Cullin on Boom Lake

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

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

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

"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

Bob La Londe wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
... 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."

I must have miscommunicated because that's not my argument.
If Wisconsin DNR determines that culling is detrimental to
the fishery then they should ban culling. For everybody.

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.

I don't want to cull. Never have. If I'm not gonna eat 'em I
release 'em *immediately*. I don't understand the "pay to play"
mentality. Fishing regs should be written to protect fisheries
and the regs should be the same for everyone.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...

I don't want to cull. Never have. If I'm not gonna eat 'em I
release 'em *immediately*. I don't understand the "pay to play" mentality.
Fishing regs should be written to protect fisheries
and the regs should be the same for everyone.

Ah, but the regs are the same for you as everybody else. You are free to
apply for a permit for a tournament just like everybody else.


--
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

Bob La Londe wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
... I don't understand the "pay to play" mentality.
Fishing regs should be written to protect fisheries
and the regs should be the same for everyone.

Ah, but the regs are the same for you as everybody else. You are free to
apply for a permit for a tournament just like everybody else.

I'll fish in my first fishing tournament after the Chicago Cubs
win their fifth World Series in a row or when hell freezes over,
whichever happens first. LOL !!

And you can quote me on that. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"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

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

"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?