|
|
Member
Posts: 885
| DNR ready to alter VHS rules By Todd Richmond
Associated Press writer MADISON — State wildlife officials have agreed to relax rules to contain a deadly fish virus by allowing anglers to reuse bait minnows under certain conditions.
Current VHS emergency rules prohibit the movement of live fish from any Wisconsin water. Those regulations expire April 7.
The virus turned up in the Lake Winnebago chain in May.
The state Department of Natural Resources wanted to make the movement ban part of a permanent regulatory package the agency has been developing.
But Republican lawmakers balked at that idea because it forces anglers to discard good bait minnows — a popular universal bait — and buy new ones for every outing, even if the fishermen would have reused the minnows on the same body of water.
The Assembly Natural Resources Committee, which has the power to object to the DNR's proposal, asked the agency to revise the plan.
The DNR offered a compromise Wednesday that would permit anglers to use the same minnows again if they come from a registered Wisconsin dealer, they haven't come into contact with any wild water and they're used on the same water body.
"I think we can agree to this," said state Rep. Scott Gunderson, a Waterford Republican who chairs the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. "This will make a lot of fishermen more apt to agree with the rule."
Jim Schleifer, an Onalaska fisherman who serves as the western Wisconsin director for the state Bass Federation, said the changes would make life easier for anglers.
"They've wasted what they didn't use and they have to buy new tomorrow," Schleifer said. "It's probably a reasonable relaxation of the rules."
The DNR plans to ask the Natural Resources Board to insert the changes into the existing emergency rule and the permanent rule package next week.
If the board OKs the changes, DNR fisheries management director Mike Staggs said he expects the Legislature's rules committee will extend the emergency rule beyond April 7 until the permanent rules are published. Board Chairwoman Christine Thomas didn't immediately return a message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
VHS can't harm humans. But it can cause a variety of trophy fish to bleed to death from the inside out and has caused massive fish kills in the Great Lakes. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Some very sensible re-thinking in my opinion. Kind of amazing there was room for a compromise on this with VHS being such a dooms day virus. I'm sure they realize there is no way to enforce the laws they put into place anymore, which begs the question, how bad is VHS really? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | The DNR offered a compromise Wednesday that would permit anglers to use the same minnows again if they come from a registered Wisconsin dealer, they haven't come into contact with any wild water and they're used on the same water body.
If I read this part correctly, there going to let me buy minnows from the guy who sells them that have been guaranteed by 28 days of quaranteen to be VHS free. Then I can use them again tomarrow if they believe me when i said that I did not add any water from any source to the minnows that I bought from that good guy minnow dealer, and I will be using them on that same lake river resevoir again tomarrow or maybe the next day.
It sounds like they are just going to trust us not to take and spread them around.
What about killing all the harvested fish before we leave the launch? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| There is no way to square this with the initial regulations. If the spread of VHS was the main concern then the regulations already in place are the best way to control it but now they are literally abandoning the main base of these regulations that HAD to be in place because the sky was falling. I always thought the VHS was over blown and the willingness to bend big time on a core issue kind of re-inforces it. I think these new regulations are better and I do agree, what about the harvested fish? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| "VHS can't harm humans. But it can cause a variety of trophy fish to bleed to death from the inside out and has caused massive fish kills in the Great Lakes."
I love that last line.....Only trophy fish? Who cares? I just want to catch a few eaters. 
Denny, you bring up a good point. 28 days. Cold still make getting shiners difficult this spring along the wolf river. Just not enough time after they run low or out.
Edited by Jayman 3/20/2008 1:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I'd sure love to see the proposal of how to enforce this rule. I've abided by the new law that is in place by dumping all my unused minnows, which to me is a pretty big waste considering I use a contained bait bucket where no outside water gets in.
This will affect me quite a bit come fall musky fishing with Suckers. Maybe I'll just have to get a bunch of walleyes for the quickstrike? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Pointer, if they change it to what I believe they are saying, then they will not have to inforce anything, they will be working on trust so you just wont have to worry about the suckers. also, if you took walleye out of a lake for bait, you would have to kill them at the launch, so that theory doesnot work either. Take the walleye home and eat them. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Proposed changes to FH-30-07 (renumbered FH-30-07A, as revised).
The first two changes to the permanent rules directly address the primary concern of legislators.
1) Anglers will be allowed to retain live minnows after a fishing trip if they were obtained from a
Wisconsin bait dealer and have not been exposed to water or fish from the lake or stream, or if the
live minnows will subsequently be used for bait only on that same water body. This is
accomplished by the creation of s. NR 19.05 (3) (e) and (f) in SECTION 3 of FH-30-07A.
2) Up to 2 gallons of water in a container holding those live minnows may be transported away from
the water body. This is accomplished by the creation of s. NR 19.055 (5) in SECTION 4 of FH-
30-07A.
To prevent minnows captured by recreational anglers in VHS-affected water body from being transported
to another water body under the liberalized rule, the following limitations on minnow harvesting are
TO: Natural Resources Board, March 17, 2008 2
imposed, with special exceptions for suckers, which are sometimes harvested for human consumption.
3) The use of any net, trap, or similar device to harvest minnows (except suckers) from any water
body where the VHS may be present (as identified by the Department) is prohibited. This is
accomplished the creation of s. NR 20.14 (9) in SECTION 11 of FH-30-07A.
4) Live suckers may not be transported away from such waters. They may be harvested, but may
not be kept alive when being transported away from such waters. This is accomplished by the
creation of s. NR 20.14 (10) in SECTION 11 of FH-30-07A.
The following changes are also included in FH-30-07A to clarify the original intent of FH-30-07.
5) Minnows purchased from a Wisconsin bait dealer may be possessed by an angler on a water body
that has no open season for minnow harvesting. This is accomplished by an amendment to s. NR
20.05 (6) in SECTION 9 of FH-30-07A.
6) Such minnows do not count toward an angler’s daily bag limit. This is accomplished by an
amendment to s. NR 20.05 (7) in SECTION 9 of FH-30-07A.
7) A summary table in the Administrative Code is amended to be consistent with the new minnow
and sucker rules. This is accomplished by amendments to s. NR 20.20 (73) (h) in SECTION 13
of FH-30-07A
Here's a link to the entire document
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2008/March/03-08-3B3.pdf |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 885
| Thanks for clearing that up for me Tyee... I'm still bringin my Attorney and my priest along with me! Purple Skeeter |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| I'm bringing Tyee! He'll know way more about the regs than any lawyer will! Priest would be a nice touch, though. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Halalula...Praise the lord and give me three Hail Marys and I'll bless that bow mount for ya Shep so PS don't find it bouncing down the road.
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
| stacker - 3/20/2008 4:42 PM
Pointer, if they change it to what I believe they are saying, then they will not have to inforce anything, they will be working on trust so you just wont have to worry about the suckers. also, if you took walleye out of a lake for bait, you would have to kill them at the launch, so that theory doesnot work either. Take the walleye home and eat them.
What if I didnt leave the lake and wanted to hook my walleyes up on a quickstrike on that lake.....That would work now wouldnt it.
I was only kidding about the walleyes anyway sheesh!....the walleye makes up very little of the muskies diet anyways, although sometimes some of the walleye crowd seems to think its the muskies eating all the walleyes. The average Wisconsin Homo sapien however has a high percentage of their diet consisting of the walleye, especially friday nights! Dont worry, I wont be hooking your walleyes on a quickstrike anytime soon. Walleye fishing just doesnt entertain me much, but someone needs to harrass them....thats where you guys come in. |
|
| |
|
| What the new rules does is give an angler with an aerated bucket the benefit of the doubt, especially in ice fishing where I guess you would rarely add "wild" water. During open water, it makes more sense to have a portable aerator or aerated bucket then use the bait well in your boat now. The new rules gives us a way to comply to a rule, which if followed, works in limiting the spread of VHS without the senseless waste of bait. I don't have to leave minnows in my truck, can use what I get if I keep them alive and there won't be minnows all over the ground at the boat ramp and 300 seagulls decorating everyones truck. Those who choose to can practice good stewardship of the resource and not be forced to waste money because of a general feeling that they couldn't trust the fishermen.
Thanks for getting something done. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| My understanding is that you don't need an aerated bucket, the rules were sent back to committee by both the house and senate because it was brought up that if one of the senator’s grandson in Oshkosh bought minnows and fished at Rainbow park but the fish were not biting and decided to bike over to Menominee park to fish, he would need to kill his bait. This did not make the lawmakers happy so it was sent back to committee to change the rules to be more reasonable. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| I applaud the pragmatism of the rule change. I have used up a page or two here supporting the practical use of bait and the practical limitation created because the whole issue still comes down to angler responsibility.
The change of the rules to reflect practical realities does not diminish the importance of VHS. It merely reflects thoughful adjustments.
Take care,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Jim,
Exactly. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Doesn't changing an enforcible regulation to essencaly a non-enforcible regulation, in it's self, diminishing the importance of VHS? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| The rules still exist to protect the waters. The rulemakers are trusting us to protect our own resource by tweeking the regs to allow "non issues" such as re-using minnows in the same water. The killing of minnows to be used on the same water is a waste that resource.
This does not diminish the needs for the overall VHS regs. I really do not get your point? Do you think people should not be able to reuse minnows on the same lake?
Take care,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Umm...no. All I am saying is when you take a law that has an enforcement trigger in it, re-work it so there is no conceivable way to enforce it, it kind of destroys the law. It now becomes a law that has no punishment trigger for violators because there is no way to prove there is a violation unless the wardens tail someone from one body of water to another. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | As is my very customary state... I am confused.
I understand this as follows:
I can add "wild" water as long as I only use the minnows on that body of water.
I cannot add "wild" water if I am going to fish Lake "A" today and then take that water and minnows to Lake "B".
XCan I add water from a "jug" that I have brought along with me... say from a well or from the bait shop? ANd, if I do, can I dump that bait shop water and refill again that night from the well? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | You do know one thing for sure, they have been listening a little, because they are making changes. Maybe we should let them get this passed as it seems good for everyone and then teach the fishermen about the disease and as doc says, for good stewardship of the resource, we can police ourselves. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| There is one way they could have tweaked it to have it make sense and to have an enforcement trigger. Make the law so the only waters in the state you can use fatheads are on the Winnebago system and Lake Michigan, but are illegal to use on all other un-infected waters. All other minnows are not allowed to be used on Winnebago system and Michigan. You solve the issue of being able to re-use bait AND have an enforcement trigger for violators. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | State wildlife officials have agreed to relax rules to contain a deadly fish virus by allowing anglers to reuse bait minnows under certain conditions.
Current VHS emergency rules prohibit the movement of live fish from any Wisconsin water. Those regulations expire April 7.
The virus turned up in the Lake Winnebago chain in May.
.....The state Department of Natural Resources wanted to make the movement ban part of a permanent regulatory package the agency has been developing......
!!!!!!But Republican lawmakers balked at that idea because it forces anglers to discard good bait minnows — a popular universal bait — and buy new ones for every outing, even if the fishermen would have reused the minnows on the same body of water.!!!!!
......The Assembly Natural Resources Committee, which has the power to object to the DNR's proposal, asked the agency to revise the plan.....
The DNR offered a compromise Wednesday that would permit anglers to use the same minnows again if they come from a registered Wisconsin dealer, they haven't come into contact with any wild water and they're used on the same water body.
The idea that this proposed rule change, driven by Republican Lawmakers, somehow diminishes the disease makes no sense to me. VHS is a disease in fishes, not a concept or something political.
That said, I think the rule changes were inevitable, as is the eventual spread of VHS to more waters in Wisconsin. Anglers in general are notoriously poor stewards when left to our own.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| I still stand by my other comments. But, aside from a bait law they do not have the mapower to enforce anyway, the larger issues of cntaiminated water will come from bilges and livewells. Not only from fisherman but all the recreatioal water craft and pleasure boaters. We must all do what we can to prevent the spread. Interesing bit of thinking regarding certain bait only allowed in certain water. Unfortunately, if you are not using fatheads in the summer, you will be tossing the shiners that died by noon anyway.
My solution last year was to use very few minnows. Plastics, crawlers, and leechs are my choices
Take care,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| My point was that the new proposal does in fact, diminish the disease, at least for a while by writing regulations that can't punish an offense. There is no way to enforce anything. It leaves a wide open hole because there is no way to know where any minnows came from on any lake. Why leave a non-enforceable law in effect when it won't protect anything? It's saying there is a desease so take care. If the threat is truly there why not stand on principles and say the threat is that great we can not compromise on this? If the case is that strong it would sway those rascally republicans.
I will predict that as soon as VHS is found in another body of water we will be hammered harder with even more invasive regulations than the ones that were put into place the first time.
|
|
| |
