proposed DNR rule changes

According to the January 22 2010 issue of the Wisconsin Outdoor News, A proposed rule change is to be the subject of a public opinion poll at the April 12 sportsmans spring hearings that will be held statewide. It will ask if the bass size limits should be removed to increase the harvest of Bass. The daily bag will remain, and the season will still be delayed. These rules will be for both largemouth and smallmouth.
The proposal also includes Walleye changes of an 18 inch minimum size limit with a bag limit of three. The idea is to limit the harvest of Walleye. These proposed changes are for 20 lakes in 7 northwest Wisconsin counties. Included is the Chippewa Flowage.

My first reaction to this proposal has me wondering why the DNR refuses to differentiat between Large, and Small mouth Bass. They are different fish. My other reaction is to an 18" size limit for Walleyes. I'm not totally against such an idea, but I have to wonder if another regulation wouldn't be more beneficial. Such as some type of a slot limit. The 18" size limit will encourage the harvest of the larger Walleyes.

What is your opinion? Share them with us. The Chippewa Flowage concerns us all. I'll be keeping an eye on this story, and if any one else hears more about this, please share the info.

Walleyemaxx(Tom)

Well if they institute the 18" minimum size limit on the flowage for walleye., I'll either have to find a new lake or take up musky fishing.

Hey DWW, the thing to do is to go to your local county DNR spring hearing and express your opinion. It would be a tough chore to sell the 18" size limit. Unless they have some sound science to back them up. My biggest objection is that regulation forces people to keep the bigger Walleyes.

I have been going up to the Chip for more than 20 years. I have seen in recent years the reduction of juvenile fish in the system. I can't help but believe that the harvesting of such numbers of breeding stock in the spring over so many years has had a negative affect on the walleye population. Coupled with the rise of the largemouth bass population which feasts on the walleye fry. This imbalance is killing the Chips walleye population. To raise the size limit on the Chip to 18" will turn many anglers who love walleye fishing on the Chip to seek other Lakes. I believe a 15 or 16" limit would be more reasonable. Still by just encouraging taking the bigger fish, 18"+ ( the females) out of the system is counter productive.

Changing the open season rules for the Largemouth Bass to 1st week in May would also help reduce the numbers of walleye feasting pre spawn largemouth.

I believe the stocking of larger fry is also a positive step forward.

A big concern that I do have is for the resort owners who make a living on the Chip. While I know that the musky is king, their still are many many anglers who fish for walleyes. Maybe not if the size limit goes to 18".

I also believe they need to differentiate between the Largemouth and the Smallmouth. It is the Largemouth that are the problem. Nelson Lake is a prime example. Once a great Walleye lake......breeding stock decimated and the Lake became overun with LM Bass. Nary a walleye to be found.

Rick Murry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick murry

I also believe they need to differentiate between the Largemouth and the Smallmouth. It is the Largemouth that are the problem. Nelson Lake is a prime example. Once a great Walleye lake......breeding stock decimated and the Lake became overun with LM Bass. Nary a walleye to be found.

Rick Murry

---

Right on Rick. I have heard the DNR say that they don't want to differentiate because people can't tell the difference between the two. Only the smallmouth has a red eye, that seals it...

I have to believe that the majority of anglers will know the difference. their is much more than just the "red eye "difference". Having said that, I believe a slot is a good idea. Maybe 15 -23" or so. I also believe that the Chip should have its own plan since it is such a unique body of water. The introduction of the larger fry is a good idea. The Chip has, in the last several years, been 3 limit so thats no biggie I believe 4 to 6 inch fry have a much greater survival history. It is good that the disscussion is taking place and I voice my thoughts at the spring hearings. They have been trying this approach in Nelson Lake for the last couple of years. I was up their this past year and caught my first few walleyeys in many years. That was a good sign. Still think that opening Bass season in the firs week in May on those lakes in this program would be a good idea to reduce the largemouth population and try to create more balance.

Rick Murry

Thanks for sharing your ideas guys. Rick, you hit it on the head. I also think a slot for Walleyes would be a better regulation than an 18" min. I personally feel a 16-24 inch slot with a one over that would be the most cost effective way to help the Walleyes.

I also agree that the DNR should seperate the Large and Small mouth bass for regulation purposes. I too would like to see the LM. Bass open the 1st week of May along with the Walleyes.

The current proposal of an 18" min. on Walleyes will encourage the harvest of the prime spawners. No amount of stocking would help then. I realize the DNR has budget concerns, so what better way to help the Chippewa Flowage Walleyes than to just tweak some Regs.

I really don't believe they would have to stock any Walleyes if they give the Walleyes an equal footing. I also believe that the DNR should do every thing in it's power to maintain the Walleyes, because the Chippewa Flowage is historically Walleye water.

Walleyemaxx

I like what you guys are saying,and Do not like any of the dnr agenda,walleye and panfish. I like a slot-limit on walleye. Panfish eat walleye fry also,leave that limit alone,maybe mim. size there too. They should look at some winter lake draw downs and inforce the pre spawn kill my the native and the large mouth bass.If this agenda passes,I will spend my 6-8 weeks at home in IL.or fine some other place to go.I hope this does"t happen .I have spent a lot of time and money up there and really love the area Is there anything a out of stater can do?? Thanks for your time and this site. Blaine

Hi Blaine, and thanks for your opinion. I'm glad you were able to finally sign in. I look forward to more communications from you.

The thing that has to be done is to talk with the people in charge at the DNR. We have to write letters to express our opinions, and ask for their reasoning on this 18" min. size limit. We have to word it in a good way tho, or they're not going to respond.They do have a sometimes thankless job, and we should all try to keep that in mind.

Another big thing to do, is for all of us who live up here in god's country,is to go to the spring conservation hearings. It is a way to express our opinions in person. I think the DNR likes that so they can put a face behind a complaint. It's to easy to remain annonomous. I think the DNR will respond more eagerly, and thouroughly that way. We owe them that.

So everyone, get out Monday April 12th to your local spring hearings. It's set up for us, the sportsman, so lets take advantage of it.
If anyone else has any more ideas, I would like to hear them.

Walleyemaxx

I definitely will attend. It will be the first time. Any tips on how to get a chance to speak?

Rick Murry

I have a link here Rick that should answer all your questions.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/

Walleyemaxx

Hay Maxx, Can a out of state person atten the hearing,and be able to speak ? I care about Conservation and the work that the DNR:s do.I am sending a nice letter to the WDNR, do they have a office in Hayward? Thank Blaine

Hi Blaine

Here is a link to the DNR website that explains how the spring meetings are run.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congre...es-English.pdf

I also have the address of the Hayward DNR office.
10220 state highway 27
Hayward WI.
54843
The telephone# is 715-643-2688

They are only open on Wednesdys from 9-4.
Hope this helps.

Walleyemaxx

Hi everyone,

I saw some interesting comments about the trolling issue that will affect our area. This is from the DNR website.

Fisheries proposals

Anglers will find more than two dozen statewide fisheries questions to weigh in on, including a series of questions for two issues relating to northwest Wisconsin lakes, according to Joe Hennessy, the DNR fish biologist who coordinates regulations.

Several questions revolve around a walleye recovery plan for 21 lakes in northwestern Wisconsin where walleye populations have declined, and natural reproduction has vanished at the same time that bass populations in those lakes have significantly increased. The plan would remove bass length limits, increase walleye length limits, and stock larger walleye in an effort to move the lakes back to walleye-dominated fisheries.

All of the 21 lakes – in Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Polk, Rusk, Sawyer and Washburn counties -- have primarily been managed for walleye, and each has had a walleye population sustained by natural reproduction during the past 20 years but in more recent years walleye reproduction has failed or has been insufficient to support a self-sustaining population. At the same time, bass have increased in abundance and potentially present a barrier to re-establishing successful survival of young walleye.

The other issue revolves around motor trolling. Currently motor trolling is allowed only on the Kakagon River and sloughs in Ashland County, Pike Lake and Round Lake in Price County, and Chetac, Grindstone, Lac Courte Oreilles, Nelson, Round, Whitefish and Windigo lakes in Sawyer County.

Opening all waters in Ashland, Iron, Price and Sawyer counties would allow motor trolling in about 700 more waters. Motor trolling poses no more threat to fish populations than conventional angling, so there is no biological reason to continue the prohibition, Hennessy says.

Prohibitions on motor trolling have been favored by some angler groups and have been handled by the DNR on a county-by-county basis in line with local preference. Currently motor trolling is allowed county-wide in 18 of the state’s 72 counties. “We endorse removing motor trolling prohibitions wherever it is locally supported,” Hennessy says

If you don't want motor trolling on the Chippewa Flowage, I would suggest you attend one of the meetings to voice your opinion.

Walleyemaxx

Hi everyone,

Looking at the proposals in the DNR spring hearings pamphlet, I won't be making any resolutions because of the fact that my biggest concerns are already being voted on.

What I hope to do is try to get a chance to speak before the vote on the specific issue to try to influence people to our way of thinking.

If their is any body who would want to have a resolution presented, but are unable to attend, post it here or email me, and we'll see what we can do.

Walleyemaxx

Hi everyone,

I'll be making a full and cpmplete report on how things go at the Sawyer county meeting on Tuesday. As far as I can determine, any one who goes to the meetings can vote on the advisory questions. Just not on the election for conservation congress, unless you are from that county. So out of state people with an interest in WI. conservation issues should be able to participate.

Walleyemaxx