|
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/Tournament%20Pilot%20Prog...
A good read and very interesting.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | It sounds to me that there pens where set up in the wrong places with such high mortality on the control fish. I dont see how they can conclude anything with this data other than the fact that any fish handled might suffer mortality weather released imidiatly, detained, or brought to weigh in. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Can you say "ka-ka"? Sounds like a very poor "science" project by high schoolers... Have any serious scientist candidly evaluate this whole experiment... small pens in poor water conditions... muskrats eating through pens... extremely small "culling" experiments... driven results... opinion surveys... in plain language... sounds and looks almost amateurish...
Edited by hgmeyer 3/18/2007 3:13 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Also, let's study "pen" mortality... | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | hg, you are probably somewhat correct in this case with 'pen mortality'. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | My understanding on the pens is that protocol called for them to be set up near the release point of the fish. Further, I don't believe the pens or the pen locatations were the reason the bass died, but that it had more to do with the warmer water temperatures combined with the LMBV (largemouth bass virus).
Having spoke with one of the DNR officials that worked on this, I can guarentee you that they were serious about getting this done the right way. There was nothing "amateurish" about it.
How do you study the effects of culling as the DNR was told to do? A fish that is release can not be studied, so what are you left to study? The DNR received a fair amount of input from many different sources and tried to come up with the best plan they could to examine the initial mortality of fish caught in tournaments, the delayed mortality of fish caught in tournmants, the financial impact of larger tournaments on a community, and a barometer of the publics willingness to accept culling in bass tournaments. Where the DNR errored (in my opinion) was using this opportunity to try to force a lot of unnecessary new conditions on ALL tournament anglers when this process started because of something a small group (WSBF) started. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | Like I said to start with the only conclusion that they could really come up with out of this data is that any fish caught and handled weather put in a live well, culled or released could be subject to high mortality. But like you said it was probably caused by haveing so many fish in close proximaty of each other and the LMBV caused the majority of the deaths. With that said all the data the got from this should be considered null because they dont have any good solid answers from this. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Brad,
There are already small studies about the effects of various types of nets on released fish mortality... Since they have concluded from those small studies that the net material "may" have a significant impact on the fish survival rate... It follows that these "pens" may have in and of themselves a significant negative impact. That is what I was referring to when I mention "pen mortality".
And, while the DNR may have had a difficult task (studying mortality of culled fish), it is no excuse for an amateurish study... This entire report is next to worthless. There are some useable facts about the economic impact of big tournaments that "trend" to a value of "X" dollars. However, none of the survey questions have been published so there is no way to independently evaluate the study/answers. A great deal may have been lost... One notable exception for a small measure is did they have a question about recreational use by tournament anglers separate from the tournaments... in other words do these tournaments bring the tournament anglers back for recreational use. Did they add in prefishing days/dollars? And, where is the secondary impact dollars..boat purchases by tournament anglers... Mercury Motors, Lund, Tuffy Boats....
It just appears to be a very "shoddy" and half an effort type of "study"... They may have had the best of intentions... but biologists and fisheries people do not know how to develop an economic study... And, the fisheries side was incredibly small to have any validity... and incredibly badly done at that.
I am sorry, but I cannot sugar coat this and will not stand silent when I "know" much is going to be "shouted out" by the anti-tournament people about the (so called) "facts and conclusions).
My scientific protocols and methodology experience is old and mostly forgotten I am sure. But, I know others who will look at this will see the gaping errors and omissions in the methods and also see the wide latitude given in assumptions and therefore conclusions.
This is just more junk science masquerading as real science... | |
| | |
| HG, There is extensive data to support this "summary" which really supports many of the other studies that have been done in the past.
It has proven that warm water months in WI have a greater impact on the fish than any other months. This should be of concern to anyone fishing in July and August and their handling of fish.
The Economic data was done by profesionals in that field and not the Biologists, As well the sociological part done by experts also. Both of these topics were well researched and show significant data, the questionair was very detailed.
Remember the report is a "summary" and only highlights portions of the data collected.
Regarding the Nets, They understand and took into consideration the problem they had with them in Winneconne, mother nature whooped up a storm and those fish could not be considered as they were moved downstream and put under undo stress.
"Pen" mortality MN is in the middle of or completing a study of hooked fish mortality, I believe it was being held on Mille Lacs regarding Walleye. Does anyone know if this study is complete yet. The "Pens" were huge.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
| On Mille Lacs it was done for "other" reasons. The DNR during their data surveys were counting all fish caught throughout the day and using a % of what would survive. The %, to the best of my knowledge was "BUNK", being that the lergest numbers of fish were taken in the 1st month and a half of the open water season. The fish during this cold water period have a much better chance at living than in the warm weather months. Mille Lacs has a "poundage" per year or safe harvest guideline. This is because of the Bands that net the lake. Some great bite years the DNR would take a large % of released fish and count them towards the years total poundage. So this study showed that they were way off on the mortality rate they were using. It showed that released fish were a live and well. Remember these fish were caught and released NOT boxed and ran all over the lake all day then released.
I'm sure JLD has the up-dated study results, he goes to all those meetings of the minds about Mille Lacs.
One thing about these studies thats not covered is: the fish are caught and NOT drug around and beat all day in a livewell, they are caught ~ put in a well~ and brought to a pen. These fish would have even less stress if they were release right back into the water were caught.
The problem with "culling" is they have no control over how a fish was handled throughout the day, someone could have beat the fish to death before they released it. I understand that tournament fishermen would love to catch and box fish all day, up- grading as they go. However part of tournament fishing is taking the fish needed to win, and if the State laws prevent "culling" thats how the game is played! They don't need "speical" regs just for (us)! Take Green Bay: most people know what it takes there to do well, they know that catching 20" will not get it done. So what is the advantage of culling? There isn't one, if you box it and you reach the limit your done and that should be fine with every angler fishing an event. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | No offense Mr. Meyer, but the more you talk about this, the more it is obvious you do not know what happened.
The effects of pen mortality don't matter - that's why you have a control group. Biologists didn't develop the economic impact study - that was don't through the university. The DNR reviewed as much information as they could find trying to make sure the mortality testing was done per established protocol. They were given a short time line, no funding, and no project scope of what to accomplish.
If you can develop a better plan, I encourage you to do so. I know for a fact that our DNR would love to have a better tool to use in studies like this.
Trying to poke holes in a study from the backside of an internet site - that's about as close to sitting by silently as one can get without actually sitting by silently. Some of us (Tyee and I for example) have been following this process for the last 3 years and have been making sure our voices are heard. Its great that you feel passionately about this and I encourage you to get involved and make your voice heard as well. Just please make sure that you do a little homework so that you help instead of hinder the effort. It was short-sightedness and implusive judgement that got us in the mess in the first place.
Last but not least, insulting those that you need help from to fix this (DNR) seems like a counter-productive measure. Its certainly OK to question and disagree with the process, but it should be done with respect. | |
| | |
| I am with Gordy on this one. I don't see why we need to start culling fish. I fish tourneys and am quite content with knowing what I will need to do well and taking my chances throwing fish back. I can't see hauling fish around all day and then upgrading them. I think we will just be opening up a can of worms for the anti-tourney guys. I guess this is driven more by the bass contingency. Also, I wouldn't call the study amateurish. There are so many variables in a study like this, and to simulate what actually is going on after fish are released from weigh in can be darn near impossible. I think they did the best they could with the tools at hand. | |
| | |
| These studies should not mix how much money is brought into an area! When the tour is long gone . it's still about the fish and what a body of water can handle as well as what if any "speical" regs are put on it.
Mille Lacs is a "poor" example of what should or should not be done on other lakes. FEW lakes in the upper Midwest get the pressure let alone have the numbers of fish taken from it (based on the size of the lake) Yet to this day it continues to put out fish like few other lakes. Overall each lake has it's own impacts from harvest, Mille Lacs have a set of rules to make it a catch and release lake as well as a catch and eat lake. FEW lakes have the size and numbers of fish that it has, this is fron STRICT regs to ensure it stays this way.
I can tell you that it is very nice to live close to one of best walleye waters in the Midwest! I'm glad they have regs in place to keep it this way! I'm more about catching great fish than killing everything I catch, it's not that hard to catch them it's hard to catch trophy fish when people never give them a chance to reach that stage. So these regs effect the walley harvest and it should have nothing to due with the money or it's effect on an area. I know that it's in some folks best interest to have everything "wide open" cause it draws people to them, but is that any good for the fishery? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Well,
I believe that the study missed the mark. Shouldn't we be comparing culled fish with non-culled fish? What is the impact of catching 4 fish on Green Bay by 11 am and keeping them in your livewell all day while you drive around to other spots versus culled fish? What is the mortality rate of those fish caught at 2 pm and kept? If you culled, what was the mortality rate of the fish you released from your livewell when you upgraded? Isn't this what we are supposed to be comparing? Will the study compare the rates of tournaments that do not cull versus those that did? They say: “Mortality associated with the culling of bass was estimated by simulating the conditions experienced by bass during a tournament day. This was accomplished using controlled angling and culling activities by volunteer anglers simulating culling that occurs during a real tournament. Actual tournaments were not used in this experiment so as to not interfere with the tournament proper.” They do not go into greater detail to see if they compare culled versus non-culled fish. I guess I’ll need to see the full version to make that assessment. Does catching a fish and then transporting it to a pen do a good job representing the released fish on the lake/river location?
They also say: “Given the limited data, culling appeared to have a lesser impact on bass tournament mortality compared to the impacts of water temperature and LMBV.” Does this mean that the real culprit is LMBV and water temps over 80 degrees? If so, why would culling be denied?
It looks like the biggest reason to deny culling is because people do not like it. Since when does the DNR create rules by popular opinion? I thought that making DNR rules/laws was supposed be done by scientific evidence not popular opinion? Leave that to the politicians.
/ | |
| | |
| While I understand some of the things you are saying, I missed a lot of them.
1) if culling fish had zero impact then it would'nt even be an issue.
Each fish caught many vary so much as to place,time,depth and how they were handled as well as how hard they were driven or beat up in a livewell.
2) The amount of money to study each fish caught would break the bank!
Where would all this money come from? They can't even get enough money for staff and stocking programs.
3) The DNR could just set tour events for only a few lakes and only during a time that will ensure the best release results, however we know thats not what this is about.
This is about making everyone happy, and it is and always will be political. DNR funding comes from everyone, not just tour anglers. For every tour angler there are 10,000 anglers. I have learned to live with the facts, that most people don't care if you fish a lake. They care if you get speical treatments or if they see harmful effects from a tournament. You can educate the public and even show them how little of an impact an event may have, but they only see one thing.
Studies like these are rare and can only break the surface as to what really happens.
There are reasons we have closed seasons and limits and even no-cull laws. I don't consider it a big deal to play on the safe side and keep these laws in place. I think that fishing is good as of late and most of that is due to the fact that people are using CPR. For the very small tournament world culling is ideal, but remember it's just a small part of the anglers in the country.
Also it's the "pro" culling groups that are or started making this political, using economic impacts and everything else. Rather than just a simple impact of culling, yet they don't have the funds to prove it one way or the other, either. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "Shouldn't we be comparing culled fish with non-culled fish?"
Good point, but how do you do that? If I release a fish, its gone and no one will ever know what happened to it.
Personally, I don't have a problem with culling. I don't believe it would have an impact on our fisheries in the vast majority of situations and it might actually improve the release rate at some tournaments. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| You are right Dennis but untill RFID tags become common place and cheap these types of studies are not afordable.
Lets take a step back in time and imagine that there were NO laws and No one fished.
All of a sudden you get dropped into todays opportunities and had to develop these laws for the masses. Lets assume these laws would be for everyone, and all species. The control would be bag and posession limits.
Would you allow culling?
I know I wouldn't! I have known more than my share of idiots in my lifetime and many of them would be throwing back dead fish for larger ones. Am I really the only one to know people like that or are the rest of you lost in your little world? Maybe I need to start hanging with the a different crowd?
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| I am reading some very interesting comments regarding the culling issue.
This is an issue with hight visibility in the public eye and the studies I run across are about bass, which have there own pecularities vs other species.
There is enough fodder and open ended questions arising out of the Wiscosnin Bass Study to argue about for years. For me, it is simple.
No Culling:
The possesion bag limits are such, that a legal livewell of fish should be enough for anyone to find their fish.
For live release tournaments, limits, when applied to all, are fair for all.
All the slot tourneys around the country do not seem to stop the PWT and others from having their tourneys at those locations.
Does and will everyone abide by the rules: I can only say anecdotally that some will cheat, the same as the non-tourney angler may cull or overbag.
Bottom line is we have a great fishery and the DNR seems to be doing a fine job.
B.A.S.S and others like it will come and play by our rules or go elsewhere. That is their call. FLW and PWT walleye forums seem to do just find under our system.
It ain't broken, so why waste time fixing it.
Take care,
Jim O
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | For those of you who feel compelled to support this study and report and to argue or criticize my “harsh” characterization, I will draw your attention to the very study itself.
First, scientific studies and experiments need to have samples and data bases large enough to ensure that conclusions are not drawn based on anomalous data (one time or small samplings). Control groups and test groups and blind parallel test need to be conducted. That is what makes the results of a study believeable and therefore valuable and useful. Next, “assumptions” must be at least “anecdotally" sound or better yet statistically developed (in other words not a “guesstimate”). Also, conclusions must emanate from the data not from further guesses or estimates.
I refer you to page 5 of the report. They DNR chose seven tournaments to study to obtain data. So, some support for relying on more than one study can de drawn from that choice. However, the study did not generate relaible data from seven, six, or even five tournaments. From the report, I quote;
“In this study initial mortality rates were very low and delayed mortality rates were quite variable. Mortality appeared to be related to water temperature. In three tournaments held when water temperatures were low, mortalities were very low resulting in estimated total mortality of less than 1%. In three tournaments held when water temperatures were high, …initial, delayed and reference mortalities were substantially higher. Due to high reference mortality in two of the three warm water tournaments…it was not possible to reliably estimate tournament-associated delayed mortality. LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality.”
Let’s dissect that statement, these are after all the DNR’s own “statements”.
1) Let’s examine “delayed mortality rates were quite variable”…At page 4 the study reveals that delayed mortality data for LMB ranged from 0-75% and 0-52.2% for SMB… I would agree that that was quite a range. Of course, then there is the “reference mortality… which is also stated at page four to have been 0-86.8% for LMB and 0-26.9% for SMB.
In the one particular case you will see that the mortality rates from the reference group of fish was higher than the tournament held fish. In other words, over 85% of the non-handled (reference) fish died while in the DNR pens and ony 55% of the tournament handled fish died. Does that not justify some skepticism about methodology. The DNR “handled” this circumstance by simply ignoring the results from that tournament. Who is to say that their handling of the tournament associated fish in another location at another time did not have some effect on the fish mortality. If they killed over 85% of the non-handled fish by their study methods how many of the handled fish at any one given site were killed by their handling of them.
2)Here is what the DNR said of their own study…. From seven opportunities to gather date…“Due to the high reference mortality in two of the three warm water tournaments…it was not possible to reliably estimate tournament-associated delayed mortality. LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality.”
In other words, as they stated, “LaCrosse 2006 provided the only reliable estimate of tournament-associated mortality” One tournament … one set of “selected” data (Why was it selected… maybe because it “fit” a preconceived result. (There is support for this supposition in earlier statements about this study being in line with other studies…so it could be that the one data set that “fit” other studies was selected).
3) With regard to the simulated culling, at page six the data is discussed… they had 0% mortality of handled and non-handled bass at one location and an “adjusted” mortality of 16% at the other. So, again, two widely different results, but only two data sets were relied on to draw conclusions…
When one or two data sets, no “blind” separate data sets (that is where two or more teams are independently conducting the same experiments for control and test circumstances), simulations, and assumptions are the basis for conclusions, yes, I am justified in calling the whole thing amateurish.
Go back and re-read pages four through six. Tell me what I have missed or misstated. Then, if after that you are not somewhat less than convinced that this is not all that “scientific”… let me know and I will let you talk to some real “scientists” who do real world testing every day. Maybe they can convince you that this is “voodoo” not science.
As well meaning and sincere as the participants may have been…it does not alter the stark reality of their own statement… the reults were drawn from “only” one tournament. And, their own admissions of wildly variable results…. Reference groups with higher mortality than test groups…all of it taken as a whole call their methodology into question beyond any doubt in my mind.
| |
| | |
| I guess I'm still trying to figure out what your gripe here is? I understand that any data based from a one year study would not be "the benchmark" of all data.
The early season events, for bass atleast have guys beating docks and catching fish in cool to cold water in less than 10' of water. The Summer events have fish taken in all depths at different times of the day. These fish are then put into wells drawing water based on surface temps.
So I guess I'm not sure what the problem is? Is it that they don't allow culling or the fact they don't have enough data from a 1 year study of a few events? Or is it that based on the little knowledge they have come up with they would'nt change the laws for a few bass tournaments?
I guess I'm missing your motive as to what exactly you want them to do and why. I guess I don't understand what your solution would be? I'm sure no matter what they come up with, some group or tour will not be happy. Just who are they really supposed to please? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Gordy,
They (the DNR) are not supposed to "please" anybody... That is a separate issue...a "bias" may or may not exist.
My point is very clear... Do not try to tell us that they have results from a scientific study... They don't. It was not "scientific". They have some "conclusions" that they put forth... But, those conclusions are not supported by any scientific data worth referencing.
The big picture is this... The DNR should propose rules based on science or at least be intellectually honest and say that the rule is not based on science but is rather an appeasement to "reactions" or "prejudice". Would you want your Doctor to select treatments or pharmaceuticals baseds on sales pitches or rather based on clinical trials that somewhat assure a likely result. This is the same thing.
Right now I see this as touting a "position paper", buttressing up an agenda while trying to sell the big lie that it is a scientific report.
If the DNR wants to take a position against culling, say so and say that it is because of negative opinions against culling. But, do not shake this study in my face and say that the results are scientific proof that culling is bad for the fish.
Read again, what I posted and analyzed. This was a "study" that actually consists of the published data from one isolated tournament being used as proof of facts that could be stated as "scientifically supported conclusions"
Lets say this is somewhat analogous.... Set up seven tests... measure the time it takes for a determined amount of water to evaporate... Now, each time you measure the time, have the container be shaped differently so that the surface area is never the same, sometimes have the container out in the sun... and sometimes have it it in the shade... Then look at your "results"... throw six of the seven results away because... well one time you forgot to watch the container and so you forgot to stop the timer... another time you put out hot water so that may have affected the results so ignore that test... get down to one test where you "think" all the conditions were "average" (nothing "goofy" happened) and then publish the results of that one test as proof thatg water evaporates... every time... at the same rate as that one experiment.
Now, some other scientist will come along and if your tests were scientific he should be able to duplicate your results... Except he won't except by accident since he won't know whether you used a tall skinny bottle or big flat pie pan to hold the water... he won't know what the air temperature and relaitive humidity on the day you did your test so he won't be able to duplicate that either.. in total he will not be able to validate your data so he will conclude that your test was not scientifically done. Now, I know that that is an over simplification but it is the heart of my harsh criticism. The "study" was not scientific, so therefore the displayed data and by implication, the results and conclusions are not "proven".
If it isn't scientific it is junk! Period!
It might be "great" in your opinion because the authors conclude that they agree with you that culling is bad.. Or, if you hope that culling will be allowed you won't like the study. Those are emotional reactions. But, those emotional reactions do not influence the cold hard truth that the study is not worth anything as a "scientific" study. That is my point. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| HG, I beg to differ, your not seeing all the data! Although they were forced to do a study of something that couldn't be done.
(regarding your item 1) The collection methods were the same, mother nature had an affect and some bodies of water showed results of LMBV. These are all factors that were not known and delt with accordingly. Had mother nature not whipped up a big storm or LMBV not been a factor more similar data might have been obtained. If you followed each study as it took place you might understand the data that was gathered. They used 7 events, (were supposed to use 8) and remember they were forced to analize these tourneys by the legislature, and develop their own plan. The data collection was discussed by various people from many agencies/companies/groups. The data is available so feel free to review it! You might come to the same conclusions. But unless someone is going to fork over another 100k to do 8 more we won't be able to compare that data to anything else! I understand you being skeptical but calling it amatureish is wrong.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee...
I read the report summary... The DNR discarded every study but one... Their own words. One sample does not make a study. As I said, the best of intentions do not alter the true facts. They draw their conclusions from one tournament. Otherwise, what does the language on the page I quote mean. The word "only" is the word they use.
If you do not like "amateurish" try "incomplete", "inconclusive", or some other indication of a study that did not succeed. Maybe a "failed" good faith attempt. But then I do not believe they intended to do a complete study. I believe they intended to conclude a result and wrote a repiort to that goal. That is how skeptical I am.
Edited by hgmeyer 3/20/2007 11:46 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Stick to your guns Greg. You're doing a great job. IMHO, amateurish is not too strong of a word.
I waited patiently for this report with an open mind. I'm in favor of what is best for the fish. My gut feeling told me that culling may actually decrease mortality. Green Bay was involved with my thought process because of the long runs in big waves. Having a fish in the livewell all day beats it up. I would think that culling would allow the opportunity to spend less time in the livewell. I believe that most tournament-associated mortality occurs because of how the fish are handled by the tournament organization or long runs. I believe that my fish are healthy when released from my livewell after spending a short time there. I wanted to see the scientific evidence of either supporting or rejecting this gut feeling.
After reading this report, I have more questions not less. That's not how it is supposed to work after a study.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee:
I wanted to reply to your concern about meat hogs. You state:
I have known more than my share of idiots in my lifetime and many of them would be throwing back dead fish for larger ones. Am I really the only one to know people like that or are the rest of you lost in your little world? Maybe I need to start hanging with the a different crowd?
I would have been very worried about this mentality 10-15 years ago. But with the education on catch and release and the health risks associated with eating big fish, I believe that most people enjoy their day on the water and take what they can eat for one meal. Are there meat hogs out there, of course. But they are the minority now and some of these people are already breaking the law. I may be naive but if people had a choice at culling, I believe that many would choose smaller fish for eating, not larger. Wouldn’t this help the fishery by keeping the important spawners in the system?
| |
| | |
| Thanks for posting Tyee - I agree, it is an interesting read.
I do find it interesting the delayed mortality when water temp's are low, was virtually non-existent.
I find it interesting that there is such a wide spread between Large Mouth Bass and Small Mouth Bass. It makes me wonder what the results would be for Walleye, and supports the idea that different species will yeild different results. So making a broad sweeping rule for all tournaments based on Bass results would not be a position to support.
I also find it interesting the bass were held for such a long period of time. I think the other comments about 'pen' mortaility would be valid. How long does a fish have to live until it didn't die because of a tournament? 5 days is a long time.
I have to admit I kind of laughed at the visual I imaginged - they couldn't tell how many fish died when a muskrat chewed a hole in the pen and the fish all swam away...
Well, if they swam away - were they dead????? LOL!!!!
Thanks for posting. Although I will admit I'm not certain what the extreme concern is. Fish die from CNR of many forms in warm water conditions - so????
Lot's of states make tourney's in the summer months catch and kill tourneys - it works. I never really did understand where this jumps to tournaments will no longer be allowed. Looking forward to discussing with ya the next time we go fishing.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Your entitled to your opinion Greg.
Controls were used. Sample sizes were large enough at each event to generate a high statistical degree of confidence in the results tabulated. The tests were done according to the same protocol used in many other similiar experiments. Just because you don't know how these things are typically done does not render them meaningless to everyone.
That said, I find it really hard to believe the DNR stated anything in this study that anyone who fishes doesn't already know - when the water temperature goes up, fish don't live as long in a livewell.
But so what? Tournament mortality is only loosely related to the culling issue and I don't have a problem with culling. Until someone is able to show me that tournament anglers do significant damage to a fishery, I don't feel anyone has the right to restrict them.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Dennis, I have to agree to a point, Yes C&R has been improving especially in the tournament setting but I don't think it has spread to the general public as much as you think at least not walleyes.
I would also like to say that I do not believe culling in tournamnets would negatively impact the resource be it for Bass, Musky walleyes or what ever species would be sought after. (thats a pretty bold statement for me after all these years on the topic. Also, for the record, I'm not against catch and kill tourneys on a body of water that can support it)
BUT and that is a BIG BUT, Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Gander! If the culling/sorting law were to be abolished for ALL I do believe the general public WOULD impact the fishery!
There are SOOOOOO many people than most would like to believe that would cull the smaller weaker fish for a larger one. Especially on northern waters where the bag limits are lower. Just go to any resort up north and look at the fish cleaning stations! For example, I fish a lake up north that has a limit of 2 eyes and a minimum length of 15". I'm there for the weekend and catch lots of fish but heck I can take home 26" how many 15" do you think I need to switch out in the well to get a couple of hogs? why not, these are stocked anyway????????
Hell the DNR busted a guy the other night in Depere with over 30 eyes in his well, how many don't they catch?!!!!!!!!!! (different topic I know but pisses me off)
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 3/21/2007 5:10 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Brad,
You are incorrect in almost every one of your statements....
Starting with; "Just because you don't know how these things are typically done does not render them meaningless to everyone. " I do know exactly how truly scientific testing is to be conducted. I trained in a large metropolitan police department crime lab. A very serious place for mistakes to be avoided. So, my knowledge of truly accurate scientific protocols is really quite extensive, just old now. But, the basics haven't changed.
You state there were controls... What kind... Where were the blind parallel studies conducted...same locations... fine... two different teams... No, because there were none.
Statistically large samples... Answer this... How many "site/event" studies does this report state it finds reliable? Do you see anything different than I do? The report states "only" one! And that was "annointed" as viable by an opinion by the author(s) because it paralleled previous studies. Wishing it so, won't make it so in this instance.
This is the last time I feel the need to try to point people to the truth. You want to "argue" the point with me, at least take the time to quote specifics in the study... not your opinions or worse, assumptions and wishes that are not there. Push some facts at me, not conjecture. My facts are simple, the DNR indicts their own report. Only one event had "reliable" data... that is no study. The culling simulation...oh please!!!
Folks, this is a serious issue. Mark my words. You are going to see this study quoted as "gospel" for all sorts of ridiculous new regulations. They might as well quote some random tarot cards along with this... We have a right to demand better.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "I do know exactly how truly scientific testing is to be conducted."
No, you don't. If you did, you would understand that while this is a small study, it does have some value. I'm not suggestting that this study should be used as a basis for anything, leastwise new and unnecessary regulations. But there are some positives from this.
You ask for a blind (I assume you mean a control group). The was a control as the DNR had two groups of fish in pens- one that was caught by the tournament anglers and a group the DNR captured prior to the events. There is more than one way to demonstrate control in a study.
You state that only one of the tournaments yeilded reliable results - the study clearly states that reliable results from all three events when the water was below 80, but only one of the three events when the temperature was over 80. The simulated tournaments had results from two of the three events.
You mock the simulated culling studies - I ask again, what would you suggest (SPECIFICALLY) to accomplish such a task? The DNR stated that "Given the limited data, culling appeared to have a lesser impact on bass tournament mortality compared to the impacts of water temperature and LMBV." To me, that's positive news. Yes, more studies would be great and a larger sample size does add a greater degree of confidence to the results. However, I don't feel that is necessary as the information already available has shown all that I need - tournaments don't harm fisheries. The discussion should end with that.
Regarding the public perception of culling, DNR reported that "If culling did not harm the fishery.... then it was acceptable". They also indicated that tournament boats were not a problem for almost 8 in 10 people using the water for recreation and that personal watercraft, speed boaters, and water ski'ers were more of a concern than tournament boaters.
No one has stated that this small study has answered all of the questions regarding this issue. We should be concerned regarding how this will be interpretted, but there clearly are many more positives in this than negatives. I contend that we will all be better served by focusing on the positives instead of trying to dismiss the entire study. Like it or not, this IS how studies like this have been conducted in the past and it is where future studies will start. If you have a better method, I (and the DNR) would love to hear about it. Further, having spoke with several of the people from the DNR who were responsible for this project, I can assure you of one thing - you do more harm to our cause than good by behaving in this fashion. | |
| | |
| This isn't CSI WI. we are talking about here. We are talking about a small study as to some effects of culling. Other States have held studies also, in the end they find similar results. Fish that are caught and released to the waters right away stand a better chance of living a healthy life and are able to be re-caught by other anglers. These are simple facts, the water temps mean a lot to all studies as well as how fish are handled.
This isn't rocket sceince it's a simple study that is affordable to the fish and game departments across the country, they don't have unlimited resources to have a 10 year study of every fish in every tourney studied and just what effects it has on them.
Bottomline is do people really need to cull? Tour people want it, but since "we" make up less than 1/100th of the total anglers is it nessesary for everyone to have culling rights? I say no and it's worked else where to better fish populations as well as sizes.
I understand some folks thoughts, this just more regs put on us to tighten the grip. However I have to young sons and I would like nothing more than to have great fishable waters when they are out on their own in life and choose to use them. I understand how much money the States alot towards stocking programs and how these funds are not keeping up with demand. I just wonder how much is enough? How many fish do people need to kill a year to satisfy their needs? I have a fimily of 4 and we may, in a years time eat 6 meals of fish (walleye only) and 3 17" fish can cover a meal, so 18 fish a year is plenty. Most years I take less than 10. It's simple if you ask me, choose a slot size of the fish you would eat and stick to it. If you don't catch the fish in the slot so be it, go the next week to a lake that has those fish and keep some if you want to eat them.
There is NO reason to cull on a lake like Green Bay (other tahn tournament weights) so why have a culling law? The folks that sport fish the area, i'm sure enjoy catching large fish and could always catch smaller ones if they are looking for eaters. Start culling and I will bet you end up with a solt size within 4 years! Thats how it has worked everywhere else these days. LEAVE it alone, theres NO need to cull whether it's sport or tour fishing. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Gordy -
The study stated that 17% of people survey (supposedly a representative cross section of all WI anglers) fish tournaments of one kind or another.
I understand the emotional plea to "think of the children" on items like this, but tournament anglers don't have any significant impact on fish populations in almost all cases. I have two young children as well and I certainly want them to be able to enjoy our lakes and rivers as much as I do. We've already made a 1/2 dozen trips down to the river and will probably be in the boat for a while this weekend.
As far as stocking goes, I'm 99% certain that no walleye are stocked in Green Bay or the Mississippi River. I know for fact that no walleye are stocked in Winnebago. Those bodies of water are simply too big for any type of cost effective stocking program to have an effect. I mention those 3 bodies of water because I would be that 75% or more of all walleye tournaments are held one of those three systems. | |
| | |
| Since you asked one question, I will respond to that...
A "blind" study is where two (or more) independent teams are conducting the same study, independent of eac other... If, as they should, obtain substantially simi;ar results, they verify each other... on the other hand... a "control" group" is, as far as possible, an untreated/untested group (in this case) or sample that the tested group or sample is compared to...
You should not have widely varying survival rates (in this study) of your control group. Otherwise, if you do experience unpredicted/unsuspected changes in your control group your whole protocol is suspect... An simple example, bacterial growth... One "uncontaminated" petri dish should show the same minimal (actual nonexistent) bacterial growth of untreated media ... If on the other hand, your untreated media experiences massive or unexpected bacterial growth you can conclude that your experiment is "bad"... what was growing from what?
Here, the unhandled fish... the "control" groups experienced widely varying degrees of mortality... So, I conclude there were problems with the methodology. If you cannot predict, and rely on, the "control group" how can you draw any conclusions from the changes in the tested group... What caused the changes... something unknown or unexpected that changed the control group of your tested change... Now do you see that issue?
And, no it is not CSI Wisconsin... but "real scientific principles" are either used or trhey are not used... That is a simple equation. | |
| | |
| Guys, this isn't personal... First, I don't know anything... then I know too much... I don't disagree that this was underfunded, rushed to a conclusion, maintained by people who very seriously tried to do "right" and meant well... all probable.
But, there are "tried and true" research methods, a recognized body of requirements for "scientific" research. You have either met the minimal threshhold or you haven't. If you haven't then your study (experiment) is not worthy of the title of "reliable". I am not "dissing" the people, only the result. Maybe they were not given the resources to do it correctly, then state that... But, do not wrap an unscientific study in a cloak of reliability when it is not. You only confuse the issue and ultimately will embarass the DNR by being shown to be less than intellectually honest in publishing the results are something they are not.
Now, I will try to get some currently practicing research scientists to comment so that I am not perceived as the lone voice in the wilderness.
Brad, as I said, you mark my words, someone will begin to tout this as the "most recent accurate indictment of tournament fishing"... You will regret ever seeing this... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I asked you for a better methodology, not your definition of a blind and control group.
If the conditions of the mortality studies were exactly the same and the control group results varied greatly, that would cast doubt on the validity of the data. Since the conditions were NOT held constant (different bodies of water, different water temps, et.al.) the fact that the control groups mortality varied is not to be unexpected and it certainly doesn't come as much of a surprise. | |
| | |
| The control group mortality should not vary widely... What are the fish dying from... being a control group fish? And, why in one instance did the control group have a higher mortality than the test group...?
And, again, they only used one study... that is what they say... not what you think... what they say ... The word they use is "only".,.. Because in their other "0" tests they had "0" mortality so they conclude well that doesn't get us anywhere, or something...
And, without blind tests they are no tests... period! You don't validate your own data... That is a high school science project not a scientific study... | |
| | |
| You are not looking at this slowly... Why are the control group fish dying? From being penned...? The control group fish are unhandled (not caught or weighed, I hope)... Why are they dying? That is one question that causes me some grave concerns... So, no, regardless of conditions, the control group fish should be experiencing mortality similar to "in the wild"... Ah, but you see you are quick to accept "mortality" in those fish... well what is killing them? I will beat that issue to death... And, why in one instance higher than the handled fish? It's like too much bacteria appearing in the uncontaminated petri dish... The study can't identify it but thare is at least one factor at issue here un identified.
Finally, it isn't my job to suggest better methodology... I'm not trying to prove a point...
I'm just stating a fact, the methodology used does not stand scientific scrutiny.
I'm done, this is going nowhere... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I agree we should drop it. This isn't personal with me. I just don't agree with your opinions and you don't agree with my facts :0... j/k
One last point - consider a clinical study for something like a weight loss drug. One group would get the drug, a control group would get either a placebo or nothing at all. Suppose the test group showed an average weight loss of 15 pounds. If the control group lost 5 pounds, would you agree that the drug worked? How is this diffferent?
Like you, I fear this issue if far from over. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| Once again, a very spirited and informative thread.
Greg: I am with you regarding basing policy on bad or little science. If I read you right, you seem to feel there is an anti-culling agenda being promoted by the DNR. I agree, it should be based on science. I also feel that until culling is verified as a non issue to the resource, let us stay the course as a no cull state.
What possible harm can come from keeping a no cull policy? No matter if sport fishers or tourney fishers, we all play by the same rules. I do not get the problem.
I do not want to see fish that are bashed around in livewells for hours at a time randomly culled from the livewell. We all know how tough this is on fish, especially in warmer periods. At least the CR tournaments know they are eating the ones that won't swim.
Take care,
Jim O | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Fayram, Andrew - DNR" wrote: Hi, A number of you have contacted me about when the proposed rules would be available and what they were likely to contain. I talked to Mike Staggs and we are both in agreement that there is at least a reasonable chance that the new Secretary may want to have some time to consider the public input that has been accumulated and may want input into the proposed rules. So, the version that gets presented to the NRB may be somewhat different than what we've been putting together. That is part of the reason that the decision was made to delay the presentation to the NRB until December. I would anticipate the final version of the proposed rules will be available a month or more in advance of the NRB meeting (i.e. November 5th or so). At that point, I'll send you a copy of the "green sheet" signed by the secretary which will include the entire proposed rule package. But, below is a list of some of the general ideas that DNR Fisheries is planning on talking to the Secretary about that differ from the previously proposed rules. 1) Fees. The NRB has consistently stated that they feel that the cost of administering the tournament program should be assumed by the people involved in tournament fishing and that the cost of the Bass Fishing Tournament Pilot Program be recovered. We are considering having the cost of administering the program and recovery of the Bass Fishing Tournament pilot program funds be passed on to both the tournament organizers and the tournament participants. All the fees we are considering are much lower than those mentioned in the previous proposals, primarily because we had new information on the number of participants. The fee to the organizer will depend on the format and will be relatively low for those tournaments whose proceeds are not given to the participants (i.e. charity type events) and somewhat higher for those that give out relatively large prizes or are catch-hold-release format. In addition, the recovery of the cost of the Bass Fishing Tournament Pilot Program would be accomplished by a surcharge to the tournament organizers based on the number of participants for "catch-hold-release" tournaments that target bass species for a period of six years. The remainder of the cost of administering the program would be recovered by a "tournament stamp" for each participant that is good for one year (just like a fishing license). 2) Tournament application process. The "open window" for tournament applications has been moved up to April 1st through June 30th in the year prior to the tournament. Final decisions by August 1st. If limits are not reached, organizers can still apply for a permit up to 30 days prior to the tournament. Still a lottery if limits on particular waterbodies is reached. 3) July-August "catch-hold-release" ban. Instead of a ban, we have been discussing a reduction in the daily bag limit to 3 (on waters that usually have a bag limit higher than 3) for walleye and bass species for "catch-hold-release" tournaments based on the time periods that some waters in Wisconsin are likely to have temperatures above levels where increased indirect mortality may occur. Those dates are approximately the first week of July through the middle of August (25 C) for bass and the middle of June to the first week of September for walleye (21 C). 4) Limits on the size and number of tournaments. Pretty much the same with the exception that tournaments on lakes chains. In these cases, the tournament organizer picks a particular lake in the chain where the weigh-in or primary fishing activity takes place for the permit, although anglers can still fish the entire chain. The number of tournament permits available will be based on the acreage of that particular lake rather than summing the acreage of all of the lakes. 5) Aquatic Invasive Species Plan. Given that there are other efforts and regulations related to AIS (including the VHS rules), we are considering dropping the additional submission of a AIS plan from the tournament organizers. However, the organizer still would need to advise participants of recommended procedures to clean boats and also the person who issues the permit may require additional conditions to prevent the spread of AIS . 5) Other restrictions. The provisions that a fisheries biologist may add to the permit if the format is "catch-hold-release" include redistribution of fish, restriction on the area that can be fished to reduce the time that fish are held in live wells, and the distance fish are transported to the weigh-in site. These conditions would be stated when the permit was issued. Those seem to be the biggest changes from the previous rules. As I stated previously, any or all of these may change depending on what the Secretary wants to do. Let me know if you have additional questions.
Good luck
Tyee
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| This is fantastic (insert sarcasm here). So all this info on what's sound for the fish population will be left to uninformed public opinion and will result in a glorified revenue path for ????, not exactly sure where this money will go, other than to "administer" tournament permits.
What a crock of something that stinks. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| I see a future in WI, where there will be fewer big name tourneys, fewer little guy tourneys, and none in June through August. I don't think there is any way the FLW or PWT is going to have a catch and kill tourney on Bago, and probably Green Bay, too. Even though he Erie tourneys are all catch and kill, that is a different mindset out there.
I still don't think they are listening to us, the tourney anglers. Overwhelming oppostion to the proposed rules last year, I thought this thing had died on the vine. The biggest thing I see in this new proposal is having the Bass guys pay for the study done during the Bass tourney. Other than that, I'm still opposed to more regulation/Fees. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | translation. BEND OVER@! ,, thank you all tournament fisherman,,, thanks for letting us know about your noumbers of anglers opposed to all this,, thanks for collecting all the data, noumbers of participants, noumers of fish caught , noumbers released, for this we would like to offer you a manditory, commemoritive stamp,,, and some other fees that will be thaught of at a not so later date... let your tounament director know we will be in touch,,, if you know what i mean! baaaaahaaaaaaa ,,,, and make sure you thank your freinds at walleyes for tommorrow and the other non profit groups out there that take care of your fishery so we dont have too... i know most of your members are tourny anglers also , guess there will be a little less of a donation this year.. thanks for volenteerign your time at these tournaments to take care of the fish , make sure that tuesday night bass club and sheboygan walleye club know we will be stopping by also... bbbahhaaaaaaaa ,,, oh and that little event you put on for the physicaly and mentaly chalenged and youth... tourny chairity thing.... ya ,,, we look forward to working togather with them to get our cut... JOE bucks BAr and grill your entry fee of 35 bux will have to go up to 60/boat... sorry the payout might have to go down a bit though.... and about that 50/50 raffle? ... can you send me the noumbers... im thinkin 33.3/33.3/33.3 3way split sounds good to us.babahhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh guess you guys will have to compete with the local pompon squad and have a car wash or something..... wait........ car washes cause bubbles to run into our water ways.... hmmmm? how many car washes are in the state of wisconsin in a year for fundraising ? hmmmm? hey guys thanks for another great idia ... i gotta go.... lol bahahhahahhhaaaaa pompon girls , local marching bands, cool aid stands on the corner.... so much work so little time.. baaaaahahhhhhhaa | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Remember to thank the Wisconsin State Bass Federation for opening the door on this. If it wasn't for their hard work getting the original study back-doored into law, this probably wouldn't have happened. Not yet anyway.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| A great reminder! We have to live with it and accept it. In the past most of you were in favor of some regulation. Unfortunately the Bass guys wern't happy with being self governed and big bucks got in the way of their decission making. I say thank you to them as, Personally, Regulation IS needed. Fortunately for us the DNR looks out for the resource first and not what we have to say as there are so many groups they hear from with so many differing opinions. It may not be the best but it is deffinately better than nothing!
As for blaming the DNR...I think you better take a look in the mirror first, they didn't do this!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Caka in... Caka out! As I said, previously, this is an advancing agenda, not science.
I will be letting all of the businesses I "used" to use know that I will not be doing so when this tournament fee is imposed, not this time. I will not bend over and accept the fee (stamp).
I figure that I spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000 in Wisconsin each year. They don't want it, they don't need it, obviously. | |
| | |
| "We have to live with it and accept it."
No, we don't. None of this is law.
DNR is supposed to help manage the resources, this has little or nothing to do with maintaining the resource. Controlling tournaments will have ZERO effect on the fishable populations of 99.9% of all bodies of water that have tournaments.
Teaching the 1000's of anglers on the water that fish a lot about selective harvest and getting them to obey the possession limit would have more of an impact.
Better still, taking steps to improve habitat on our lakes and streams would be a much of much greater impact. Taking money from clubs like Otter Street or organizations like Walleye's For Tomorrow makes no sense to me. | |
| | |
| No matter what happens, someone is going to be angry but the FACT remains that some sort of regulation IS needed. Without it the proliferation of the self promoting or "bar" tournaments will continue to grow beyond what is good for tourism and the resource in general. There is room and a need for tournaments, but unregulated, they can have a negative effect for all but a focused few. I just wish the people "in the know", not politicians, were setting the rules, although some of the rules as I see them make perfect sense. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| How does a bar tourney affect tourism negatively? Heck, I live here, and I don't know 1/10th of the bar tourneys on just the Bago chain, much less all the other bodies of water in the state. They certainly don't bother me, or anyone else I know, for that mater. I think if this goes forward, it will have a negative impact on tyourism, and the almighty dollar spent here in WI.
We have regulations in place right now. Pay a fee, and get a permit. Why do we need increased regulation over that? They say part of the increased fees is to pay for the expense of the DNR being at tourneys? I've rarely seen the DNR at any tourneys.
And yes, while this is not law yet, and probably won't be in place for 2008, it does certainly appear that that this state has an agenda, and will not be swayed by overwhelming opposition and common sense. This is a bad set of regulations, and I will oppose it every chance I get. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Shep,
This entire effort was an unfunded mandate from the legislature to the DNR forced by lake Associations, Jet ski folks, and the like. The DNR freely admits there is little biological effect from tournaments. This is a social issue, and the DNR has been asked to have biologists and scientists handle a purely political Public Relations water use issue.
The DNR spent money they did not have, and now have to 'recover' that $90K or so. Not their fault, as I said above. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Very right you are, Steve. IT's a social issue.
But it's still a bunch of BS, what started out as a culling study on fish mortality has ended as a proposal to implement a tournament stamp and tournament fee for permits. If it was purly to recover the 90K investment, I wouldn't have such a large complaint. But I have grave doubts that it'll be elminated after the 90K is recovered. and in no way is it worded that way.
IF, this goes through. I believe if you paid extra that day to fish a tournament. Then you are more entitled to the water. So all you recreational guys, get the HE** outta my way!!!!!  | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "FACT remains that some sort of regulation IS needed"
That is your opinion, not fact. A fact is something like "mortality from tournaments has shown no negative effects of the fishable population of this body of water" or something like "doc has a negative view of bar owners that run fishing tournaments".
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | hahahahaahahahah Jayman, when the public see's you coming they already run for there lives.
I know where Doc is coming from about Bar owners and tournaments on the wolf river. How does it hurt tourism? Well, if one person has a bad taste from being driven to close to they may never come back and spend there money in our towns. I work and live on the river. I have been run next to by locals, out-of-towners, tournament guys, pleasure boaters, jet ski's, and just about everyone else who does not fit these descriptions.
So, with that being said, If the DNR Decides to impose a fee for the tournament guy, who, is using the natural resource for his possible money gain, and the tournament director who is using it for his money gain, I would like to attach a rider to the bill.
I propose we implement another user fee for the Guides. They show people how to catch fish on my waters and then allow them to keep and kill everything. We try to perform catch and release. I ask that all business owners pay another user fee as the people who are spending money at the establishments are using the water and that is of course wrong. I ask that the cities that line our water ways pay the dnr yet another fee because they charge a fee to launch boats into a natural resource.
Any others. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Kinda funny that you cite that example, Stacker, of people running too close on the river. You and I, as locals, kind of understand what is common courtesy of either no wake or on plane to reduce the huge wake vs the half on plane going slow and throwing the biggest wake you can. Which many people do, but don't realize is more of a discourtesy.
I have personally had Doc blow by my boat in the NL area in a tighter stretch of the river only about 10-15' off the side of my boat. I never complained and don't think twice about it. But to the average tourist they may have a different perception.
So with that said, How are these new tournament regulations going to fix that? How are less bar tournaments going to fix the tourist perception? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | stacker,,stacker the guides already pay extra..... need a licence ,,, and more insurance and they pay taxes just like you and me ... thats the problem,,, add another fee to this to that,,, jet skies cause its not fare to fisherman,,,, thats how they get us ,,, they wait for someone to complain that so and so doesnt have to pay it , then they go get so and so.... the public asked for it to be done... so we did it ,, now pay up..... the river is busy becouse the group that they are attacking is conserned about it and sponsors stocking and management over and above what the state investes ,, ie walleyes for tommorow... if you build a fishery they will come.. lots of people ,,, lots of property sold lots of everything... if there were no fish you would be able to sit in your boat and not have anyone blow by you for a week, what about local boat dealers that are on the waters edge... should they pay extra cause there running service tests up and down the river . i think they should pay extra too.. wait wait.... im sure they already get a tax bill that would make our heads spin.... but hey why not add an extra grand... what a joke.... devide and conquor thats what they do.... thanx you anti tournament guys who called there congressman... you still have tornaments you always will , just got a bunch of guys to send more to the state that wont go into your natural recources any way.... it will be spent on some consulting firm braught in from out of state to tell us that we should have a state launch pass on our boat trailer in addition to the local ramp pass or fee. oh and they will build a walking path from the middle of nowwhere to some other place that doesnt exist.... no pets allowed no atvs no bikes... no nothing just walking.. and if you you get attacked by wolves or a dingo takes your baby you better not hit it over the head with a stick , or you will spend the rest of your life in the can.... | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Yup, Stacker, I pay $40.00 for Guide license, so I don't see the need for another fee there. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee:
You say: “As for blaming the DNR...I think you better take a look in the mirror first, they didn't do this!”
Please give more detail. They didn’t do what? You say that we (are you referring to tournament fishermen?) should look into the mirror. Okay, I looked into the mirror. I saw the same guy that I always see. I saw someone who releases over 95% of all the fish they catch. I saw someone who has been a member of organizations like Walleye For Tomorrow because I believe in giving back to the resource. I see someone who picks up garbage when he sees it in the water. I see someone who hands out flyers (at his cost) to people concerning the spread of VHS. I also see someone who is no different than the majority of tournament fishermen. As a whole, this group is a very caring part of our society. So what did we do?
Why has this turned into an “us against them” situation? Who are them? Are they the minority of property owners who believe they own the lake because they can afford some land?
What will change to our ecosystem if this new regulation is in place? They talk about reducing the limit from 5 to 3 fish. What’s the impact to the system if this occurs? Where are the facts? Why is this needed? Do we have fisheries that are decimated because of tournaments? What rock have I been hiding under?
Man, my memory must really be bad. I thought that the original research was supposed to find out if culling hurt or helped the fishery. Did we ever get an answer to this? If there is a high mortality rate during July and August would/could culling help this situation? I must be going mad, I thought that this was the same question I asked long ago when people were up in arms about the bass study and the national circuits being allowed to cull.
As far as the comment regarding now “We have to live with it and accept it”. Not yet! Not so fast! Sounds to me like people have real passion about this subject and there has NOT been any new laws passed YET. I would encourage everyone to contact a member of the Natural Resources Board before they review the finished document. They are:
Christine L. Thomas, Chair, (Dean and professor) 715 346 4185
Jonathan P. Ela, (Conservationist, retired from the Sierra Club)Vice Chair, 608 238 8187
John W. Welter, (Attorney) Secretary, 715-831-9565
David Clausen, (Veterinarian)715 268 8131
Gerald M. O'Brien, (Attorney)715 344 0890
Howard D. Poulson, (Farmer)262 495 2439
Jane Wiley, (Community conservation activist)715 359 2475
Or you can go to the next Board Meeting ………. WAIT….. it looks to me like they are railroading this in without giving us a chance to speak. Read the rules below. They say that the Board will not allow public appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
Funny, if I read the thread from TYEE it says they are voting on this in December. The board has no scheduled meeting in November. So, I will assume that they do not want public input. YOU BETTER CALL !!!!
Guidelines for Citizen Participation and Public Appearances at Natural Resources Board Meetings
The Board provides opportunities for citizens to appear before the Board to provide information. Such appearances shall be brief and concise. In order to accommodate as many persons as possible in the allotted time, the Board has established the following guidelines:
B. Citizen Participation - speaking on items that are not on the current Board agenda:
1. Citizen Participation appearances are usually made at 1 p.m. on the day of the Board meeting. When the Board meets at different locations around the state, appearances are accepted every month. When the Board is in Madison, appearances are accepted every other month.
2. The Board will not allow citizen participation appearances on any iteml that is on the Board agenda for public hearing authorization.
3. The Board will not allow citizen participation appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
4. Individuals or organizations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes before the Board, regardless of the number of topics, unless the Board Chairperson limits presentations to 3 minutes. Board members may question citizens following their presentations.
5. The Board encourages individuals to confine their remarks to broad general policy issues rather than the day-to-day operations of the Department of Natural Resources.
6. An organization is limited to two (2) spokespersons on an issue.
7. On complex issues, individuals wishing to appear before the Board are encouraged to mail advance materials that the Board may read to be better informed on the subject in question.
8. No matters that are in current litigation will be brought before the Board during public participation sessions.
C. Public Appearances - speaking on items that are on the current Board agenda:
1. The Board will not allow public appearances on any item that is on the Board agenda for public hearing authorization.
2. The Board will not allow public appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
3. Individuals or organizations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes before the Board, regardless of the number of topics, unless the Board Chairperson limits presentations to 3 minutes. Board members may question citizens following their presentations.
4. The Board encourages individuals to confine their remarks to broad general policy issues rather than the day-to-day operations of the Department of Natural Resources.
5. An organization is limited to two (2) spokespersons on an issue.
6. On complex issues, individuals who wish to appear before the Board are encouraged to mail advance materials that the Board may read to be better informed on the subject in question.
Appearance Deadline
Requests for Citizen Participation and Public Appearances must be made to the Board Executive Staff Assistant no later than 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting.
To schedule an appearance before the Natural Resources Board, contact:
Board Executive Staff Assistant
(608) 267-7420
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | OK OK , I forgot you needed the guides license. so they are out, they already pay. If they have to pay to use a resource, then shouldn't everyone? seems only fair. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| As fisherpeople we already pay a License Fee. How is this different? It's an added revenue for the state, at tournament fisherpeople's expense.
How I choose to fish or what I do with my fish, is my decision not the states and I shouldn't be taxed for it, weather it be ethical or not. There will always be a questioning of ethics.
Dennis, thanks for pointing out the fact that it's getting railroaded in.
and Tyee, "the look in the mirror" statement wreaks of anti-tournament sentiment. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | look, lets just take JUNE , on BAGO alone.... 600 boats /weekend is 1200 stamps sold at 20 bux a piece = 24 thousand alone... then add a fee/entry on each boat thats 600 boats x i dont know 10 $ a boat( or whatever it will be) =6000 bucks times 4 big weekends in june is another 24 grand, this only june and only on bago, and you already have 50 grand collected... add the bay and the wisconsin and mississpi , add the bass anglers, clubs and musky gang,, add add add, and multiply,, out of state participants need to buy a stamp and licence... where does it end? SUNSHINE SAYS IT ALL, CALL CALL CALL and stop this,,, but i cant think of one elected rep that i can call that has the power to stop this,,,, the only one would be our states governor... and lets just guess what he will do? he will make a call, find out that there will be not thousands but a potental million dollars in new revenue.. and do you think he will stop this for us... there are a-lot of sportsman out there that vote.. but we will be sold down the river... im frustrated , of all the hard work guys like sunshine have done , even stacker cares and thats why he speaks up , but the sun is beating down on our can of worms and its starting to stick,,, this sounded cut and dried to me , reading tyees report, on page 2, now what can we do? i still think this should be opened up as a new thread,,, there are too many of our fellow fisherman sitting in a tree stand and not paying attn this time of year... i dont mind getting a knife in my guts but the state sticking it in my back is getting old. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | A guide has a fishing license already, why should he have to buy another? Why is he being singled out? There are 2 ways to look at everything. Think about this, If we can compile a list of "Other sports and activities" That use a natural resource and do not get charged extra fee's, than thay cannot unfairly single out one sport. Ours!! They will need to make a bill that encompasses all activities to a usage stamp. This just may be the way to stop this for now. The other thing is at every destinatination of a tournament, the business' should be notified immediatly about this action. There is one thing for sure, they still listen to business' that will lose money. A direct loss of revenue. If they do this the wrong way, there will be less guys fishing tourneys. There will be more very good walleye fisherman that are just out fishing now and they will be keeping many more fish than what they once did. Alot of down the old hill effects. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | do you have any idea what a walleyesfortommorow could do with that kind of money,,,, try building there own lake ,,, lets start with mendota waubesa, kagonza , and menona, build a big electrical dam, connect it to the wisconsin river. and flood the whole works... stock it plump full of bass for the bass guys muskys for the musky guys, and i dont know , enough walleyes to stock the whole country in 10 years... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | hey stacker thats the point they arent going to cut us a break because of others using the recource... we already pay taxes national local and state... so do they ,, the jet ski power boat , sailing snorkling ,, bank fisherman, corperations on the river, restauaunts , farms , hotels , campgrounds, people who paint bridges and sell there paintings. where will it end , they will just add to the list, and then raise the cost of the fees(taxation without representation) ie the constitution of the united states, this is not what the dnr or the state constitution was set up for,,, there are laws that are suppose to protect us and they are being ammended every day,,, this is out of hand,,, same with anglers from out of state ,, they are charged more for there licence because we already support the costs on our tax rolls ,, add up your property taxes, add up what comes off your pay check and goes to the state. add up how much of the cost of filling up your boat with gas goes to the state, add up all your licenses and registration for all your vehicals, add up the couple bucks on you phone and cell phone bill, look at what percentage of your hotel room bill is a local tax , pack of smokes? liquor in a retarant or bar is taxed , sales tax,, got a 40,000 dollar boat? did you forget you sent the state 2grand? and if you sell it for 30 grand next year , the guy you sell it to will send in another 1500 on the same fricken boat! check your cable tv bill for taxes, take a look at a pet licence for you chocolat lab.boat launch fees, fees on bait because of vhs, new taxes comming there soon. what about your garbage pickup fee, and your park sticker , when are people going to wake up? this has nothing to do with vhs or culling or anything related to potential dammage done to our lakes by anglers. anglers are the ones who take care and work to make them better... im surprised they dont pull all the dams and make the bago chain into a flying pig refuge like it was in the olden days... why do you think you have half the rocky points on the lake? becouse the indians years ago usta build paths threw the swamp(rainforest) that it was to get out to the river chanel , that wasnt lake winnibaggo. still going off and crabby sorry guys, but they wont ,,, because they have to get the locks operational and open , vhs and other invasives arent a priority either , if it was they wouldnt be so willing to open travel from the great lakes into bago,,, here is another question,,, when it is fully navable is the bago chain now a great lake? who has the final say then,, not only do you have to get past the state, but also the feds. here we go.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | wow read it again for the 5 th time... 3 fish BAG LIMMIT ! mid june to the first week of september? otter street. 350 boats go out , you get to put 3 in your box for a tournament BAG LIMMIT... we have a 5 fish per guy Bag limmit in the state dont we? weigh your best 5 ? remember no culling in wisconsin! oh goodie this will work out great.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 625
Location: LaCrosse, WI | I’ve posted my thoughts about these regulations before. Here’s what I flat out do not understand (well, I do understand, I just strongly disagree with). If this is a financial thing, why not just require a $10 or $20 gas powered watercraft fee for each vessel annually. Just think of how much money the state would get back on that. I would gladly pay a whopping $10 or $20 per year to run my boat on public water. I would also love to see pleasure boaters, wake boarders, jet skiers and pontoons have to pay to play.
I do believe that tournaments do need better regulation in WI, but I do not feel that this is headed the right direction. I think the biggest losers in this whole proposition is going to be small business that thrive on the publicity their towns get when the big tours come to town. A friend of mine owns a bait shop in LaCrosse, about 1/4 of his annual revenue comes in a two week period when the BFL is in town. He estimates that 50% of his revenue is tournament related.
I know another gentleman that owns a small hotel in my area. He estimates that 30-40% of his annual business is fishing related (much of that being for tournaments). I truly think that these regulations will singly handedly prevent the FLW from holding events in the state. The worst part to me is that it seems like a pretty small group representing a fraction of the state got the DNR to pursue this. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Bradley:
I believe that it is 3 fish bag limit per person NOT per boat. At least that is how I am reading it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with 3 per person either. I interpret it this way.
They'll charge me more money to fish the same body of water as everyone else but allow me to bring fewer fish to the landing. And this makes sense to who?
Not a popular opinion but ............ I see no mention of catch and kill tournaments. I wonder why? Are these totally outlawed or are these still a possibility? It sounds funny but would they allow higher limits if it was a catch and kill? If they allowed a catch and kill they would obviously feel that the body of water could handle the removal of those fish. If this were to occur we would be opening the outcry of public opinion. Wonder what would be worst?
Before you slam me, I'm not suggesting anything. Just asking questions. Just working outside the box. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | sunshine
I have to ask myself this.
Denny, when is the last time I had a customer or anybody for that matter, ask me how many fish were killed in a weekend tournament and what was done with them. I cannot remember anybody EVER asking me about this. 15 years around this stuff and I still cannot remember any. There would be 1 guy at a tourney a year that seemed to care. MAYBE!! They were usually old and a bit, well, I will leave it at that. I really doubt most of the public really cares. I still say this, fillet them all and hand out fish sandwiches for free. They will love us. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Thanks Denny! I would have to agree.
As for the discussion on financial loss to business ............... come on guys .............. the DNR thought of this ............ they tell you plain and simple in the original document ......................... must be true, the DNR says so
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department’s Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [email protected] or by calling (608) 266-1959. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Oh, and before I leave to take a chill pill.
I believe that this document has changed enough to constitute a new intent and a new document all together that should once again go through the entire process of scrutiny. This "new" document and "new" discussion should pass through spring hearings and be posted for public review all over again. Even Tyee's buddy states: "the version that gets presented to the NRB may be somewhat different than what we've been putting together".
I look forward (insert sarcasm here too) to reading the green sheet and comparing it to the original document. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Again, Good Point Sunshine, good point indeed!! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | you have all good points Dennis ,, when i think of this i think of lake winnibago,,,, good luck cleaning that lake out,,, and i prefer to use the phrase Catch and EAT , who started this KILL thing? sounds terrible ,, there doesnt seem to be any evidence that a popular turnament destination is affected by the servival rate after a tournament,, the lakes that dont have a plentyful population of the desired species will not be schedualed ,, and if they are plentyfull and catch and release is in place there doesnt seem to be any impact ,, in fact it seems that the noumbers of fish in these popular river locations and lakes have been steadily going up over the last ten years... with good management by our dnr combined with local efforts by clubs to try to keep water levels and stocking programs going strong.. all the hype on this topic is crazy,,, and thats why the laws will be changed,,, it doesnt seem to be based on any scientific data and i cant think of anyone being hurt because of the way things have been in the last ten years... if it aint broke dont fix it... unless you make your living fixing things that arent broken.... then never mind just fix it ,, send the fisherpeople the bill,,, the evil tournament directors and anglers who make so much money doing what they love and destroying our environment ,,,, ya ok.... more like enjoying and taking care of the environment and spending there retirment fund to do what they love. im fine with catch and eat ,,, im sick of putting my fish back i fish a tournament spend like a few hundy and when i get home sunday night with my tail between my leggs my wife says ,,, what do you mean you arent allowed to keep your fish? spent 300.00 and won 150 and we have to go out for fish? yup i say..lol she likes to go out and all but , in her words that is the most assin9 thing she herd,, and drives her nuts... must be her gathering nature,... so we hunt but we dont gather...well we do but then we put them back for the future ,,, but then we pay a fee to put them back.. hmmm? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | And if you really want to get your blood pressure up ………. Read the Summary of Public Comments on Proposed Tournament Fishing from the spring hearings. Then tell me if anyone is listening or cares about public opinion.
Here is how you and I voted
Rule Number 74 … Percent opposed 75%
Permit Application Process … Percent opposed 58%
Tournament Permit Fees … Percent opposed 79%
Limits on Tournament #s … Percent opposed 74%
July-August Live Release Ban … Percent opposed 80%
AIS Plan Requirement … Percent opposed 58%
Here are the DNR summaries..... their words not mine........
Live Release Ban – NR-22-06 proposed a prohibition on live release format – where fish are caught, held in live wells, transported, weighed, and later released – fishing tournaments during the months of July and August to address concerns about waste of fish due to post-release mortality. The proposed ban on live release tournaments during July and August generated the greatest number of specific comments for specific rule components. It is probably the issue that caused the majority of the controversy surrounding FH-22-06. Despite the volume of comments received, the unique themes were limited. Most people were very opposed to a ban on live release tournaments during July and August, feeling that it was unnecessarily restrictive. Many provided reasonable alternatives to a ban. The topic of minimizing post-release mortality would be one that could be provided to the FTAC, with well defined bounds, for discussion and recommendation. The committee could work to determine alternative regulations for tournament operations and under what conditions those would apply.
Limits – NR-22-06 proposed limits on the size and numbers of tournaments that could be held on waters. Monthly limits on the number of tournaments for lakes and chains of lakes varied depending on acreage, and considered both the size (number of boats) and length (number of days) of the tournament. Maximum size of tournaments (number of boats/participants allowed daily) was also proposed. Proposed limits on the Mississippi River pools were similar to existing limits in place in the state of Minnesota and were simply a maximum number of tournaments allowed per month. There was minimal support for limits on the size and number of fishing tournaments that should be allowed on water bodies. The support generally came from the Wisconsin Association of Lakes and from individuals specifying the Mississippi River. However there was far more opposition to limits. Those opposed generally felt it was unfair to single out tournaments, given that crowding at and on waters of Wisconsin transcend all water recreation. Although some alternatives were presented, many of them would add complexity to an already complex proposal. The public comment results, complimented by the results of the angler and boater surveys completed for the bass fishing tournament pilot program seem to indicate the need for limits may not be as necessary as previously thought. Perhaps general authority for biologists to deny a permit if they are aware of potential conflicts (e.g. another large tournament already permitted at an access site) will suffice for the time being.
You can read the whole document here: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/fishtournruledev.html
I tried attaching it but WF would not let me. Are you guys on the DNR side now  
Edited by Sunshine 10/2/2007 4:09 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Just remember these people are working for us....you know a government of people, for the people, by the people
This pisses me off enough that the Secretary of the DNR should be drug out on to State street and hung. Got anymore of those chill pills, Dennis?
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | slow down there jayman lol ,, we dont want them surrounding your house with the swat team the secretary of the Dnr doesnt know that yu have no arms or legs and cant follow threw with that threat even if you wanted to ... lol,,, but yes i was like that yesterday , it makes a guy very angry indeed.... it just such a pile of crap with no logical base.. frustraiting.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | I’d slow down just a bit Jayman.
We have a new Secretary of Natural Resources. His name is Matthew J. Frank and he was appointed as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), effective September 1, 2007.
I always believe in a short honeymoon period for appointed public employees.
Maybe we’ll break him in on this issue. However he has been around the block. served as Secretary of the Department of Corrections for more than four years and 22 years as an Assistant Attorney General for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. His tenure at DOJ included six years as Administrator of the Division of Legal Services during which time he oversaw the state's environmental protection defense and enforcement actions in state and federal courts.
FRANK, MATTHEW
(608) 266-2121
101 S WEBSTER ST AD 5
MADISON WI 53702
[email protected]
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Ok I'm starting to take offense to the subliminal messages I am reading into these posts about my position on this issue. First and foremost I am not anti-Tournament. Although I am in favor of better regulated, better quality and more professional events. I have been on top of this issue since 1999 when the first bill was introduced about weather or not tournaments needed more regulation, and weather or not they needed them or what control was available to the enforcers of this resource. For the record, the # of tournaments were small and their popularity was not what it is today and todate there is no "law" that allows anyone to oversee, monitor, manage, etc.etc. these events. This bill allows that and the public had numerous opportunities to speak over the past 12 months. I LET EVERYONE OF YOU HERE KNOW OF THOSE TIMES AND DATES. Sorry but I think your calls will more than likely fall on deaf ears now.
To answer your mirror question Dennis, Yes I am refering to tournament anglers, but more specifically the Bass association who wanted culling SO BAD that they allowed the Legislature to pass this bill at the last minute as they saw their bill failing and the DNR bill gaining momentum this was the only way they could get their "culling study" implimented. (AB623 allowed the making of rules and regulations for tournaments). Many many dollars have been spent on this topic and 96k over the past few years is probably the wrong number bur is what was presented as a cost at the time. (for the record I believe the Bass guys should be the ones that have to pay this money back) If a 5 dollar stamp is what it takes I'm all for it. (compared to a 300, 600 or 1400 dollar entry fee thats a drop in the bucket.
Regarding the sociological issue and using the resource let em say this, I refuse to fish the river in the spring anymore on weekends because of all the "bar" tourneys Doc speaks of. I will however fish it on weekdays, so yes they have affected how I spend my money and I know many others that feel the same way.
As for the tournament impact on the fishery, remember all those quotes you are refering to Dennis are refering to the study of bass. Not Musky and not Walleye.
I think a 40% mortality on Walleye harvested in warm water months IS a bad image to be portrayed, especially if those fish are washed up on shore for everyone to see on the 10 oclock news. And for the record I am not objectionable to a catch and kill tourney during this time period to prevent floating fish. So yes reducing the limit from 5 to 3 is a good thing and shouldn't affect anything other than what the director decides to allow to be weighed surrounding the culling issue.
I am in no way trying to portray anti-tournamnet sentiment here but rather I have brought this back to the top for information not DNR bashing.
The DNR does not work for you Jason. Neither you nor I elected them, their interest is the environment and our resources, and their job is to manage them, we have the privilege to harvest them and I for one am glad they are here looking out for that privilege.
Good luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "The DNR does not work for you Jason. Neither you nor I elected them, their interest is the environment and our resources, and their job is to manage them, we have the privilege to harvest them and I for one am glad they are here looking out for that privilege."
95% of this bill has NOTHING to do with managing the resource, it has to do with restricting a small subset of recreational users.
And as far as your comment on not fishing the Wolf on the weekends due to pressure from tournament anglers... That's just plain funny. I too avoid the Wolf in the spring due to pressure, but the vast majority of boats on the water I see are NOT fishing a tournament, they are simply out for a good time to catch a meal of fish.
If eliminating the 50 or so boats that fish one of these dreaded bar tournaments you and Doc hate so much would make the Wolf safer or reduce pressure on the fragile resource (the only reason to pass such measures IMHO), then I'd gladly take the fisheries manager's advice and not fish. But you are fooling yourself if you think that is the case. And your being selfish if you want to keep me off the water just because you think it crowded.
BTW, most of the guys that fish those events would be on the same stretch of river tournament or not.
Be honest with yourself. Read the proposal again. What the DNR is asking for makes little sense for anyone who is genuinely concerned about managing the resource.
Limit EVERYONE or no one at all.
Edited by Brad B 10/3/2007 8:15 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "To answer your mirror question Dennis, Yes I am refering to tournament anglers, but more specifically the Bass association who wanted culling SO BAD that they allowed the Legislature to pass this bill at the last minute as they saw their bill failing and the DNR bill gaining momentum this was the only way they could get their "culling study" implimented.
Your mirror comment read more to me as a "Us vs Them". Them being the tournament angler, which even you participate in, Rodger, so blame yourself as well. Don't sit here and put yourself on a pedastal and point fingers at us. You clearly don't like the fingers being pointed at you.
"Regarding the sociological issue and using the resource let em say this, I refuse to fish the river in the spring anymore on weekends because of all the "bar" tourneys Doc speaks of. I will however fish it on weekdays, so yes they have affected how I spend my money and I know many others that feel the same way. "
Again, you participated in a "bar" tourney (Fort Fremont Marine Classic) O r did you forget already. Sounds rather hypocritical.
As for manageing the resource, Brad nailed it on the head. This is nothing more than a tax on a smaller group of recreational anglers campared to the total number, disguised as tournament regulation. This is so loosely worded, even the fee portion is loosely worded. As you stated the Bass guys asked for a culling study, in no way is the culling issue addressed in this proposal. If you support this kind of "political science". It scares the heck out of me that people think it's okay to allow such crap to occur with in our own government. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| A couple of points here. I attended two of those meetings that you mention. I spoke up at one. Both meetings were attended heavily by tourney anglers, mostly from the walleye side. Bass anglers were few in numbers. Of the approximately 100 speakers at the two meetings I attended, only 4 or 5 were in favor of these new regulations, as proposed. Overwhelming opposition had the DNR reps on the defensive, and spewing out non factual statements to try to justify their position. While I understand they were put in a difficult situation by the legislature, I had to laugh at how they scrambled when they were confronted with this oppostion.
The best thing you can all do is call your State AssyPerson and Senator. Write them, e-mail them, call them. Alot!
As for the DNR doesn't work for us? Wrong, Mr Tyee. I pay their wages, buy their equipment, and have a voice in how they do their job. I agree they have a tough jobe to do. My beef is not with the DNR, but with the pansy legislatuors who want another source of revenue. That source being my pockets! The fact they release a statement as foolish as there will be no economic impact on small business proves they don't care about us, or the small business man. The person who determined this should be removed from his position.
Then they come out and say part of the fees is to help cover costs for the DNR to be at tournaments and record catch data. When do you ever see the DNR at tourneys. Merc National the past 2 years, after a substantial mortality one day. BTW, those fish that were not releasable were processed, and given to local food banks, and other needy programs. A good cause, and not a waste of the resource.
And as far as you not fishing the Wolf in the spring on weeknds? Remember, you were guiding me on how to run the river this year. I suspect you are one of the guys you complain about! hehehe It's not just the tourney guys that are inconsiderate of others.
Again, I think this thing is being railroaded, and I don't like it. I went to the meetings, and I said my piece. I called, and wrote to my legisltors. Some I got answers from, others I got got political mumbo jumbo. I let those know that I will not support their efforts to be re-elected. I urge you all to do the same.
I think perception is everything. There is a perception out there that tourneys are bad, because a few dead fish are spotted after a tournament. And touney boatrs are unsafe, and careless. I think it's too late to stop this, and I think the negative economic impact of these regs will be felt. Give it a couple years of no PWT, FLW, MWS, or MWC events in WI. It will be felt, and the businesses who enjoyed that revenue will surely feel it's loss.
Edited by Shep 10/3/2007 8:42 AM
| |
| | |
| First of all, like Tyee, I am NOT anti-tournament nor do I hate the bar tournaments and their organizers. In fact, many of them are my friends and some of them are my customers. As was stated, there are just too many and the bar owners are starting to compete with each other for the bar revenue. As far as the weekend scenario, don't kid yourself Brad. VERY few of the recreational anglers stray far from their access point, unlike tournament anglers who run from say Red Banks, 20 miles up stream to the New London area at high speed, then back, thusly affecting ALL the boats in-between. The first tournaments are even scheduled BEFORE the no wake zones are put in on purpose so the guys can get from point A to point B as fast as possible. All I'm looking for is balance. Same with the scenario painted about the guy who gets X% of his income from such and such a tournament. SURELY, in that case, it would seem that there would be nothing keeping that event from running. But here, families are beginning to shy away from the resource because of the "perception" created by too many events running at one time and at least one or two tournaments running EVERY weekend.
Also, Jayman. You are a bold face lier when you say that I ran within 10 - 15 feet of your boat while on plane. Just because you don't agree with my view, don't make up Bull Crap stories to try to make yourself feel better or knock my position. BECAUSE of who I am and what I do, I take great care to be as courteous as possible on the river. So go tell your lies somewhere else. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Fact: Joel, you ran past my boat off the bow on plane just above HWY X bridge in the cut during the fall 2 years ago. How wide is the river there in the fall when the water is low? 50'? My boat is 20', give or take there ain't a hell of a lot of room between my boat and shore on either side. If you think I'm wrong about who you are, I know your boat well and who you sold it to. And never did I complain once, nor am I complaing now. I just made a point of what is routine on the river. So don't call me a BOLD FACE LIAR, you *BEEP BEEP BEEP*.
Now I asked the point, What perception does that convey to the tourist, that you so defend? Can ya answer it without name calling? Or calling me a liar?
So as a guide it's okay for you to run past people on plane (high speed), but it's not okay for someone else, who may appear to be fishing a tournament or is fishing a tournament. Take your double standard else where.
Edited by Jayman 10/3/2007 12:20 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Boys, Boys Boys!
If we fight amongst ourselves we use all that pent up energy in the wrong direction.
Ever hear of divide and conquer?
I considered sending out emails to the DNR board and the new secretary asking them to visit this site and take a look at the comments being made. Now I do not feel very comfortable doing so.
Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree without personal attacks or name calling.
Take it outside | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "All I'm looking for is balance."
I buy a license. You buy a license. The guy fishing off the raft buys a license. The guy that launches on the Ratt and drift fishes back and forth infront of it all day buys a license. Seems pretty balanced to me....
You have NO right to interfere with what I like doing on the water unless I'm putting you in harms way. I always drive my boat in as courteous a manner as possible and always obey the SNW rules. I'm sorry that your losing business because too many people like to fish the Wolf in the Spring, but that's not my problem and a couple of tournament per weekend is not the reason.
FACT: The Wolf is crowded in the spring. Eliminating a few tournaments is NOT going to change that. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Look how many people fish at Depere in the spring and there are no tourny's up there until May. Further, how much of an inconvenience could a few dozen boat be when they motor past once in the morning and once again in the afternoon as compared to the dozens of boats that fish each bend in the river from Poygan all the way to New London? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Jayman I don't consider myself the hard core tournament angler like so many here, although I have no objection to being the one I see in the mirror. The fact that tournament anglers started this regulation change is what that comment is about, not me not you but specifically the BASS organizations. WE as tournamnet anglers and sportsman understand this so please don't take offense personally to that comment it wasn't intended that way.
You all know regulation is needed and someone has to pony up the bill for those expenses just like every other political issue ever drafted, how they get their money is really irrelavent. They could create a tag just like they do for trout, pheasant, salmon, duck, deer bear and any other resource. The options available to them are endless. WE'RE going to get it one way or another aren't we?
Brad, I don't hate the Bar tourneys lets make that perfectly clear! and yes this is about managing the resource which includes the people that use it! In this case it's the fish and the waterway. I know you understand that the DNR currently has ZERO authority to enforce any regulation or prevent ANY tourney from occuring. all you need is a permit and they can not deny one. So if there were 20 groups that all wanted to have a tourney on April 15th on the wolf, they could. Do you think that would create conflict with the other user groups? It sure would, and for me it was the weekend there were only 8 and I know I was not alone in that thinking. Call me a hypocrite if you want because I fish tourneys but like many of you here I prefer the better quality tourneys where the directors don't let people get away with so much crap to make a few bucks.
Nuff said as I have been offended.
| |
| | |
| Jayman, I did NOT run past your boat in a way that would be considered rude and your post was nothing but a fabrication of events in an attempt to use it as fuel for your fire. You said 10 - 15 feet, that is why I called you a liar. My position would be the same if there were 50 guides working out of Fremont that ran the river like idiots as far as their effect of the local tourists. And, because they would be more identifiable, it would be easier to control any negative impact. No double standard.
This is not just my point of view. It is also the concern of some of the resort owners whose customers don't come back and sight the tournament boats as the reason. This isn't me making this crap up and, it would be pointless to post the emails as without the name and address of the person, they have little value here on this board. Point is, some of the people who USED to stay here, don't anymore because of the growing number of tournament boats. Some of the small boats anglers from the valley and even "day trip" anglers from SE Wisconsin and other places within a couple of hours, do not fish here for the same reason. Now I KNOW it's just a handful of guys giving the "tournament anglers" a bad name, but they have done a good job of it. It's NOT about the crowded resource, it's about having SOME sort of control over how the tournaments are held other then apply for and get your permit and every bar on the water having one in the spring.
| |
| | |
| you boy's ever fish up by Hortonville or Shiocton? You could play bumper boats up there and if your in someones spot you could be shot!!!! always have guys flying by ya at full throttle at 15 ft away cause it's only 15' wide between the dead heads....ever here of Deliverence? I think that's were it was filmed!! So my point is it's not all about tourney fisherman! maybe we should send all these non turney guys up there.... they'll either come back with a different opinon or not come back at all.....lol | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "It is also the concern of some of the resort owners whose customers don't come back and sight the tournament boats as the reason."
Excuse my bluntness, but so what??? Since when do a few guides, a couple of disgruntled tourists, and a resort owner or two get to run access to a PUBLIC resource? There are a limited number of options for people that want to fish in April. Because of that, the areas ARE crowded. Every group has its 10% of people that don't mix well with others and behave poorly. That's too bad, but its life. We'd all like to have the entire river to ourselves, but that's simply not the way it is.
"Some of the small boats anglers from the valley and even "day trip" anglers from SE Wisconsin and other places within a couple of hours, do not fish here for the same reason."
Again, so what? If you think people avoid the Wolf in smaller boats because of the crowds and larger boats running around a lot, you should check out the Fox in Depere. I counted over 250 boats in a VERY short stretch of river there a few years back. Talk about nuts... But where else are any of these people going to go for their "day trip"? The Wisconsin is just as nearly as crowded and the Mississippi is not a day trip away.
If we can find a way to make sure only a limited number of non-tournament anglers have access to the water each weekend, I'll consider limiting the number of tournament anglers. Until then, you have NO right to tell me how to fish. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Joel, Did you or did you not sell your Triton to Chris? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I got the right boat and the right guy. Fabrication of events? You calling me a liar again? Again, I didn't complain, and I'm not saying you were rude. That is routine behavior on the Wolf among many of the locals. I asked what perception do you think the tournist gets from that? I don't expect a good answer from you, because obviously you can' t answer it with out calling me a lair and getting defensive. Besides, I think your character has spoke enough volume for people to see your true colors.
Secondly, If the tourists are so offended by these tournaments. Why in the world would they frequent the very same establishments that host these bar tournaments? I'll freely admitt that I participate in some of these local spring tournaments. I'll also state that many of these bar tourneys have the so called "tourists" fishing these same events from areas that are not local to the Wolf River.
As Brad stated, the fact is the Wolf River is a busy place from ice out til about now, weather it be fishing or jet skis or pleasure boaters. SOME people just aren't going to be happy if they don't have the river to themselves or a spot to themselves, not because there is a tournament or two happening on the giver any given day.
Let me ask you this, New London hosts whopper weekend, a tourist event, how many of those people do you think are gonna be happy about getting a tournament stamp for a weekend of fun where the fishing is secondary to the music and drinks at the tent?
Cranky, YOUR A LIAR!!! HAHAHAHAHA I know exactly what you mean. I had guys throw beer cans at me one day as I tried to sneak through some dead falls to get up river. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | There is a good bunch, and I don't mean a few, land owners along the wolf that want to live "On golden pond". They don't think anyone should be able to go fast. They are starting to push really hard. solid slow no wake from the mouth through waupaca county, PERIOD!! You guys say it will never happen? Keep fighting, keep living in 1980, keep defending the 10%, keep..... and on golden pond is where this will go. In Fremont, there is a slow no wake change brought up at least once a year. It is just a matter of time.
I like the stamp idea for tourneys, that should slow down the tourism really good. Who benefits from whopper weekend? I am sure they won't benefit as much. Doc, is that the kind of tournament that should be limited? Just asking, don't get mad.
By the way, the locals or tourist do not define the diference between your triton, jays big boat or my tuffy, they see a big boat, it is a tournament boat, PERIOD!!. I would suspect many of the complaints that are fabricated were due to the rule we have about selling boats to people that have no idea how to drive them. I do know this to be fact. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Throwing beer cans is a not a sign of anger or aggression. If the cans were full, they were just trying to be friendly - "Have a cold one mate!" - that kind of thing. If the cans were empty, they were probably just trying to help you offset the high cost of fuel.
That's why when someone does something like that, I always smile, wave, and say "thanks"! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Hahahaha Brad, I hadn't really looked at it that way. You're right, maybe these guys were just being nice and trying to help me out. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | we are getting a bit off topic in talking about crowding on the river... as far as tournament boats, lets face it if you have a larger boat with a stripe on it and a jacket that matches and your new fishing cap that you got for chrismas from your son that also happens to be the same as your boat brand, doesnt make you a big time tourny guy,, but yu look like one... and so does the hacker on the golf course with the taylor made f7 hat and his new shoes golf shirt and matching golf bag... my second point is take a look at the photos , go back 15 years, go back 30 years go back 50 years go back ,,, you will see that river was always crowded durring the spring run,,, if anything there was more of a migration of people and way more from out of state as this run has always been one of the best in the country,,, this is nothing new... ask a few old school boys what kind of tradition and party it was up there... ask them about the meat runns , the poundage of fish taken , the old black and white photos , the people not just fishing from a bridge in winniconi but shore fishing for miles and miles.. there might be a case to be made that there is less pressure now days than ever. oh and dont forget there was no protection back in the day for sturgion , or the big females heading in and out of the marches , day and night wheelbarrels of fish taken , nothing new... what is new now is we are more respectful, most take what the will eat , and now we pay taxes ,,, a-lot. the shore land owners are psst because thy pay a-lot to live there ... they guy in the row boat is pssst because he can t justify buying a big sparly one for 40 grand... maybe he could if half his income wastnt taxes.. human nature , but i think the bitterness from all of us comes from our perception of fairness ,, unfortunatley we are all getting the shaft , looking for someone to blamb ,, we can blame ourselves for giving power to the wrong people who then make us more bitter and attack our own more often,, this gives legislators more oppertunities to take more and more , as i guess we, ask them too ,.... its not fair.. you have to doe something about this group, and that group,,, ,, where does it end? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| I have a solution to the overcrowding on the Wolf in the spring. It will also address the taking care of the resource issue. Shut it down. Get rid of the open all year on the Bago chain. That will stop alot of the big spawners from being double dipped, and killed.
There was never a tourney held on that body of water, where the contestants double dipped, was there? Can you say that about the so-called tourists? Don't deny it doesn't happen alot. We all know better.
And why do you have to say we all agree that tournament regulation is needed? I don't agree with that. Not one bit. I think the bigger tournament series have self policed themselves pretty well. Just look at the improvements they have all made in the past few years on handling fish. Yes, more improvements are needed, still. But look at the FLW water weigh in. Way better for the fish. They are pretty careful about culling out the fish that won't make it, before relesing them. They have built special release vessels, with cooling and oxygenation systems in them, and they release out in the cooler waters. The tournamets series are becoming very aware of public perception, and I believe all are trying to implement measures to ensure no dead fish are left floating to be on the 10 O'clock news. The MWS last year asked up to park way back in the grass field at the Bago event last year. Most of us did, and I applaud Jim Coon for looking at the big picture.
When I was at the hearings, the few proponents of this regulation were divided in two groups. The first group was the "look at all the wasted fish after a tournament" and the second was the "they crowd the ramps and I can't get on the lake" group. Both based mostly on perception, both groups mostly wrong. But, as I have said in the past. Perception is everything.
Write your state legislators. Make them hear us. It's the only way we are not going to get screwed. It's the only way to keep the millions of dollars the tourneys bring to WI. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | ok shep what is up with that? shut it down.? in spring? yu have a hundread miles of shorline and marshes uper lakes and lake winnibago for fish to spaun,,,, let the boys catch there dinner.. unless you want to stuff another 200 boats a day in the river in depere in the spring... thats where i would go if i couldnt catch some eaters on the bago chain.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Shep,
Not sure if you are trying to get a rise out of people or not but closing the wolf during the spawn IS AN OPTION. I'm sure it is not a popular option for the same business people who are supposedly complaining about tournaments but IT IS an option.
We all know that the real problem is overcrowding on a very narrow stretch of river. That's why they have the no wakes in the first place. Maybe they should have no wakes for the entire stretch for the whole season. Seems to me that the problem would be taken care of. Lots of people would not fish it then and the problem would take care of itself. Hard for me to believe that tournaments would be scheduled if this would happen. And it appears that some business people would be happy with that too. All would be good in the world until some of the same business people start complaining that business is down. I believe that they need to be careful what they ask for.
I get this feeling that some people (not you) talk from both sides of their mouth. They complain that some never come back and they complain that there are too many people on the river. The overcrowding problem would be worst if those people never left.
As far as the comment concerning over harvest. I know it happens and I do not condone it but is it really an overwhelming problem? I keep hearing that the system is stronger than ever. If this is true, where is the problem? Putting additional restrictions on a perceived problem without data supporting it is like restricting tournament fishermen from bringing in normal quotas. We wouldn't want that to happen would we? WAIT, I guess that we are into making rules that make little sense. So yes, by all means, shut 'er down for a month. I do not see the scientific data supporting it but I guess it’s a social issue. (Insert sarcasm anywhere you like)
In regards to your comment about tournaments policing themselves, you are right, the bigger tournaments do a good job. But the smaller tournaments (insert some bar tournaments here) do a poor job. How can the new rules differentiate between the good and bad?
I have no problem paying for a stamp to tournament fish if the money I pay goes directly into improving the tournaments or the fishery. If this can be proven to me I will be a happy camper. But making me pay more while telling me that I must keep less really bothers me. This makes no sense to me at all.
I have no problem with “On Golden Pond” as long as we all live with the “Golden Rule”. These types of problems are all caused by too many people using the same resource. I’d hate to see our state starting to adopt solutions from other states like California where you would be charged $60.00 to fish an area for one day. That solves the problem too.
Now here is a very unpopular statement from a tournament fisherman. Regulation is needed. I believe that Winnebago is a classic example. I believe that there really are too many tournaments on that system. Admit it, you shake your head too when you see the spreadsheets showing all of the tournaments throughout the year. There are just too many. It is a social issue. And I can see people who love that system as much as we do shaking their heads every Saturday when the fleet goes screaming by. You and I fish because we like the whole tournament scene. We like the take offs, the pressure, the camaraderie, the competition, the fast boats, etc. etc. etc. But we also like the solitude of fishing from time to time. And we like taking the young ones fishing without having to compete with 20 other boats for a reef. These are real scenarios that we need to talk about. The fishery is for everyone not just us. We are passionate about not loosing our rights but these people are passionate about not loosing theirs too. Again, the problem is overcrowding on confined resources. We must all live together in harmony. The solutions must work for everyone not just us. We are an interest group that feels like we are getting screwed. But to make it all work, we must listen to the other side and try to come up with solutions that make everyone happy, not just us. (sermon done)
| |
| | |
| First, to repeat. Jayman, was only calling you out on the 10 - 15 feet. Someone being THAT close paints a totally different picture.
Brad, you said, "Excuse my bluntness, but so what??? Since when do a few guides, a couple of disgruntled tourists, and a resort owner or two get to run access to a PUBLIC resource?"
That's not the case. It's a more complex issue then that by far. It's stupid to think it is as simple as you described.
As I stated , I am NOT against tournaments, I am FOR some sort of control over them on a local level. When I see first hand examples of people packing up and leaving mid trip and see vacant rooms on weekends that used to be filled, it is cause for concern.
As far as close the river in the spring, (which is a ridiculous comment in this thread), if the DNR thought it was best for the resource, I would have no problem. Now I could tell you what comments were made by certain DNR personnel regarding that, but will hold those to private discussion. Who knows, if VHS kills enough fish, they may have to. It's also not about over crowding, wow, read the words. It's about going forward with no control over the number of events and how they are held. It's about TRYING to determine some sort of balance so that recreational anglers are not jaded as to the use of a system. If the DNR considers the level of events, their boundaries and manner in which they are held OK, then I have no problem. What I have is an answer to the people who I work with in local tourism along with an answer to my own concerns. Also as far as your comments of the FLW Shep, that's not even close to what I am talking about. Really Shep, to think that there is NO need for some sort of regulation is head in the sand mentality.
Stacker, as far a Whopper Weekend. The new rules and WW is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Because the event has no cash prize for the fishing portion it doesn't even NEED a permit nor have they ever filed for one, until possibly last year. This event has trophy for biggest 3 day stringer of walleyes and is an event where cheating (by people holding big females in tanks for weeks) is known and it is said, and I quote "If a guy wants to cheat for a #$%ty little trophy, let him". Although it's a good party, it's my personal view the fishing portion should be changed. If you had seen the large number of dead pre spawn females a few years ago, you would feel the same way. Also, most people can tell the tournament boats by the bow ribbon or motor sticker the event organizers use, or in the case of the PWT by the boats themselves.
Sunshine, amen.
Edited by Joel "Doc" Kunz 10/5/2007 12:41 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Even though I've been keeping up on the thread, for a number of reasons, I've stayed out of this conversation to this point. However, time to interject. It seems clear that there are two different issues getting merged into one. The first is the claim that there are too many tourneys in the spring on the Wolf -- that may be so, however, I haven't fished there at that time of the year so I can't make any informed comments. The second comes from Dennis' post that there are too many tournaments on Bago and those tournaments cause traffic problems on the lake. Given that I am on Bago far more often than most people, I feel qualified to disagree. The traffic problems described occur whether there is a tournament or not -- especially where bar tourneys are concerned, most of those people would be on the lake even if no tourney was being held. I can think of only one instance this season where I've had an encounter with tourney boats, that was near the Oshkosh mouth during pre-fishing for the PWT (and, for the record, only 1 of the many PWT boats I ran into that week behaved rudely). Even in that instance, tourney boats were outnumbered by us weekend warriors 5-1. Granted, I primarily fish on the NW 1/6th of the lake and few tourneys are launched from up here -- maybe the tourney traffic is worse on other parts of the lake and my comments are off the mark. From my perspective as a full-time weekend warrior, there isn't a real traffic problem associated with Bago tourneys that requires regulatory intervention. I may open up a new can of worms here, but I do feel from a biological monitoring standpoint that tourneys should be given more scrutiny. Many of the arguments that have been made here include some allusion to the fact that tourneys aren't doing any harm. Certainly, there is so far no evidence that there is harm but, then again, there isn't much evidence available. As an very infrequent participant in tourneys, I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks a year if that money went to DNR monitoring. The information collected would be valuable as evidence in debates about the effects of tourneys and the health of the system in general.
Edited by Viking 10/5/2007 1:20 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | ok this is pointless,,, no wonder the state and the govornor and everyone else walk all over us,,, you guys are off on some other tangent all the time... you so bussy woried about NO wake ,, that you dont see them take your new boat out of the shed,,, or the new boat you would have if you wouldnt let them , LET THEM! hell you are asking for it for gods sake,!!!!!!!!!!!! here take my wallet.. spend it on your stupid programs and idias,,, im too busy beoching about the fact that they should make the river no wake... ya keep it up we will all be back in a leaky row boat in about 15 years when not only it will take your income and your wifes to pay taxes but you will have to sell live bait on your front lawn just t put enough gas in your 3 banger yugo/hybread to pull your 8 foot pram to the river.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Doc, if it makes you meel better, then fine 15-20' away. The river isn't that wide in some stretches, and I don't think it matters. In some stretches, if you go past another boat on plane, they MAY be mad. Perception is everything.
Just like your perception is: Tournaments are driving away business on the Wolf river.
"The new rules and WW is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Because the event has no cash prize for the fishing portion it doesn't even NEED a permit nor have they ever filed for one, until possibly last year."
As it's written now in what Tyee posted, You nor anyone else can garauntee that a permit will not be needed that a stamp will not be needed. It's too loosely worded to support.
Tournament permits are already being issued by DNR staff, the DNR has the right to recommend/advise any tournament in how it's run. I believe most tournament directors try to adhere to those recommendations as best they can. So if the proposal goes through adding a permit fee and a stamp will make this all better? I highly doubt it.
Again, this as it's written is a loosely worded tax on a specific group of users to a natural resource. The other criteria is even more loosely written. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | and Viking lov you and all but the DNR doesnt need a few extra bucks for monitoring.. if someone was breaking the law or running there craft at a high rate of speed to close to shore or another boat the dnr would be welcome to write tickets;; dont you dare give in, and offer up my money to pay the dnr to monitor anything. send them all the money you want im tired of you guys giving in on behalf of the people... thats the problem ,, the Dnr does not use the money on our behalf the bulk of the revinue raised from the existing registraitions and licences and fees get missuesed and re-directed to other projects and budgets.. that my point ,, enough of this crap!!!!!!!!!!! viking sory to jump i know where your heart is but you cant propose to drag somone out into the street one day and then bend over the next , wait.... unless they got to you.... hmmmm? if they got to you viking type all your posts from this point on without using any letter Y's and ill come get you otta there... lol | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | That's reall fuun Bradle. I would never of thought of that. Thank ou. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Hey
I was just going to post a poll question to see where everyone stands on the issues. When did that option go away?????????????????? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | hmmm? sunshine? they got to you too? this is bigger than i thaught ,,,, first the crawler reports stop and all the crawlers go into hiding and now this? ok ,,,, i see how its gonna be.... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Bradley, I specifically said biological monitoring. You're changing the subject. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Viking, it's okay to change the subject, the DNR and Legislation did. What started as a culling study has turned into a tourament fee and stamp system and a few unsound biological proposed rules to appease another demographic of recreational resource users. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | sory viking ,, i just jumped on everyone else for changing the subject and now i did it , didnt they budget biological monitoring for the bass guys piolot program thing and somehow now want to take the money that was waisted errrrrrrrr budgeted in advance and spent as conservitivly as possible and now they want to charge a fee to recover that money they spent that was our money anyway over a period of 6 years for now and also grab some cash in the form of stamps and fees from all the other anglers that m,,, how did that work... speaking of bioligical,, i havent seen a vhs sighting for a long time , in fact i have not caught a fish all year with the exeption of seeing one or two sheepsheads spinning out this spring..... ya the should still shut down the river this spring just in case though.good to see the Y's in your post though.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| This isn't about anything but MONEY!!! Simple as that. The perception is that Tournaments are bad for the fish, and the recreational user. Fact is, tourney anglers take far less, and give way more back to the resource than the toutrists.
Doc, I fail to understand why you must always throw in barbs and personal attacks. Why would closing the Bago system be ridiculous? Why do you side with the greedy pigs that double and trile dip, and keep the big spawners every spring. Surely, they do way more damage to the resource than the tournamments that are held, bar tourney or otherwise.
Head in sand thinking? Yep, you're right. Regulate the snot out of the tourneys, and then you and your resort owners will be whining when the PWT, the FLW, and the MWC don't come here anymore. Because that is what will happen. Why is KC moving out of state, and many of the big companies? Because we tax, fee, and regulate them to death. It's all about the money. I don't care what the legislators say, they are not friends of industry, and they are driving WI into a service economy. Word of warning, you won't be able to afford to take a family vacation to the Wolf on McDonalds or Service Master wages.
Also, you flatter yourself if you think all my comments are directed at you. My comments about the FLW are directed to everyone else that care about tourney fishing in WI. Again, perception is driving all the major circuits to look at how the do things, at how the public views them. Not just the FLW, but they have taken greater steps thus far in trying to improve the image of their tournaments.
Again, I attended two of the local hearings when they were held. Neither one I was at, did I hear any complaints about the tourney boats misconduct that you speak of. Not one. Why is that? I certainly didn't hear you speak up on it? Why is that?
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | Shep - 10/5/2007 2:29 PM This isn't about anything but MONEY!!! Simple as that. The perception is that Tournaments are bad for the fish, and the recreational user. Fact is, tourney anglers take far less, and give way more back to the resource than the toutrists. Doc, I fail to understand why you must always throw in barbs and personal attacks. Why would closing the Bago system be ridiculous? Why do you side with the greedy pigs that double and trile dip, and keep the big spawners every spring. Surely, they do way more damage to the resource than the tournamments that are held, bar tourney or otherwise. Head in sand thinking? Yep, you're right. Regulate the snot out of the tourneys, and then you and your resort owners will be whining when the PWT, the FLW, and the MWC don't come here anymore. Because that is what will happen. Why is KC moving out of state, and many of the big companies? Because we tax, fee, and regulate them to death. It's all about the money. I don't care what the legislators say, they are not friends of industry, and they are driving WI into a service economy. Word of warning, you won't be able to afford to take a family vacation to the Wolf on McDonalds or Service Master wages. Also, you flatter yourself if you think all my comments are directed at you. My comments about the FLW are directed to everyone else that care about tourney fishing in WI. Again, perception is driving all the major circuits to look at how the do things, at how the public views them. Not just the FLW, but they have taken greater steps thus far in trying to improve the image of their tournaments. Again, I attended two of the local hearings when they were held. Neither one I was at, did I hear any complaints about the tourney boats misconduct that you speak of. Not one. Why is that? I certainly didn't hear you speak up on it? Why is that? YA WHAT HE SAID!!!!!!!!!! FOLLOW THE MONEY!! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | ALL THIS VENTING IS GOOD BUT.... is there someone at the state level we can pummel with out thaughts,,, ? that will understand our mission... sheps stuff is always good but they will throw his letters away and say he is on the FLW payrole, they might take Doc's letter into consideration as they my assume he as well educated as they are and might know what he is talking about.... i think they will throw out vikings stuff exept the part about willing to pay a small fee for biological programs,,, they would consider the rest be they already consider him to be a physical threat to there existance. then there is sunshine..... the name Sunshine reminds them of there childhood and there hippy parents lil nickname for them ,,,, this is good because he comes up with some good stuff,,,, as for me my letters will be burnt and tossed on the side due to spelling and grammer, fragmented run on sentances,,,, Jaymans stuff will be thrown out as he is noumber one,,, a man.... and not a spineless sheep,,, what can i say about Tyee... well in reading his posts it is evident to me that he subliminaly is telling us resistance is futile and we will be assimilated , deep down in side though he wishes the best to us somhow has come to the conclusion that this is more cut and dried than we would like to believe.... this is not good ,,, what to do ? what to do? i look to the govornor ,, and if thats the case ,, our fight is over... i dont know of one representitive with the power to stop it... the new appointed DNR secretary,,, its a start,, good luck... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "That's not the case. It's a more complex issue then that by far. It's stupid to think it is as simple as you described."
Wow. You described it that way, not me. YOU said "It is also the concern of some of the resort owners whose customers don't come back and sight the tournament boats as the reason."
I had the pleasure of talking to one of the resort owners for quite some time two springs ago. He was complaining about how poor his business was. He said that if the fishing was better, he'd be full. For him, it was pretty simple - if the fish are biting, his business is good. Never once in our 30 minute conversation did he mention tournaments.
I say we pass a law that requires the fish to bite - that makes about as much sense as this law does. Then the resorts will be full, the guides will have business, and everyone will be happy.
Well, almost everyone. | |
| | |
| Ohmigod Shep, you think the only double and triple dipping is done in the spring. Again, because I've had to interview people at the DNR for articles and have been asked to work on advisory committees at the DNR, I know from asking that the main concern over poaching on the system is what is done after the spawn. This because the fish are in the river system for such a short time compared to the months they roam in big schools on Poygan, Winneconne and Winnebago where anglers find many more limits then in the often difficult spring conditions. The "run" usually lasted for a few days and only a few anglers do very well during the up run. Also, the shacks are targets of enforcement and don't move much AND the number of people even willing to try and run a fish trap have dwindled to a few brave souls who I hope ALL get caught. Compare that with the number of anglers doing well on any given day on bago? Let's use the archives here to see the length and proficiency of good fishing on the system.
As far as the personal attacks, I don't feel that believing a point of view is ridiculous or stupid is a personal attack, and if it is, it is not even in the "your grandma wore army boots" category of offensiveness. I did not insult your intelligence, physical stature or anything else, I just stated my opinion of the remark. Why would I want to insult you? I certainly did not intend to insult you. As an example, I was in a good storm recently and BARKED orders that kept an inexperienced friend IN the boat. Once safe, although I apologized and he knew I kept him from going overboard, he told me that he would have rather be tossed out of the boat, then to ever be talked to like that again. I can't explain that.
Also Shap, as far as thinking everything you post is written to me. Where did you get that? Jeepers, calm yourself down a bit.
Jayman, I agree with your post about the way this has all happened. It has taken too much and tried to group it in to one basket.
Brad B, your new law requiring the fish to bite is the best suggestion that has been made and yes, it is almost as ridiculous as the need for legislation on water way use. I wonder if this would have been a simpler issue if there had not been so many changes in the way the DNR is run. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | I got to thinking about those spring meetings and my first reaction was that these meetings are a sham. It's was apparent to me that the DNR does what they want regardless of the input they receive. That's pretty obvious! Then I realized that they take all comments in stride while finalizing their rulings. I guess what I am trying to say is that the DNR does not operate by a "majority rules" opinion poll taken from these meetings. Again, at first this really bothered me until I thought through the entire process and what sides of the fence I have been on in the past. Let me explain........
I remember going to the hearings when we were discussing the planting of walleyes in the Milwaukee River. As a member of the Milwaukee Chapter of Walleyes For Tomorrow I was all in favor of this occurring. I spoke on behalf of the walleye planting but I was a small minority. The trout and salmon captains were there in force. They spoke of the many reasons (in their minds) why this should not happen. I felt like this initiative was doomed because of the public outcry that occurred during these meetings. I was shocked and very happy that the DNR went on with this plan. They made some minor modifications from the original proposed ideas because of comments made but went forward because their ecological facts were sound and were in line with the DNR mission statement.
Now, fast forward to the meetings regarding tournaments. Many of us showed up in opposition to the rulings just like the charter captains in the scenario above. We are a very vocal interest group just like those charter captains. I do not like what I think is about to happen but is there a scientific or ecological reason that the DNR is moving forward?
These are the issues or facts that we must focus on. To have any success in this dialog before it becomes law, we must all focus on what is real versus what is perceived. We must remove our biases from the equation and we must refrain from emotional outbursts. Name calling or acting like children amongst ourselves does nothing but remove ourselves from the focus of the debate. Talking specifically about the Wolf River; the overcrowding there; the spawning run; the poaching; no wake issues; and driving too close to other boats does absolutely no good. WE ALL NEED (including me) to stay focused to the real issues and the ramifications of the proposed rulings. This is a STATE ruling not a bago problem. This effects all tournament organizers and tournament fishermen, not just walleye. Doesn't it have effects on bass, sheepshead, muskie and salmon tournaments? Aren't all organized tournaments in the same situation in regards to fees? I see no separation between charity functions and million dollar business. We are all in this together.
I'm an optimist in heart but also believe that I am a realist. I do believe that if we give the right people the right facts about tournament fishing we will be heard. I believe that it is not too late. I believe that we will have about a 2-3 week window of opportunity to contact the right people. I believe that we need to be ready for when the "green paper" comes out. At that time, it will be imperative to contact those who will be voting with factual information. To succeed we must be ready.
I would propose that we continue this conversation in earnest trying to look at the facts and coming up with a position paper that we can all use to write, call or make personal contacts with the powers to be. Is this possible? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Dennis, It's nice to see that someone else understands the entirety of this situation. I don't know when this became a bago situation and maybe I am to blame but you are absolutely correct, this is a Statewide and even a Nationwide situation not just our favorite lake issue. EVERYONE is watching to see what we do.
I had some pretty inteligent coversation (If you can believe that) with a few of our local wardens this weekend and to be quite honest, this is a tough call for them, they have to do something because legislature is forcing them into this and yet they want to do something as there are many issues they have to cover when working with our resources and the users of them, (not just the bodies of water but the species and the people.)
I will tell you that the biggest concerns I got out of theses conversations were the invasive species. To put it mildely.....wait till spring! Lets see what happens to our populations. and watch how fast it spreads. It is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONCERN they have right now and if a population situation arises you and I will both be glad they have the ability to say who what where and when a tournament can take place!
That alone should be enough for everyone here to support these issues and start looking at the big picture, from Musky to shepshead everyone that sportfishes in WI should have some sort of big brother looking out for our fish, they sure as heck don't listen to me or you and if not us who should it be, I am in total disagreement of allowing billy bobs boat tourney to be self governed as much as I am against big business corporations governing themselves although they do a much better job of it. It is critical that the stewards of the resource be someone we all agree should do that job and in my simple mind who better than the DNR it doesn't matter what side of the fence your on.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | billy bobs tournament self governed? even if billy bob himself fishes in his own tournament he must follow wisconsin and dnr laws as it partains to fishing regulation or safty to himself and others... billy bobs bar doesnt change the rules because he has a tournament... the state is changing the rules on him... and changing them to make rules for Billy Bob to follow that nobody else using the resource has to follow.... billy bobs getting the shaft ,, billybobs neibor went out fishing the same morning . billybobs neighbor got to bring home a larger bag limmit for the day ,,, last year Billy bob had to register his little tournament made up of individual anglers all responsible for themselves ,, billy bob gave the state what they wanted and now the state wants to charge billybob and all the individual anglers who already pay there fees to fish in the state and charge them extra to fish that day,, the state has a head count ,, the state has a record of participation and the state can now dictate weather or not billybob gets a permit or not based on payment (payoff) to the propper athority.. NO PAY << NO PLAY>>>> simple,,, so much for being articulate and civil. this is a tax,,, there is no vote no representation. just the state turning our resource into a revinue source to be used by an agency that has all the power they want to take... nice... as far as invasives ,, we were told wait till fall,,, now we need to wait til spring... im sure there just going to pass this expence on us too... or whom ever they want too... what choice do we have... our state spends tax dollars putting a collar on a canadian goose ,,, if you shoot a marked bird you can turn it in for cash... a-lot of cash... a-lot of marked birds,,, how much did it cost to mark them? how much is being paid out ? HOW MUCH OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IS BEING SPENT ON FLYING PIGS.....? THIS IS CRAP,, IF YOU DONT WANT THE OVERPOPULATION.. THEN LET PEOPLE SHOOT AS MANY AS THEY WANT? THESE ARE THE THINGS THE TIC ME OFF... ITS NOT THERE MONEY TO GIVE AWAY ITS YOURS AND MINE !!!!!!!!! CIVIL DEBATE ... WHAT WILL IT GET US... THE SHAFT... AGIAN.. AND AGAIN.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | LOOK it s easy for me to dump on the state and the DNR but take a look at this large opperation... lets face it,,, its not all made up of your typical uw stevens point grad,,,, they wardens out working the public sector are trying to maintain a good relaitonship with the sportsman as well as the land owners.. trying to stop the things like overbaggin and potching and violations... they are trying to stress safty and incurage peple to follow the rules... awarness of invasives and the damages caused ,,, and then go to the top of the pile... made up of people who also care about our invironment and recource,,, but ... there day is tied up with political agenda's big corperations, ground water , farm issues, heavy pressure from the federal government on how to regulate our state... polutions , the green crowd, the governors idias, and things that make our little cry for fairness look trivial... these are people who are getting bombarded by some major influences some real power,,,, and then act as gate keepers,,, im sure there day at work isnt much fun either,, although i look at the appointed top DNR representitives and wonder if they have time to deal with our little battle ... its a shame... they are faced with a budget and too many places that are screaming for attn. to many with there hands out... to many complaining about the next guy,,, too many trying to advance there agenda , just frustraiting as i sit and seperate myaluminum from my plastic bottles and news papper,,, frustration as i think illinois is still sending there garbage to wisonsin land fills... frustrated that all the power our state generates and is cooled and monitored by our resources is being sold out of state , just seems like everything is for sale... its a shame.. we the good folks of wisconsin should be a little better off.... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Take a deep breath Bradley, Look at the other users that profit from the resource, take the comercial fishermen for example, they pay to profit from their resource, 100.00 for a shot at making $130,000 in one day in Alaska, or the guy supplying you your perch dinner Friday night, less we forget the nice grouper we had when out with the wife last month or the many other "fish" that are harvested for profit! these programs cost money to be managed, A couple bucks from a tournament participant won't hurt the director nor our 1 mpg boats. As a sportsman I always consider the other users, I don't have to like it but then again they don't have to like what I do either.
Good luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | i know tyee... i just fail to see the real money in this industry,, i braught back the thread pole that showes how much these guys spend to go fishing for a day,,, this is a big part of the states revinue and 100 % of what a guy spends to fish being a tournament or just a day of fishing with the family is already taxed hard... not just taxted as income earned but also at the state level in a hefty gas tax and sales tax and other not hidden but lets just say nominal fees... just gets a bit old,,, ill pay for a stamp if i have too.. what am i gonna do ,,, but also need one for my son as he will fish with me a few times,, and my wife needs a stamp as she wants to do a small bar tourny we do every year togather.. so now i buy 3 stamps ,, and im sure it wont be 5 bucks.... it will be 20 im sure .... im sure the entry fee will go up a bit to offset the fee increase at the director level and so on... hey im thinking a half dozen tournaments might cost me around200.00 in a state that after you add up all your taxes you already end up paying about 50% of your income in direct taxes and hiddne taxes on perchases and fees that means that 200.00 bill will actualy be a 400.00 bill gross income. this is my point tyee.. its not just what the fee is for ,, and the warm fuzzy place its going to go ,, the good of our fishing recources ,, it going to go to the same place the rest of it is going.. add it up im not just worked up about this little plan from our state officials its this one combines with the other 100 little fee and tax idias they come up with to nickle and dime us.. look at the bigger picture , you all bring up the big picture ,, the big picture is that they already get a bazillion dollars in revinue,, where does it go? and where will the million go? i know where it comes from ,,, comes from our wallet... and im sure it will be spent on all the things tournament anglers want because thats where it came from... what are they going to do with the money put another 50 parking stalls and ramps in at the popular tourny locations maybe... stock the popular destinations with fish ? put 50 employees on the payroll to show up at the tournaments with release boats and tanks ... let me guess they will have there own tournament every year and call up all the winners .. along with a W2 they will get an invition to the state championship everyyear and a chance to win back what they spent for the year on fishing... ? sory for the sarcasm but just dont want the state to add more fees for this and that ,,, look at what they added for fees covering the whole state for 2007 not fishing stuff every day stuff that we all use.... tell me where it will end? that why im upset tyee.. i know we all care a great deal for our state and waters but they use our love for our recource to take advantage of us... its not ethical... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| TAX THE RICH, FEED THE POOR!!!
Maybe we should teach the poor how to fish instead of implementing a new tax on the ones that already know how to fish?
Edited by Jayman 10/8/2007 4:01 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | as for makeing 130000 a day in alaska,,, did you watch the dangerest catch? how much does a ship cost and how much would insurence on a ship that is used up there cost if you could get it ... and how many are lost? im sure there making people wealthy at that kind of income and a few rich.. but they also have a permit system now and the bulk of the fleet is now gone... who gets the permits is dictated by the powers that be...this is how great socialist governments fall,,, know your history,,, it starts with power,, then with power comes the curruption... how many road builders get state contracts ? who are the players? why does a company have to give both political candidates running for the same seat a milliion dollars .... now im getting carried away a bit for a small fishing fee but with regulation comes more power and with that will come favoritizm... human nature.. you ask for a big picture. the intention may be good by the supporters of this program but the intention of the state is for one thing... revinue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wake up! why are the locks opening with all the invasives at our doorstep on the baggo chain... hmmm ? revinue? no cant see how they can offset the expence of operation and maintananc with what can be collected ... hmmm must be a small group with power than.... somone is buying someone off... and if invasives were so important they wouldnt be comming in second to locks opening or some shipping regulation.... big picture makes me second guess the intention of this new regulations warm fuzzy well meaning objective.. ok so they can start with a cool million in revinue from all the bass and walleye and musky guys and there clubs... fees can be raised later.. permits can be held over the heads of the highest bidder... wait till the small mouth poputlation double 3 more times on the baggo chain... they seem to be taking off... and the musky guys are salivating over the future of the system... wait till all three groups are applying for permits give it another 10 years... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | wow thanks for letting me know im made of money.... i have to go now... im gonna order me up a new Ranger 621 with hell i dont know the biggest opti pro xs i can get on one side and heck ill put the big Rude dude on the other side and then im gonna order up two of the new 19 inch flat screen laurance units and add the radar so i can spy on all the little people ,,, im gonna send in all my entry fees now so i can get boat noumber 1 in all the tournys i wanna fish... send in for all of them and sort em out later.... heck i dont know what this stamp will cost .... ill just send in a grand just in case.... oh ya im gonna need a matching truck too... hmmm? do they make a Hummer XL or should i just pimp out an escalade ... i dint know i had all this spare cash,,, thanks for reminding me i shouldnt be so cheep all the time ... even though im crabby now i do think you guys are the best... just want you to know i wont forget the little people .................. oh crap is today the 8th? ............. oh crap..... i have the wrong power ball ticket.. i was looking at last weds winning noumbers... oh well almost done at work today,,, gotta go home and have my spagettieO's life is good , got meatballs in em... wooooooohooooooooo | |
| |
|
Tournament Impact in WI ie. Culling study Results