Driftless Trout Anglers

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Guillermo  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 12:19:46 AM(UTC)
Guillermo
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 6/25/2013(UTC)
Posts: 303
Location: Wisconsin

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Thought I would share this link for anyone who fishes the U.P. or has an interest in preserving brook trout populations in the midwest. Deadline would be tomorrow night or early Wednesday for sending emails and comments to the NRC. Proposal seems to be bad news.

Link:
U.P. regs

Edited by user Tuesday, November 7, 2017 1:58:17 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

NBrevitz  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 1:03:50 AM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,162
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I thought this was only on a few uber-populated streams like E Taquamanon and Driggs?
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
Guillermo  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 1:56:18 AM(UTC)
Guillermo
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 6/25/2013(UTC)
Posts: 303
Location: Wisconsin

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: NBrevitz Go to Quoted Post
I thought this was only on a few uber-populated streams like E Taquamanon and Driggs?


It would apply to 1100 miles of U.P. streams and they want to review 2.5 times more miles next year. Idiotic.

Edited by user Tuesday, November 7, 2017 1:57:16 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

NBrevitz  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 3:01:02 AM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,162
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I honestly wouldn’t worry that much, there’s plenty of fish and most people up there don’t exactly follow limits to begin with. I went to Lake State for a year, I saw some shit.
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
Guillermo  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 5:53:56 AM(UTC)
Guillermo
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 6/25/2013(UTC)
Posts: 303
Location: Wisconsin

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: NBrevitz Go to Quoted Post
I honestly wouldn’t worry that much, there’s plenty of fish and most people up there don’t exactly follow limits to begin with. I went to Lake State for a year, I saw some shit.


I believe it and I know there are a lot of folks who don't respect the resource and have an outright contempt for the DNR, both in the U.P. and Wisconsin. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. It's kind of like the wolf situation. We think that because they've recovered nicely that we can go back to the good old days. But the problem is that's what got us into the situation we are now finally out of.
NBrevitz  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 6:15:57 AM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,162
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
It is a dangerous precedent, I'll absolutely agree. I find it interesting that fishing pressure didn't increase. The MN DNR are dealing with the same situation on the N Shore. The fishing has been quite good for the past several years, but no one is going, they can't quite figure it out. Hopefully, people will continue to find these Brookie streams to be too much work, and that is just fine with me. As for the Yoopers, there has always been that attitude. I think they'd have completely ridded themselves of fish and game within 10 years had they seceded from Michigan like they tried to 40 years or so back. The one thing I've thought about with this is that, if you're talking all the Reg 1 water (more than 10 men could fish in 5 lifetimes), won't the impact be fairly spread out? I obviously hope so
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
thanks 1 user thanked NBrevitz for this useful post.
EddieRivard on 11/9/2017(UTC)
Guillermo  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 7:49:35 AM(UTC)
Guillermo
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 6/25/2013(UTC)
Posts: 303
Location: Wisconsin

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: NBrevitz Go to Quoted Post
It is a dangerous precedent, I'll absolutely agree. I find it interesting that fishing pressure didn't increase. The MN DNR are dealing with the same situation on the N Shore. The fishing has been quite good for the past several years, but no one is going, they can't quite figure it out. Hopefully, people will continue to find these Brookie streams to be too much work, and that is just fine with me. As for the Yoopers, there has always been that attitude. I think they'd have completely ridded themselves of fish and game within 10 years had they seceded from Michigan like they tried to 40 years or so back. The one thing I've thought about with this is that, if you're talking all the Reg 1 water (more than 10 men could fish in 5 lifetimes), won't the impact be fairly spread out? I obviously hope so


Yeah I'm sure the impact will be more spread out up there than it would be in the northern WI counties which are not as remote. Thankfully this hasn't come up here yet. I do not think the waters could support it. To highlight some people's contempt for the Dept. around here, a few of them have illegally introduced bass into wild trout waters just to get under the Dept's skin and make their job impossible. On one wild brookie lake it resulted in needing to be poisoned out and restocked to get rid of the largemouth. The last trout survey before the poisoning turned up only 5 brookies in a 25 acre lake. Then it happened not 5 years later on a smaller lake. We're still working on that one now. Good thing fried bass taste good.
Gurth  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, November 7, 2017 2:03:50 PM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 478
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Not sure this is the case here, but a lot of recreational entities managed by the WI DNR are moving towards analytics and are being encouraged/required to show that dollars invested = something.

Maybe whomever is managing these waters is under the same sort of pressure?

Sounds like they want more bodies on the water and more usage of the resource which in turn would help to justify their jobs existing and the budget that they are currently using.

Doesn't mean it's the right way to manage wildlife, but could explain why they are moving in a direction that most trout anglers are opposed to.


Of course the irony is that the one sure way to get less traffic on a stream is for word to get out that the fish count is down.
Your mother had a tongue like a trout!
Guillermo  
#9 Posted : Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:09:16 AM(UTC)
Guillermo
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 6/25/2013(UTC)
Posts: 303
Location: Wisconsin

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Gurth Go to Quoted Post
Not sure this is the case here, but a lot of recreational entities managed by the WI DNR are moving towards analytics and are being encouraged/required to show that dollars invested = something.

Maybe whomever is managing these waters is under the same sort of pressure?

Sounds like they want more bodies on the water and more usage of the resource which in turn would help to justify their jobs existing and the budget that they are currently using.

Doesn't mean it's the right way to manage wildlife, but could explain why they are moving in a direction that most trout anglers are opposed to.


Of course the irony is that the one sure way to get less traffic on a stream is for word to get out that the fish count is down.


Sadly I think you're probably somewhat correct.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2017, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.309 seconds.