Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] Walleye Fishing -> General Discussion -> Tournament Impact in WI ie. Culling study Results |
| Message Subject: Tournament Impact in WI ie. Culling study Results | |||
Youngster |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Gordy |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer_unlogged |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| hgmeyer_unlogged |
| ||
| 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... | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer_unlogged |
| ||
| 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... | |||
| |||
| hgmeyer_unlogged |
| ||
| 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... | |||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Jayman |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Shep |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| bradley894 |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| brad b unlogged |
| ||
| "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. | |||
| |||
| Joel "Doc" Kunz |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Shep |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's