Spring Hearings Coming Up

The annual Spring Hearings for the Wisconsin DNR and Conservation Congress will be held on Monday April 9. This year is a bit unusual in that there are no rules changes being proposed. All questions are "Advisory" questions only. This means that the questions are intended to get a feeling for how the sporting public views different issues. Don't kid yourself though, my guess is that the responses to the questions will be fodder for upcoming rules changes so it's worthwhile to get to your local meeting and vote. I'll be throwing out some opinions on the various questions as regards our fishing resources. For now it would be good for folks to familiarize yourself with the questions that will appear on the ballot. Some tackle shops have actual print copies available but if you can't get your hands on one you can view the ballot and obtain more information on the DNR website here: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/
One word of advice. When reading the questions it's easy to just think "well that seems like an ok plan". Read those questions carefully and think about what they really mean. How will it affect fishing in the long term and more importantly how will politicians manipulate those rules once they are in place. Hate to sound cynical but as we say up north, "it is what it is".

Here's a question we should all consider:

QUESTION 16: Fishing Seasons
Fishing season closures are generally implemented to protect fish populations from angling during periods of high vulnerability, during spawning times, or when large numbers of fish are congregated in relatively small areas and vulnerable to illegal methods. If populations are overharvested when they are vulnerable, there may be poor fishing during the rest of the year and long-term impacts on the fish population. Closed seasons can function to defer harvest, maintaining good numbers of adult fish to a time period when they are less vulnerable and more anglers have an opportunity to participate in the fishery. Having a traditional “opening day” may also be a benefit of closed seasons. Anticipation for the opener stimulates interest and enthusiasm of anglers and “opening day” events can result in local economic benefits.
However, season closures are not as effective as bag or length limits to manage a fish population because harvest is often only deferred until the open season. It has also proven difficult to set effective season dates at a state or regional level because spawning dates vary greatly for different species, parts of the state, and from year to year. In addition, data have not recently been analyzed to determine whether catch rates differ for species with year round open seasons at spawning or other times of the year.
16. If the Department finds that closed seasons are not biologically necessary to protect certain fish populations, would you support rule changes that would open fishing seasons year round?
16. YES ____
NO ______

My opinion: On the surface this sounds like a good idea. What the heck, it says "if the department finds...not biologically necessary" right? I think this idea paints the issue with too broad of a brush. If they didn't think it was necessary for certain bodies of water it probably would have gone away already. My belief is that this is more of a governmental move to reduce costs by removing the necessary extra time and money it takes to manage individual bodies of water or regional considerations. Why would we need educated biologists and other DNR staff if we just open the whole thing up statewide? Don't get me wrong. I do believe that with certain species or areas of the state the seasonal regulations could be more liberal but to throw a blanket over the state is not going to protect or improve the resource as a whole. This is why the DNR needs to consider things like seasons and bag/size limits. There are a lot of differences between the resources in the southern portion of the state as opposed to what we see here in the northern section. Natural reproduction vs. stocking, growing seasons, pressure from anglers and tribal harvest are all things that need to be considered. Bottom line: my vote would be NO on this proposal unless I had more information that would convince me otherwise.

Here's the next question on the ballot:

QUESTION 17: Management Zones
Wisconsin fishing regulations are currently applied to waters statewide, by county, by individual waterbody, portions of waterbodies or by northern and southern management zones. Currently there are northern and southern bass management zones divided by State Trunk Highways 77, 27, and 64 and by State Trunk Highway 29 east of the Fox River. In addition, there are northern and southern muskellunge and northern pike management zones divided by U.S. Highway 10. These zones were put in place because spawning and growing seasons may differ from northern to southern Wisconsin. However, they may not be effective because of variation in spawning and growing seasons within the zones and from year to year. Using a statewide regulation would reduce complexity of regulations.
17. If the Department finds that management zones are not biologically necessary to protect or improve certain fish populations, would you prefer removing northern and southern zones and instead using statewide regulations?
17. YES _____
NO ______
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISHERIES ADVISORY QUESTIONS

I think my comments from the previous question apply here as well. Again I'd vote NO.

Multiple questions address the issue of Motor Trolling. Here they are for your consideration:

QUESTION 75. Allow Motor Trolling Statewide
Motor trolling is trailing a lure, bait, or similar device used to attract or catch fish from a boat while being propelled (forward or backward) by a motor or a sail. Currently, motor trolling is illegal except in some counties, specified waters, and for certain disabled anglers.
Some anglers feel that allowing motor trolling statewide would reduce complexity, simplify fishing regulations, increase angling opportunity, reduce unnecessary confusion and citations, and remove any confusion about dragging suckers while musky fishing. Motor trolling is allowed in all waters of surrounding states and Ontario, without any adverse effects. If trolling were allowed statewide it would remove confusion on where you can and cannot legally motor troll, and would eliminate the need for “position fishing” rules and disabled motor trolling permits.
75. Do you favor allowing motor trolling statewide?
75. YES _____
NO ______

And:

QUESTIONS 18-20: Motor Trolling (Please also see Question 75 on the WCC side of the questionnaire, simply asking “would you support trolling statewide, YES or NO?”)
“Motor trolling” is trailing a lure, bait, or similar device used to attract or catch fish from a boat while being propelled (forwards or backwards) by a motor or a sail, or while being towed by a boat being propelled by a motor or sail. Casting and immediate retrieval of a bait or lure while being propelled by a motor or a sail is not motor trolling. Where trolling is allowed, anglers may use up to 3 lines (effectively 3 hooks, baits, or lures).
Currently, rules governing motor trolling differ across the inland waters of Wisconsin, and no substantive biological justification can be provided for the current situation. In 18 counties throughout the state, motor trolling is specifically allowed on all waters; in 45 counties, one or more specifically named waters are open to motor trolling; and in 9 counties, all waters are specifically closed to motor trolling. Wisconsin is the only state that maintains any statewide or regional restrictions on trolling.
Motor trolling has been controversial because trolling may take up more acreage per angler than casting and could result in higher user conflicts among anglers. However, allowing trolling may not result in any change in the level of user conflicts, given the number of other recreational boaters and jet skiers currently using lakes and large rivers. A 2010-11 statewide mail survey of musky anglers found that conflicts with speed boats, jet skis, etc., was the 4th highest ranking problem in musky fishing; and conflicts with other anglers ranked 16th out of 18 identified problems. In addition, if motor trolling were legalized statewide, 91% of musky anglers indicated that they would engage in some amount of trolling.
In 1998, the Department proposed a rule change at the spring hearings to allow motor trolling with one hook, bait, or lure in all areas closed to trolling. The result was 1,322 YES to 1,969 NO, with 34 counties in favor and 35 against. Since then, two region-wide proposals have passed to open entire counties to trolling, including several counties in south central and northwest Wisconsin.
18. Would you support rule changes that would allow motor trolling statewide with the current allowable 3 lines per angler?
18. YES _____
NO ______
19. Would you support rule changes that would allow motor trolling statewide with up to 2 lines per angler?
19. YES _____
NO ______
20. Would you support rule changes that would allow motor trolling statewide with only 1 line per angler?
20. YES _____
NO ______

There's a lot to chew on there. Our neighboring state Minnesota allows motor trolling with one line per angler. This forces you to make a decision as to your preferred fishing method. You don't see guys in Mn. casting while dangling a sucker unless one guy is doing the casting and another is tending the sucker.
Another consideration I believe is the size of the body of water you're on. Some of you may remember the days when "backtrolling" was allowed. It was almost ridiculous to see multiple boats out on a 300 acre lake with planer boards all over the place and the ensuing "conflicts" with other fishermen and recreational boaters that took place.
There are times when I would love to be able to throw out a line and just motor around for a break or if I have clients that are physically unable to cast for a whole day however, I really don't want to see boats out there looking like they're salmon fishing the great lakes. I'm personally a little undecided on how I'll vote for these questions but am leaning towards the following:
Question 75: No (again with the too broad of a definition deal)
Question18: No
Question19: No
Question 20: yes