![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yup, the dream might become a reality:
A longstanding state law that prohibits culling in Wisconsin might be lifted, pending the outcome of a study by the Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Bass Federation president Mike Hoffman said the outcome will likely boil down to a battle between those who support tournament fishing and those who are against it. Click here to read more about the issue on BassFanArmy.com. I, for one, am dyin to get back on Boom & do some culling lol. WW |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WARREN WOLK wrote:
Yup, the dream might become a reality: A longstanding state law that prohibits culling in Wisconsin might be lifted, pending the outcome of a study by the Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Bass Federation president Mike Hoffman said the outcome will likely boil down to a battle between those who support tournament fishing and those who are against it. ... The outcome *should* be decided by science and fact, not by a "battle" between opposing interests. I think tournament fishing is silly but I don't have a problem with it so long as it doesn't adversely impact the fishery. If it does adversely impact the fishery then I'm all for regulating it with game laws like a prohibition on culling. Either way the issue should be decided by science and not by popular opinion. Probably more than my two cents worth. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "WARREN WOLK" wrote in message news ![]() Yup, the dream might become a reality: A longstanding state law that prohibits culling in Wisconsin might be lifted, pending the outcome of a study by the Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Bass Federation president Mike Hoffman said the outcome will likely boil down to a battle between those who support tournament fishing and those who are against it. Click here to read more about the issue on BassFanArmy.com. I, for one, am dyin to get back on Boom & do some culling lol. Well Warren, Randy is looking for someone to split expenses coming out for the NWC, why don't you get in touch with him and come on out? Tournament fishing in general and culling during tournaments in particular has become a real hot button item here in Wisconsin. There are two camps that have become extremely divided on the entier issue. Part of the problem lies in that the way the "Culling Regulation" is being proposed, is that you would only be allowed to cull during a permitted tournament. The general fishing population could still not cull. One side is saying "It's being done all over the country without problem, so why not here?" The other side is saying, "I don't fish in tournaments, so why shouldn't I be able to cull as well?" It has become quite an emotional issue, with the anti's seeing ANY tournament fishing as raping the resource, using "public resources" for personal gain. The tournament supporters are arguing, "Hey, at least at the end of the day, we're releasing the fish back into the lake, not into a deep fryer, so we're not hurting anything." But then you have the recent FLW disaster where 580 bass died after a tournament, fueled with reports that "My buddy at work said that his dad's neighbor up at Lake X knew a guy that said there were dead fish floating all over the lake after a tournament." It doesn't take too many of these instances, real or not to give tournament fishing a black eye. Bass fishing is kind of in it's infancy here in Wisconsin, with a major portion of the population fishing for walleye, panfish and other "eatin' fish." Many don't understand how someone could fish all day, just to let those fish go! (I have many fishing friends that still think I'm odd, chasing "Green Carp") Those that do fish strictly for fun and are proponents of Catch and Release tend to be muskie anglers, and EVERYONE in the state understands wanting to catch a musky and release it. Like I said, it's an emotion charged issue and when the dust settles, one group or the other isn't going to be happy. -- Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods http://www.herefishyfishy.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote:
... Tournament fishing in general and culling during tournaments in particular has become a real hot button item here in Wisconsin. There are two camps that have become extremely divided on the entier issue. Part of the problem lies in that the way the "Culling Regulation" is being proposed, is that you would only be allowed to cull during a permitted tournament. The general fishing population could still not cull. ... That's just flat out wrong. Preferential treatment for tournaments ? That's outrageous. If anything tournaments should have *more* restrictive regulations than recreational fishing if only because tournament fishermen catch more fish per capita than recreational fishermen. If I lived in Wisconsin I'd be livid. And vocal in my opposition to this wrongheaded nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Administrators in the state fish and wildlife agencies do what they think is
best when they write and enforce regulations that will help them achieve their mission objectives. That includes strategies like closed areas, fishing seasons, minimum and maximum sizes, slot limits, creel limits, and, apparently, cull/no-cull rules. If a situation arises where granting an exception to the usual strategy better enables the agency to achieve the mission, there are usually provisions in law that they can follow to authorize the exception. In some states, for instance, tournaments are perceived as beneficial to the agenda of the wildlife resource agencies. They encourage tournament tours to compete on their lakes. The license fees and permits paid for by participants, and the residual increase in license purchases by additional folks attracted to the sport by the tournaments, help fund the agencies' habitat protection and improvement programs. Therefore, they weigh the pros and cons of sticking with the regulation, granting a temporary exemption, or writing the exception into the code. For example, didn't we receive an exemptions for our Southern Classic tournament on Okeechobee? I understood that lake normally has slot limits, but tournaments may apply for a exception. I recall we carried a permission slip with us as we fished. Was that fair to anglers who had to release slot fish immediately? I think so. "Fair" and "identical" are not synonymous. One can treat situations and people differently and still be fair. Parents with more than one kid do it all the time. In Wisconsin, if this rule is passed, the non-tournament angler who wishes to cull could do so by fishing an authorized tournament. IMHO, the issue of allowing tournaments to cull fish on lakes where other anglers cannot isn't a matter of right and wrong. No ones rights are being trampled. It is simply a strategy that the agency might consider as they seek ways to best achieve their mission, i.e., to sustain an abundant, healthy resource for the benefit of the people of the state. Joe "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message om... snip: If I lived in Wisconsin I'd be livid. And vocal in my opposition to this wrongheaded nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joe Haubenreich wrote:
Administrators in the state fish and wildlife agencies do what they think is best when they write and enforce regulations that will help them achieve their mission objectives. That includes strategies like closed areas, fishing seasons, minimum and maximum sizes, slot limits, creel limits, and, apparently, cull/no-cull rules. If a situation arises where granting an exception to the usual strategy better enables the agency to achieve the mission, there are usually provisions in law that they can follow to authorize the exception. In some states, for instance, tournaments are perceived as beneficial to the agenda of the wildlife resource agencies. They encourage tournament tours to compete on their lakes. The license fees and permits paid for by participants, and the residual increase in license purchases by additional folks attracted to the sport by the tournaments, help fund the agencies' habitat protection and improvement programs. Therefore, they weigh the pros and cons of sticking with the regulation, granting a temporary exemption, or writing the exception into the code. For example, didn't we receive an exemptions for our Southern Classic tournament on Okeechobee? I understood that lake normally has slot limits, but tournaments may apply for a exception. I recall we carried a permission slip with us as we fished. Was that fair to anglers who had to release slot fish immediately? I think so. "Fair" and "identical" are not synonymous. One can treat situations and people differently and still be fair. Parents with more than one kid do it all the time. In Wisconsin, if this rule is passed, the non-tournament angler who wishes to cull could do so by fishing an authorized tournament. IMHO, the issue of allowing tournaments to cull fish on lakes where other anglers cannot isn't a matter of right and wrong. No ones rights are being trampled. It is simply a strategy that the agency might consider as they seek ways to best achieve their mission, i.e., to sustain an abundant, healthy resource for the benefit of the people of the state. Your argument, as I read it, boils down to tournaments may be cash cows for Wisconsin DNR and so tournaments are deserving of preferential regs because the cash they generate helps fund all DNR programs. If that's your argument, I couldn't disagree more. Fishing regs should be implemented to protect our fisheries. Period. Cash cows shouldn't enter into the equation. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ken Fortenberry"
Your argument, as I read it, boils down to tournaments may be cash cows for Wisconsin DNR and so tournaments are deserving of preferential regs because the cash they generate helps fund all DNR programs. Angler's who buy fishing licenses are cash cows for DNRs and F&G Depts. They help to fund the management of the resources. If that's your argument, I couldn't disagree more. Fishing regs should be implemented to protect our fisheries. Period. Cash cows shouldn't enter into the equation. By your arguement either, "all anglers should be allowed to fish whether they buy a license or not," or, "no anglers should be allowed to fish whther they buy a license or not." Come on Ken. I understand your frustration, but when you pay for an extra priveledge its fair, as long as the fee is reasonable, and anybody can apply for the same priveledge. The way I understand it you are free to apply to apply for a permit to have a tournament the same as anybody else. If you want to cull then apply for a tournament permit everytime you want to cull fish. Same as anybody else. LOL. -- Bob La Londe Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River Fishing Forums & Contests http://www.YumaBassMan.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message om... Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote: ... Tournament fishing in general and culling during tournaments in particular has become a real hot button item here in Wisconsin. There are two camps that have become extremely divided on the entier issue. Part of the problem lies in that the way the "Culling Regulation" is being proposed, is that you would only be allowed to cull during a permitted tournament. The general fishing population could still not cull. ... That's just flat out wrong. Preferential treatment for tournaments ? That's outrageous. If anything tournaments should have *more* restrictive regulations than recreational fishing if only because tournament fishermen catch more fish per capita than recreational fishermen. If I lived in Wisconsin I'd be livid. And vocal in my opposition to this wrongheaded nonsense. Why not? There are all kinds of preferential treatment regulations for "special interest groups" in fishing and hunting. Entire sections of trout streams here in Wisconsin and all across the country have been earmarked "Artificial Lures Only", effectively blocking out those recreational anglers that wish to fish using Garden Hackle! Why should artificial lure anglers have access to public resources that bait anglers are blocked from? That seems kind of like "wrongheaded nonsense" to me. -- Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods http://www.herefishyfishy.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote: ... Tournament fishing in general and culling during tournaments in particular has become a real hot button item here in Wisconsin. There are two camps that have become extremely divided on the entier issue. Part of the problem lies in that the way the "Culling Regulation" is being proposed, is that you would only be allowed to cull during a permitted tournament. The general fishing population could still not cull. ... That's just flat out wrong. Preferential treatment for tournaments ? That's outrageous. If anything tournaments should have *more* restrictive regulations than recreational fishing if only because tournament fishermen catch more fish per capita than recreational fishermen. If I lived in Wisconsin I'd be livid. And vocal in my opposition to this wrongheaded nonsense. Why not? There are all kinds of preferential treatment regulations for "special interest groups" in fishing and hunting. Entire sections of trout streams here in Wisconsin and all across the country have been earmarked "Artificial Lures Only", effectively blocking out those recreational anglers that wish to fish using Garden Hackle! Why should artificial lure anglers have access to public resources that bait anglers are blocked from? That seems kind of like "wrongheaded nonsense" to me. Studies have shown that artificial lures cause less mortality in catch and release fishing than live bait. If the streams are strictly catch and kill, then I agree with you, there's no good reason to give preferential treatment to those who fish with artificial lures. I can't think of any difference between tournament fishing and recreational fishing that would warrant preferential regs. YMMV. -- Ken Fortenberry |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message m... Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote: Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers wrote: ... Tournament fishing in general and culling during tournaments in particular has become a real hot button item here in Wisconsin. There are two camps that have become extremely divided on the entier issue. Part of the problem lies in that the way the "Culling Regulation" is being proposed, is that you would only be allowed to cull during a permitted tournament. The general fishing population could still not cull. ... That's just flat out wrong. Preferential treatment for tournaments ? That's outrageous. If anything tournaments should have *more* restrictive regulations than recreational fishing if only because tournament fishermen catch more fish per capita than recreational fishermen. If I lived in Wisconsin I'd be livid. And vocal in my opposition to this wrongheaded nonsense. Why not? There are all kinds of preferential treatment regulations for "special interest groups" in fishing and hunting. Entire sections of trout streams here in Wisconsin and all across the country have been earmarked "Artificial Lures Only", effectively blocking out those recreational anglers that wish to fish using Garden Hackle! Why should artificial lure anglers have access to public resources that bait anglers are blocked from? That seems kind of like "wrongheaded nonsense" to me. Studies have shown that artificial lures cause less mortality in catch and release fishing than live bait. If the streams are strictly catch and kill, then I agree with you, there's no good reason to give preferential treatment to those who fish with artificial lures. I can't think of any difference between tournament fishing and recreational fishing that would warrant preferential regs. YMMV. -- Ken Fortenberry So, if cullin is bad, why are there C&R sections of a river? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WBT preview event moved to Lewisville Lake | LewisvilleTX | General Discussion | 1 | October 11th, 2005 02:59 PM |
montana...and, fawn lake | Jeff Miller | Fly Fishing | 38 | July 28th, 2005 01:15 AM |
Lake Champlain: LCI Father's Day Derby March 31 Deadline | Lake Champlain Fishing | General Discussion | 0 | March 15th, 2004 08:48 PM |
Lake Champlain: LCI Father's Day Derby March 31 Deadline | Lake Champlain Fishing | Catfish Fishing | 0 | March 15th, 2004 08:47 PM |
Lake Champlain: LCI Father's Day Derby | Lake Champlain Fishing | Fly Fishing | 0 | March 15th, 2004 08:46 PM |