Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Thread: wisconsin trolling

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Three Lakes
    Posts
    142
    This discussion is very interesting. A friend introduced me to trolling about 7 years ago, and I have used it many times since as just another technique to fish. I remember several days trolling six lines on lake Wingra in Madison when the "carp" nets were out, with two-three other boats, guessing 18 lines trolling 50 acres of water?, never had a problem, sometimes we nailed 'em, sometimes nothing, its just like anything else, there is always a small group of smucks that make a bad name for all, whether its casters, trollers, jet skiers, boaters in general, and don't even get me started on the pontoon boaters! I've trolled for days with nothing to show for it, and I've casted for days with nothing to show for it, so implying trolling is the secret to slaying giants is simply not true. It is another technique that may get more fish in the net annually, that is it.
    To those of us that like to troll, it is a very technical way of fishing, precise, anyone who has had 6 lines crashed into a weedbed and tangled into a mess that only a knife could undo know what I am talking about. Trolling typically calls for another complete set of gear, rods, reels, baits, planer boards, rod holders, etc. Many are not going to spend x2 to fish 'skis. I see it as a none issue, and I agree trolling should be legal on all WI lakes.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sawyer County, WI
    Posts
    290
    Statewide trolling voted down in the spring rule hearings.

    http://dnr.wi.gov/about/wcc/Document...ideResults.pdf

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by dfkiii View Post
    Statewide trolling voted down in the spring rule hearings.

    http://dnr.wi.gov/about/wcc/Document...ideResults.pdf
    :0) ...........

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    210
    Too bad.

    Jordan

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oconto Falls, WI.
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by J_Weeks View Post
    Too bad.

    Jordan
    Jordan I think what really killed the chances of it passing was that it still allowed three lines. I was forwarded an email that the Musky Clubs Alliance received from the DNR which talked a bit about the trolling proposal. In that email there was an idea to allow trolling of one line only while you could also cast one line. That would clarify the problem of position fishing, would allow those that wanted to troll to troll, and also satisfy quit a few others that were against the wording of the question on the ballot. If I would have seen the question on the ballot as it was worded in the email I would have voted for it.

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    .
    Posts
    36
    Glad it didn't pass! The majority of the lakes in the Northwoods don't have enough acreage to handle boats dragging multiple lines. Between the recreational boaters, other species fisherman, and traditional casting Musky fisherman, many lakes are already crowded. Picture the Eagle River Chain on a warm weekend day and the amount of traffic on the water. Larger lakes elsewhere in the state, trolling might be feasible, but blanket trolling rules aren't the answer.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by TKopke View Post
    Jordan I think what really killed the chances of it passing was that it still allowed three lines. I was forwarded an email that the Musky Clubs Alliance received from the DNR which talked a bit about the trolling proposal. In that email there was an idea to allow trolling of one line only while you could also cast one line. That would clarify the problem of position fishing, would allow those that wanted to troll to troll, and also satisfy quit a few others that were against the wording of the question on the ballot. If I would have seen the question on the ballot as it was worded in the email I would have voted for it.

    I hear what you are saying Travis, however, when writing rules that have statewide significance all anglers need to be considered (not just muskie anglers). If you separate yourself from your passion, (muskies-mine too as a matter of fact) and look at all anglers of the state, this issue becomes much more clear. In my profession the only thing I can hang my hat on at the end of the day is biology. The biology of this issue is clear. Trolling has not negatively impacted the fisheries where it is allowed, and it would be no different in Vilas County (from a biological perspective). Perception is far from reality in most situations, which is what muddy’s the water. While the Spring Hearings is our method of rule change it is by no means representative of the majority of angling publics. It is representative of the vocal minority (my opinion). A total of 6096 people attended this years hearing. That is probably above average (I don’t have that info in front of me). So, in my opinion, the results may or may not be truly what the entire angling community wants. It is clear that the majority of those who were dedicated enough to turn out at the hearings do not want trolling with three lines (a whopping 53.7%). I get it. Both personally and professionally I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, I feel “Chicken Little” and “NIMBY” prevailed in this situation. Also, for those that think “position fishing” is not trolling, think again. Laws of physics say that it is impossible for your line to remain vertical while the boat is propelled via a motor of any sort. In my opinion, every angler that drags a sucker while casting is in violation.
    I guess it is good I’m not a warden.

    As a side note, if a vote for one line trolling goes to hearing I wonder if the great lakes (including lake Winnebago) trollers and walleye fishermen of the state will turn out to vote that proposal down too?
    Jordan

  8. #58
    If you truly "position fish" the sucker can out-swim the boat yet you still move forward, sideways or backwards if you set-up a drift or work it properly with intermittent TM use to position. For this reason suckers usually are set in the rear of the boat so they don't get tangled in the TM. It's being done legally throughout the area each and every year.

    I respectfully agree with Travis and Tom Gelb and I believe an overwhelming majority will too.

    A reasonable resolution will pass and be acceptable. It may require different regulations because I would surely hope that the Great Lakes won't also be considered "just another lake because they are all the same" in what seems to be the "statewide" ez-button agenda.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oconto Falls, WI.
    Posts
    511
    Jordan why can the DNR not do a “study” lake. There are already several lakes that are study/research lakes for various reasons. Take a popular lake in Vilas, and open it up to trolling. Before doing so it should have data for 2-4 years prior on angler success, as well as fyke net results. There must be a few lakes that this data already exists. Then for a few years for the “study” open it up to trolling and monitor it with the same method to get a baseline. Wouldn’t this be the proof everyone is looking for on how it would or wouldn’t hurt a fishery? Up to this point in my opinion it has all been speculation on both sides since there has been no study like I propose that I know of that has been performed that would give you a true sense of what is happening.

    I’d suggest the Twins for this albeit North is larger than most other lakes in Vilas, but it should give you a good gauge on how a fishery is affected. Actually with South being small it would also give you a gauge on how trolling would affect the small lake in Vilas. They get heavily fished for several species, has deep water with pelagic baitfish, a 2 walleye bag limit, and gets speared. Plenty of anglers also are guilty of over-bagging out there which is also indicative of what happens in that area.

    Who knows maybe as a result of a test on Twin an unexpected result could be realized like the affect the trolling has on tourism. I sure know the town of Phelps could use some added traffic coming through for the businesses.

    As far as the great lakes there are already special regs on them. No reason to change the trolling reg on Lake Michigan to make the same as the rest of the state.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sawyer County, WI
    Posts
    290
    Good point Travis.

    Given how the DNR have soiled their own believability with the "there are no cougars in Wisconsin" and "there are only X black bears in Wisconsin. No, wait, we really mean X+Y,000" solid science with evidence would go a long way to reduce the concerns about "raping the resource". Other concerns, however, may prove harder to argue...

    Quote Originally Posted by TKopke View Post
    Jordan why can the DNR not do a “study” lake. There are already several lakes that are study/research lakes for various reasons. Take a popular lake in Vilas, and open it up to trolling. Before doing so it should have data for 2-4 years prior on angler success, as well as fyke net results. There must be a few lakes that this data already exists. Then for a few years for the “study” open it up to trolling and monitor it with the same method to get a baseline. Wouldn’t this be the proof everyone is looking for on how it would or wouldn’t hurt a fishery? Up to this point in my opinion it has all been speculation on both sides since there has been no study like I propose that I know of that has been performed that would give you a true sense of what is happening.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •