|
|
| I need to know why the National Professional Angelers Assocation (NPAA) did not have eny representation at the NR20.40 hearing on 10/30/06. I am a member of the NPAA and last night I was suprised to hear nothing about NPAA support on eny issues.
TJM | |
| | |
| Where were the other players in the tournament world? This is going to be passed in some form and I'm sure once it is passed it will be hard to change. These hearings are everyones chance to give thier opinions before it is finalized.
Concerned | |
| | |
| There are several meetings regarding this in Wisconsin. NPAA Board Member Tony Puccio will be attending the meeting this Thursday, November 2nd. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| I suggest you get a bunch of your NPAA members to these meetings. One board member isn't going to mean anything. Bring in some of the big guns. Kieth K, Parsons(s), Skarlis, Gofron, and......... Get to more than just one meeting, and let your voices be heard.
I would also suggest the PWT, MWC, and the FLW get somebody to these meetings. The Sheboygan Walleye Club, and Jim Coon from TFM, was there, and spoke up. Most of the testimony came for Bass club member.
| |
| | |
| This is the time for the NPAA to step up to the plate and help us members out !
YOUR ACTIONS ON THESE HEARINGS WILL DETERMAN MY MEMBERSHIP RENULE.
JIMM | |
| | |
| If you have any questions or comments in regards to the NPAA, please contact the NPAA office directly or head to the forum at www.npaa.net.
We encourage all members to attend the meetings, as well as all tournament anglers. The FLW is driving their anglers to step up and attend, too. If we all spend the time to go to the meetings, then a larger voice will be heard. However, if we all sit around and wait for someone else to take action, we are going to have no one to blame but ourselves.
Again, please direct all comments regarding NPAA to the NPAA directly. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| As I am not a member of the NPAA, I think this is a proper place to ask the question. I also think it is the proper place to answer it.
So where was the NPAA? There have been two meetings, and only one rep of the NPAA has attended?
BTW, I was at the Fond de Lac hearing, and will be at the Green Bay hearing. I look forward to seeing the NPAA well represented there.
Edited by Shep 11/2/2006 7:23 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | I can see several possible public perspectives here:
1) The NPAA represents the Pros direct interests, and doesn't necessarily lobby for tournament organizations or try to effect venues or legislation.
2)MEMBERS of the NPAA might find personal interest in attending a meeting
3) The NPAA collectively wants to improve the image, scope, and eventual prominence of Pro Walleye tournaments, and should as an organization try to be represented by some Wisconsin based Pros at the meetings to ensure Wisconsin's continuing role in that regard, perhaps by openly supporting the efforts of the FLW.
Whichever fits, I guess it's up to the members to decide to show and speak their mind or not. I really don't see the NPAA as an organization becoming very involved; that hasn't been what they do, really. If I'm off base here, I'm sure someone will correct me...  | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| I'd agree, Steve.
"3) The NPAA collectively wants to improve the image, scope, and eventual prominence of Pro Walleye tournaments, and should as an organization try to be represented by some Wisconsin based Pros at the meetings to ensure Wisconsin's continuing role in that regard, perhaps by openly supporting the efforts of the FLW. "
I don't see how catch and kill tourneys for walleye in the months of July and Aug are going to improve tournament image.
I also agree that the NPAA as a collective organization should be doing whats in the best interest of it's membership. Perhaps tighter tournament controls are in it's best interest? I'd find that odd. Then again I've never completely understood the mission statement of the NPAA. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Where are the lobbyist fisherman when you need them | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Shep, as you know I have been trying to get the walleye world to recognize this for about 4 years now and quite frankly it's pretty disapointing, they all want to know how to take walleye to the level that BASS is at yet there is no organization and things like this will be what keeps Walleye guys in the back of the boat! I got no response from Gary or Keith and as you all know there wasn't much banter here about it either!
GO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS!
Good luck
Tyee | |
| | |
| Mark Dahl, NPAA #465, attended and spoke to and with the DNR reps in this regard, at the Lacrosse meeting as an official rep of NPAA.
He and relative committee members have been dealing with this and other "state DNR/tournament issues as much as possible, past, present and future.
If you go to the NPAA website, "member directory", you will easily find ALL contact info for NPAA members, to direct your questions and concerns toward.
Steve Fellegy
NPAA #49
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| Steve, as I said, one rep of the NPAA is not enough. We appreciate Mark's attendance, but we need a powerful showing at these meetings, to be on record opposing this bill.
Remember, this was all started by some legislator several years ago. Janusak, or so. I don't know the speeling. Supposedly as a result of someone complaining about access and a dead fish after a tourney. I'll try to get the chronology of this bill. | |
| | |
| The reason that you didn't get a reply from me is because I've been constantly on the road filming or fishing tournaments. I have been following all posts and plan on attending the Spooner meeting which is the closest to where I live...although still almost a two hour drive. I would ask that if someone knows the particulars of the study that promted the proposed closure of catch and release tournaments in July and August, to point me in the right direction for understanding the data. I do have pretty much the equivalent of a fisheries biology background and would like to analyze the data. Iowa enacted similar legislation years ago based on very flawed data and when I cornered the biologist he admitted that he made his decision on local public pressure. Rest assured, I'm following this and I do not know if the NPAA is getting involved but I am. I too feel that the NPAA should be more formallized in stepping up to the plate on this issue. Someone please get me that information!
Gary Parsons | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Here's a couple links Shep provided in an earlier post:
Advisory Committee link, scoll down to Shep's links in his post: http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7...
Information on the proposed changes:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/fishingtournaments/fi...
Hope this helps!
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| Gary,
Glad to hear from you, and that you are planning to attaned the Spooner hearing. Please make your voice heard in the testimony portion.
As for data, there is none on delayed release mortality. We asked for the study, and all they could point to was the flawed study at LaCrosse for the too small pens study at a Bass tourney there. Nothing from walleye tourneys. There is data from the MWS, as to actual release data.
I was told that there is data out there, but NOBODY seems to know where to find it, when asked. Lots of here-say on this subject. Lots of public perception that all the fish released at a tourney, die days later, and this is wanton waste. Again, while no factual evidence has been submitted, it is public perception. I also got the feeling that fish that are dead at the weigh in are just disposed of. I know the FLW gets a processor involved and the fillets are given to a local food bank. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| Here are those responsible for introducing this to the assembly on 10/27/2003.
Introduced by Representatives Johnsrud, Ott, Albers, Hines,
LeMahieu, Ainsworth, Hahn and Schneider; cosponsored by
Senators Schultz and M. Meyer.
Are these people in your district? I think Johnsrud is gone. Not sure of the rest.
From the record.
Can somebody please intepret this?
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
AT 11:37 A.M.
Assembly Bill 623
Relating to: regulating fishing tournaments, granting rule-making authority, and providing penalties.
Representative Black moved that Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 623 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 623 be laid on the table?
The roll was taken.
The result follows:
Ayes - Representatives Balow, Berceau, Black, Boyle, Colon, Cullen, Freese, Hebl, Huber, Hubler, Huebsch, Krusick, J. Lehman, Miller, Morris, Plouff, Pocan, Pope-Roberts, Richards, Schooff, Sherman, Shilling, Travis, Turner, Van Akkeren, Wasserman, A. Williams, W. Wood, Young, Zepnick and Ziegelbauer - 31.
Noes - Representatives Ainsworth, Albers, Bies, J. Fitzgerald, Foti, Friske, Gielow, Gottlieb, Gronemus, Grothman, Gunderson, Gundrum, Hahn, Hines, Honadel, Hundertmark, Jensen, Jeskewitz, Johnsrud, Kaufert, Kerkman, Kestell, Krawczyk, Kreibich, Kreuser, Krug, Ladwig, F. Lasee, M. Lehman, LeMahieu, Loeffelholz, Lothian, McCormick, D. Meyer, Molepske, Montgomery, Musser, Nass, Nischke, Olsen, Ott, Owens, Petrowski, Pettis, Powers, Rhoades, Schneider, Seratti, Sinicki, Staskunas, Steinbrink, Stone, Suder, Taylor, Toles, Towns, Townsend, Underheim, Van Roy, Vrakas, Vruwink, Vukmir, Ward, Weber, Wieckert, M. Williams, J. Wood and Speaker Gard - 68.
Absent or not voting - None.
Motion failed.
The question was: Shall Assembly amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 623 be adopted?
Motion carried.
The question was: Shall Assembly Bill 623 be ordered engrossed and read a third time?
Motion carried.
Representative Foti asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 623 be given a third reading. Granted.
The question was: Assembly Bill 623 having been read three times, shall the bill be passed?
Motion carried.
Representative Foti asked unanimous consent that the rules be suspended and that Assembly Bill 623 be immediately messaged to the Senate. Granted.
Looks to be a party line vote. No big surprise here, but it also appears to me that when it was asked to be tabled, the nayes won out, and those would be the Repubs. Am I missing something here?
Edited by Shep 11/6/2006 1:25 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Shep, what do you want to know? AB623 has been proposed in various ways but never through the legislature that I know of until various private interests (BASS) got a bill introduced through the tourism department regarding culling AB529.
Taken from another thread:
"The bass guys have had this culling issue brought up at the spring hearings several times in the past. Every single time it was voted down overwhelmingly. They then wrote and introduced their own piece of legislation (Assembly Bill 529) which aimed to legalize bass tournament culling without having to get as much input from the public. That failed and was dead before it ever came up for a vote in the Assembly. They then as a last resort hijacked a different bill (AB 623). AB 623 had (still has) language in it which says very clearly "No tournament angler may use any fishing method which isn't available to all other anglers fishing that water the same day(s) as the tournament takes place." Meaning if they can cull, you and everyone else fishlig that water on those days must be allowed to cull. Unfortunately, bass anglers added an amendment to AB 623 literally the day before it came up for a vote on the assembly floor (and ironically a day after all public input for or against the bill was cut off). Thier amendment superceded the earlier wording about the 'fairness in fishing methods' and allows 4 tournaments in each of the next 2 seasons to cull under the giuse of a 'study' to determine how culling affects the fishery. What was not included (conveniently) was any form of funding of this 'pilot program' being required to be paid for by bass anglers, so now the public is stuck with the cost of running and administering their 'pilot program' which allows them but not you to cull."
It is IMPORTANT to understand how and why these new rules and regulations are being imposed on all of us. And also very important for you die hard tournament anglers to stand behind the DNR on regulation in some form as many of you have stated here. but some of these rules, I have to agree, are a bit over the top. There WILL be more species specific regulation to follow!
In 2003 the FLW wrote looking for support with the following partial letter:
FLW Outdoors president urges anglers to support Wisconsin culling bill 24.Oct.2003 October 22, 2003
Dear Tournament Anglers:
We are on the verge of winning a significant legislative victory for bass-tournament anglers and local businesses throughout Wisconsin, and we need your help. On Tuesday, October 28, at 10:30 a.m. the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Tourism will hold a hearing on Assembly Bill 569 to legalize culling. If possible, please attend this public hearing in the North Hearing Room on the second floor of the State Capitol building located at One East Main Street in Madison, Wis., or write to Tourism Committee chairperson Mark Pettis to express your support of this bill. Representative Pettis can be reached at [email protected] or Room 20 North, State Capitol, P.O. Box 8953, Madison, Wis. 53708
In regards to any scientific studies or information regarding the no live release portion of these rules proposals that Gary asked about..... There are none. I haven't been given an answer on that question either but can tell you that it wasn't added by the advisory committe and possibly was added after those meetings by reviewing comments from the public, WAL and or the WWF.
I think the biggest objection has been and will continue to be that no angler gets to do something with the resource that no other angler can do. If culling is something that the FLW insists is necessary to bring their big time toruneys to WI. they need to find a way to be sure that all anglers enjoy those equal rights or they give something back! This is my personal opinion.
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 11/6/2006 8:00 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Some more info for you that was used in determining the current set of rules being proposed!
Good Luck
Tyee
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/fishingtournaments/Study%20Pla... | |
| | |
| Well, we may not be the fastest organization, but I wanted to let every one know that the NPAA has been working on this issue. It has been posted on our mebers only web site for about a month and we have encourage our mebers to get invovled with a few e-mails.
The following is a letter that was sent to the proper authorities earlier this week. It was also sent to every one of our members. Each member was encouraged to send the letter themselves as well. The more letters they get the better.
Dear Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Schmalz:
The National Professional Anglers Association is a not-for-profit group of professional anglers. Our membership consists of over 400 anglers, most of whom are walleye tournament anglers.
We have been aware of the Wisconsin DNR surveys this year and the proposed changes being presented. Several of our members have attended the public meetings and spoke on our behalf.
As a group, we strongly disagree with the proposed changes being made to Wisconsin DNR’s Administrative Code NR 20.40.
In regards to the ban on tournaments in July and August, we believe the state and the businesses residing in it will experience negative economic impact from such changes. A typical FLW Outdoors tournament brings in over $2,000,000 in revenues to the local hotels, restaurants, tackle shops, gas stations, etc. Our members who fish the larger circuits, like FLW Outdoors and the Professional Walleye Trail, spend an average of $1,800 per tournament. The financial impact of banning tournaments during two of the primary tournament fishing months would be incredible.
While we understand that walleye can be more susceptible to higher fish mortality rates, we believe there are ways to minimize fish mortality. First, new boats have better livewells, which improve the flow of oxygen and can better control temperature. Anglers could be required to take a fizzing class and all livewell systems could be inspected prior to launch. An additional alternative is to reduce the fish limit to either three (3) or four (4) per day. Any fish that die even under the best of circumstances should never go to waste. Churches, shelters and food pantries can all benefit from this resource, but it makes the most sense to return as many fish back to the waters they came from as possible.
We also believe the tournament circuits can do more to protect the fish. By minimizing the time the fish are out of water, we increase their chances of survival. Regulating weigh-in procedures, so fish stay in the livewell until it is time to be weighed, is strongly encouraged. We applaud the FLW for starting a new water weigh-in system where the fish are kept in water. We discourage additional handling of fish for photos or keeping them out of water for any additional time, unless a decision is made to sacrifice the fish.
Smaller bodies of water may have a harder time dealing with the impact large tournaments could have. All bodies of water should be assessed individually and be assigned a maximum number of boats allowed. Separating tournaments out by species can help make an educated decision on exactly what the body of water can handle.
We believe aquatic invasive species should be a top concern for our fisheries. By educating all anglers, we can get the problem under control. Mandating tournament organizations to educate their anglers is one way, as is supplying education materials wherever fishing licenses are sold.
The State of Wisconsin contains some top walleye fisheries, as well as some of the top walleye anglers in the world. We sincerely hope that the suggestions offered herein can help keep our anglers fishing in their state and will allow all anglers the opportunity to experience what Wisconsin has to offer.
If you have any questions or comments, we will be happy to speak with you directly. Please call our offices at 630-845-2766.
Sincerely,
Kristin Landahl
Managing Director
National Professional Anglers Association
I would like to remind all of the NPAA mebes out there, the NPAA is your organization. It is what we make of it as members. If any of our members will be attending any of the remaining meetings, please contact me in advance and we can discuss what you may be able to do at the meetings to help not just the NPAA, but the state of Wisconsin and all of the fishing industry.
This issue scares me. Many of you may not know it, but something very similar is happening in South Dakota as we speak. Once this gets passed, it could spread like wild fire and tournament fishing as we know it could be a thing of the past.
Again, if there are any questions regarding this issue, the NPAA, or you just want to shoot the bull, I can be reached by cell phone at 701-371-9431 or e-mail [email protected].
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 120
Location: Devils Lake, ND | Sorry,
That last post was me, forgot to log in. Oops! | |
| |
|
Where was the NPAA on last nights NR20.40 hearing ?