|
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I follow the DNR webpage and actually read my regulations. I remember no mention of VHS until last spring. If this was such a huge concern, why not warn the few thousand wisconsin anglers that visit Erie about the potential danger of bringing back such a pathogen? Why not petition the legislature to get some sort of testing program for bait imported into Wisconsin? I saw a few signs at the launches that asked us to remove weeds from our trailors and warnings of exotic species, but I never saw a thing regarding any pathogen, much less VHS.
Simple fact of the matter is, they did very little to NOTHING until after it was found in Wisconsin. You say they reacted pretty quick... I suggest they did almost nothing until it was too late.
That said, I don't think VHS is going to be that big a deal in the long term, so I don't think it work arguing over.
One more thing... VHS was first found in the great lakes in 2003, not 2005. The first significant fish kill didn't occur until 2005. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| I jst got off the phone with my contact at the DNR and have a little bit of information that may feed a few minds. About five years ago the State Legislature took the authority to monitor the private minnow farms away from the DNR and gave it to the Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Now DATCP only looks after the interests of consumer trade and commerce, not wildlife management. They are concerned about bringing in and raising money to the State. The DNR has no control over what comes out of the minnow farms as far as quality of product including VHS, the only thing the DNR is involved in is the stocking permit and the locaction on the ponds and such forth.
He told me it is possible that some minnow farms still might trap some of their minnows and not get them tested and the DNR not only can't do anything about it but also wouldn't know. He did admit that this whole regulation thing probably will do nothing in stopping VHS from speading to other lakes, expecialy seeming there is a wide open door that can't be closed with the minnow farms because of the State Legislature.
As a side note he also told me that the testing of VHS in the game fish and minnows is definatly NOT 100% accurate. Keep that in mind the next time you place a minnow on a hook and toss it in the water, because there is no way of knowing if that minnow even has VHS you could be helping spead VHS.
I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.
RedNeckTech |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Brad, Thanks I always appreciate intelligent conversation! Yes in 2003 VHS was thought to be introduced into US waters I don't know if any water was actually found to have the disease and I know there were no inland waters with it. The interesting thing is that in 2003 the DNR released their comprehensive plan for dealing with invasives and it has been a very important issue for them. I have linked that document for you and others. Pages 19-23 are interesting regarding planning for bait and ballast water and how large a problem it is but the DNR and even the state as a whole are virtually at the mercy of others regarding regulating them.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/compstateansplanfinal0903.pdf
It may not be the best plan and doesn't address VHS specifically but at least there was a plan in place as long ago as 2003.
I hope your right and VHS fizzles out in time with little consequence.
I have been discussing this topic with many, many fishermen and am amazed at the number of people that still don't know anything about VHS much less the new regulations on bait transportation. I'd bet it's close to 1 in 5!
Good luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Doc, I think the only one that seems to be offended by my flippant remarks are you. Notice the smiley at the end of my post?????
I wasn't cutting down Sunshine or disrespecting him in any way. as for the cut and paste there are a good number of people that are very good at cutting and pasteing what they find on the internet. It doesn't always mean they know what they are talking about. Is it wrong to questoin that? ( and no Dennis I wasn't questioning your info, I think you and I have that understanding)
For you to cut down on "outside" thinking would suggest your a sheep with in the flock and mearly a follower. Feel free to judge my character, but sorry I don't think the DNR is gospel.
My point all along is this is a stupid rule/law that lacks any common sense and will be next to impossible to prevent the spread of VHS. Much like a speed limit sign stops speeding. It's mearly a "suggested practice". There are much larger problems in the big picture of it all. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Jayman: Just for the record, I had/have no ill feelings about your comment. You are right. you and I have that understanding. I for one, am really enjoying the thread. I get great insight of all perspectives and feelings. It has also forced me to read more into the subject.
Edited by Sunshine 1/8/2008 10:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | This proposal has nothing to do with the Walleyes on the Bay, but has excellent graphics on the spread of the disease and the timeline.
I heard several times over the last couple years that VHS had been found in the Great Lakes east of us, and also saw warnings about Erie and St Clair. Several posts covering the disease were discussed on our sister site, MuskieFIRST, quite some time ago.
Look at the numbers of Muskies lost on St Clair last year. This is serious stuff, and I fear it won't just 'go away'. If conditions are right for a widespread outbreak, this virus can be literally devastating to gamefish populations.
I don't see the DNR as 'gospel' either, but attempting to blame the agency in Wisconsin for the spread of the unique strain of this disease through the Great Lakes makes no sense and doesn't get anything positive done. It might make one feel better for a moment, but remember the folks you are bashing read this stuff, and will not then be in a huge hurry to participate in a conversation here on the subject. Believe me, we have a huge body of experience on this issue from working with fisheries managers, biologists, scientists, and other interested parties regarding issues of fisheries management and Muskies. It took almost two years to convince some of the folks reading that site every day who ARE real scientists to trust they could post what they know without a bashfest occurring. That, I think, is a damned shame.
Armchair biologists are a dime a dozen, the real deal scientists have more of an influence as far as my opinions go. If you have a question about this or any issue, the phone numbers are listed for everyone in the DNR, call and have a discussion, you will find the folks there to be people, just like you, who are working to satisfy dozens of competing interests daily in a very tough environment.
One might take care when placing blame to have all the facts. It's uncomfortable and difficult to be forced take back a rude and insensitive accusation when one finds ones self 'out of bounds' and incorrect, so to speak.
This document is from a group of anglers working with the NRB, the DNR, and the public as an advocacy Coalition to preserve the trophy muskie population in Green Bay. This presentation was made a week or so ago in Green Bay.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/01.08.2008/1277/Green.Bay.... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| "One likely possibility is that VHS will act like many other viruses in the environment. Typically, viruses or bacteria infect fish, which may lead to disease in the fish if they are susceptible. Once the disease is expressed in these fish, a small percentage will die," said Kelley Smith, chief of the DNR Fisheries Division. "The vast majority, however, will survive and will develop immunity to the viruses or bacteria that cause a disease. Since there are no large-scale treatments for VHS that can be applied to fish in the wild, the presence of this new virus may result in spring fish mortalities that are abnormally high for a few years as more fish encounter the virus. These mortalities should abate as fish begin to build immunity to the virus."
This is a quote from the MI DNR about Lake St. Claur on their website www.michigan.gov/dnr
The kill in the year 2006 was 2000 musky to maybe 4000 musky, so lets take the average and say 3000 musky died from VHS in 2006. The musky population of that lake is about 100,00 in the year 2000, that means there was a 3% kill off of musky in Lake St. Clair, not a big number. You add in five years of spawning between the year 2000 and the fish kill it could be a smaller percentage. You add in that for the year of 2007 there were NO muskies killed from VHS in Lake St. Clair. Does this mean that 97% of the population built up an immunity? Very plausable.
Largemouth Bass virus (LMBV) broke out in 1995 and was also detected in MI. There were fish kills similar in form and conditions as VHS and the same tactics as far as regulations were suggested for the control of this virus but it spread to about 20 states. The big difference is there was no large panic button pushed in this case. The virus is still out there but the impact is small and with WI right next door there was no panic spread here.
Why panic about something that is more plausable to eaqual out in nature (as it has in Europe) ? The fish kills have not been as huge as one would think when you look at the numbers. A 3% kill off for one year only is small. If it was a larger number and happening every year, it would be a little different story.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| "One might take care when placing blame to have all the facts. It's uncomfortable and difficult to be forced take back a rude and insensitive accusation when one finds ones self 'out of bounds' and incorrect, so to speak."
Can you please show where anything stated was incorrect? Sometimes the truth is not all that much sensitive. With all the fish viruses and sicknesses out there I would like to see where any of them has had a devastating effect on any fish population in the wild. The only place it has had a devastating effect are in fish aquqriums and fish farms, not the wild. Any place where the fish population has fallen to a noticable level was not due to a virus, it was caused by over fishing and pollution. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Steve -
First and foremost, any criticism I have express towards the DNR is directed at the bureaucracy, not the biologists.
At the risk of becoming very unpopular with you, the presentation made to try to "save" the musky on GB was heart felt, but what they are asking for makes little sense to me. The group cites unknown harvest figures, the potential loss of fish due to VHS, and the social desire to catch bigger fish (just like they do in Canada) as a rationale for eliminating ALL harvest of musky on the bay until the effects of VHS have been determined. What they don't mention is that these fish are already protected until they are over 50 inches, that most musky anglers won't harvest a fish unless it can't swim away from the release, and that the population of GB musky over 50 inches is quite small (based on the numbers I've seen, probably less than 5%). Placing additional restrictions on such a small percentage of the population will not have a significant effect on the population of these fish should VHS become a problem.
The process that started the coalition down this path was not concern over VHS, it was disgust with anglers that choose to harvest fish. I believe that it is some anglers desire to see harvest eliminated, not fear over VHS, that has bolstered support for this group. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | 'The kill in the year 2006 was 2000 musky to maybe 4000 musky, so lets take the average and say 3000 musky died from VHS in 2006.'
The impact of this size a kill, even on Lake St Clair, is VERY significant. I don't have the space or time to explain the population dynamics of the Muskie here and drag in the supporting literature so you know I'm not just slinging stuff, suffice it to say that a kill of adult Muskies in the 2000 to 3000 range will have a significant impact on the system for quite some time.
'You add in five years of spawning between the year 2000 and the fish kill it could be a smaller percentage.'
The spawn hasn't improved by any percentage, pressure from additional Muskie anglers has been increasing (Muskie fishing is one of the fastest growing segments in the fresh water fishing market) and the same number (approx. 30%) of EVERY year class continues to die every year WITHOUT angler mortality OR VHS. Therefore, that water is now working with about 3000 less spawning fish than before the kill in 2006. Do that math, it's significant. A muskie there has to be about 5 to 6years old to be viable.
I'd refer you to the research Board on MuskieFIRST for more information and several sources within our DNR and other states and provinces. ( We have a few biologists who post regularly, because we make sure they have a friendly and reasonable environment to do so). The impact of increasing pressure as the sport of Muskie fishing grows, coupled with kills might have a VERY significant negative impact. Now let's say the virus hits Pelican, where water temps and dynamics lake wide allow for a kill that is as significant or much more so that Lake St Clair where sheer size and dynamics 'help', see comments in the attached PDF. A kill in the double digit percentages or more is possible and in fact probable. Pelican has not been stocked since 1998, and will not be for at least a decade. Since the majority of the fatalities appear to be adult fish, you are looking at the destruction of the desirable population there, and a 'recovery' that is not going to be pretty . I don't think that is a 'panic' situation, it's reality.
3% is very significant, and on Pelican that percentage will be larger if the disease follows it's own MO. It doesn't sound like much until you look at the overall big picture. Infect Pelican and you have a magnified situation over the current regs, right? Why not be PROACTIVE, instead of REACTIVE? On one hand we accuse the DNR of negligent inaction, on the other negligent overreaction. Look at the PDF posted again, and look at the spread of the disease, it's very nicely displayed.
I for one am not delighted I have to kill my bait and my harvested fish, but until such a time where the effects, scope, and overall impact of VHS on Wisconsin waters can be accurately measured I'm for a conservative approach. Read the press releases and flyers, informational pieces and all from the DNR...they openly admit the regs in place now may not be exactly what is needed, and express that the regs could and probably will change as the impact of this disease can be measured.
'Can you please show where anything stated was incorrect? Sometimes the truth is not all that much sensitive. With all the fish viruses and sicknesses out there I would like to see where any of them has had a devastating effect on any fish population in the wild.'
Read all the above posts again, and you will see what I'm referring to; I was not talking about the virus or it's effects; I was referring to the occasional tendency we have to bash one another and the experts in order to try to take a stronger stance when expressing opinion. Not a huge deal in this thread, but bad for debate, IMHO. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| I am in no way trying to bash anyone, I am very involved with the industry and see it in a different light than you do. A 3% kill in one year and no reported kill in the following year, I'm sorry, is not that big. But you did hit on an important element in all this.
"The impact of increasing pressure as the sport of Muskie fishing grows" How much of the hype is comming from the viewpoint that there are an increasing amount of certian fishermen after a particular type of fish and the overall population may not be able to withstand the current harvest levels along with natural elements like VHS. There are two ways to look at this
1) Seeming VHS is most common where there are an abundants of fish then why not thin the herd, by allowing smaller fish to be taken by the ever increasing fishermen, that would decrease the population and slowing drasticaly VHS spread.
2) Stop allowing so many fisherman from fishing the musky. Only allow a certian number to fish, have a lottery or manage it like sturgeon spearing. This would decrease one of the strains on the musky population if it is truley an issue.
What would your reaction be if a new regulation came out stating that there was no fishing allowed during the times the water temputure was prime for the VHS to be active? After all, when you catch an undersized fish and release it, that fish is stressed for a time. Stress is a factor on the spread of VHS. Or to be really safe about it you were no longer allowed to use your boat on waters because ther "might" be a chance of transfering the desease, instead you had to fish from shore.
My issue has to do with the over regulation of fishing. What makes anyone think that the regulations stop here? There is a good possibility that an argument could be made that there is no way to stop the spread of VHS so let's ban fishing all together to stop it.
On almost all the different state's DNR web sites there are statements simmilar as follows:
"Diseases like VHS run their course just as they do in human populations. At first mortalities may appear to be large, but many biologists believe that most fish can survive the disease if they are not otherwise stressed because mortalities generally occur in weaker, stressed fish. The remainder will build up a natural immunity to the virus and the numbers of fish killed by the virus will decline."
I also have a DNR Bio. contact in Oshkosh and and he tells me the same thing. Viruses are nothing new in fish and VHS is acting no different than any other. This virus will run it's coarse and find a happy medium for nature. Mother nature doesn't give a damn about what the fisherman wants, the fisherman will have to adapt to what mother nature provides. No virus has ever had a long term devistating affect in nature, why is VHS different?
Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems. Just look at Lake Michigan, it has one huge un-natural eco-systems in the nation. Pretty much every native species that is in the lake is becomming ever so increasingly hard to find, like perch. It is the non-native spiecies that are abundant, and a lot of them the DNR planted in there. There is a good sized group of bio's that say the lake should be brought back to it's natural fish but it is the sport fisherman that is agianst it because they like the salmon, it plays better on the end of the line. This is causing havoc on the lake. The lake needs fish to be planted every year to keep the population. A lake of that size is unable to naturaly support itself due to what? Nature? No, the miss management of the lake. The last I looked the DNR has a huge chunk of that responsability.
Read the effects of the mis-management at the following:
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/wi/010305_great_lakes.htm
I am very confident that this "dooms day" senario is not going to happen. CWD takes out a large number of deer each year but the herd still grows larger, a virus is a virus, it will come to a happy medium with nature, not the fisherman. T
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I will agree to disagree with you on the impact of the Muskie kill on St. Clair, and defer to the experts there and in the muskie arena, who have repeatedly stated the impact is and was significant.
In response to 1):
Thin the herd? I don't think so. We already have a TAC up here in the walleye arena that holds us to as little as 1 over 15" and 1 under on many waters. I don't think you would find a single scientist (and very few anglers) who would support the idea of harvesting more fish to control the possible spread of VHS. I don't think there is a standard as to population density and potential spread of the disease, and rough fish populations susceptible to the virus will always throw a wrench in that idea.
2) Who said the number of Muske anglers is a 'problem'? I made that point to indicate post CPR mortality will rise; 95% plus of all muskies caught are now voluntarily released. Size limits to protect the upper confidence level 'big fish' are increasing wherever the need arises.
The idea of managing a resource is for the sportsmen and women to utilize it, right? Most muskie anglers are very conservation oriented, anyway. My point was that 3000+ adult fish died, and will not be available to spawn, etc., and added to post CPR mortality, normal mortality, and harvest, the impact will be significant.
Post angler capture stressors are not long lived in most cases, and when water temps are cool, are minimal.
My reaction? That's already reality, for the most part. Muskie season here doesn't open until late May in the north and early May in the south. Water temps are long past the 40's at that point, and the major VHS threat passed. In most cases, all Gamefish seasons open to water temps in the 50's. Bass, for example, opens in June.
The virus is present in the waterways all year long; boat, shore, whatever.
Your issue is over regulation of fishing? Which is it, the DNR doesn't do enough to protect us and our resource, or they do too much? How, exactly, is our fishing over regulated at this point VHS regs aside.
I agree that the impact of this virus may lessen over time on infected waters if this pathogen is dealt with by the population's immune systems as many others have been. Should we then, since it will only kill a certain percentage up front, and decreasing percentages over time, encourage it's introduction? I wouldn't, but that's me. The recovery of the fishery on some waters to levels they now hold could take decades.
'Mother nature' didn't introduce this Virus to our waters. Man did. 'Mother Nature' won't spread the virus, Man will. Virus infections transported around the world to the host by Man have indeed had long term effects, that's obvious in ALL animals, fishes, and other life forms in which viruses thrive. Encouraging by 'excuse' a fresh water Wisconsin pandemic just seems counterproductive to me.
I'm very involved in the Industry too. I've made my living in and around the fishing world most of my life. I fail to see why we shouldn't eventually see the same things in at least a light of better understanding just because we are 'involved'.
'I am in no way trying to bash anyone':
'Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems.'
I won't even touch the Perch issue, look to the stringers, commercial harvesters of the recent past and angler's livewells for that problem.
You said it yourself, the Sportsman wants Salmon, and a huge industry revolves around those fish. I see the salmon management by all the states bordering lake Michigan as a huge success by that standard.
Our WIDNR has a form of 'management by public pressure' most other state's DNR agencies can only look at and shudder. The Conservation Congress and Legislature can and do dictate much of our DNR's management philosophy and practices; witness the baiting ban debacle and the C&R 2009 special Muskie season north of Hwy 10.
In many cases, one demands a thing on one hand from the DNR, and blasts them for providing it on the other even to the extreme of enacting new laws superseding those of the DNR as an attachment to the freaking state budget bill.
If indeed the Sportman's interest was stronger for lake trout or Smallmouth Bass or Pike than Salmon, my bet is management goals would shift in that direction. And, your commentary ignores the main driving force behind many of your issues...invasives that MAN brought to Wisconsin waters. If the DNR enacts rules to slow the spread, they are over regulating. If they do nothing, and an invasive upsets the balance and well being of a popular fishery, then they are equally blamed.
Which scenario is real? I submit reality is not even in the middle; our fisheries folks overall are far more capable than I think you give credit for. But again, that's just my opinion...
 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| I will also agree to disagree. I am comparing this virus with others that have come. As stated before LMBV was killing mass large mouth bass in a very similar manner. It only is active in a certian temp. and spreads identical to VHS. Compare the fish kill in St. Claire to Fork Reservoir in TX. St. Clair has approx. 807,067,756,800 gal. of water and the fish kill was 2-4 thousand musky. Fork Reservoir has approx. 306,775,682,460 gal of water and they have a large mouth bass kill of 4,800 or about 2% of their bass population in 1998. I talked to a TX DNR bio. Scott Lamford and a 2% or even 4% kill is very, very minor to the impact of a population. In fact he siad that the bass population had a very large rebound groth 2 years later. If the same amount of bass died today it would now be less than 1% of the population.
"Your issue is over regulation of fishing? Which is it, the DNR doesn't do enough to protect us and our resource, or they do too much? How, exactly, is our fishing over regulated at this point VHS regs aside."
My issue is the DNR does not truely adress an issue until it arrives and then the action is regulating the heck out of things.
"I won't even touch the Perch issue, look to the stringers, commercial harvesters of the recent past and angler's livewells for that problem."
This is exactly my point, all the things you just mentioned above are regulated by the DNR. They have complete control on bag limits for sport and commercil fishermen. You cannot discount the alwife for the perch drop also.
I do not see the DNR as being pressured by the public in reality. With the laws they put into place with such things as docks, land usage, farm field drainage ditches and numberous others including deer hunting issues, they do as they please no matter how big the out cry from the public is.
The DNR has it in their control to help with the invasives just as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, part of the MI DNR, made a law to make it illegal for ships to ballest dump in MI waters...that law was up held in Fed. court.
In short, they have the responsability and power to manage our natural resouces. With that, their laps along with the EPA are where the blame falls on things like this. I do not believe they can brush aside the finger pointing, they are the managers. I do trust that if the DNR was an elected office position the reactions to these concerns would be quite different. They are not truely accountable to anyone and they do act like it. Not saying all thing from the DNR are bad but when the actions do nothing to truely deal with the issue, I will call it to the carpet.
There are DNR bios that think these regulations do nothing or will do nothing to stop any virus. These same regs are very close to the ones issued for LMBV and it still spread.
It is great to debate issues like this even if we don't see eye to eye. You do make some valid points, I am looking at this from the supply side of the industry. The feed back I recieve from magazine editors I deal with is not positive as far as these reg. are concerned. I also am seeing the negitive impacts when I'm out on the road.
RedNeckTech |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Redneck, I do like your approach I am still concerned however that the power still belongs to the people and that the DNR unfortunately has to write laws to protect us from ourselves within their power. It is interesting though that the law was on the heals of the opening of the locks here in Appleton. If there was ever a time that a conspirious theory might exist this one might hold water!
Here's the latest
Good Luck
Tyee
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
December 4, 2007
Contact: George Meyer, Executive Director, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Conservation Organizations Call on the DNR to Regulate Ballast Water Discharges from International Ships
Poynette: Today, thirteen state, national and local conservation groups requested the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources to require permits for the discharge of ballast water containing aquatic invasive species and diseases from international ships into the Wisconsin portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. The organizations petitioning the Natural Resources Board at its meeting today are the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, The Wisconsin Federation of Great Lake Sport Fishing Clubs, the Wisconsin Council of Sportfishing Organizations, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, Wisconsin State Council ofTrout Unlimited, Walleyes for Tomorrow, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Winnebago Land Conservation Alliance, Wisconsin Environment and Lakeshore Fisherman Sports Club Ltd..
The request identified that current state law (the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requires that anyone discharging “biological materials” such as aquatic invasive species and diseases into Wisconsin waters requires a discharge permit and treatment for the ballast water. The State of Michigan has previously required such permits for international ships discharging ballast water into Michigan water of the Great Lakes. The request also petitioned the Natural Resources Board to modify any state rules if necessary to go forward with a discharge permit program.
Over one hundred and eighty-six invasive species and diseases have been introduced into the Great Lakes since they have been opened to Great Lakes shipping. It is projected that many of those species have been introduced through the release of ballast water taken on in foreign waters. Such species include the zebra mussel, the quagga mussel, the round goby, the white perch, spiny water flea and possibly VHS. The introduction of these species into the Great Lakes has cost businesses, municipalities and sportsmen and women hundreds of millions of dollars and has significantly threatened the $2.9 billion sports fishing industry in Wisconsin.
“Sportsmen and women truly appreciate the efforts of the Natural Resources Board and
----more-----
the Department of Natural Resources to support federal and state legislation regulating the discharge of ballast water into the Great Lakes,” stated Lil Pipping, President of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. “However, it appears that upon a review of current state pollution laws, that the Board and the Department can already fully regulate the discharge of ballast water from international ships and the many organizations involved in this petition call on the DNR to do so now.”
The petition is being filed with the Natural Resources Board and the Department Secretary at its meeting in Madison today.
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation is made up of one hundred and fifty-seven hunting, fishing and trapping organizations in Wisconsin and is the state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. The Federation is dedicated to conservation education and the advancement of sound conservation policies. For further information, contact George Meyer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation at 608-516-5545.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | 'In short, they have the responsability and power to manage our natural resouces. With that, their laps along with the EPA are where the blame falls on things like this. I do not believe they can brush aside the finger pointing, they are the managers. I do trust that if the DNR was an elected office position the reactions to these concerns would be quite different. They are not truely accountable to anyone and they do act like it. Not saying all thing from the DNR are bad but when the actions do nothing to truely deal with the issue, I will call it to the carpet.'
What carpet? Just a question, I don't see any benefit of waving accusations and charges around if no one is paying any attention but us few. I'm trying to tell you DNR folks DO read this board, but will not post here if the place looks like it's full of junk yard dogs, so to speak.
Our DNR Secretary and as a result, top staff members, serve at the pleasure of...who?? Isn't our Governor elected by US?
Please don't compare a LMB kill in Texas to a Muskie kill ion St Clair, the impact is not comparable for too many reasons to go into here. I'm calling our resident Muskie fisheries manager to get a better take on how to verbalize this tomorrow. He managed both bass and muskies in the south as he does here in Wisconsin, so he'd be a great source of information.
I would suggest your comparison of the LMB virus to VHS is a parallel only in the fact both are viruses.
The top statement isn't logical. The Virus spread through the Great Lakes, and may have been borne by other methods than shipping vessels. Sure, the original outbreak might...might have been caused by a salty borne load, but is there any definitive proof of that? And, how many ballast loads are discharged without anyone's knowledge? Sure, one can try to control the issues, but passing a law and getting total cooperation are not the same things, as some here have pointed out.
I think I gave you two clear RECENT issues where the DNR DID attempt to protect the resources, and the Legislature, due to private special interest group pressures, reversed those regulations. Who has the power now? New tournament regulations are about to be jammed down our collective throats because of an unfunded mandate from the lawmakers to our DNR which was a thinly veiled anti tournament water use complaint from ANOTHER special interest group.
I'm sick of finger pointing and the negative results of all that wasted energy.
Did you look at the PDF?
If I was a DNR fisheries manager, and was asked to post my opinion on this board, I'd say, "No thanks, I don't think I can have a reasonable conversation there." That's not a good thing, sir, and as long as folks point fingers at people they do not know and make oblique accusations as if those folks were cardboard cutouts, that's what we will have. What possible results can we have other than a few guys making noise if we cannot involve the regulatory agencies and those who work for them? We have been successful at opening channels of communication with fisheries folks on other FIRST properties, and it is my intent to keep those options available here.
I have read all your comments, now please bottom line it for me and tell us what you would do to solve this issue, and what you would then do if the virus is more vile than you think and we lose large populations of gamefish in our inland lakes and rivers when and if it's spread.
|
|
| |
|
| Jayman,
Never said I was offended, never said Sunshine was offended and I'm definitely not a sheep in the flock, but you sir continue to be as I stated.
Edited by Joel "Doc" Kunz 1/9/2008 3:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| As I stated earlier, when a minnow is purchased in Menasha that shows all the signs of VHS, is given to the DNR frozen but fresh and there is no intention to test the minnow to see if it does have VHS nor quarentine the tank in the shop it came from until it is determined if it does have VHS and allowing those other possible contaminated minnows to be set in the waters. This shows me the very, very big holes in the plan to stop this supossed crisis. Much less there is plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon.
Acting in only certian areas and not acting in other areas that have the same potential of spreading VHS is not serving the public. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | As I said above...
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| "Much less there is plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon. "
The plot thickens in the WI DNR Conspiracy. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Not being able to compare the VHS and LMBV to each other is a little tunneled vision. You cannot sit here and say there is a major issue without taking into account what has happened with this type of issue in the rest of the counry and world. The viruses are similar. Name me one virus anywhere in the world that desimated any fish or animal. VHS in Europe was hitting the trout farms hard but not he wild population that hard. There are over 100 fish viruses in this country and none have had a long term bad impact anywhere.
Bio's all over keep stating this will most likly take the coarse of any other virus. The fish will build an immunity. If they didn't there would have been a fish kill in Lake St. Claire last year and there wasn't. Did any fish virus have a longterm negative impact anywhere...no. Is CWD having a longterm negative impact...no. Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no. A virus is a virus and over-reacting to it does just as much harm as not reacting.
How could you say the DNR could not have a resonable conversation here on this? Because all veiwpoints are not as yours? A lot points that I have made you just brushed aside stating there is not enough time or space to respond. Isn't part of this website to educate? If you think I am dead wrong then by all means explain, I am always open to listening. But saying there is not enough time or space to respond kind of works agianst you if your veiwpoint is right.
"Sure, the original outbreak might...might have been caused by a salty borne load, but is there any definitive proof of that?"
I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.
What would I do? Let nature take it's coarse. It is unreasonable to think that nature can't take care of it's self with this virus and only the DNR has a plausable solution. No fish virus has ever desimated a wild population, we still have all the game fish in this country as we have had, in fact probable more of a population. For every reaction there is an equal reaction and when man trys to be the mastermind in nature the reaction is usually not good.
"Our DNR Secretary and as a result, top staff members, serve at the pleasure of...who?? Isn't our Governer elected by US?"
Please tell me one DNR official that we have elected. The DNR is it's own body, un-elected. Why do you think they can enter property with no warrents and do not have to acount it through the courts like the police or FBI?
I could be wrong just as easily as you could be wrong but I am not going to try to smite you because you have a different view. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| I meant to type much less there is no plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | 'How could you say the DNR could not have a resonable conversation here on this?'
Because the average working scientist doesn't take well to being constantly insulted by anonymous laymen.
'I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.'
Water temps last Spring rose very rapidly, and may be the reason no outbreak was noticed in large numbers on St Clair. 4000 muskies the year before was enough to get my attention.
'Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no.'
I'd suggest you look into that a bit better. That virus kills a few PEOPLE every year(transmitted by mosquito bites), so it's a bit different deal.
'Let nature take it's coarse. It is unreasonable to think that nature can't take care of it's self with this virus and only the DNR has a plausable solution.'
I don't think anyone form the DNR has offered a solution, just preventative measures until more data can be accumulated and more study can be done. That's the very nature of science, I think, and one can rail about it all one wants.
'Please tell me one DNR official that we have elected. The DNR is it's own body, un-elected. Why do you think they can enter property with no warrents and do not have to acount it through the courts like the police or FBI?'
What? I asked you who appoints the DNR Secretary, and is responsible for that leadership, which by the way I feel has been excellent. It's now obvious at least to me you just are posting here to bash the DNR, show me otherwise. Please stick to the facts the debate.
'Is CWD having a longterm negative impact...no. Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no. A virus is a virus and over-reacting to it does just as much harm as not reacting.'
CWD is a prion, not a virus. CWD has killed a crapload of deer in the hot zone. That is a separate issue, but the State has done all they can to contain the CWD outbreak here. I didn't like how the PR was handled with the CWD outbreak at first, but that was a different regime and a different time. I'm darned glad there have been no affirmed cases here in the north. What harm is being done other than personal inconvenience and a change in the bait business, which I sympathize with, by the current regs?
'I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.'
4000 dead, floating adult muskies in a relatively small area of one water body was enough for me. I'd rather see error on the side of caution, but again, that's just me.
'A lot points that I have made you just brushed aside stating there is not enough time or space to respond. Isn't part of this website to educate? If you think I am dead wrong then by all means explain, I am always open to listening. But saying there is not enough time or space to respond kind of works agianst you if your veiwpoint is right.'
I was speaking to the impact of a die off of muskies like that on St Clair and the threat it could occur again and again, however less effect in each outbreak there might be, and the effect, both short term and long term, on the population of Muskies there. I referred to the MuskieFIRST Research Board for more information, I suggest you look into that. I also said that trying to explain why the impact of the loss of that many large muskies would be completely different than the loss of 2% of a LMB population in a Texas reservoir would take too much time and space, and most would find it irrelevant to this conversation. I also said I will be calling a highly respected fisheries manager to get a better perspective as speak to the subject more clearly, since he has managed both fishes in the South, and up here. What more would you like me to say?
I'm not trying to 'smite' you, heck I don't even know you, I don't think. I'm debating what you have argued are the facts, and asking you to prove out your concepts and facts accordingly. I'm offering my view, and you offer yours. As long as we both do so without attacking each other or anyone else, that's the very nature of healthy debate.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| "Because the average working scientist doesn't take well to being constantly insulted by anonymous laymen."
All I'm going to say to this is I am in no way a anonymous layman. I have earlier come right out and stated who I was. My work is seen by over 450,000 magazine subscribers every month and the editors would not publish my stuff if it was not accurate. I also have several magazines across the country that request editorial cartoons through-out the year. I know more manufactures, minnow farm owners and bait shop owners than you could shake a stick at.
Second, there is no scientist that can say with any certianty what this virus will do, when there is no certianty either way and the scientist would be insulted by opposing views, then they should remove themselves from the field.
"Water temps last Spring rose very rapidly, and may be the reason no outbreak was noticed in large numbers on St Clair. 4000 muskies the year before was enough to get my attention."
There was no kill from VHS. The first musky kill ever reported was only 4 to 12 muskies. If there was any kill they would have recorded it nomatter how small the number.
''Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no.'
I'd suggest you look into that a bit better. That virus kills a few PEOPLE every year(transmitted by mosquito bites), so it's a bit different deal."
I did say birds, anyway people are animals too and yet...no mass killing.
"CWD is a prion, not a virus. CWD has killed a crapload of deer in the hot zone."
And yet the deer population is increasing in the hot zone.
"It's now obvious at least to me you just are posting here to bash the DNR, show me otherwise."
I worked for the DNR in deer management and am good aquaintences with may wardens in many states. Many of who agree with me. Just because I want to have an accounting and think the DNR has been stepping on toes for a long time is not bashing. By the same token I could say you are for anything the DNR does and they have you are an agent of the DNR here to bolster the agency. Don't second guess my motives please.
I am curious though, you stated earlier that the special interests are forcing legislature to make laws that get crammed down your neck. Don't you see the inherite problem of over stating the VHS issue? How easy will it be for these same groups to go back to Madison and push through even worse laws because of the people out there screaming the sky is falling. This VHS has not been protrated as a issue we must monitor...it has been sold as a huge huge enviromental issue with millions of fish at risk of almost extinction. Can't you see the issue with that?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | You posted what you do, that's a fact, but not who you are. You also assume I am speaking only of you, I was not.
There were anecdotal reports of a few dead muskies this Spring on the Larry and St. I'll see if I can relocate that information.
You and a few others have been rather hard on the DNR's overall response to VHS with nothing more to offer to support the concept than an 'I think' accusation sometimes presented in a manner that is a bit unseemly. Then, when evidence is indicated that the agency might in fact have reacted reasonably, and with a measure of caution, the response is, "No, WAIT!! Look over THERE!!"
If one is going to accuse an agency or person of incompetence/whatever, one needs to back it up with more than exaggerated rhetoric. Opposing views reasonably expressed with good logic behind them are one thing, accusations and blanket statements that the DNR has failed us completely are another. Give me a break. You virtually accused the DNR of Gestapo actions a few lines ago. I know quite a few DNR scientists too, and I am very familiar with the response I can expect from them to this sort of rhetoric. I described that in my last post.
If the herd is growing despite CWD in southern WI, I submit that the changes we have made to our climate and environment favors a growing and difficult to manage, herd, wouldn't you agree?
You demand an accounting; cool, have you picked up the phone and called Mr. Staggs? Who's second guessing your motives? Certainly not me, I'm making observations based on what I read in your posts.
No, I am not an 'agent' of the DNR, but I can and will request that no matter which person or agency anyone here refers to, it will be done with due respect and civility.
I never said anything of the sort. Special interest groups are INFLUENCING our lawmakers and said lawmakers are rewriting DNR regulations in the process; all in an effort for special interests to get what they want. It's pure democracy (little d) in action, but wow, what a mess that it could happen at all. No, I don't see any special interest groups addressing the VHS issues. This seems to me to be an attempt to add that possibility as part of this 'conspiracy theory' issue that has cropped up. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't think VHS is 'being sold' as anything but what it is; a virus that if spread throughout the State waters would have a seriously detrimental effect on much more than just the fish populations. I read a statement ( I think in the DNR VHS handout) that, as I said earlier, clearly indicated they feel these measures are perhaps not the best or worst response, but interim as more data can be collected, study can be done, and outbreaks....or lack thereof...can be assessed.
I'll ask you again, did you look at the PDF from the Green Bay Muskie Coalition presentation?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Yes I did read the PDF. As with anything new there are more questions than answers. I always have and always will side with caution on anything being enacted to try to solve a mother nature problem.
The DNR does a lot of good and have a lot of good regulations but when it comes to invasives they always look like they are in a cluster and just shooting arrows into the dark hoping they get a hit. I'm not bashing but I do want to lay out the history I am looking at.
Gypsy moths: Entered Wis. decades ago and was supposed to devistate our forests...never happened and they are more prevalent now than then.
Ash beetle: Going to destroy all ash trees in the state and the solution is if it is found in a tree, cut all ash trees for a 5 mile radius from that area. Has never worked, besides, you could leave all trees stand and the beetle will not destroy all.
Alwives: No need to re-hash that
Zebra mussels: It was very obvious where they were comming from but yet no action.
Eels: I will give the DNR credit on this one for controling the population.
CWD: It is showing that the eradication in the hot zone is not working. CWD migrates a lot slower, I do believe it will make it's way north within 5 years but agian, I don't see a huge issue with that either.
I also look at MI for examples on how these same issues are not taken as seriously as they say it should. MI does not put the money into enforcing the no ballast dumping law but they will go to the parking lots of "no sent or live baits allowed" lakes and hand out $250 tickets to anglers who are not fishing with sent but happen to have some in their vehicle on the property. MI politics are messed up anyhow.
I am just looking at this at a totally different angle. |
|
| |
