Wisconsin Prepares to Shoot Self in Foot Over Fishing Regulations
By Tom Chandler on Apr 8, 2008 in Environment, News
What do you do when you implement special “artificials-only, one-fish limit” regulations and they produce a 135% increase in trout populations?
If you’re the moronic easily influenced folks in charge of fisheries at the Prarie River in Wisconsin, your course is clear; you lift the regulations on a critical five-mile section of river (more than 30 miles are fishable) that provides much of the river’s rearing habitat.
Whaaa?
Yeah. Us too.
Read all about it here.
A small group of individuals had influenced the DNR to put this social question on the ballot, and other similar vocal individuals and groups want to influence rule makings to eliminate all category 5 trout waters in the state. 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.
Unfortunately, you have to be present (in Wisconsin) to vote on this issue, but if you know someone who lives in the area, be sure to pass this one along.
Technorati Tags: prarie river,wisconsin,fly fishing,trout fishing,trout,fishing,regulations
Smellslikefish | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Ahhh, so Wisconsin must be where the Siskiyou County Board of Sups go on their vacations.
Tom Chandler | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Or perhaps bad fisheries policy simply knows no geographic boundaries…
Peter Eisch | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Siskiyou county’s struggle is between the value of water as an economic resource vs. a natural one. I think what we have here in Wisconsin is different views of the intrinsic natural value of a fishery like the Prairie. Some of us believe pretty strongly that a fishery managed for quality (i.e. size structure and self-substainability) is most important. Others value the fishery more like a consumable. The challenge is shifting the latter view towards the former to afford the resource some protection in the face of increasing demands for it.
We have a lot of education in front of us here to bridge this gap — if it *can* be bridged –and to communicate the legitimacy of a scientific approach to managing natural resources for the long haul. This is one of the brush wars that have flared up in that effort. The WiDNR are headed in the right direction towards fishery management. And the Friends of the Prairie are doing a pretty good job of getting the word out or we wouldn’t be seeing this topic here on Tom’s site. I’m pretty hopeful about the results of next Monday’s hearings, but we can be a funny population sometimes.
Reed | Apr 8, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
Ole and Lena have a summer home in Wisconsin.
razmaspaz | Apr 9, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
Thanks for posting about the issue. Criticizing the WiDNR is a little unfair as they are huge supporters of what most consider to be great management policies. The amount of well managed trout water in the state grows almost by the day, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing.
I’m not totally familiar with this issue, but its similar to many that have come up in the state in the past. As Peter says education may turn the tide here, but in the end the DNR is part of a government of the people and for the people and can only sustain so much political pressure before it caves. Lets hope it doesn’t cave on this one.
fishskicanoe | Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
This is my home water. I think the biggest concern is with the chance that a major spawning area will be negatively affected by the change. The river in question has a real problem with anchor ice. So while we have almost 40 miles of trout water, a good deal of it is unable to support successful redds. The special regulations stretch has a quite a lot of groundwater upwelling through the stream bed. Our fear is that by removing the protection for 3 and 4 year old fish we will be removing prime spawning fish from the best spawning water, fish whose productivity probably benefits the river miles away from the special regs water.
Wisconsin has come miles away from the old put and take fisheries of the 1970s and earlier. But in order to accomplish that each stream is managed as a separate entity. This has run afoul of those who want a return to the good old days of 10 fish limits. Its odd but one of the main proponents of returning to high limits, one-regulation-fits-all management waxes nostalgic for the days of shoulder to shoulder fishermen at each bridge pulling out pale, liver flavored stockers hand over fist. Takes all kinds, I suppose.
Tom Chandler | Apr 10, 2008 | Reply
Raz: A little criticism might be in order; after all, they’re backtracking on a management policy that has proven itself effective on the waters in question, largely due to local political pressure.
A similar thing happened on the Upper Sac, when a few very loud folks got the stocked, catch & kill section of the Upper Sac lengthened by several miles.
Resource departments should be driven by science, but they’re highly politicized.
Fish: It makes a lot of sense to protect what amounts to the “hatchery” section of the Prarie River; let’s hope the momentum on this changes.
fishskicanoe | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
Hey. We won! It was question #36 on the PDF file below:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/spring%5Fhearings/2008/2008Results.pdf
Thanks to the Underground on helping us get the word out. I owe you all a guided trip on the Prairie.
Thanks again.
fishskicanoe
Tom Chandler | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
That’s cool! Got to win a few of them.
You did a good job organizing around it, and deserve… ice cream! Take the rest of the day off, and if your boss objects, let ‘em know the Underground said it was OK.
hdw | Apr 30, 2008 | Reply
Well, it ain’t over til the fat lady sings, or in this case till the NRB board votes. They decided to not take the advice of the Conservation Congress advisory vote last week on the Prairie River quality trout fishing regulations. Despite the fact that the vote carried in 47 counties and by a 2024 to 1494 plurality, the regulations were overturned by a vote at the WDNR board hearing today.
This of course does not bode well for the future of the enlightened system of regulations currently in place in the state. This is decidedly an anti-resource decision, completely based outside the normal set of scientific principles at work on managing cold-water resources.
Tom Chandler | May 2, 2008 | Reply
hdw: Damn. I’m reminded of:
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.”
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
You’ll let us know if any campaign needs to be mounted.
fishskicanoe | May 2, 2008 | Reply
Part of the reason the board gave was that the regs for this year were already printed and they were afraid that it would be confusing to people to have the law conflict with the reg book. Actually not an unreasonable position.
Here’s a news release:
“Protective regulations on the Prairie River won’t be resurrected, the NRB voted Wednesday. On a 5-2 vote, the board kept in place the Category 4 regulation which had been sought by some local landowners and anglers. Though it’s difficult to identify any factor which took precedence in their decisions, some of the majority of board members suggested the two local Lincoln County spring hearing votes in 2007 and 2008 were a factor, that the two conflicting statewide vote totals ended up a wash, and that with the Rules pamphlet already printed and available, enforcement would have been limited to telling people possessing live bait to take it off the river, and prevented from citing anyone possessing Cat. 4 fish if they had relied on the regulations pamphlet.
The minority position argued that the scientific data should have been presented in the original question, that the water in dispute was a small part of this great river and was of statewide significance, and that this action would lead to attacks on protective regulations on other notable waters around the state.
The local fish manager’s population estimates (which showed dramatic increases in numbers of brook trout between 8 and 12 inches since the regulations were instituted) were not considered probative by Fisheries Bureau Director Mike Staggs, and the local manager’s recent statement that he should have spoken out in support of the Cat. 5 regulation was described as the manager’s “personal” opinion. Staggs described the regulations dispute as a “social” question, since in neither case would the brook trout population be jeopardized (comment: except perhaps for the population of 8-12 inch fish for which frying pan mortality is expected to soon reach 100%).
It might also be noted that in several counties in SW Wisconsin, local spring hearings resolutions were approved calling for trout anglers under 16 to be able to take one fish of any size by any angling method. Those resolutions are expected, under Wisconsin Conservation Congress procedures, to be referred to the Trout Study Committee, which
would most likely take them up at their meeting in late summer or fall.”
Disappointing, yes, but the fact that we won the statewide vote gives me hope that the current regulation system can be preserved… statewide.
fsc