I'm self educating myself for when do gooders propose this nonsense here. Maybe, I can be the guy to kill it.

I figured you would not answer my question honestly.

Well, have at it Mr. None of My Business. We all have our aspirations and goals in life.

I'll continue educating newcomers to trapping, and you continue self educating yourself.

That is great that you volunteer to educate newcomers, not so great that it was you who made it mandatory.

Wasn't just me. I submitted the resolution to the Conservation Congress. Before that, and after that, there was a team at work to make this happen.

There were legislators to bring on board. And there was the signature of the governor required to make it law.

I didn't make it mandatory.

And that was over 25 years ago.

Why the heartburn now?

If I am hearing you correctly, this is the biggest concern with online. Folks are allowed to provide input without all the information?

But why would someone have less information if they can figure out how to vote online? Or asked a different way, then why would we allow folks to fill out a questionnaire without sitting through the whole meeting? Do we need a mandatory test out option?

I didn't need to attend the WTA membership meeting or the spring hearing to know how the WTA membership wanted me to vote on the trapping questions. Didn't take me very long to figure out why if I was unsure. The thread "Beaver Logic" on this very forum might have even played a role in some of those questions. Nobody is going to claim the WTA is exactly cutting edge on the technology front.

Now take the reduction of the walleye bag limit on the Winnebago system. I have no idea if it was supported or rejected in Winnebago county this year, but I will say this. I am not worried one bit that anyone from Winnebago County that provided their input (online or in person) wasn't informed. The DNR held multiple standing room only meetings across this area for two years.


BTW, that is a picture from a local guide at one of those meetings held in Winnebago County. If I compare the size of this one meeting to our CC meeting attendance, we appear to be missing lots of folks. He had ~200 comment discussing the proposed change on his FB page alone.

The DNR was invited to and attended all kinds of club meetings to discuss the science. They covered a wide range of things like:
http://walleyesfortomorrow.org/2017-18-winnebago-system-walleye-report/
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/do...innebago2018BottomTrawlingAssessment.pdf

This lead to all kinds of discussions online. For example:
https://www.lake-link.com/forums/wi...eportsOnly=0&startDate=&endDate=

A local business did a video on shocking walleyes and it spawned into more discussion on the rule proposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15IzZebwbAw

A little more old school, there was articles in periodicals:
https://www.outdoornews.com/2018/04...em-walleye-plan-drop-bag-limit-5-3-fish/
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...-help-weather-boom-bust-years/429158002/

Which led to even more discussions on platforms like FB and in coffee shops across town. By the time folks took the time to fill out question 16 on their online input, there was very few that hadn't heard every argument for and against three times. Frankly, I would be more worried about anyone that needed to come to our meeting to learn how to vote. It would be like telling folks that they can't just vote for a presidential candidate on election day...they have to sit and listen to all the other voters first.

Now I get that might seem like the impossible to some smaller counties or less known topics, but your target is much smaller and more easily obtained. Those lengthy and sometimes heated discussions that you say you miss, are still happening. The location has just changed. IMO, the only question is if the congress wants to get back out front leading them.

How many fisherman do you think are making an effort to dig up information on muskrat seasons?
I don’t buy a fishing license and don’t go out of my way to figure out how to vote, fishing. I just go to the meeting and expect the passionate folks to influence me. If no one helps i always vote towards what I perceive as opportunity and against what sounds like loss.

Maybe I should pass on the subject of unfamiliarity? Bet that don’t happen often.

same way I vote

If I don't have a dog in the fight, I don't vote on that issue. Although, after listening to the discussions there were some issues that I voted on that I would not have if I hadn't been able to hear the discussions.

If I hear you right, coming to the meeting was the easiest way to cut through the noise on a topic. If you saw clarity on a topic, you provided your input. If the question pertained to you, you were more likely to provide your input. Let's build our on this as I am not sure those providing their input online are any different.


What things make a question pertain to you?

The online input be it from the uninformed or informed is just a back door for the anti agenda group IMO. Yes we may have the ability to out vote them on occasion, but what happens when they are organized enough to change the game?

That is my concern.

I agree one can get a lot of information through forums, websites and online discussion groups, but how does one determine if it is factual without seeing or discussing both sides of the coin?

So on the reduction to the 3 bag limit on the Winnebago system you voted against it?

Fishing is different than a consumptive sport like trapping/hunting.
With catch and release one can enjoy the resource all day long and not have to stop after they catch their limit with no effect on the resource.

I would argue that in fishing that lowering the bag limits is a good thing. It gives a better opportunity to all rather than benefiting a few.
Musky fishing is a good example, how many serious Musky fisherman keep every legal fish they catch. Most release the vast majority of fish they catch. Is Musky fishing better because of it?

So much in the fishing regulations are not about enjoying or improving the resource, its about greed, how many fish can I keep or how much money can I make off it.

Yes. I perceived loss.

Greed? What is greed? To me its a derogatory term that gets tossed around when all reasonable arguments become exhausted. Nature is consumptive use, trophy is a human institution.

I don't fish but can reasonably assume that catch and release isn't completely harmless, without mortality/waste?

Greedy? Of course none of us are greedy, its only the other fellow that is greedy. Reminds me of this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

This pertains to Mile Lacs MN.

https://www.twincities.com/2016/05/27/mille-lacs-walleye-fishing-hooking-mortality-study/

Of course fish have mortality from catch and release.

The DNR estimates how many will die based on a statistical model developed following a similar study conducted in 2003 and 2004. That study concluded the following:

The warmer the water, the more fish die from hooking mortality, especially when water temps get above 70 degrees.
Small fish and large fish die more often than medium-length walleyes.
Fish hooked with live bait die more often than those hooked with artificial lures.
Hooking mortality ranges from nearly zero during ice fishing to as high as 20 percent in a summer heat wave, although theoretically it keeps increasing as water temps keep rising. Over the course of a year, an average of 7 percent or 8 percent of all fish caught and released die.

Makes it seem a little less dirty. Greed is about the only word that can offend me. Hate that word and the context of which I hear it spoken. Am l misguided?

Milton Friedman was a genius and a prophet.

Nimzy, you wouldn't be called greedy if you'd leave some for seed.

I always leave seed. 49er those rats are currently way slicker than I. Still learning.

I go with the 90 10 rule, seems like weather fishing, trapping or money 10% of the involved catch/earn 90% of whats available. Not greedy just better.

I'd say greed is taking more than you will use. The guy who keeps every legal fish he catches while he has a freezer full and every year he tosses some out cause they have freezer burn would be a good example. Or wanting rules/policies that benefit an individual over the majority of resource users.

Yes, Catch and release isn't without mortality. According to most studies its around 5-15%. Lots better than 100% mortality of kept fish.

Rat's 90/10 rule is most likely true. That few are really good at a sport and are responsible for the majority caught. That doesn't mean that if you are really dialed in on fishing for Muskies you should keep every legal one you catch. You still have the option in fishing of releasing to catch again.

Another aspect of Rat's rule is the guy who figures out how to limit out every time when fishing. To some after awhile it becomes too easy. So they will switch tactics, no more live bait for example. They impose rules on themselves to make it harder to improve their skills/knowledge. You see alot of this type in Musky fishing and especially Trout fishing.

It is always much more enjoyable having a lights out day when everything is going right and you catch 40-50 fish rather than going home after you catch your limit of 5.

I have seen limits tighten up and size limits increase in my life time. Its a good thing, More people chasing fewer resources with more efficient methods/technology its inevitable.

Having lower bag limits hurts no fisherman, he still can fish as much as he wants. If all that matters to one is how much they can take home they are missing alot of the potential enjoyment of the sport. Its in this mindset that I'll always vote for lower bag limits in fishing. Fishing is alot different than hunting/trapping.