MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

New spring proposals

2/11/20 @ 5:37 AM
ORIGNAL POST
jkb
User since 6/25/02

I am proposing two rule changes during the spring hearings after extensive talks with several local bait shop owners.  There is extreme concern over pan fish limits by these men and I agree,  Right now it is difficult to find a lake in east central Wisconsin where you can go and catch quality pan fish on a consistent basis.  I have watched the total collapse of pan fish fisheries on Fox Lake and Lake Emily and despite the protests of a vocal few that have claimed everything from pelican diets to water lice infestations and protest because 25/10 limits don't provide them enough fish for a meal, I am going through with this proposal.  I am doing it for the future of the resource.  I want the kids I taught to be able to catch decent pan fish in the wonderful lakes we have in east central Wisconsin.  As technology improves, even the novice fisherman can become an effective fisherman that can easily harvest too many pan fish.  I have also been given the excuse that local businesses will suffer as a result of these proposals but I contend that businesses are struggling now as few fisherman are venturing to this area to pan fish any more because of the lack of productive lakes.

These two proposals are aimed at improving the pan fish populations and giving anglers an opportunity to harvest smaller northern pike.  Large game fish can be contaminated by mercury and heavy metals in Wisconsin.  All large game fish are under a mercury warning in Wisconsin.  Here are the proposals.  Lake Emily is not included as the DNR already has oked a pan fish restriction and a reduction in the pike size limit.

Pan fish bag limit decrease proposaI

We are proposing a reduction in the allowable bag limit of pan fish from the current limit of 25 to the 25/10 limits on some lakes in Wisconsin.  There are currently no lakes in the three counties we wish to decrease the numbers in that have a reduced bag limit.  This proposal applies to lakes that have historically produced large panfish but due to over harvest have had the numbers drastically reduced.  These lakes see a lot of pressure on the resource especially during the ice fishing season. This proposal aligns with the goals set for forth by the Pan fish Management Team on the 10 year Strategic Plan For Managing Wisconsin’s Pan fish.  I have received support from Travis Motl, Dodge county fisheries biologist,  and Dave Bartz, Green Lake and Marquette county fisheries biologist on these proposals.

The counties and lakes included in the proposal are: Dodge County-Fox Lake.  Green Lake County- Big Green Lake, Grand Lake (Kingston Mill Pond), Little Green Lake, Big and Little Twin Lake, and Spring Lake. Marquette County- Buffalo Lake , Montello Lake, and Lake Puckaway.

Northern slot proposal

I am proposing a reduction in the size limit of northern pike from the 26” and 32” size limits on Kingston Mill Pond (Grand Lake) in Green Lake County and Fox Lake (Dodge County) respectively.  I am proposing a 3 fish limit with 2 fish limit between 20-26” and a 1 over 36”.  Every large old fish in Wisconsin is under a mercury advisory.  The older they are , the greater the chance of having high levels of mercury in them.  Reducing the population of northern pike would relieve some pressure on the prey fish populations and allow more growth of the remaining pike.  This proposal has received approval from Greg Sass, lead fisheries biologist for the state of Wisconsin, Travis Motl, Dodge county fisheries biologist and Dave Bartz, Green Lake county fisheries biologist.


DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 56 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS
2/20/20 @ 9:41 PM
icebelt
User since 10/22/13

You didn’t hurt my feelings I just don’t respect you.

2/20/20 @ 5:47 AM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
MEMBER since 7/9/12

I too said leave it to the professional’s. We don’t know what the results are yet. Some lakes are slammed by hundreds of fishermen everyday. Fish population will be affected on these lakes. So, they’re doing a field test to improve these lakes hopefully. 
I just get a little perturbed by some who chastise people who follow the regulations As set by the state. It gets very old. I don’t have anything against anybody on this entire website for stating their opinion, but don’t tell people they are doing something wrong while they follow rules and regulations.
I fish to eat fish or search for a trophy. I wouldn’t fish otherwise. If that makes me a bad person in someones opinion, they obliviously don’t know me. 

2/19/20 @ 10:46 PM
rikj
rikj
User since 7/29/01

jkb, I never praised your proposal or shot it down. I asked you to wait out the ongoing panfish study that is over 80% complete before making more complicated regulations. I have also offered other options. If these studies show what you are hoping for I am all for some sort of change. You keep mentioning fisheries biologists and their degrees to support your proposals and every time you do I think of the poor job our wildlife biologists and their degrees are doing for our state's deer herd. 

I think you as a teacher of 33 years should know better than to call a poster on here an idiot? We should be able offer our opinions even if different from one another. I don't agree with your opinion that John Gillespie "is the greatest plastic fisherman, barring none"  but I would never call you an idiot over it. 

Relax and go out fishing tomorrow and enjoy the day..........


2/19/20 @ 9:03 PM
jkb
User since 6/25/02

icebelt, Sorry if I hurt your feelings but I said that " the mentality that we should kill everything that competes with humans is moronic".  Sorry but it is.  Prop buster asked me why was I qualified to make a proposal and I should leave it to people with Masters degrees. I do have a masters degree in science and have taught all aspects of science at the high school level for 33 years.  All 3 biologists that support this proposal also have Masters degrees in fisheries biology.  Greg Sass has a PHD but more importantly all 3 of them have more experience at analyzing a population of fish than anyone on this board.

Snakester and rikj talk out of both sides of their mouth.  One minute praising the proposal and the next minute shooting it down.

Guess what, ANYONE can make a proposal.  It is your right as a Wisconsin citizen.

2/19/20 @ 7:37 PM
icefish01
User since 1/23/06

While science is important, if u know the lake has a great population of fish, then gets pounded by hundreds of people every weekend and suddenly the good fishing dries up. Is science needed or common sense?

2/19/20 @ 7:08 PM
icebelt
User since 10/22/13

Alright I’m out of retirement. For the poster to make the statement of calling people morons,idiots, or anything else is wrong. One time he called me dumb and claimed he was a biologist. Then in another tread claiming expertise because he has a master in science. No one really knows what ne is unless a full name is provided with credentials so fact checking can be done. I agree with snake’s last post as well as others. The thoughts of for example, I am a team leader doesn’t anyone listen to me and stomp around like a two year old reduces all credibility, in turn loss of support for any proposal. All people want different things, to impose your will on others is a form of communism. A lot of factors play a role in the quality of the experience one is looking for, but proven many times over regulation of people is the easiest thing to accomplish. I guess that translates into a self satisfaction of being a thinker and doer.

2/19/20 @ 6:50 PM
jkb
User since 6/25/02

rijk and ??,

I'm sorry. Either you didn't read the links or you have difficulty interpreting info.  

First article- explains that reduced bags help populations

infisherman- says that lakes with bluegills and walleyes. walleyes are a significant predator especially in the fall when weeds die

3rd article-

4th article- states analysis of experimental lakes has resulted in an increase of .4" per fish.  Also take into consideration that 62/84 lakes with special regs are in northern 1/3 of the state and experienced significant winterkill the last two years which would negatively affect data.

Snakester, Read the last sentence of my initial post.  Those ARE the experts.  They all support the proposal.

As with anything, there are always multiple factors that contribute to fish population changes.  I am currently investigating runoff which may be causing plankton die off in the basin of Fox lake.  The crappie populations should be bouncing back sooner than they have but a lack of plankton may be retarding their recruitment.  

2/19/20 @ 6:25 PM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
MEMBER since 7/9/12

It bewilders me how some believe their proposal is the only thing that will work, and anybody who questions it is bad for our fishery. As said earlier, a test is being done as we speak. Don’t get your skivies in a bunch over something you’re not an expert of. I choose to let the professionals do their job. 

2/19/20 @ 5:32 PM
icefish01
User since 1/23/06

People already keep the biggest ones they can get. And 25 if they can. Saw plenty filling their buckets with nice gills late ice on Emily couple yrs ago. 100s of people doing it with crappie on Fox before that dried up. U call that chasing ghosts? Keep 10 bigger fish vs 25. That's a start. Should have a 1 over 9" on gills and 10" limit on crappie. But that's more reason for people to throw a hissy fit. 

2/19/20 @ 3:41 PM
rikj
rikj
User since 7/29/01

jkb, I have read all of those links before. IMO opinion they do more to contradict rather than support your ideas. Read or re-read the complete 3rd link you have posted it has some interesting info.............it mentions "size selective predators" influencing size structure(I think that would include humans). When the limits are cut down people will keep only the biggest panfish they catch. I made mention of this in a post a few days ago about the effects of people will be targeting only the largest 9'+ gills rather than a bunch of 7"ers if they have a choice. The same report also mentions "most variation in growth appeared to be related to density dependent competition and sexual stunting"  Again keeping large male bluegills,not good.  This was also brought up by another poster a few days ago...........

I am still doubtful about the connection you claim between walleyes eating all of the young gills. Many of the lakes in your proposal don't even have a walleye population and the other ones are not like exactly like Green Bay, Winnebago or lake Erie. 

Good luck and let's hope these new studies point us in the right direction.........until that time I think you may be chasing a ghost. 


DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 56 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.