed. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Darn it, if only there was a place just south of the bay that had good walleye fishing. Maybe they could just have the big tournaments there instead. If only there was such a place... |
|
| |
|
| ask the Bass guys they probably know. I guess it's not "if you build it they will come" |
|
| |
|
| Sorry guys yhat one has also been targeted for having vhs, don't know if the bass tornys are on the water weigh ins but FLW wants it at Wal-Mart and there are none on bago's shores, |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| How about just make them a kill tourney on the final day at Wally World? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 514
Location: Darboy USA | Shep,
Spill the beans about your tag line!! 
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | Shep - 12/7/2011 1:54 PM
How about just make them a kill tourney on the final day at Wally World?
Well that's the dirty little secret, they are already final day kill tournies. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Aaron, since we are talking dirty litle secrets, Sentry would not cover Shep's penile implant. They originally told him that they would cover the procedure but not the implant itself but ended up not covering anything. I will never recommend them to anyone after hearing that. I hate seeing someone get the shaft...and have to pay for it :D
Edited by Rich S 12/7/2011 2:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Well, I am darned glad Shep covers it. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Big Eyes, you are wrong. The DNR Will permit the fish to be transported for a tournament if you properly apply and it meets requirements. |
|
| |
|
| Guess when I called done there they just decided to lie to me and aren't reallt interested in coming back. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 78
| Fished FLW League on Bago and we had weigh-in at WallyWorld. I beleive it is off of the 9th street exit on frontage road? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Yes, I believe they actually had 2 different event weigh-ins there. Just another reason to come to Bago. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I am not being a smart pants but they weighed in at walmart in oshkosh during the VHS Years. That was farther than right at the waters edge. That just shows that the DNR will give permits if all steps are followed. What my guess is they did not want to jump through the rings. Its also possible the Biologist for Green Bay did not want to issue a permit in back to back years for a high profile tournament. The FLW Has taken its toll on the bay fish. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | stacker - 12/9/2011 9:21 AM
The FLW Has taken its toll on the bay fish.
It would take two years of FLW daily events to equal the amount of fish that end up as table fare annualy during the month of May.
Edited by 620 12/10/2011 7:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | 620. Not speaking of the kill only. The high profile of the first FLW that came to GB Taught everyone the where and how of the easy fish. Everyone says that no one watches tournaments but I strongly disagree. STRONGLY. After the MWC Knolls hit it out of the park the tournament fishermen followed and the next year was pandamonium. You remember. Every year its gets more and more. I am only guessing on the biologist, I do not know, but it might be good speculation by as many fish do get taken out from spring through summer. |
|
| |
|
| does help with mws,swc,mwc bangin the fish around and moving them out of there natural movements it surely screw them up so its just not flw. infact flw participates certainly take better care of the fish then mws and swc lil boats do! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Thats a fact jack - 12/10/2011 11:58 AM
infact flw participates certainly take better care of the fish then mws and swc lil boats do!
Thats certainly a matter of opinion. There are also many many guides who routinely plaster there big fish night time pixs all over the internet. Many of them do not care about the resource, they just want to cash in on it.
I believe that Green Bay can only take just so much begfore the quality of the fishery will fall. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | You are a spineless fool...... And that' a fact Jackoff.
Basically same boats fool.
.....and having fished ALL of these tournaments I can say that FLW does not take better care of heir fish. You have no clue fool. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | Thats a fact jack - 12/10/2011 11:58 AM
does help with mws,swc,mwc bangin the fish around and moving them out of there natural movements it surely screw them up so its just not flw. infact flw participates certainly take better care of the fish then mws and swc lil boats do!
With only 21 days left in 2011, I'd say your odds on favorite for DUMBEST POST OF THE YEAR. |
|
| |
|
| Spineless? ok so lets get vindictive here. I have fished all of them except swc but been to there weight in, i didnt say all of them in those tourny rather some. sunshine you certaintly would know spinless since your one of them protester and bringing all your union thugs costing this state millions . Why dont you ask a DNR specialist if you dont think moving fish around prior to spawning does effect those fish? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | who has a event prior to spawning? I agree, them guys sure did not leave you much room to squirm..... Just want to ask, you do know that 95 outa 100 on the mws are 20fters and swc are averaging about the same? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Yes, spineless because you come on here trying to rattle the cage without the balls of signing your name. No credibility.
You choose to avoid the facts that others present. Instead you call a retired teacher a thug and a protester. Yes sir, you are a spineless idiot. You prove it every time your write. The amusing part is that you are so clueless that you have no idea how stupid you sound.
Answer Stacker's question. Which one of the tournaments that you mention has a tournament prior tothe spawn? It already seems that you have backed away from your stupid boat size statement.
What's next! You gonna suggest outlawing graphs?
I agree Troy, dumbest post of the year. A least we all get a good laugh. |
|
| |
|
| I'm not trying to stir anything up from my prospective there are many things that influence the walleye population and health of the fisherie and this is one small part.
Stacker my bad, The use of the word "prior" isnt what i meant to say but i did . I meant during the tail end of spawn during the first weekand of may, There has been a handfull or more tournys the first weekand of may in the past out of gb and they travelled to oconto and north as far as they could go or out of marinette doing the same thing just the opposite traveling all the way to fox river and then going back to weight in and fished released. The"water temp can be much as 10degree difference". SOME fish that havnt spawned were caught in both times.
Bangin the fish around happens to any boat on the bay when its ruff out there but travel long distance with fish in any boat and near spawning time cant help. There has been many small boats in tourny in the past but your right but past 3-4 years seems like everyone owns big rigs. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 132
| AIM tourneys treat the fish the best by releasing them minutes after photo/recording. All other tourney styles have significant increase in stress levels on the fish while riding and bouncing in the live well for up to multiple hours at a time. All tourneys should have the photo/record style so they stay in the system fresh and alive. Nothing worse than fish turning belly up in the lake hours or days after being displayed and becoming floating seagull food. What a waste and that's the fact, Jack! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Here are some facts that you can consider while continuing this discussion. The DNR estimates that in 2010, 87,228 walleye were harvested from Lake Michigan/Green Bay. Here are the number of walleyed caught from tournaments mentioned: 212 walleye caught at Green Bay in July at MWS. 131 walleye caught at Menominee in August at MWS 33 walleye caught at MWS Championship in September at Menominee. 792 walleye caught at 2 day tournament in August at NTC Bay de Noc tournament. 76 walleye caught at Battle of the Bay. The Michigan DNR estimate that in 1996 there were 484,525 legal walleye in Little Bay de Noc. They go on to say that there is a 4.6% exploitation rate in LBDN. Other exploitation rates include: 1.6% in BBDN, 3% at the Cedar River and 5.8% in the Menominee River. My conclusion, even if all of the 1,244 walleye caught in the above tournaments were harvested, this is a very acceptable number that does no damage to the resource. Even with an exagerated kill rate of 25%, the released fish mortality is about 311 fish. Again, very acceptable in my opinion. And I won't get into the financial impacts that these tournaments provide to the local communities and to the natural resources through fishing licenses and taxes. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | LurePresentation - 12/10/2011 7:02 PM
AIM tourneys treat the fish the best by releasing them minutes after photo/recording. All other tourney styles have significant increase in stress levels on the fish while riding and bouncing in the live well for up to multiple hours at a time. All tourneys should have the photo/record style so they stay in the system fresh and alive. Nothing worse than fish turning belly up in the lake hours or days after being displayed and becoming floating seagull food. What a waste and that's the fact, Jack!
I'm not completely sold on the AIM format being so great for the fish...Catch as many fish as possible and let them all go, no dead fish at the weigh in, sounds great and even looks better from a PR standpoint, but what about delayed mortality rates? I might argue that if the tournament anglers were only allowed 7 fish in the livewell, they may be doing less harm to the resource(even in a kill tournament), than catching and handling 20 - 30 if not more fish per day. High delayed mortality rates have been documented in trout when using barbed hooks with live bait.
After reading Dennis' post regarding the number of fish caught during tournaments on Green Bay and the estimated harvest, what is wrong with just having a limited number of fish in the livewell and holding kill tournaments and donating the fish?
|
|
| |
|
| I think having an AIM style format for ALL events is a great way to go. I have been to AIM events and find them to have great showings from the fans. And to answer the guide problem, just let your clients know that you will only harvest fish under the 22" size and one over 28". If they don't want to do it, then just say sorry. I know its money lost short term but most people I talk to are usually looking for one trophy anyways. The bay is NOT like Erie.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 54
| Off topic I know.
I don't run many trips in the bay, less than a dozen last year, but every one I do run I talk conservation with the clients when they call to book not once we get in the boat. I don't advertise and do it because I enjoy it; everything is usually word of mouth so it's usually not an issue. Most are more then happy just to catch the fish and take a couple smaller ones home but I did turn down two trips last year because one of the first questions asked was "how many coolers do we have to bring to get the fish home?"
That being said we do everything we can while fishing the MWS and other tournements to keep our fish alive as well. I run an older boat (2002) but have an Oxygenator installed, have a floating thermometer and ice as needed, plug overflows and overflow water into the bilge while running to prevent fish slopping and do everything we can to help the fish stay alive and well. We have lost one fish in the last three years and that's because it was hooked badly. We didn't have to weigh it but we still gave it to the weighmaster to be donated to the good cause supported by the tournement. We caught one fish in last years MWS championship and came back 31 miles in some pretty rough water and the fish was alive and kicking when we got back.
As Sunshine posted with his numbers, tournement anglers are not hurting the fishery.
Edited by Fish Hound 12/12/2011 1:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Well, I have been hesitant to chime in on this subject. As many of you know I have been working diligently with the DNR on a game plan for continued fish management on the Bay of Green Bay. There have been countless studies done on this matter and we are finally making some progress. The studies have included tournament impacts, fish migrations, fishing pressure etc. In my studies it was discovered that the number of fish per square mile is down considerably from 5 years ago and the overall size average is also down. We have monitored the draws as well as the spawns and this should not be happening. There have been good spawning conditions the last 3 out of 5 years. Upon further study I stumbled upon the reason. It actually came as an anynomous tip called in on the hot line. It is a poucher. This SOB has taken hundreds of thousands of female walleyes in the 25-30" range over the last 5 years. He is selling them on the black market and even using the carcasses to traffic drugs. We know what he looks like and are getting closer every day to nailing him. If any of you have any info reguarding this guy please call the DNR hot line immediately. He is very dangerous so do NOT approach!!!!! Here is a pic
Edited by Rich S 12/12/2011 2:52 PM
Attachments
----------------
 bigbird.jpg (15KB - 128 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| i love his fish to smoke , its perfect way to sell to, cause i see coolers full of them every time i go fishing |
|
| |
|
| I became an owner in AIM and truly believe in the CRR formula. I don't understand why it hasn't caught on in other circuits. It would allow everyone to fish the full time period, no decisions and no cheating in regards to culling. I realize that they want the fish on the stage but truthfully how many spectators are really there to watch weigh in. Seems like most of them are there supporting the anglers... John Schneider |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| Wisconsin Wade - 12/11/2011 7:53 PM
LurePresentation - 12/10/2011 7:02 PM
AIM tourneys treat the fish the best by releasing them minutes after photo/recording. All other tourney styles have significant increase in stress levels on the fish while riding and bouncing in the live well for up to multiple hours at a time. All tourneys should have the photo/record style so they stay in the system fresh and alive. Nothing worse than fish turning belly up in the lake hours or days after being displayed and becoming floating seagull food. What a waste and that's the fact, Jack!
I'm not completely sold on the AIM format being so great for the fish...Catch as many fish as possible and let them all go, no dead fish at the weigh in, sounds great and even looks better from a PR standpoint, but what about delayed mortality rates? I might argue that if the tournament anglers were only allowed 7 fish in the livewell, they may be doing less harm to the resource (even in a kill tournament ), than catching and handling 20 - 30 if not more fish per day. High delayed mortality rates have been documented in trout when using barbed hooks with live bait.
After reading Dennis' post regarding the number of fish caught during tournaments on Green Bay and the estimated harvest, what is wrong with just having a limited number of fish in the livewell and holding kill tournaments and donating the fish?
You think the transport tourney guys only catch the 6 or 7 fish they put in the livewell?
Or maybe they catch the same 20-30 fish, and just pick the biggest 6 or 7 to put in the livewell?
So other than the 6 or 7 fish that have to take the rough ride in those little Rangers, is there any more delayed mortality in the AIM format?
Sheesh! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | You think the transport tourney guys only catch the 6 or 7 fish they put in the livewell?
-NO
Or maybe they catch the same 20-30 fish, and just pick the biggest 6 or 7 to put in the livewell?
-Possibly, but I would guess the livewell limit fish hits the box well before that many fish are handled….for most tournament situations. I am applying this argument to a body of water that prohibits culling. i.e. Green Bay.
So other than the 6 or 7 fish that have to take the rough ride in those little Rangers, is there any more delayed mortality in the AIM format?
-Not sure what it has to do with the type of boat the fish take a ride in BUT, show me the walleye study that supports the AIM rhetoric that it is the format best suited to protecting the resource and I will become a believer in the rhetoric. Even if that happens, it doesn’t mean that I think it makes one bit of difference regarding the small insignificant impact tournament anglers directly have on the resource.
I have no problems with the AIM format, nor do I have any issues with transport tournaments and/or kill tournaments in regards to walleyes. But, saying it is the best for the resource….well I think it is simply a PR move and nothing more…. So, if the walleye catch rate is 5 fish per hour on live bait and angler A catches his five and puts them in the livewell and calls it a day we know for a fact that 5 fish are no longer a living part of the system. If angler B fishes for 10 hours and catches 50 walleyes and releases them all....what do we know? We know that 50 fish went back in the lake but that is all I can tell you for sure...
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Hey guys, just want to clarify things. I did not mean the FLW killed fish or any other tournament for that matter. The reason green bay is now getting hammered is 2 fold.
1- The tournaments showed the general public where the fish were and exactly how to catch them. Thats the damage they have done to the fishery. Back in the days when john and pat and dean and jerry were out there, they did not go on TV shows to put you "On Location". Every guy back in the 90's that learned it did it the old fashion way, they went looking. I know this is a double edged sword we are swinging, but when you have maps on a video and ted takasaki hoisting 40#'s on stage and you live 20 mins from the launch, you just know whats going to happen.
2- The state changed the limit from 3 fish to 5 over 15. I believe that tourism pushed this change in rules. The general public has a hard time controlling themselfs. A percentage of them feel they need to take the big ones home to show off to their neighbors. They also feel that if they dont have a limit it was a wasted day. Thats the way it is. They will also go back many times to fill the freezer till there is no more to take. Its not all of them, just a good percentage. Lower it back to 3 and it "Wont be worth the time" to go. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| All I'm getting at is there are probably just as many fish caught and handled in the non-AIM events as the AIM events. So the point of more fish being handled and more delayed mortality in the AIM events is just simply a unfounded statement.
The boat comment was just a dig at you! hehehe |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | Shep - 12/13/2011 10:22 AM
All I'm getting at is there are probably just as many fish caught and handled in the non-AIM events as the AIM events. So the point of more fish being handled and more delayed mortality in the AIM events is just simply a unfounded statement.
The boat comment was just a dig at you! hehehe
I think that AIM Fishing would disagree with you that a relatively equal number of fish are caught in non-Aim events...go to their website and read the second "huge" advantage of the 3 "huge" advantages to participate in the series.
I would copy and paste it here but not sure of the copyright, etc...
So I interpret that as fish all day, catch as many as possible..I have no problem with that..but more fish are being handled....right?
Look at some of the FLW tournaments this year and the number of anglers ready to weigh in early...if it were a CRR format they would still have been fishing...in turn handling more fish...
Again, no matter the tournament format, CRR, C&R, Kill...the DIRECT impact on the walleye resource is insignificant...but I feel the "NO" dead fish rhetoric of the CRR format can negatively effect(or is it affect?) the C&R tournaments.
Remember, I am a Pro-Walleye Tourney Fan, and I'll admit that I like to see the fish brought on the stage..to me it is part of the show. Look at the current Walleyefirst cover story. It is a photo of Gary Parsons holding 2 walleyes, not a photo of Gary Parsons standing in front of a picture of Gary Parsons holding a walleye...Why is that? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 132
| It's the same reason your holding 2 walleyes in your avatar picture.
Larry |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | LurePresentation - 12/13/2011 11:06 AM
It's the same reason your holding 2 walleyes in your avatar picture.
Larry
Exactly! To show them off! It's part of the experience! Other than he caught his during a tournament and those in the avatar were caught fun fishing. The two there were a double header and immediately CPR'ed.
They swam away fine, but I don't know what happened after that LOL!
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | As for bringing fish to the scales, I think it is to each his own. I watch 100 teams cross a stage, dragging a basket with something in it, get weighed and hustled off. 2-5 may actually reach in and show off the fish. you know this to be a fact. I went to aim weigh ins and found it refreshing to see quality shots of the days catch. But that is my druthers.
Also, I think you guys are splitting hairs when you are now worring about how many fish get caught in a day and what their mortality may be. I know you stout FLW Supporters need a platform to stand on but its shakey and I would get down before it falls. Simply put, livewelled fish will have WAY WAY WAY higher mortality then a caught, photo, and released fish. Common sense says that. |
|
| |
|
| If our catch and release program didn't work where would our Muskie populations be today. As a kid growing up and fishing with my Dad we didn't have the huge musky population to enjoy, as everything back then was catch and kill. Times have changed in that sport and it shows, same way with bass angling today, but we haven't quite reached that point in walleye fishing yet. I have said it before that the Bay has sustained a heavy pressure on the big fish base and it will take a long time to come back. We as fisherman need to do everything possible to allow this to happen. John Schneider |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 265
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | How come so much gets lost in the discussion...
John - I agree, C&R works...
Stacker - While I have a hard time quantifying WAY, WAY, WAY...I never said that one immediately C&R'ed fish had as much chance of dying as one that was put in the livewell to be released after the tournament weighing and releasing procedure. I agree that if we are comparing 1 to 1, you are correct there is a much better chance that the immediately released fish will survive.
I argue that there may be a diminishing point of return dependent on the total number of fish that are handled. If I handle more fish..greater chance I will eventually hook one in the gullet, gill, eye, etc....which will give that fish, even though immediatley released a greater chance at delayed mortality.
Will anyone agree that the possibility of delayed mortality exists on an immediately released walleye? Other than me?
Getting back to the Musky thing...not that long ago it was also deemed "common sense" that if the musky swam away, the single hook sucker rig will dissolve and all will be OK.
Now before anyone takes that out of context...I know that the released walleyes in the CRR format do not have a big hook in their stomach OK?
And I will reiterate that IMO Tournament Walleye Anglers have an insignificant direct impact on walleye populations no matter the format. |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys,
Interesting debate. Green Bay is a Walleye factory. One thing that you are all forgetting about is the forage base. The Great Lakes have been changing dramatically. Ask any of the guides up in Sturgeon Bay. Those Whitefish never used to be stacked up there like that. Ask yourself why? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Kemos - 12/13/2011 1:56 PM
Hey guys,
Interesting debate. Green Bay is a Walleye factory. One thing that you are all forgetting about is the forage base. The Great Lakes have been changing dramatically. Ask any of the guides up in Sturgeon Bay. Those Whitefish never used to be stacked up there like that. Ask yourself why?
Hahahahahaha nope kemo's, you gotta tell us, lets not make this a guessing game.. I do ask you though, if them whitefish were never there, then what in the heck were all the nets set for in the summer in that area? Changing forage base? I would need a deeper explaination.
Wade, I totally agree with you that the more fish you catch in a day, the better chances of sticking one good and killing it. |
|
| |
|
| I agree with that also, but in that case keep the fish and use it for a great meal. or put it on the wall. I want you all to know I have never seen the walleye fishing so good as it has been in the past five years. The walleyes seem to be everywhere, but the big fish population has been hit hard by both tournament anglers and weekend fisherman and I miss those days. Oconto Park two is the perfect example of what can happen. John Schneider |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | The writing was on the wall the day I seen 3 old guys taking pics with 15 sleds over 27. when asked, they freely said that they do that almost everyday, they are retired. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | I would bet Stacker's story happens 10fold off county park 2, 90% of the campers there through May are double dippers filling thier freezer. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | 620 - 12/13/2011 6:27 PM I would bet Stacker's story happens 10fold off county park 2, 90% of the campers there through May are double dippers filling thier freezer. Well, I do not like it when people stereo type tournament fishermen so I will not stereo type the campers. People are funny AIM does a great job of educating people. They show them how to catch the fish and show them the exact location. It's too bad that most miss the other important lesson of taking a picture and throwing most of 'em back. With Knowledge comes responsibility. I truly believe that most tournament fishermen get that. It is our job to keep trying to educate others. We can all do this without having to defend any mortality that occurs with properly run tournaments. In the scope of things, these tournament fishermen are doing less harm to the fishery than the weekend fishing barge keeping a limit. Don't get me wrong, I am all for CPR BUT there is absolutely nothing wrong with selective harvest too. None of us should be ashamed of putting some great eating table fare on the menu. Sometimes I think we are our worst critics and enemies. IMHO I do not want walleye fishing to become like musky fishing where everyone is condemned if they keep a fish. Properly harvesting fish is okay. Being a meat hunter is no longer accecptable. Even with the horror stories mentioned above, if the DNR reports that I read are correct, the fishery is fine with quantity. As sportsmen, if you want more quality do what fishermen in Michigan did and speak up for a slot. Their voice was heard (again) there. As someone mentioned earlier, maybe the meat hunter will say that it just isnt worth it (going out) if we had a slot. |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys I know I'm not as smartas all the regular guys on this site because wvery time someone says something they don't agree with they slam them but here it goes, while hunting at Navarino this fall I ran into a biologist from the dnr for Green Bay in casual conversation I asked if he could lower the bag limit back down to three because of the double dipping and culling that I know is going on and he responded with a emphatic NO too many fish we've had some really good spawns over the years and there are to many fish in the system. When I said they seem to be shrinking in size he replied that this will happen as the older class fish get caught and die off it was only a natural evolution and ther will eventually be others to take their place, personally I would have to agree with this because I have seen this through the years fishing this body of water long before most knew what was available, I could fish bay beach area on a saturday and catch eighty fish between 23 and 28 inches and not see a boat for three ar four weekends straight. I believe this man, he sited spawn numbers and how the spawning is occuring all over the tributaires now versus just the fox and lower bay. Wish I could remember his name but I became much more relaxed after talking to him. |
|
| |
|
| That Biologist is right about the spawn and numbers, but i don't think they will ever come back like they were. I like the idea of a slot, except protect those fish from like 23 to 26 or 27 inches. I know how you feel big eyes, as I used to go out of Oconto Park Two and catch with my buddies 30 or more over 26 in just a few hours and the only boats we would see would be fishing trout. The internet played a big part in that little secret getting out. People had to brag and show their catch to anyone watching. I would be all for putting together a petition for a slot and see ho many signatures we can get. John |
|
| |
|
| I too remember those days and the number of fish are down from there and the problem I have with that survey is how can they tell with that large body of water . when doing teir netting they maybe miss the mark or they maay be on a large school at that particular time those fish are so migratory please help me understand is there something im missing |
|
| |
|
| His netting was done in the rivers after the spawn and on fish through out the summer months, I'm sure you have seen those net stakes like me and said to youself hmm. Good idea John lets get it started I' all in for a slot seems to have helped in other areas of the walleye world and also on other species. |
|
| |
|
| No one used to fish the bay. THis summer their were always 25+ boats walleye fishing off oconto or Geanos. Most of these guys were keeping limits of big fish. Nothing wrong with keeping those small eaters. But I saw boats at the landings with limits of 24in+ walleyes. Hurts when they do that daily.
One boat had 4 guys with 20 walleyes. All were over 24 with the biggest at around 30. Im sure they tasted like crap. All of them were dead floating in the live well in 75 degree summer water. But they had to show them off to everyone that they saw. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | If you want to implement some change start here. How to do it is all explained.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/index.html
Edited by 620 12/14/2011 6:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Troy,
If you are serious in doing this I suggest that someone contact ALL tournaments doing business on Green Bay in the last 5 years.
Ask these organizers if they are willing to supply data on the average weight of fish caught. Any good tournament has enough data to show this decline if it exists.
In the letter, ask if they would be willing to allow you to have a sign up at their tournaments on support of a slot.
This info would tell you if you have the needed initial support.
I'm willing to help. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | Those are great ideas you have there. I would add your more likely to get a 3 bag limit vs a slot to go over. I introduced a resolution last year in my county to have the Great Lakes Pike season to coincide with inland season to protect the hungry prespawn females and it passed and will be voted on state wide this spring. I will let someone else tackle this walleye issue, as our club is working with the DNR trying to get the Brown Trout population back up here in Marinette/Menominee. I can't be batting for both teams, when it comes to planted trout predation, the walleye is culprit number one. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| .
Personally, I think the spring hearings are a waste of time on this body of water. 54" limit on muskies was passed twice, decisively, and still no 54" limit. Because the DNR biologist didn't want to keep anyone form harvesting a fish of a lifetime.
So when I hear that the new DNR biologist say there are too many wallyes in the system, then it's extremely unlikely that any amount of support for lower limits or a slot would get any serious consideration by the DNR.
Your time would be better spent trying to find and report double dippers.
I've run into guys in the parking lots with limits of big fish. When I ask them if they are actually going to eat these fish, they say yes. When I ask them if they've ever tasted a 15 eye from bago, and compared them to these big awful tasing fish from GB, they look at me like I'm crazy.
And not all all tourney anglers are dedicated to CPR. Prior to the 1st AIM tourney on GB, I observed one tourney angler with her prefish partner/client and they had 10 big fish on the stringer for pictures at Suamico landing the day I was there. Kirt can back me up on this.
Edited by Shep 12/15/2011 11:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| We all know the population on Bago and the Bay are not in any harm currenty by Fisherman. (Not not to mean they might be some day) There just aren't enough people to "destroy" it. It all comes down to egos, The have's and have nots, the tournament vs. meat hunters or the armchair biologists blah blah blah. We all have are "wants" and we enjoy this sport but have differning opinons on what should be done. Some of us want trophy fish, some want to save the spawners, and some want eaters...
We're talking about a revenue worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We all need to to band together to contribute to a solution. I too belive the cc is not the right method but its all we have.
Heres my solution for every angler that fishes the Bay and the Bago pond:
1-Biololgy says we don't have a population problem so a 5 fish limit seems to be in order for both systems but the ability to change it yearly is needed.
1a-Spawn protection is working economicaly, and biologicaly on the lower Fox in the spring. Incorporate the 1 over 28" on the Wolf as well.
2-As for slots on Bago, I disagree on the need to protect the spawner with a slot as biology says there is no harm, but would like to see if a trophy size can be maintained, say one over 27".
Of course this means the Law makers need to be the ones that have the ability to make changes yearly and safisfy all uses as mother nature makes changes too. That simply sounds like an imposibilty with a half billion dollar piece of business.
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 12/15/2011 11:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | I don't think we have any problems on bago and could care less about the fish over 27" population. I do however wish we could find a way to control the Pelican/Cormorant population. They do more damage then all the fishermen put together during the spawn. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Now that I think about it, I wonder how many DNR biologists would say they are glad the really big fish are gone? Those eating machines may have provided little to the spawning effort if they were past their prime. I wonder? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 197
| I agree Rich. Fished the menasha dam and watched 1 cormorant eat 4, 10 inch walleyes in about an hour. Times that by 5000. Kill them all I say. |
|
| |
|
| Cormorants mainly eat fish under 7” but have been known to devour larger, they consume around a pound of fish each day…they do like walleye. Pelicans consume around 4 pounds each day and their lower jaw opening to the sack is rarely larger than 2” wide, they mainly target small rough fish…they are not known as walleye eaters. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | They might not prefer walleyes but I have seen them eat them with my own eyes. They gotsta go! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Rich,
What do pelicans taste like? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | Wow... Little tid bit, I'd change up your misinformed information source. Cormorants have been sliced and diced with eyes in them already over a pound, and if you don't think Pelicans eat walleyes go watch them in April in Depere by the dam they scarf down 1-2lb males like M&M's.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Cormorant+stomach+contents&h...
Edited by 620 12/17/2011 1:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 620 - 12/17/2011 1:04 PM
Wow... Little tid bit, I'd change up your misinformed information source. Cormorants have been sliced and diced with eyes in them already over a pound, and if you don't think Pelicans eat walleyes go watch them in April in Depere by the dam they scarf down 1-2lb males like M&M's.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Cormorant+stomach+contents&h...
What? I never said cormorants don’t eat larger fish…I stated the exact opposite, the average size is 7” and they eat on average a pound a day. Pelicans are not known to go after walleye like cormorants do, they eat primarily rough fish and they consume around 4 pounds a day, never said they do not eat walleye.
Eradicate a indigenous bird that eats walleye, sound conservation at work.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | .................................. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | tid bit,
What redeeming values does a cormorant have that causes one to want to keep them arond? Being at the top of the food chain I get to decide. I'll even let you help me. Persuade me for wanting to keep them around. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | They taste like walleye. Kill 'em all |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 197
| I don't have any data except what I've seen and there are so many up on the bay that in the early morning when they all take off from chambers island, they are actually picked up on doppler radar from Greenbay. I don't remember what weather sight I seen that on but it is true. Anyone who wants to help out Perch and Walleye in the bay, need to figure out a way to get rid of those birds.Period. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 197
| Wow 620, I just checked out the link you posted. That is scary stuff. Thank you for posting that. I heard people in Minnesota have had enough of those cormorents also. |
|
| |
|
| The resurgence in cormorant population is a positive sign for the health of the Great Lakes and elsewhere. Cormorants are highly sensitive to pollutants such as DDT, which is what depleted the population in the first place. A sizable population is good news about the environmental health of the waterways, not so good news for the fisherman who likes to fish for the same food, even though there would be a balance. Too many cormorants…bad, too few cormorants…also bad. Before they became protected, people used to collect the bird’s eggs for food which helped control the population…not sure if they tasted like walleye though. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 397
Location: Badgerland | Shep - 12/15/2011 11:52 AM
Because the DNR biologist didn't want to keep anyone form harvesting a fish of a lifetime.
Interesting that would be the reason after they went through the trouble of both the Great Lakes Committee of the Conservation Congress and the Executive Council approving the resolution twice.
Edited by 620 12/18/2011 9:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | yes it is. A huge amount of effort went into the Spring Hearing preparation and the resolution passed. It was killed in conference by committee twice despite the fact it's what the public clearly wants by CC vote. Sometimes the CC works, but most times not so much. |
|
| |
|
| Slots???????? There will be plenty of big fish in a few years. In fact, I read it here first, that's what WalleyeFirst does right?
My My My, how fast some people's memories and opinions change. Little refresher reading for some ya'll.
http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1...
The meathogs love it, the DNR don't mind, and the biologist is interested in appeasing numbers of fisherpeople, not tournament anglers, that's what his review is based upon.
The good ole days on Green Bay are over boys.................you heard it here first. |
|
| |
|
| Their surely is not much talk about all the freezer fillers out there. Groups that use to go to lake Erie ever year that are now staying home and hitting the bay every day and not only filling their freezer up, but everyone in their family's also! |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Might as well post once next time and consolidate. |
|
| |
