Posting as favor to Author

[brtrout]

Spinner, that really bites! In my area they changed an area to C & R that runs through the local park. Kids there now don't have the ability to use live bait. It disturbs me that the DNR fish managers seem to have an agenda against anyone throwing a bait other than a fly. In a day and age where were losing young fisherman at an alarming rate the regulations make it harder for an inexpierienced anglers to catch fish.

I've really felt that TU has too much say in trout management. They have done wonderful work at rehabilitating streams, but, it seems to me that because of this they seem to have the ear of the fish managers. It really disturbs me when people act like its a crime to keep a trout.

I hardly ever keep a trout myself, (bluegills are a superior eating fish in my opinion) but I surely don't have a problem with others keeping them. Question 36 will have my no vote!!

[kpj5br]

Folks,

We need to ask to please try to keep the emotional side of this topic as polite. Almost all states and even nationally have high-passion issues like this that come up, and expressing all sides of the debate is healthy and needed, but please remember that there is never just one side, and that all parties have equal right to express their views without attack, being called names, etc.

We know this can sometimes be difficult when you feel passionately about an issue, but we're all good sportsmen and people, so I'm sure we can discuss these civilly.

Thanks

[BlackDog]

Len, the Prairie is 42 miles long. The special regs apply only to 5 miles. Why are families and children unable to fish on the other 37 miles of the stream? People should be told that this 5 mile stretch is also the "nursery" for the brookies on the other 37 miles of the river. Population survey data from 2003-2007, performed by the Antigo area DNR fisheries crew on the Prairie River in Lincoln County, showed over a 100% increase in both the size and numbers of brook trout present on this 5 mile stretch since the special regulation was established in 2003.

[BlackDog]

In testimony and in arguing for the motion, children who bait fished in the Gleason School Forest were called “FISH KILLERS”. The T.U. Board member pointed to a 1984 photograph of a proud 3-year-old girl and her string of trout and loudly said “We can’t give the river back to these fish killers!”

I know the board member to whom this refers. He flatly states that this is a lie, and invites anyone to review the tape recording of the meeting.

In my opinion the objection to this regulation is unwarranted. It's not like this is the only water on the Prairie available to bait fishing, nor is it the only water in Langlade County available for bait fishing. I would also add that this special regulation was requested by Friends of the Prairie, an organization of local anglers based in Merrill, WI. FotP is not related to Trout Unlimited, and in fact has some fundmental disagreements with TU.

[Clearwater]

The regs on that section of the prairie have never been catch and release.

The were artificals only , one brookie over 14 and one brown over 18 and they shock fish of that size.

There are hundreds of miles of streams all around that in yellow on the regs. 5 fish over 6".

Slot limits were abandoned be cause peopl had a tough time following them.

50 % of the special regs call for 2 fish over 12" in the sw part of the state from what I see reading the current regs. THe C&R remain on Melanthan, they allow bait.

[BlackDog]

This rebuttal to Mr. Ament's misleading letter is from Friends of the Prairie.
________________________________________________________

Please consider the following points before you vote on question #36.

• Why is this question back on the agenda this year? Last year’s question to change 5 miles of the Prairie from category 5 to category 4 was presented for a vote with some important information missing.

• What is the missing information? DNR fisheries personnel had conducted fish population surveys on the Prairie that showed the number of brook trout greater than 10 inches increased by 115% and the number of brook trout greater than 12” increased by 200% in the category 5 water. That biological information was completely missing from last year’s question, which was presented only as a “social” question.

• Why is the missing information important? When presented as being only a social question an audience could conclude that the special regulations did not have a positive impact and would see no reason to continue the regulation. The biological information would be critical to letting the audience know that the special regulations did indeed have a very positive impact on the resource.

• The DNR has subsequently admitted it was a mistake to allow this question as it had no merit regarding the management of the natural resources in accordance with the DNR mission statement----”To protect and enhance our natural resources: our air, land and water; our wildlife, fish and forest and the ecosystems that sustain life.”

• This is a movement we all need to be aware of and take notice. The next group may organize to assault the size and slot limits that have been created on other species (that you fish) and that have resulted in quality fishing in Wisconsin. Take the musky fishery as an example of what it has matured to with protective regulations. Are you prepared to lose that to those that want to harvest more and smaller fish?

• This section of Prairie River is 5 miles long of the 42 miles of trout water on the Prairie. Anglers have liberal harvest opportunities & no gear restrictions on nearly 90 percent of the river. Plus the overwhelming majority of local trout fisheries throughout Lincoln County and North Central Wisconsin are currently open to the most liberal angler harvest allowable. We are fortunate to live in a state that has a wide variety of trout waters. Having several categories of regulations allows for better use of that variety. There are plenty of trout streams to fish and room for all. Let's appreciate the choice options and share them equitably.

• Don’t buy into the argument that this water is for elitist fly fishers. There are no fly-fishing only regulations that apply to any trout waters in the state. All it takes to fish special regulation water is spinning gear. The artificial lures restriction does not prevent kids from fishing. In fact most of them probably already have a spinning rod.

• Category 5 regulations were formulated to provide a greater diversity of angling experiences, especially opportunities to fish populations of wild trout that have a natural size and age distribution unaltered by harvest. Such opportunities are the kind anglers might expect in remote destinations far from home. Those kinds of opportunities should not be canceled out on the few waters that are now designated as Category 5.

[BlackDog]

In my personal opinion, I think all kids who are young enough that they don't require a license should be allowed to fish with bait and keep a reasonable number of fish, say 3 or 4. That way the "the kids can't fish" arguement is diffused. I proposed that over here in MN a couple years back when we had our regulations meetings. Unfortnately no one listened to me. I still think it is a good idea. If someone is old enough to require a license, they are old enough to obey the regulations for a particular stream. But for younger kids, just let them fish.

[joekrz]

Kids and Families Can Fish – Vote YES on Question #36

The main branch of the Prairie is over 30 miles long - Not including the North Branch. Note the amount of Category 4 water on the Prairie and the amount of category 2 & 3 water surrounding the Prairie vs. the very small stretch of Category 5 water.

Live bait, smaller fish and a larger creel limits are allowed on all category 2, 3 & 4 waters. In the big picture, this small stretch (only 5 miles long) of category 5 water on the Prairie is a very small fraction of what is available in the surrounding area.

[brtrout]

Joe and Blackdog, are the areas that were C & R before in the middle of an area where kids have been fishing for years? I took the original post as being a kinda family fishing area. If it is why couldn't a different area that is not quite as accessible to kids be a C & R area?

I'm not against some areas of streams being C & R only but I would think before making that designation one would look at how it affects the people who have been using that section before. In my area they made the C & R designation on the only land that has a park next to the stream. A real bummer for kids who don't know how to throw spinners or flys.

[BlackDog]

As was said above, this is the nursery area for the entire river. This is where the springs are. This is also where the fish go when the river warms up in the summer time.

I don't understand your comment about "kids who don't know how to throw spinners or flys." How can someone cast bait, yet not know how to cast a spinner? And why can't an adult teach them? I think it's safe to say the kid didn't learn to cast bait without some coaching from an adult.

[BlackDog]

I was presuming kids who, say, rode their bikes to the stream. Those children who are 5 or so would be fishing with a parent, who could just as well take them to one of the other locations in the area to fish.

[joekrz]

Joe and Blackdog, are the areas that were C & R before in the middle of an area where kids have been fishing for years? I took the original post as being a kinda family fishing area. If it is why couldn't a different area that is not quite as accessible to kids be a C & R area?

I'm not against some areas of streams being C & R only but I would think before making that designation one would look at how it affects the people who have been using that section before. In my area they made the C & R designation on the only land that has a park next to the stream. A real bummer for kids who don't know how to throw spinners or flys.

Time to clear up some confusion.

This is not a C & R area. It is an artificials only area. You can keep brookies if they are 12" or larger and browns if they are 18" or larger.

The statement about "the kids" and a "family fishing area" is nothing more than a sympathy ploy or crutch by the person who wrote the letter. There are total of 2 kids that live in the middle of the section. The whole river (over 30 miles worth) outside of the little 5 mile stretch is accessible by everyone to use live bait. There are no "hard to get to" areas of the river. Any kid that owns a Zebco 33 that can chuck a worm and reel it in can also chuck a spinner and reel it in.

[joekrz]

Any truth to the statement ? That Jack made:

The springs are in the category 5 water. In the summer when it gets hot is hard to buy a bite on the other areas.

Not true at all.

[joekrz]

Let Kids and Families Fish – Vote NO on Question #36

Kids and Families have over 30 miles of river to fish. Plus numerous other streams in the surrounding area. The "kids" and "families" thing is nothing more than a sympathy ploy to play on the emotions of the public.

This part of the Prairie River runs right through the Gleason School Forest and then Boy Scouts Camp, with ideal areas for children to fish.

The rest of the river contains the same type of ideal areas. In many cases, some of the other areas are even better since the river is larger and you don't have to contend with the narrowness, overhanging brush etc.

This is the only section of the river had been used for over 50 years by families, church groups, schools and Boy Scouts, teaching children ages 3 to 15 the basics and fun of trout fishing.

The Boy Scouts Camp has been defunct since the early 70's. There are NO boy scouts, NO church groups, NO schools and NO groups of children that are actively using the area. And it has nothing to do with special regulations.

In 2007, the DNR proposed that this section go back to allowing bait fishing. It passed locally and statewide. The DNR said they needed it to change back so they could complete and compare two 5 year periods under different regulations and that “This study will help guide future trout management decisions.”

This change, allowing bait fishing, is already printed in the 2008-2009 fishing regulations because of your votes last year. Unfortunately, a Trout Unlimited representative on the Natural Resources Board requested an “Emergency Stop” order on the regulation allowing bait fishing on the School Forest section of the stream. On February 27th of 2008, the Natural Resources Board on a 6 to 2 vote denied this emergency order. However, the T.U. member had already told the DNR to write question #36 his way (such that a “Yes” vote would mean closing this section of the river to bait fishing) and leave out that it was passed in favor of bait fishing by the 2007 vote. This should not be on the ballot but it had already gone to print before the Natural Resource Board defeated his special interest ploy.

The emergency stop order was the right thing to do since a piece of information was missing during last years question. DNR fisheries personnel had conducted fish population surveys in the area that showed the number of brook trout greater than 10 inches increased by 115% and the number of brook trout greater than 12” increased by 200% in the category 5 water. That biological information was completely missing from last year’s question, which was presented only as a “social” question. When presented as being only a social question an audience could conclude that the special regulations did not have a positive impact and would see no reason to continue the regulation. The biological information would be critical to letting the audience know that the special regulations did indeed have a very positive impact on the resource.

I’m retired, live in Chippewa Falls and had time to oppose the Order. In testimony and in arguing for the motion, children who bait fished in the Gleason School Forest were called “FISH KILLERS”. The T.U. Board member pointed to a 1984 photograph of a proud 3-year-old girl and her string of trout and loudly said “We can’t give the river back to these fish killers!”

Nothing like this has ever happened. This can be disproved by watching the video tape of the February NRB meeting. It's available in Madison for anyone in the public.

Trophy Trout (Brooks over 12 inches, Browns over 18 inches)? The maximum life expectancy for trout in this part of the river is 5 years. Why are 10 inch Brooks in the comments? After 5 years under failed trophy regulations there still is no proof of 12 inch Brooks or 18 inch Browns.

This is the proof right here. There wasn't a failure. This public information is available from the DNR office in Antigo - (715) 627-4317

Remember, fly-fishing equipment and waders for kids are expensive.

This is NOT a Fly Fishing Only area. It is an artificial lures only area. Matter of fact, there is not one piece of Fly Fishing Only area anywhere in Wisconsin.

The waders are a mute point. Whether you are fly fishing, spin fishing or bait fishing you still need waders.

It is hard to use this kind of gear from a riverbank.

See above.

The Scouts haven’t camped and fished at the School Forest since bait fishing was made illegal.

The Scouts haven't camped and fished in this area since the early 70's when the camp became defunct. The bait fishing restriction first went into effect in 2003.

Please Vote NO on Question #36. Let your vote from last year count. This will allow children, families, local fisherman, and landowners who gave up their easements the right to fish their streams again.

Children, families, local fisherman and landowners have PLENTY of opportunity to fish with live bait and keep fish at NUMEROUS places outside of this 5 mile stretch of river.

This is not a local issue. I live 150 miles from the Prairie River. Years past, when I fished there, before the change, I met families from Milwaukee, Chicago and Iowa camping with their young children at the School Forest sites.

Those types of people still fish the river. They haven't gone away. I run into them every year. Besides there are no designated camp sites on the river, making it illegal to camp there anyway. There hasn't been any camping on this river since the Boy Scouts camp became defunct and none of the river is part of a national forest system therefore that = no public camping.

[Mike_W]

I apologize in advance for what I’m about to say. I feel there is and has been much misinformation regarding this issue and I have watched on the sidelines as some have purposely offered information that is factually false and misleading.

Len, you and I have had our disagreements over the years and I am not attacking you, nor am I trying to dredge up the past. However, I must say; your comment regarding Joe’s supposed conflict couldn’t be farther from reality then you know. Joe in all his wisdom has offered factual information about the Prairie because of his love for it, not because he guides, and not because he seeks monetary gain. He does it because he respects the resource no more and no less. I have fished this river some over the years and have found that the special regs that were put in place have improved that river more then you could possibly imagine. Some of the misleading information mentioned by the author states that there are no fish over 12 inches, I can personally tell you that is not true, last year I caught a 15 inch brookie in that section.

My point Len, is this; this issue isn’t about who guides, or who has more interest in making money. It isn’t about how someone fishes. I really don’t and never have cared about the “us vs. them” issue. It’s about scientific management of a beautiful resource that is now threatened by social behavior. That section of the river has been proven to be somewhat of a hatchery to the rest of the river. It has been proven that the special regulations have worked, and if they are allowed to continue, they will offer better fishing in the future, for the entire river. If they are taken away, most assuredly the fishing will be like it was before the regulations were put there, no fish and people will complain about that. Your comment asking if Joe is recruiting people from outside the state is also incorrect as I know he hasn’t done this, but in the same breath, you don’t live there, you don’t fish there and you really don’t know the whole story, yet you are broadcasting this misinformation from your little sphere of comfort, so you are in essence doing the very thing that you are accusing Joe of.

Please remember, I am not attacking you, I am not attacking anyone’s method of fishing. I am not attacking anyone’s livelihood, all I am trying to say is this is scientific management tool versus a social greed that unfortunately will have far reaching affects if allowed to continue.

I apologize if someone takes offense from this post.

Mike