Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: wisconsin trolling

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oconto Falls, WI.
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by dfkiii View Post
    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...
    Lets not make this a "DNR is not believable" deal. They do a fine job with what they are given/allowed to do.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sawyer County, WI
    Posts
    290
    I didn't make it "not believable" deal, they did - through words and deeds.

    I agree they do a darn good job with the resources they have. The people in my neck of the woods are great people with their hearts and heads in the right place. That said, you have to earn respect and credibility. Reckless commentary hurts the cause.




    Quote Originally Posted by TKopke View Post
    Lets not make this a "DNR is not believable" deal. They do a fine job with what they are given/allowed to do.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    210
    Travis,
    There certainly could be more research done to assess if catchability varies with fishing method across lakes and fish populations. Unfortunately, no matter how much research is done there would still be skeptics.
    Aside from that, this rule was developed by a group of biologists from across the state, who took into account the BIOLOGY related to it and potential ramifications during the process. Believe it or not, we are looking out for the best interests of the fish and anglers of this state. We all fish, and would not go forward with something we thought would harm the resource.
    The number of cougar or bear that are within Wisconsin’s borders has little to do with this discussion.
    “A fish that is never caught does not exist”.
    Jordan

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oconto Falls, WI.
    Posts
    511
    Jordan I was just looking for ways to make this acceptable to all. On both sides there is claim of no evidence. One claims there is no evidence it hurts a fishery, and the other claims there is no evidence it won't hurt the fishery. A simple study on one lake could eliminate most of this.

    I guess the way things are going, and on a lot of issues not just this one, no one is willing to give. I thought a study would be a way to work towards both groups accepting the outcome. The antis would give in allowing a lake to be used as a study to prove out whether trolling will be bad or good in the area (and potential collapse of certain fisheries within lake), and the pros will be willing to give in having to wait a few years longer.

    Trout Lake would be another potential test bed and would add the affect it has on the Lake Trout population. Downfall is with a lower musky population you won't get as good of a study on the affect it has on them compared to Twin due to a lower data set collected.

    I could just shut my mouth, or gloat about the results from the hearings, but I am here trying to make suggestions on future progress. Word on the street is if the question is rewritten for coming years to allow one line trolling those that currently troll will be against it since they can currently troll 3 lines. So maybe just reducing the lines and rewriting the question in the future is not the answer.

    As far as trusting Biologists and experts...I do for the most part. I will admit especially since it is quite clear I am not as trusting on this topic due to the fact that the driving factor in all of this is to simplify regulations coming from the very top.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Steve Heiting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1994
    Location
    Minocqua, WI, United States.
    Posts
    2,954
    I keep thinking about Travis' idea about a trolling study in northern WI ... what do you think about Escanaba?

    Escanaba is a DNR research lake which is already open to just about anything -- except sub 28-inch walleyes -- and the most studied lake anywhere. The DNR has handled nearly every fish in the lake.

    On one hand it's 300 acres, relies on natural recruitment (no stocking), and has a DNR facility right on the premises, so any necessary research for trolling's effect on small lakes could be easily gathered. On the other, it is completely wild, so there is no potential for conflict with other user groups, and does not have pelagic baitfish.
    Steve Heiting

    www.steveheiting.com

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oconto Falls, WI.
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Heiting View Post
    I keep thinking about Travis' idea about a trolling study in northern WI ... what do you think about Escanaba?

    Escanaba is a DNR research lake which is already open to just about anything -- except sub 28-inch walleyes -- and the most studied lake anywhere. The DNR has handled nearly every fish in the lake.

    On one hand it's 300 acres, relies on natural recruitment (no stocking), and has a DNR facility right on the premises, so any necessary research for trolling's effect on small lakes could be easily gathered. On the other, it is completely wild, so there is no potential for conflict with other user groups, and does not have pelagic baitfish.
    Steve that lake has come up in thought as well, but I think with it already being a study lake it should be in addition to another lake. Simply for the reasons you mentioned about it being 300 acres (not as likely to troll), the user conflict which also relates to it not being as popular of a lake, and not having pelagic forage. However I do think it would be a nice addition/compliment to doing it along with a lake like I have suggested to get some data on a smaller waterbody.

    I do find it strange that Escanaba is a study lake, and yet trolling has not been allowed up to date.

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    .
    Posts
    36
    Is the trolling question going to be annually put to a vote until it passes or are they going to at some point pull it from the ballot of questions? The past few years it's been put to a vote and the majority has chosen "NO". How long will they continue to push the subject? Blanket statewide regulations in regard to trolling doesn't seem to be the way to go. Also it would seem to me that they should be able to come up with some sort of language to address position fishing with live bait that would work for everyone
    Last edited by TerryRitter; 04-13-2013 at 01:52 PM.

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nort WI
    Posts
    15
    if they passed 1 line trolling, that means if you're draggin a sucker in fall, you cant cast aswell. i may be wrong but thats the way it was explained to me. the sucker line will count as 1 line. is that what would happen or could you still cast. i cant make the spring meetings to ask the "experts".

  9. #69
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    9
    If this law is passed you will see the muskie population get worse than it is, its truly sad to see the population of muskies in northern wisconsin drastically change for the worse. I am from the the Minocqua area and been fishing muskies for the good part of 30 years, IMO if you pass a trolling law you will do more harm than good. Ive seen this happen to trout lake on walleyes alone just from row trolling. The biggest problem we have up here in all honesty is lake management and the real killer is the muskie spearing goin on that no one seems to want to address. This year I happen to know of 18 muskies speared out of Big St Germain in one weekend, yes 18!. Now there are muskie spearing contest for over a 6k purse, are you kidding me? throw trolling into the mix and there wont be muskies left to catch. This issue by all means must be addressed, I fish with some very talented fisherman in the area not to mention most of us are guides and the muskie fishing is so poor now it makes me sick to my stomach. It would be nice to see people with some authority and or noteriety speak up on this issue and try to save these lakes. Its happend to all to many of them already.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by sirspeed View Post
    If this law is passed you will see the muskie population get worse than it is, its truly sad to see the population of muskies in northern wisconsin drastically change for the worse. I am from the the Minocqua area and been fishing muskies for the good part of 30 years, IMO if you pass a trolling law you will do more harm than good. Ive seen this happen to trout lake on walleyes alone just from row trolling. The biggest problem we have up here in all honesty is lake management and the real killer is the muskie spearing goin on that no one seems to want to address. This year I happen to know of 18 muskies speared out of Big St Germain in one weekend, yes 18!. Now there are muskie spearing contest for over a 6k purse, are you kidding me? throw trolling into the mix and there wont be muskies left to catch. This issue by all means must be addressed, I fish with some very talented fisherman in the area not to mention most of us are guides and the muskie fishing is so poor now it makes me sick to my stomach. It would be nice to see people with some authority and or noteriety speak up on this issue and try to save these lakes. Its happend to all to many of them already.
    Wow, now the number is/was up to 18? Funny how I have a resort on the lake and watched the "big" spearing deal that day and only counted 5 spearing holes that had blood near them

Posting Permissions

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