DNR Proposal For Trolling on Iron County Lakes Including the TFF

The Wisconsin Conservation Congress will be taking public comment and votes on the WDNR proposal for allowing motor trolling on most Iron County lakes, including the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage starting in 2011. This would allow 3 lines for each person in a boat for most species including Muskies, Walleyes and Smallmouth Bass. The Wis. Conservation Congress will hold hearings in each county on this issue, among others, at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 12th, 2010. It is Question #25 on the agenda. For more info see http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/co...ring_hearings/

What are your thoughts on this proposal?

www.flambeauvista.com

Whoa! That got my attention! First, interesting that the DNR is putting forth the proposal for motor trolling!? I would think that it would be the other way around, that is, there would be sportman's groups that would ask for making motor trolling legal. However, in the questionaire, the DNR does claim that the trolling prohibition is "socially driven" and doesn't "pose a biological threat" if it's legalized. Hmm.. I don't know about that. OK, most musky guys are catch and release (I've never kept a single musky from the flowage), MOST that is, but trolling is a very effective way to catch fish. You are keeping the bait down where you need it over long distances. It can be very effective. It doesn't effect the harvest??? Remember the TFF is very low musky population, <.1/acre. Is this really a great idea?

I have mixed feelings about this. Legalizing trolling would increase my catch rate for musky and walleye. However, if it's legal, then it "forces" (OK, not quite the right word) me to do it because all the other guys are going to be doing it, and I feel like a chump just casting away all day on a calm bluebird sky day when it would be ideal for trolling. I've only trolled for lake trout (never for musky or walleye cause it's always illegal where I've fished) and it's not quite the same as casting. If it's legalized than it will change the feel of fishing in a somewhat negative way IMO.

The other problem I have with this, is if trolling is legalized on the TFF, and NOT in surrounding counties, we are going to have the trolling lovers converging on the TFF. Why is the proposal for allowing trolling on Iron co. waters, and not on Vilas, Oneida, co. waters???

I'm never for trolling. It is a lazy way to fish. It's another way to go about it but always cast for the muskies. There are people that are well versed at trolling and have a system for it.

I also feel that it's more exciting when you get that follow or explosion on top water than just a trolling hook up.

It's a fish of a thousand cast not 500 yards.

gdi

I read the DNR website article about this. This is what puzzles me. From the article, "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". OK... how do they define "LOCAL PREFERENCE"? The upcoming questionaire is state-wide, right? Does the questionaire ask where you live? Where you fish? Is the decision to allow motor trolling in Iron County going to be made by looking at a questionaire filled out by statewide fisherman? Please enlighten me...

About 15 years ago there was a poorly written interpretation of "vertical fishing" in the regulations that ended up allowing back trolling on the TFF. I would estimate 90% of the anglers that frequent the TFF were irritated by the few guys motoring backwards for hours at a time. I had words with 3 guys in a boat that were legally driving me nuts. We were fishing an area with slip bobbers and doing pretty well (very light breeze). They motored around us and around us with planner boards that we ended up leaving to find some peace and quiet. I was up there with my daughter who was graduating high school. We were hoping to see eagles, loons and walleyes. Pretty much all we saw until we left was smoke....and some walleyes.

There are some waters and areas that deserve special treatment. The TFF is not a run-of-the-mill place to fish. It is possibly the wildest area in the state and should be treated as something special and unique. There are thousands of other lakes that allow motor trolling. I say leave it as it is. Works for me!

I don't have the answers to why the DNR is proposing this or proposing it in this format. I thinks there is a interactive question/ answer format on the DNR website that you could try.

I'm just bringing this to everyones attention so you may voice your opinion to the DNR or at Monday night's hearing.

Personally, I'm against it, but if they insist on enacting it they should restrict trolling to electric motors only, limit it to 2 lines per boat and prohibit the use of planer boards. This would adress both the aesthetic and navigation concerns.

Scott
www.flambeauvista.com

gdi you say trolling is lazy. what do you call drifting with a bobber . i have trolled past other trollers who havnt caught a thing .and with the loss of timber on the TFF it might be what it needs . i do agree a 2 pole limit . you think its to easy . did canada or minn. run out of fish

Interesting point about Vilas and Oneida Counties not being included. Anglers in those counties were instrumental in the repeal of the original backtrolling law that was in effect from 1990-1993. Recreational anglers were upset that a small number of fishermen, mainly guides, were using backtrolling to catch (and kill) a disproportionate number of trophy muskies for their clients.

I'd really like to know where this proposal is coming from - I just emailed Jeff Roth to find out what he knows. I have to believe this would make it a whole lot easier for a few harvest-minded individuals to have a significant impact on the population, especially the biggest fish - and I agree with MuskyRandy that it would draw in anglers from areas where trolling isn't allowed. I also think it would result in a lot more incidental musky catches by people trolling Rapalas and such for walleyes, and I think it's safe to say that many of these folks won't share the CPR ethic practiced by the vast majority of serious musky anglers. And can you imagine the navigation hassles when you have people trolling up and down the river channels in areas where it's too narrow to pass them without getting into stumps or rocks? I can't see any way that this is a good idea.

I would urge everyone to go to their local hearing and speak up against the question. From what I saw back in the days when the voting was done by a show of hands, whenever someone stood up and expressed a personal interest in a question that wasn't particularly relevant to most of the attendees, they were usually able to get a nearly unanimous vote in support of their position. I would also hope that the musky clubs will raise objections to this proposal.

Per the WDNR: "the Department of Natural Resources endorses removal of motor trolling prohibitions wherever that removal is locally supported." If it were to get supported, a lot of people will still cast or drift. But if you value a body of water for some type of tranquility or wilderness-type esthetics, then the locals need to beat this idea up like a rented mule. I live in pro-trolling Michigan and I rarely forward troll. I usually anchor fish and I backtroll occasionally because it is the way I prefer to experience fishing and more times than not it comes down to presentation, amazing. Many a troller has watched me work a hooked fish away from the anchor rope. Trolling becomes less productive in stained water having downed wood. Several times a year I fish the TFF area, and one of the main reasons is to get away from the putt-putt-putt of the trollers on Michigan lakes. I thought some organization was trying to promote the TFF and Gile as I believe they called it "wilderness" type areas. Does anyone recall the name of this organization?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sureshot612

gdi you say trolling is lazy. what do you call drifting with a bobber . i have trolled past other trollers who havnt caught a thing .and with the loss of timber on the TFF it might be what it needs . i do agree a 2 pole limit . you think its to easy . did canada or minn. run out of fish

---

I call that relaxing. When it comes to Muskie fishing I feel that it is a lazy way to fish. But I also said there is a skill to it. Trolling lets you cover more water faster than casting. Trolling the great lakes I understand trolling on Class A Muskie lakes I don't. IT also seems that peolpe that have no interest in Muskie fishing catch more Muskies that way, and as stated no CPR or knowledge on how to handle a fish like that.

gdi

Food for thought: The TFF has the largest breeding population of Loons in the State (Eagles and Osprey too). Some of the reasons for this are the vast amounts of undeveloped shoreline and low boat traffic (opening weekend and 4th of July are exceptions). Trolling the TFF will certainly result in snags resulting in lenghthy monofilament line left behind, for example.

I'm not saying that trolling will adversely affect them, but has the DNR even taken this into consideration and if so, what are their findings? Will the increased mororized boat traffic adversely affect nesting areas, for example?

Again, I'm not saying it will have an adverse affect, but would like to know if its been considered before we find out the hard way. The TFF is a special place, Wisconsin's Scenic Wilderness Waters Area. I'ld like to keep it that way.

The thought of legalized trolling in virtually all waters in Iron County is absolutely insane under our current regulations. The only way I see this working would be if we were to change the open water regulations to one line per person and change our Musky size limit to 50", and probably change some other regulations as well. I'm not sure why this change is being proposed but if we are trying to get back some of our tourism from Minnesota and Canada we should probably use the same or at least similar regulations as they do, after all they probably have big fish there for a reason.

Try to imagine this....

Several years ago I was talking with a fisherman from out of the area that told me he had caught 13 Muskies the previous day on a small Iron County Lake. Naturally I asked him what his method was and he told me him and his buddy were using there trolling motor to slowly troll suckers behind planer boards!!!! I informed him that this was illegal and he probably shouldn't do this anymore and was really lucky he didn't get reported by someone. Can you imagine if this was Legal!!!!!! By the way all the fish were released and he had no idea he was doing anything wrong.

How about this thought. Since there is a new no wake law within a 100 feet of shore and that is going to slow down a lot of boats when they are traveling to different fishing spots via the river channel. If you can't go fast you might as well put out a few lines and troll on the way, who know's you might catch something. This will result in a lot of accidental Musky catches or fish that wouldn't have been caught otherwise as Blue Ranger previously mentioned. Aside from a lot of these fish being kept, many of them would be mishandled and probably die after they are released. All of us Musky fisherman have seen the accidental Musky catch of a nearby boat, the fish goes into a small net and then gets plopped on the floor of the boat and released 10 minutes later after 50 photos. There's no question this would happen more if trolling is made legal.

It boggles my mind to think I could go out fishing in the fall with two clients and have nine lines available and troll. That means I could have both of them cast and run 4 or 5 suckers off the boat at different depths and troll at a perfect speed into the wind along a steep dropping rock pile with schools of Cisco heavily concentrated in the area. Oh and then when our hands get cold we'll just motor troll 7 different lines while we warm up.
No thanks I'll keep rowing my suckers when I want to fish into the wind and earn my Muskies.


There's no way we need to be given another advantage in the fishing world. With modern electronics and gps systems along with boats that go 80mph and cameras we can drop over the side to see exactly whats down there I think we already have the upper hand on the fish. Everyone please go to your local meeting and speak against this rule change.

Thanks,

Andy

In reference to sureshot612's comparison, as Andy pointed out, both Minnesota and Ontario allow 1 line per angler. Ontario has 48" and 54" minimum length limits on all of its better musky lakes, and Minnesota now has a 48" statewide limit except for lakes in the Twin Cities metro area, most of which are too crowded and clogged with eurasian milfoil to troll during most of the season anyway. It's also worth noting that Minnesota has over 2.5 times more inland water acreage than Wisconsin with roughly the same number of anglers.

Great points Andy,

You took the words right off my page so to speak. I was in the process of using some of those points in a message myself. Depthfinders, fish locators, sideview imaging, cameras, GPS, way points, maps on your electronics, etc. Yes, I agree. We do have the upper hand. Adding trolling to that is ludicrous. How much easier do we want it to be? How much lazier are we going to get?


If you are a troller and someone asked how you did, your honest answer should be "well, my Mercury nailed 6 beautiful walleyes and a musky"!

I'm entirely "Old School", but then as I see it, so is the TFF.

I fish the TFF and a few other Mercer waters.

I say "NO" to motor trolling. I'm fine that it is allowed where it is already allowed, but see no reason to expand it.

Row trolling only exists because there is no other trolling alternative. I like row trolling once in a while, and I get a chance to show the fish a presentation that they haven't been exposed to.

For what it's worth, I like having 3 lines. If I'm going to work as hard as rowing around the lake - I like to have a few lines going to make it worth my work.

I'd rather have 3 lines and no motor trolling, than to have motor trolling and less lines.

A better proposal would be to allow for intelligent enforcement of position fishing. :)

I agree with Andy, and Blue.In fact, if the DNR is going to look at allowing trolling, they should also look at how they treat "trolling" with a sucker rig off the back of the boat while we work an area with our trolling motor while we cast bars and points. Heck...one CO actually told us we were "trolling" while we drifted a bar sans trolling motor with our suckers off the back of the boat. Other CO's I've talked with have indicated that is one of the regs they would like to see better defined. One even told us that she won't ticket anyone fishing with a sucker off the back of the boat while casting bars and keeping a boat in position to work an area. Let's "fix" what we have, before ruining the Class A Musky Lakes we have in the northern counties. Living in Michigan, and watching the trollers on inland lakes just seems like a waste of resource when it comes to wasting gas. It is way more satisfying to cast points, bars, etc in hopes of luring a monster to your lure than trolling...along with the joy you get while actually seeing that Musky follow, strike, follow a figure 8, etc. It is more fun to run and gun with good friends anyway!

We had a contentious thread about the sucker issue several years ago, and at that time I emailed Randy Stark at the DNR for clarification. This was his response back in 2005:

The following is our current policy and guidance relative to the issue of position fishing and trolling.

Position fishing is allowed statewide and is defined as fishing from a boat where the fishing line extends vertically into the water while the boat is maneuvered (forwards or backwards) by a motor used to position the boat over underwater structures.

Motor trolling is illegal statewide except in some counties and waters as specified in the County and statewide tables under s. NR 20.20, Wis. Adm. Code, and listed in the “Special Regulations Listings by County” in the Fishing Regulation pamphlet.

DNR Law Enforcement policy is that some movement under power while position fishing will be acceptable and occasional deviation from vertical lines is expected. How much movement is some? Movement for up to several minutes may occasionally be necessary to reposition a fishing boat. Trailing a sucker or minnow behind a boat while casting an artificial lure with the use of a motor would not be authorized. Wardens should consider the “totality of the circumstance” in determining whether a violation has been committed.

Acceptable practices: Examples of fishing techniques that would qualify under the spirit of the position fishing rule:

- Using your motor to move around a structure, weed edges, rock bars, drop offs, while vertically jigging.
- Using your motor to slowly move around structure fishing with a bottom bouncer fished in a vertical or near vertical presentation.
- Operating your motor to maintain position.

Unacceptable and illegal practices: Examples of fishing techniques that would
not qualify as position fishing are:

- Use of downriggers or planer boards to trail live baits or artificial lures while operating electric or outboard motors.
- Trailing lines with live bait or artificial lures while engaged in casting and immediate retrieval of a different bait, lure or similar device while the motor is running.

He's still the Chief Warden and the regulation hasn't changed, so I assume that's still the policy. Seems pretty clear to me. From the comments at the time, it seemed like more often wardens in the field were being overly stringent - one guy claimed he was cited just for having his trolling motor in the water while drift-fishing suckers, even though (supposedly) it wasn't running and he didn't have his foot on the pedal.

Personally, I'm with Ruff Fish - I've often thought about adding a rowing rig to our canoe, or maybe even building a classic cedar-strip rowing boat - I love the lines of a Whitehall. I'd do some occasional trolling, and use it for exercise and for photographic outings. But lately I've also been looking at some of the pedal-powered kayaks from Hobie and Native Watercraft, and a Hydrobike also looks like it would be a fun option.

Well, I guess BlueRanger partially answered the question of why they are targeting Iron, Sawyer, etc, counties for trolling..... Vilas and Oneida already fought their war against trolling and won it, and so the pro-trolling forces are moving west for another try at it...

The problem with allowing trolling is it's a go/no-go decision and the outcome could be anything from having, say, 2 guys trolling per day, to having a whole armada of trollers out there, especially if word gets around that it's this great trolling lake. We have no clue as to how this will turn out. Has anyone thought this through?

I've thought it through and it's a bad idea all the way around. I plan to attend tonight's meeting in Milwaukee and I'm thinking of speaking against it and using wildlife as my key point. I believe it will be bad for the fishery, but the thinking might be "we can always restock fish". But can we restock more loons and to a lessor degree, eagles? With the snags and breakoffs due to getting hung up, the line left behind will have a tragic affect on these 2 species, besides ruining a lower unit here and there. Since the TFF has the greatest number of nesting loons and I believe eagles in the state, this is a key, and very strong point.

To me, a law like this should never be county wide. Every body of water has it's own set of variables and every county has a few bodies if water that should be exempt. The TFF is different from almost every other lake in the state and deserves different, and greater protection.

Good luck to all who attend and speak up!

Well I attended the meeting and gave my 3 minutes worth. One other person spoke against trolling and he fishes the Chip. We spoke afterward for a few minutes. He's as strongly against trolling as I am and also stated a good 3 minute case. My sense was most of the folks there would vote no on this proposal, in fact 5 people came up to me and thanked me during the meeting specifically for my support of the TFF. Too bad none of them felt like speaking during the meeting.

Only the second time I attended one of these and it will not be my last. I found it quite interesting. There were 97 points of possible discussion with a question to answer, although there was actual discussion on only 12 or 15 items.

Anyone else attend will news to share?

Don
Thanks for taking the time to go. I can only hope that you did enough so that they can see what a mistake it would be to allow trolling on the TFF.

Say no to the troll

gdi

DonH:
Not much to report. One other guy and myself spoke out against it. I have no idea if we did any good. The results are going to be online Wed. I think.

The thing that bugs me about the format of the meeting is I thought it encouraged voting on issues that the majority of the people there have no clue on because the particular question is about some lake or even different sport that they have no idea about. In other words, there are over a hundred questions, and each one is specific to a particular sport or lake, like for instance, "Elimination of the Class B bear license back tag", Yes or No. Well, I have absolutely no clue if this is a good thing or not cause I don't even hunt. My opinion or vote would be worthless. I shouldn't be voting on stuff I have no knowledge on. I just hope this trolling question is passed on by people who have no clue on this topic. I'm just afraid 1/2 the guys in the room just guess on it. Heck, I would have been a little happier if the moderator just stated at the beginning to only vote on things you think you have a clue on.

The DNR says the trolling decision is a "local preference", so I don't get why we have a statewide referendum on it. If it was about allowing trolling for all Wisconsin, then fine, do it the way it was done.

However, maybe the results are weighted by location, I could be wrong!!Maybe it's too expensive to come up with a locally specific questionaire. Anybody know?

Hi Randy,

The referendum is statewide because even though I live near Milwaukee, the issue in the far northern part of the state concerns me. We all travel all over. I've got friends that annually go to Wyoming to hunt.

There were a lot of questions I didn't answer as I felt uninformed of the issue and my vote would have been nothing more than a guess. I agree with you that the moderator should have made a statement to only vote if informed or interested in the issue. Could they think that the same crowd appears at these and they don't need to go over any of that stuff?

The last point I made during my 3 minutes of fame was to mention that an issue like this should not be all encompassing. There have to be a few bodies of water in every county that are unique enough to warrant being exempt from a regulation like this. I said the the TFF could never in a million years be lumped together with Lake Minocqa for instance, especially on an issue like trolling. To consider them worhty of the same set of controls, standards or regulations is beyond idiotic....but I said it in a nice way.

I enjoyed speaking at this thing. I feel so strongly about the TFF, it was nice to have a captive audience and for me to be able to express myself and my passion for the place.

I was unable to attend the meeting here in Mercer, but I heard from a very reliable source that virtually everyone in attendance was against legalized trolling. Thanks to everyone who went to their local meetings and stood up for Iron county.

Andy

There were some initial, subtle insults on a Musky based forum for those who aren't in favor of legalizing the motor trolling proposal...(paraphrasing, I'm too lazy to quote).."keeping WI in the dark ages" "WI needs to become progressive".....

The last few days it seemed that more posters recognized the validity of the concerns of the 'anti-trolling' crowd.

At least on some of the internet forums, things stabilized.

I hope that it turned out well.

I hope to ROW troll on the TFF and LOTF this summer. If any of you see a mook :) out on the TFF in an aluminum rowboat with planer boards - feel free to say 'hi'.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congre...10_Results.pdf

The four trolling questions all went "Yes" by roughly 3-2 margins. However, it would be interesting to know which counties were in the "No" column - if it included the affected counties and the other surrounding northern counties, it would be pretty hard to support the "local preference" argument.

Per the DNR website, the trolling proposals for Ashland, Iron, Price and Sawyer County waters passed in the Conservation Congress. The question for Iron County waters passed with a statewide vote of 1,787 yes and 1,163 no. 58 counties had a yes majority, while 13 had a no majority with 1 county having a tie vote. Breakdowns by county were not available tonight.

Lobbying the Natural Resources Board and your local legislators is the next method of action if you are against the DNR proposal.

I now see that Blue Ranger types faster than I do, a lot faster!

Only 2950 folks voted on this issue. With 72 counties in the state, that is an average of 41 people voting per county. I would estimate the crowd in Milwaukee to have been around 100 or so, which is really poor considering the population of that area and the number of fishermen and hunters that must live there.

Let's hope Iron county was one of the counties with a no vote and the "local preference" argument holds up.

If not, then it's time to get vocal about all the points for the TFF to be exempt from any county wide trolling regulation.

I was just talking with my brother-in-law as I'm typing this. He said that I should have brought up the fact that the DNR is always trying to protect the environment and Obama wants us to have a smaller carbon footprint, yet we're going to allow fishermen to have their motors running all day long. I told him he should have shown up at the meeting!

Iron and Sawyer both voted NO by nearly 3-1, Ashland also voted NO by a small margin, and Price voted Yes by 2-1. Didn't have time to scan through all the counties to see which other ones were opposed.

Well, good. Obviously there is a "local preference" occuring, and if the DNR practices what it preaches, it will respect the local wishes.

If anyone is interested, there are some mega-threads over on the musky hunter forums and the muskie.outdoorsfirst forums that you can check out. Takes an hour to read them...

The proponents case is always that the impact to the fishery is proven to be negligible, it's just another way to fish, why not allow it....

My case is that it shouldn't be selective to Iron county. Nobody seemed to catch on to that, I don't know why....

Some guys are suggesting that trolling be allowed only on bodies of water >1000 acres in these counties, which would put all the trolling in Iron co. on the TFF and the Gile, which is even more selective.

Someone on the other forum said that the initiative for this came from the DNR fisheries managers for these counties, FWIW. I do not know if the fisheries managers got input from certain other people.

OK im back to either stir it up or open some eyes . trolling is the topic. its not just musky trolling its trolling . so with that let me say im from IL. so you wont read this but for those who do lets continue. trolling does not kill fish and birds ,bad handling will. the hole loon thing about line that is connected to 7-20 dollar lure that is snagged dont happen ,but a jig [broken off]with a nice fathead could . the ttf has a problem and that is no size limit,or slot limit .back in the day 20-22-24 on walleye that great .now all i see are guys with fins and gills in the cleaning house ,some only 13in. long .[what a shame ] a local made a comment to me one time and said we are meat eaters, and my thoughts were sad . the whole thing about cribs are like fish in a barrel. and dont get me started on the jack northern that if you want a kid to learn how to cast and catch fish by banging a shoreline [call it pre musky fishing ] and they can learn CPR. and that banging the shorelines not northerns over the head for eagle food.so with blue rangers pictures some think that bad. its just the tech. world we live in. you can see fish all day it dont mean you can catch them. well thats all for now ,all you need to do is close up the dam a little bit, get a size or slot limit, stop the poachers from there double limits. and put the TFF back in order . so with me down here in IL. i have to leave it up to all of my northwoods fiends who will be sure that this can be done by the time i get there in may .to all have a good fishing season . and feel free to reply .

sureshot612:
You said "just close the dam a little bit"? They've already closed the dam a little bit. The outflow is (has been for almost a year now) less than the minimum 300 cfs, so there's not much more closing to do without really drying up the Flambeau river.

In regards to your comment about lack of size limit:
I just read the 2007 DNR Fishery Management Plan
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/upchip/doc..._Iron_2007.pdf
In a nutshell, there is evidence there are less large walleyes, but since the last comprehensive survey was done in 1997, they aren't sure where we are now. Guides are saying there are still plenty of big walleyes. So, basically they are proposing no changes until they complete the survey results, and the results indicate a change is needed. BTW, anybody know where the results for the 2009 survey are?????

Jeff Roth gave me the basic numbers from the population surveys when he completed the data analysis last fall. But the creel census continued through March, so I doubt the analysis of that data is complete yet. I imagine it will take at least several months before the formal report is ready for publication.

The walleye population estimate was essentially unchanged from 1997 at about 54,000 adults, but there was an increase in the proportion of fish in the 15-20" range - in my opinion, probably just a result of normal variation in year-class strength, although there may have been some benefit from high gas prices during the prior (2008) season - boat traffic was noticeably lighter that season. Jeff said that the initial results did not indicate a need for changes to the walleye regulations, and the musky size limit was also unlikely to change. However, he was considering recommending a change for smallmouth, replacing the minimum size limit with a protected slot at something like 14-18". I don't know whether the creel census results will alter those findings.

Regarding the question about statewide balloting - access to and use of natural resources are considered a shared right of all the citizens of Wisconsin. That's why the process is set up the way it is. And the hearing results are only advisory in nature - the Natural Resources Board makes the final determinations based on a variety of inputs. You can email your comments to the Natural Resources Board Liaison, Laurie.Ross@Wisconsin.gov. Their meetings are also open to the public and include time for citizen comments, and you can find the schedule and agendas here: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/

Are they going to allow gill nets next as well? Okay, obviously not the same, but I just never liked the idea behind trolling as mentioned above that it takes the sport out of fishing. It is the equivalent of road hunting to me. There are too many areas on the Flowage where it would disrupt the average casting fisherman. They allow this on Winnebago which is mostly wide open, but it also becomes an issue when word leaks out about "hot spots" and pressure gets turned up. I just think its going to lead to more and more problems.