|
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Very right you are, Steve. IT's a social issue.
But it's still a bunch of BS, what started out as a culling study on fish mortality has ended as a proposal to implement a tournament stamp and tournament fee for permits. If it was purly to recover the 90K investment, I wouldn't have such a large complaint. But I have grave doubts that it'll be elminated after the 90K is recovered. and in no way is it worded that way.
IF, this goes through. I believe if you paid extra that day to fish a tournament. Then you are more entitled to the water. So all you recreational guys, get the HE** outta my way!!!!!  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "FACT remains that some sort of regulation IS needed"
That is your opinion, not fact. A fact is something like "mortality from tournaments has shown no negative effects of the fishable population of this body of water" or something like "doc has a negative view of bar owners that run fishing tournaments".
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | hahahahaahahahah Jayman, when the public see's you coming they already run for there lives.
I know where Doc is coming from about Bar owners and tournaments on the wolf river. How does it hurt tourism? Well, if one person has a bad taste from being driven to close to they may never come back and spend there money in our towns. I work and live on the river. I have been run next to by locals, out-of-towners, tournament guys, pleasure boaters, jet ski's, and just about everyone else who does not fit these descriptions.
So, with that being said, If the DNR Decides to impose a fee for the tournament guy, who, is using the natural resource for his possible money gain, and the tournament director who is using it for his money gain, I would like to attach a rider to the bill.
I propose we implement another user fee for the Guides. They show people how to catch fish on my waters and then allow them to keep and kill everything. We try to perform catch and release. I ask that all business owners pay another user fee as the people who are spending money at the establishments are using the water and that is of course wrong. I ask that the cities that line our water ways pay the dnr yet another fee because they charge a fee to launch boats into a natural resource.
Any others. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Kinda funny that you cite that example, Stacker, of people running too close on the river. You and I, as locals, kind of understand what is common courtesy of either no wake or on plane to reduce the huge wake vs the half on plane going slow and throwing the biggest wake you can. Which many people do, but don't realize is more of a discourtesy.
I have personally had Doc blow by my boat in the NL area in a tighter stretch of the river only about 10-15' off the side of my boat. I never complained and don't think twice about it. But to the average tourist they may have a different perception.
So with that said, How are these new tournament regulations going to fix that? How are less bar tournaments going to fix the tourist perception? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | stacker,,stacker the guides already pay extra..... need a licence ,,, and more insurance and they pay taxes just like you and me ... thats the problem,,, add another fee to this to that,,, jet skies cause its not fare to fisherman,,,, thats how they get us ,,, they wait for someone to complain that so and so doesnt have to pay it , then they go get so and so.... the public asked for it to be done... so we did it ,, now pay up..... the river is busy becouse the group that they are attacking is conserned about it and sponsors stocking and management over and above what the state investes ,, ie walleyes for tommorow... if you build a fishery they will come.. lots of people ,,, lots of property sold lots of everything... if there were no fish you would be able to sit in your boat and not have anyone blow by you for a week, what about local boat dealers that are on the waters edge... should they pay extra cause there running service tests up and down the river . i think they should pay extra too.. wait wait.... im sure they already get a tax bill that would make our heads spin.... but hey why not add an extra grand... what a joke.... devide and conquor thats what they do.... thanx you anti tournament guys who called there congressman... you still have tornaments you always will , just got a bunch of guys to send more to the state that wont go into your natural recources any way.... it will be spent on some consulting firm braught in from out of state to tell us that we should have a state launch pass on our boat trailer in addition to the local ramp pass or fee. oh and they will build a walking path from the middle of nowwhere to some other place that doesnt exist.... no pets allowed no atvs no bikes... no nothing just walking.. and if you you get attacked by wolves or a dingo takes your baby you better not hit it over the head with a stick , or you will spend the rest of your life in the can.... |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Yup, Stacker, I pay $40.00 for Guide license, so I don't see the need for another fee there. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee:
You say: “As for blaming the DNR...I think you better take a look in the mirror first, they didn't do this!”
Please give more detail. They didn’t do what? You say that we (are you referring to tournament fishermen?) should look into the mirror. Okay, I looked into the mirror. I saw the same guy that I always see. I saw someone who releases over 95% of all the fish they catch. I saw someone who has been a member of organizations like Walleye For Tomorrow because I believe in giving back to the resource. I see someone who picks up garbage when he sees it in the water. I see someone who hands out flyers (at his cost) to people concerning the spread of VHS. I also see someone who is no different than the majority of tournament fishermen. As a whole, this group is a very caring part of our society. So what did we do?
Why has this turned into an “us against them” situation? Who are them? Are they the minority of property owners who believe they own the lake because they can afford some land?
What will change to our ecosystem if this new regulation is in place? They talk about reducing the limit from 5 to 3 fish. What’s the impact to the system if this occurs? Where are the facts? Why is this needed? Do we have fisheries that are decimated because of tournaments? What rock have I been hiding under?
Man, my memory must really be bad. I thought that the original research was supposed to find out if culling hurt or helped the fishery. Did we ever get an answer to this? If there is a high mortality rate during July and August would/could culling help this situation? I must be going mad, I thought that this was the same question I asked long ago when people were up in arms about the bass study and the national circuits being allowed to cull.
As far as the comment regarding now “We have to live with it and accept it”. Not yet! Not so fast! Sounds to me like people have real passion about this subject and there has NOT been any new laws passed YET. I would encourage everyone to contact a member of the Natural Resources Board before they review the finished document. They are:
Christine L. Thomas, Chair, (Dean and professor) 715 346 4185
Jonathan P. Ela, (Conservationist, retired from the Sierra Club)Vice Chair, 608 238 8187
John W. Welter, (Attorney) Secretary, 715-831-9565
David Clausen, (Veterinarian)715 268 8131
Gerald M. O'Brien, (Attorney)715 344 0890
Howard D. Poulson, (Farmer)262 495 2439
Jane Wiley, (Community conservation activist)715 359 2475
Or you can go to the next Board Meeting ………. WAIT….. it looks to me like they are railroading this in without giving us a chance to speak. Read the rules below. They say that the Board will not allow public appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
Funny, if I read the thread from TYEE it says they are voting on this in December. The board has no scheduled meeting in November. So, I will assume that they do not want public input. YOU BETTER CALL !!!!
Guidelines for Citizen Participation and Public Appearances at Natural Resources Board Meetings
The Board provides opportunities for citizens to appear before the Board to provide information. Such appearances shall be brief and concise. In order to accommodate as many persons as possible in the allotted time, the Board has established the following guidelines:
B. Citizen Participation - speaking on items that are not on the current Board agenda:
1. Citizen Participation appearances are usually made at 1 p.m. on the day of the Board meeting. When the Board meets at different locations around the state, appearances are accepted every month. When the Board is in Madison, appearances are accepted every other month.
2. The Board will not allow citizen participation appearances on any iteml that is on the Board agenda for public hearing authorization.
3. The Board will not allow citizen participation appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
4. Individuals or organizations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes before the Board, regardless of the number of topics, unless the Board Chairperson limits presentations to 3 minutes. Board members may question citizens following their presentations.
5. The Board encourages individuals to confine their remarks to broad general policy issues rather than the day-to-day operations of the Department of Natural Resources.
6. An organization is limited to two (2) spokespersons on an issue.
7. On complex issues, individuals wishing to appear before the Board are encouraged to mail advance materials that the Board may read to be better informed on the subject in question.
8. No matters that are in current litigation will be brought before the Board during public participation sessions.
C. Public Appearances - speaking on items that are on the current Board agenda:
1. The Board will not allow public appearances on any item that is on the Board agenda for public hearing authorization.
2. The Board will not allow public appearances on information items that are on the current agenda.
3. Individuals or organizations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes before the Board, regardless of the number of topics, unless the Board Chairperson limits presentations to 3 minutes. Board members may question citizens following their presentations.
4. The Board encourages individuals to confine their remarks to broad general policy issues rather than the day-to-day operations of the Department of Natural Resources.
5. An organization is limited to two (2) spokespersons on an issue.
6. On complex issues, individuals who wish to appear before the Board are encouraged to mail advance materials that the Board may read to be better informed on the subject in question.
Appearance Deadline
Requests for Citizen Participation and Public Appearances must be made to the Board Executive Staff Assistant no later than 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting.
To schedule an appearance before the Natural Resources Board, contact:
Board Executive Staff Assistant
(608) 267-7420
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | OK OK , I forgot you needed the guides license. so they are out, they already pay. If they have to pay to use a resource, then shouldn't everyone? seems only fair. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| As fisherpeople we already pay a License Fee. How is this different? It's an added revenue for the state, at tournament fisherpeople's expense.
How I choose to fish or what I do with my fish, is my decision not the states and I shouldn't be taxed for it, weather it be ethical or not. There will always be a questioning of ethics.
Dennis, thanks for pointing out the fact that it's getting railroaded in.
and Tyee, "the look in the mirror" statement wreaks of anti-tournament sentiment. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | look, lets just take JUNE , on BAGO alone.... 600 boats /weekend is 1200 stamps sold at 20 bux a piece = 24 thousand alone... then add a fee/entry on each boat thats 600 boats x i dont know 10 $ a boat( or whatever it will be) =6000 bucks times 4 big weekends in june is another 24 grand, this only june and only on bago, and you already have 50 grand collected... add the bay and the wisconsin and mississpi , add the bass anglers, clubs and musky gang,, add add add, and multiply,, out of state participants need to buy a stamp and licence... where does it end? SUNSHINE SAYS IT ALL, CALL CALL CALL and stop this,,, but i cant think of one elected rep that i can call that has the power to stop this,,,, the only one would be our states governor... and lets just guess what he will do? he will make a call, find out that there will be not thousands but a potental million dollars in new revenue.. and do you think he will stop this for us... there are a-lot of sportsman out there that vote.. but we will be sold down the river... im frustrated , of all the hard work guys like sunshine have done , even stacker cares and thats why he speaks up , but the sun is beating down on our can of worms and its starting to stick,,, this sounded cut and dried to me , reading tyees report, on page 2, now what can we do? i still think this should be opened up as a new thread,,, there are too many of our fellow fisherman sitting in a tree stand and not paying attn this time of year... i dont mind getting a knife in my guts but the state sticking it in my back is getting old. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | A guide has a fishing license already, why should he have to buy another? Why is he being singled out? There are 2 ways to look at everything. Think about this, If we can compile a list of "Other sports and activities" That use a natural resource and do not get charged extra fee's, than thay cannot unfairly single out one sport. Ours!! They will need to make a bill that encompasses all activities to a usage stamp. This just may be the way to stop this for now. The other thing is at every destinatination of a tournament, the business' should be notified immediatly about this action. There is one thing for sure, they still listen to business' that will lose money. A direct loss of revenue. If they do this the wrong way, there will be less guys fishing tourneys. There will be more very good walleye fisherman that are just out fishing now and they will be keeping many more fish than what they once did. Alot of down the old hill effects. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | do you have any idea what a walleyesfortommorow could do with that kind of money,,,, try building there own lake ,,, lets start with mendota waubesa, kagonza , and menona, build a big electrical dam, connect it to the wisconsin river. and flood the whole works... stock it plump full of bass for the bass guys muskys for the musky guys, and i dont know , enough walleyes to stock the whole country in 10 years... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | hey stacker thats the point they arent going to cut us a break because of others using the recource... we already pay taxes national local and state... so do they ,, the jet ski power boat , sailing snorkling ,, bank fisherman, corperations on the river, restauaunts , farms , hotels , campgrounds, people who paint bridges and sell there paintings. where will it end , they will just add to the list, and then raise the cost of the fees(taxation without representation) ie the constitution of the united states, this is not what the dnr or the state constitution was set up for,,, there are laws that are suppose to protect us and they are being ammended every day,,, this is out of hand,,, same with anglers from out of state ,, they are charged more for there licence because we already support the costs on our tax rolls ,, add up your property taxes, add up what comes off your pay check and goes to the state. add up how much of the cost of filling up your boat with gas goes to the state, add up all your licenses and registration for all your vehicals, add up the couple bucks on you phone and cell phone bill, look at what percentage of your hotel room bill is a local tax , pack of smokes? liquor in a retarant or bar is taxed , sales tax,, got a 40,000 dollar boat? did you forget you sent the state 2grand? and if you sell it for 30 grand next year , the guy you sell it to will send in another 1500 on the same fricken boat! check your cable tv bill for taxes, take a look at a pet licence for you chocolat lab.boat launch fees, fees on bait because of vhs, new taxes comming there soon. what about your garbage pickup fee, and your park sticker , when are people going to wake up? this has nothing to do with vhs or culling or anything related to potential dammage done to our lakes by anglers. anglers are the ones who take care and work to make them better... im surprised they dont pull all the dams and make the bago chain into a flying pig refuge like it was in the olden days... why do you think you have half the rocky points on the lake? becouse the indians years ago usta build paths threw the swamp(rainforest) that it was to get out to the river chanel , that wasnt lake winnibaggo. still going off and crabby sorry guys, but they wont ,,, because they have to get the locks operational and open , vhs and other invasives arent a priority either , if it was they wouldnt be so willing to open travel from the great lakes into bago,,, here is another question,,, when it is fully navable is the bago chain now a great lake? who has the final say then,, not only do you have to get past the state, but also the feds. here we go.. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | wow read it again for the 5 th time... 3 fish BAG LIMMIT ! mid june to the first week of september? otter street. 350 boats go out , you get to put 3 in your box for a tournament BAG LIMMIT... we have a 5 fish per guy Bag limmit in the state dont we? weigh your best 5 ? remember no culling in wisconsin! oh goodie this will work out great.. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 625
Location: LaCrosse, WI | I’ve posted my thoughts about these regulations before. Here’s what I flat out do not understand (well, I do understand, I just strongly disagree with). If this is a financial thing, why not just require a $10 or $20 gas powered watercraft fee for each vessel annually. Just think of how much money the state would get back on that. I would gladly pay a whopping $10 or $20 per year to run my boat on public water. I would also love to see pleasure boaters, wake boarders, jet skiers and pontoons have to pay to play.
I do believe that tournaments do need better regulation in WI, but I do not feel that this is headed the right direction. I think the biggest losers in this whole proposition is going to be small business that thrive on the publicity their towns get when the big tours come to town. A friend of mine owns a bait shop in LaCrosse, about 1/4 of his annual revenue comes in a two week period when the BFL is in town. He estimates that 50% of his revenue is tournament related.
I know another gentleman that owns a small hotel in my area. He estimates that 30-40% of his annual business is fishing related (much of that being for tournaments). I truly think that these regulations will singly handedly prevent the FLW from holding events in the state. The worst part to me is that it seems like a pretty small group representing a fraction of the state got the DNR to pursue this. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Bradley:
I believe that it is 3 fish bag limit per person NOT per boat. At least that is how I am reading it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with 3 per person either. I interpret it this way.
They'll charge me more money to fish the same body of water as everyone else but allow me to bring fewer fish to the landing. And this makes sense to who?
Not a popular opinion but ............ I see no mention of catch and kill tournaments. I wonder why? Are these totally outlawed or are these still a possibility? It sounds funny but would they allow higher limits if it was a catch and kill? If they allowed a catch and kill they would obviously feel that the body of water could handle the removal of those fish. If this were to occur we would be opening the outcry of public opinion. Wonder what would be worst?
Before you slam me, I'm not suggesting anything. Just asking questions. Just working outside the box. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | sunshine
I have to ask myself this.
Denny, when is the last time I had a customer or anybody for that matter, ask me how many fish were killed in a weekend tournament and what was done with them. I cannot remember anybody EVER asking me about this. 15 years around this stuff and I still cannot remember any. There would be 1 guy at a tourney a year that seemed to care. MAYBE!! They were usually old and a bit, well, I will leave it at that. I really doubt most of the public really cares. I still say this, fillet them all and hand out fish sandwiches for free. They will love us. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Thanks Denny! I would have to agree.
As for the discussion on financial loss to business ............... come on guys .............. the DNR thought of this ............ they tell you plain and simple in the original document ......................... must be true, the DNR says so
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department’s Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [email protected] or by calling (608) 266-1959. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Oh, and before I leave to take a chill pill.
I believe that this document has changed enough to constitute a new intent and a new document all together that should once again go through the entire process of scrutiny. This "new" document and "new" discussion should pass through spring hearings and be posted for public review all over again. Even Tyee's buddy states: "the version that gets presented to the NRB may be somewhat different than what we've been putting together".
I look forward (insert sarcasm here too) to reading the green sheet and comparing it to the original document. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Again, Good Point Sunshine, good point indeed!! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | you have all good points Dennis ,, when i think of this i think of lake winnibago,,,, good luck cleaning that lake out,,, and i prefer to use the phrase Catch and EAT , who started this KILL thing? sounds terrible ,, there doesnt seem to be any evidence that a popular turnament destination is affected by the servival rate after a tournament,, the lakes that dont have a plentyful population of the desired species will not be schedualed ,, and if they are plentyfull and catch and release is in place there doesnt seem to be any impact ,, in fact it seems that the noumbers of fish in these popular river locations and lakes have been steadily going up over the last ten years... with good management by our dnr combined with local efforts by clubs to try to keep water levels and stocking programs going strong.. all the hype on this topic is crazy,,, and thats why the laws will be changed,,, it doesnt seem to be based on any scientific data and i cant think of anyone being hurt because of the way things have been in the last ten years... if it aint broke dont fix it... unless you make your living fixing things that arent broken.... then never mind just fix it ,, send the fisherpeople the bill,,, the evil tournament directors and anglers who make so much money doing what they love and destroying our environment ,,,, ya ok.... more like enjoying and taking care of the environment and spending there retirment fund to do what they love. im fine with catch and eat ,,, im sick of putting my fish back i fish a tournament spend like a few hundy and when i get home sunday night with my tail between my leggs my wife says ,,, what do you mean you arent allowed to keep your fish? spent 300.00 and won 150 and we have to go out for fish? yup i say..lol she likes to go out and all but , in her words that is the most assin9 thing she herd,, and drives her nuts... must be her gathering nature,... so we hunt but we dont gather...well we do but then we put them back for the future ,,, but then we pay a fee to put them back.. hmmm? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | And if you really want to get your blood pressure up ………. Read the Summary of Public Comments on Proposed Tournament Fishing from the spring hearings. Then tell me if anyone is listening or cares about public opinion.
Here is how you and I voted
Rule Number 74 … Percent opposed 75%
Permit Application Process … Percent opposed 58%
Tournament Permit Fees … Percent opposed 79%
Limits on Tournament #s … Percent opposed 74%
July-August Live Release Ban … Percent opposed 80%
AIS Plan Requirement … Percent opposed 58%
Here are the DNR summaries..... their words not mine........
Live Release Ban – NR-22-06 proposed a prohibition on live release format – where fish are caught, held in live wells, transported, weighed, and later released – fishing tournaments during the months of July and August to address concerns about waste of fish due to post-release mortality. The proposed ban on live release tournaments during July and August generated the greatest number of specific comments for specific rule components. It is probably the issue that caused the majority of the controversy surrounding FH-22-06. Despite the volume of comments received, the unique themes were limited. Most people were very opposed to a ban on live release tournaments during July and August, feeling that it was unnecessarily restrictive. Many provided reasonable alternatives to a ban. The topic of minimizing post-release mortality would be one that could be provided to the FTAC, with well defined bounds, for discussion and recommendation. The committee could work to determine alternative regulations for tournament operations and under what conditions those would apply.
Limits – NR-22-06 proposed limits on the size and numbers of tournaments that could be held on waters. Monthly limits on the number of tournaments for lakes and chains of lakes varied depending on acreage, and considered both the size (number of boats) and length (number of days) of the tournament. Maximum size of tournaments (number of boats/participants allowed daily) was also proposed. Proposed limits on the Mississippi River pools were similar to existing limits in place in the state of Minnesota and were simply a maximum number of tournaments allowed per month. There was minimal support for limits on the size and number of fishing tournaments that should be allowed on water bodies. The support generally came from the Wisconsin Association of Lakes and from individuals specifying the Mississippi River. However there was far more opposition to limits. Those opposed generally felt it was unfair to single out tournaments, given that crowding at and on waters of Wisconsin transcend all water recreation. Although some alternatives were presented, many of them would add complexity to an already complex proposal. The public comment results, complimented by the results of the angler and boater surveys completed for the bass fishing tournament pilot program seem to indicate the need for limits may not be as necessary as previously thought. Perhaps general authority for biologists to deny a permit if they are aware of potential conflicts (e.g. another large tournament already permitted at an access site) will suffice for the time being.
You can read the whole document here: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/fishtournruledev.html
I tried attaching it but WF would not let me. Are you guys on the DNR side now  
Edited by Sunshine 10/2/2007 4:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Just remember these people are working for us....you know a government of people, for the people, by the people
This pisses me off enough that the Secretary of the DNR should be drug out on to State street and hung. Got anymore of those chill pills, Dennis?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | slow down there jayman lol ,, we dont want them surrounding your house with the swat team the secretary of the Dnr doesnt know that yu have no arms or legs and cant follow threw with that threat even if you wanted to ... lol,,, but yes i was like that yesterday , it makes a guy very angry indeed.... it just such a pile of crap with no logical base.. frustraiting.. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | I’d slow down just a bit Jayman.
We have a new Secretary of Natural Resources. His name is Matthew J. Frank and he was appointed as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), effective September 1, 2007.
I always believe in a short honeymoon period for appointed public employees.
Maybe we’ll break him in on this issue. However he has been around the block. served as Secretary of the Department of Corrections for more than four years and 22 years as an Assistant Attorney General for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. His tenure at DOJ included six years as Administrator of the Division of Legal Services during which time he oversaw the state's environmental protection defense and enforcement actions in state and federal courts.
FRANK, MATTHEW
(608) 266-2121
101 S WEBSTER ST AD 5
MADISON WI 53702
[email protected]
|
|
| |
