NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 2:39am:


How has it interfered?  You saw people trampling on the beds or you just witnessed some brook trout spawning.

Any data that exists stating that brook trout populations have decreased since there has been a 2 week extension?

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 2:39am:


It already is segregated.  Generally speaking, all of the streams open for the early season are south of 29 and west of 51/I39. There are only a select few open north of that line and fishing them is usually a fruitless endeavor anyway due to snow, iced up river conditions, or water temps that are too cold and the fish are lethargic.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 8:53am:

It's the modern business model. If it isn't expanding, it isn't viable. I think that's a load of crap, but that is how things are run these days.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 8:53am:


Who is "they" and where was this stated?

Quote:


I would disagree with this. With the way the weather has been going in recent years, there have been plenty of great fishing days on the northern streams in April.  Ever fish Hendricksons in April?  It's fantastic!!!

Quote:


I'm happy.  But if the season is going to be extended I'm not going to get my undies in a bundle.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:32pm:


Wait, a few posts ago, you said that fishing the extended season up north was "a fruitless endeavor."  It can't be both "a fruitless endeavor" and "fantastic".

tannin wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:56pm:


You are correct. What I was thinking when I wrote that statement is the month of March.   April however can be good some years and crappy other years.

Jizzy, I recall “they” as being the DNR.  Biologists I would assume, don’t remember exactly but it was most certainly said.  In fact, the original plan was all of October but they compomised with landowning bowhunters, residing largely in the Driftless.

I, for one, am tired of the Driftless region getting special treatment and tired of the northern native brookie country being largely ignored in the grand trout plan.  I know the vote is non binding of course, but let’s turn out in numbers and not give them anything new to consider. 

Honestly, I think it’s high time we push to cut the state in half trout-wise, because clearly what’s in many of our and our fish and waters best interests is not regarded very highly.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 2:43pm:


I tend to agree.  I'm glad that so many great things were done for the driftless, but it's worth remembering that a lot of that is a fishery of non-native species.  It seems to be in good shape.  I wish more energy would be spent on the north.  I remember hearing about coaster brook trout when I was in my twenties, and thinking "maybe they'll be back when I'm in my thirties."  I'm 57 now.  Still no coasters.  A lot of hard work was done on Whittlesey Creek, but not much else was done.  On the bois Brule, brookies are still treated like the poor cousin.  Years ago, fairly soon after the upper river regulations were set, I met a member of the Brule River Sportsmen's Club who told me that the (then) new regs on that river were designed to allow all browns and rainbows, and a majority of the brookies to spawn at least once.  I understand that some people assume the Brule was never as great of a coaster river as some of the small streams around Washburn, because the lake is less rocky there.  On the other hand, most people admit that the Brule had coasters, and the upper river has lots of spawning habitat.  When the Feds turned down the request to list the coasters of the S/T river in Michigan as endangered, it was because there isn't enough evidence that they are genetically different from resident trout.  There is a theory, with some science behind it (salters in E. Canada) that brookies leave the stream when a "critical mass" is created - i.e. when there are enough trout that they become crowded.  There is also evidence that they usually don't leave until they are about 12" long.  It makes me really upset that people can (and do) eat 8" and 10" brookies from lake superior tribs.  I've heard people say that, before the regs can be restricted, it needs to be proven that will help.  The irony is that, restricting the regs is the way to prove it.  Michigan is finally trying it.  Minnesota has been working at it.  Ontario has done a lot.  Wisconsin has done nearly nothing. 

Also, why don't we have some regulations on inland northern streams that might help grow big brookies?  Slot limits might work.

It's very frustrating.

p.s. This is not meant to be a bash on the DNR staff.  They work very hard, under what are now almost impossible circumstances.

tannin wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 8:50pm:


It is spent on the north...but more-so on the lakes.


Quote:


Cause locals don't like those regulations and fisheries biologists in the northern region cave to their desires.

Grizzly Thug wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 9:32am:


Generally speaking, isn't this where things stood some time ago, before the politicians pulled the teeth out of the DNR? When the dedicated fisheries people spent years tweaking and tuning individual streams/areas to optimize natural reproduction? And where one had to sit down and spend a bit of time reading the carefully thought out trout regs?

Zed wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:23am:


Not sure I'd equate looking at a color-coded map and then reading a simple entry listed under the county as spending quite a bit of time reading...

I totally agree on the idea of managing by regions - and to a large degree they already do this. Many (most?) streams in the North (and East) aren't open to the early season.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/regulations/TroutEarlySeason.pdf

Part of the historic issue is that in the old early trout season - catch and kill beginning Jan. 1 in 9 SWWI counties - had a lot of blowback by people complaining about people coming from other places and "catching all our fish". Of course this was nearly 30 years ago now and trout fishing and management is much different now. That management by region became very unpopular by a vocal group and I think had kept the DNR from implementing a similar regional approach - even if it does make a lot of sense.

Grizzly Thug wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:43am:





Mind-numbing, ain't it? I always wonder how the hell anyone ever fishes for warmwater species if the trout regs are too complex understand. Hell, just for panfish alone there are how many different regulations types? At least the trout regs give you a nice color-coded map.

I have no problem with the regs but no way are the trout regs more complex than the warmwater regs. I think "too complex" is code for, I want to be able to harvest more fish where I want to harvest them. From some of the analyses I've looked at, many anglers are upset about not being able to keep, keep as many, or keep as big/small as they'd like on the body of water that the spend all or nearly all their time fishing. In other words, they don't really care about the regs across the state, they care about the regulation on the one or 2 streams that they fish.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 2:37pm:

I hope you meant to say the first week of October, cuz the inland trout fishing season only goes through Oct. 15th.

Chiro    

Chironomid wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 1:06pm:


I meant to say the last week of the season/ Oct. 8-15.

Jane sees Dick.

Jane likes Dick.

Jane plays with Dick.




I have got to meet this Jane girl!!

Grizzly Thug wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:43am:



I hear penicillin will help with that.

Gimp wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 6:50pm:



And this particular post is permitted to remain on the WFFB because..........?

Chironomid    

16Adams wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 12:15pm:


Could it be that not enough get to 12"?

Good question Chiro...makes you wonder.

This new “trout committee” hasn’t existed barely any time at all, still very much wet behind the ears, and they’ve already come up with this one?  I don’t know...I just don’t know.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 8:16am:


Not that trout committee but the WCC Trout committee - different groups.

Knowing someone on that committee - the idea was to get more people trout fishing. With the opener of the trout and warmwater seasons the same day, people have to make decisions about what to fish for on opening day. It would mean - potentially - more trout stamp funds so more work done on streams.

We are, in general, not your average trout anglers. Many (most, in years past) fish trout opening weekend and maybe a holiday weekend or 2 during the year.

Maybe an easier, more agreeable solution would be to have the trout opener one weekend earlier.

Quote:


The rule only applies to fishing reports and on-line stream recommendations (PMed recommendations are completely ok) not discussion of the biology, restoration
or regulations on particular waters.

Stop blaming a different geographic area for what you see as local problems.

What can people in the area your concerned about do to better fix those issues.

I have not heard one group from the driftless  ever say what was best for the North in 18 years.

I have heard biologists say they need individual regs and best practices for each region, I have heard they reaffirmed at TU meetings.

I have seen TU put resources to work for the Northern part of the state that specifically target the needs of that area.

Continuing to blame your biggest supporters is not likely to help you make gains.

We did learn that in the driftless a couple decades ago. It helped with our habitat work and helped us gain partners.

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 7:21pm:


SPOT ON!

Chiro   

Sasquatch wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:44am:

Well, not really, but if you need to create an alternate reality, go for it.  FYI, the problems with the regs and who was telling whom how things should be in their areas began in the mid-1990's, not the '80's.  And I am referencing inland trout fishing regulations, not CAFOs, mines, etc.  It would be advisable not to conflate the issues.

Last, it's "you're," not "your."   

Chiro    

Chironomid wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:33am:


People worry too much about regs and not enough about CAFOs, mines, water withdrawal, etc., IMHO. I don't see it as conflating issues - you're pissing and moaning about how "the south" hasn't done anything for the fisheries in the north - Todd showed that there are many instances where people in the south have done a lot to protect trout fisheries in the north.

If you don't like the local regs, get people together and let the local fisheries biologist(s) know. They have the ability to keep streams closed. Some entire counties are closed to the early season. The framework is there for them to manage the resource as they see fit.

No fisheries biologist is looking to make their fisheries worse. If you have worries that the regulations are harming fisheries - and do it in a decently respectful way - they can get changed. Better yet, have evidence and support of your arguments, you can make changes.

I wonder how much of an issue it really is as I'd suspect there is such little angling effort on most northern WI trout streams until at least mid-April.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:30pm:



I think TU is doing a lot more than people know about on issues like CAFOs, frac sand, mining, water withdrawals, public access, etc. than people know about. The inherent problem is that most of this effort is done in Madison in lawmakers offices so it's not something that is done by a huge number of people. TU does try to organize some letter writing when there are issues when it helps. But other than that, it's something that's hard to get people involved in.

I can say with GREAT certainty that the state's water withdrawal, CAFO, frac sand, mining, and public access laws would be worse for trout and trout anglers without a lot of "behind the scenes" work that gets done by some WI TU folks. I know this to be fact as I've seen/heard what the initial bills were and know what the compromises turned out to be. It's a tough time and we have to be very diligent but there is no question that TU has done a lot to keep things from getting worse.

The habitat, easement access, etc. is just a lot more visible and we can see the results of the efforts in a more tangible way. It's also a lot easier to turn out 30 or more people to build LUNKERS or do some other stream work than it is to get them to the Capital and talk to lawmakers.

As for what it says on the DNR page - I think all the biologists know that those things are important issues. What it says - or doesn't say - on the WDNR website *might* have some political motivations...

tannin wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:


No rule - make yourself happy and piss and moan about whatever you'd like.

JGF wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:08am:


You have a point, but also what you wrote brings up another sore spot.  Why is the statewide early season opening of Jan. 1st imposed on northern WI.?  It is rather ridiculous to have an early season when you can't fish due to ice cover.  That is the type of blanket regulation that gets some of us up here in the "Frozen Tundra" a bit rankled.

Could you tell us which "entire counties" in WI. are closed to the early season?  Wait, I'll do it for you:  Brown, Calumet, Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Menominee, Outagamie and Winnebago.  I think almost everyone knows that these counties are not exactly trout country, save for Menominee County, which is Menominee Tribal Land.  So that claim is a bit disingenuous.

Yes, folks from the southern half of the state have pitched in to help with issues and funding in the north.  Conversely, those of us up north have done likewise for the southern folks.  I worked to secure some funding via WITU for habitat work on the West Fork Kickapoo River and Mormon Coulee Creek "back in the day."  Glad to have done so and would do so again.  I think it is safe to say that all of us work together on the issues of habitat improvement and environmental protection, because we have common interests/concerns in those regards.  The dichotomy occurs when statewide "blanket" regs are imposed/proposed by folks from one part of the state whose perspective originates from the resources close to home.  As William Shakespeare once penned:  "Ay, there's the rub!"
Chiro 

NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:55pm:


Being someone that enjoys the early season in the Driftless - and will be enjoying it this weekend - I see value in the early season. When the weather and conditions are right, it's a great way to cure some shack nasties building up during the winter.

Again, I don't think we in the south were clamoring to change regulations other places. The reality is that the WDNR wasn't willing to revisit the whole social issue of having only the Driftless area open to fishing at that time. So they opened it up statewide but with the option that biologists could close streams. It was a compromise, in my mind. Compromises tend to make a lot of people unhappy.

Enough has changed and time has passed that maybe they'd be willing to have an early season more like Minnesota does?? In my mind, for the Driftless to NOT have an early season is as ridiculous as you think having an early season in the north is.

tannin wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:


If you don't have good water quality that supports trout what's the use of discussing regulations?

Regulations of whatever kind (bag limits, size limits, open/closure dates) that may come and go will never decimate the trout populations in the state.  However CAFOs, High Capacity Wells and Frac Sand mines can. 

We've already read the news stories about CAFOs and high capacity wells killing off a stream and the fish in them.  When's the last time you read about regulation of any sort that killed off a stream?

https://www.wpr.org/report-shows-high-capacity-wells-affect-little-plover-river

https://www.wpr.org/vernon-county-manure-spill-could-impact-local-trout-fishing

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:38am:


And I only spoke of TU because, 1) I know what they've done on these issues, and 2) I assume I don't have to explain why the WDNR hasn't been so vocal about these issues...

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:38am:


If your criteria for having done something is whether or not frac sand and CAFO permits are still given out, you're going to be greatly disappointed for the rest of your life.

There have been some truly awful bills floated by some state legislators. TU has lobbied to make them much less awful. Far from perfect but in the current political climate, making stuff less crappy is a big win.

I agree, manure spills haven't gotten any better in no small part because the current laws don't have enough "stick" behind them. I wish CAFOs were better regulated and that they truly feared creating a manure spill because it would be so costly that it could cripple them. I'll get no more political than that here...   

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:38am:


Sort of a lazy assertion, IMHO. Different techniques work in different places. I'm not a huge fan on LUNKERS but they work in wide open places like cow pastures where there is no wood to be had.

Stream manipulation techniques have been evolving and I think a lot of the newer - woodier - stuff looks more natural and works with floodplains in a more natural way.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:50am:


Why insist on having an open season when one can't fish due to inaccessibility? It seems just plain DUMB.

Chiro   

JGF wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:27am:


Assuming your statements regarding the political climate refer to Walker et al.  A lot of these ongoing problems existed before his administration.  Obviously the administration is doing zilch right now to help. I get that.

There are alternates to lunker structures in wide open places like cow pastures.  Knee to crotch deep water with a few rocks and logs thrown on the bottom work wonders. A lot of the places I fish in SW WI don't have any lunker structures at all and the fish population does fine.  It has more do with water quality vs. the golf course.

Chironomid wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 3:25am:


Because some years spring arrives early and you can fish the northern streams.  Other years they are locked up with ice.

I prefer them to remain open for that reason.

Chironomid wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 8:36am:


I have.  And have even been out on a northern stream in February this year.

I'm ok with pick and choose based on conditions.

JGF wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:45am:

I must respectfully - and politely - disagree with that assertion.  Going through my very thick folder of notes, papers, etc., from the mid-to-late 1990s on this matter, I read through some communications/synopses of various meetings/discussions by and among DNR staff, Conservation Congress delegates and other interest groups.  In particular, there was one document that capsulized a July 17-18, 1995, meeting of DNR fisheries personnel, Conservation Congress Trout Study Committee members and T.U. folks.  All Fisheries personnel at that meeting were from the southern part of the state.  They came to the conclusion, with zero input from any Fishery biologist or trout angler representative from the northern half of the state, that a new early season should be STATEWIDE, i.e., a blanket regulation.  This early season certainly was NOT a compromise.

I won't go into any more details on this, as it would take volumes to do so.  But if the old cliche' "The past is prologue..." is true, then that is why trout anglers from this part of the state (such as moi) get a bit edgy when we see a blanket/statewide rule change proposal for inland trout fishing emanating from folks outside our area. If a proposal to make rule changes is statewide in nature, then there should be representation from all areas of the state, not only from one area, in the creation of the proposed rule change.

Chiro       

Tannin, interesting idea about the rainbows.  I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I can tell you that one of the few confirmed reproducing populations occurs in a system that, due to its characteristics, receives almost zero wading pressure the entire year.

Sasquatch wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 8:49am:


I get what you are saying.  On the other hand, the additional work that I'm talking about is enacting good regulations.

16Adams wrote on Mar 14^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:


I may well be wrong.  I would note, though, that a fair number of the south shore streams don't get fished much after the steelhead spawn, and some of them, like the Brule have some deeper spawning areas.  Again, I could be wrong.  I've always wondered why rainbows seem to be so easy to establish in so many places in the world, but not in Wisconsin.  If wading the redds isn't it, I would be interested to know what the other reasons might be.  Possibilities that occur to me (just guesses) would be:  1.  The strains that have been stocked are unfit;  2.  The water chemistry is wrong (on the other hand, we have everything from rich alkaline waters in the driftless to more acidic northern streams.)  I'd be interested in what others know/surmise.  I'm not advocating the expansion of rainbows in Wisconsin.  I'm just curious about how it works.

"I would be interested to know what the other reasons might be."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaOVj537aCQ

Have they tried this method of getting a " wild fish'"

tannin wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:


No, the ones I'm thinking of are all relatively shallow streams and get waded a bunch because they're mostly forested. Seneca Creek - its in the TU 100 best trout streams book - is one example. Great stream with wild brookies, browns, and rainbows - open not only to fishing but harvest all year (6 fish, no size limit).

Same with the Great Smokys - streams are mostly open year round and they're trying like hell to kill off the rainbows - with not a ton of success. GSMNP did a study recently after they opened up a number of streams to year-round fishing - they saw no differences in populations among open and closed streams.

I just don't think there is much to the idea that wading is restricting rainbow trout from flourishing.

It occurred to me that rainbows, which evolved in rapid water, might need more oxygen than other trout.  This article says brook trout need more:                
http://www.nc-flyfishing.com/trout/preferred-trout-habitat-by-species

Wisconsin TU is not in favor of this proposal, and asks everyone to vote "NO."

tannin wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:

Interestingly enough the system I was talking about earlier is anything but "rapid water", save for a very short stretch at the end of it.

tannin wrote on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:


The peer reviewed paper posted earlier says 1) they haven't take off all over the world, and 2) it seems to be related to hydrology where they've taken off. I'm sure there are other factors as well (water quality - pH, hardness, etc.) but hydrology seems to be the overriding limiting factor.

Easy test of if wading has an impact - were there a bunch of Northern WI streams with wild rainbows in the many years before the current early season opened and now those populations are gone? It wouldn't say wading caused it but it could at least be a factor.

Among other things I don't blame Wisconsin's early season for:  lack of peace in the Middle East, extinction of the dinosaurs, and the US debt.

JGF wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 10:30am:


Thanks.  I had missed that.

On the contrary, it is quite evident to me that most trout up north spawn much earlier than believed.  Two years in a row I’ve observed Brookies on beds before the end of September.  Many years before that it was already quite evident some of them were doing there thing by October 1st.

The last two years I’ve observed many fish in full spawning mode between the 7th and 15th of October on every body of water I’ve checked.  We’re talking 20 or so bodies of water throughout 3 or 4 different counties.

And I’ve seen a fair number of folks out fishing at this time.  That includes a group of goons targeting spawning females.

The Browns mostly don’t start until mid October so that’s not really an issue.


But...

I don’t care what anyone says, the two week extension is disturbing the brookie spawn without a shadow of a doubt.  Maybe not in the Driftless, but certainly in freestone country.

JGF wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 6:25pm:



Isn't it sort of self-defeating to create an opportunity, if it's important that not many people take advantage of it?

I don’t think anyone is saying the extension is “devastating”, just that it most certainly does overlap more than was predicted and has great potential to negatively affect vulnerable spawning fish if careful mindfulness is not practiced by anglers.  We should also consider the fact that brookies are a fish that already face a mounting collection of challenges to their existence in the future.  We most certainly do not need to add another challenge to their collection by harassing them while they producing the next generation.

Can the streams and their fish handle it?  Probably.  But why make them?  We’re lucky we have any trout left after the history we’ve made since arriving here. 

Let’s be smart. 

tannin wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 7:06pm:

Ditto.  How long will it be before the drums start beating for a year-round season?  I've heard it stated that Wisconsin needs to get with the times and catch up with surrounding states by lengthening our trout season.  My reply to that is...Why?  We don't have to do anything.  If it isn't broke why fix it?  This whole thing feels like we're trending in the direction of greed and a need to fulfill some yearning for instant gratification. 

It reminds me of the elmination of the minimum hunting age.  34 of the 50 states don't have an age limit so why the hell does Wisconsin have one, they said.  Ok then we'll eliminate it to keep a whining portion of the public happy and hope to god everyone who gives their 5 year old a rifle is a model citizen.  Of course we know that's not the case and it's probably going to result in a horrible accident at some point in the near future.  But hey we're living in a time where a small business owner can give payment to members of the WI state legislature under the guise of "campaign contributions" and then directly receive a political favor in the form of having himself specifically exempt from the law in writing in the official state statute.  But we've already had that discussion here so I won't get into that again.

JGF wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:37pm:


Correct assessment.  Streams up north and most other places as well are void of people after the Labor Day weekend.  That's usually the last time I see people out fishing the inland streams.

People turn their attention to bow hunting, duck hunting and grouse hunting.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 20^th, 2018 at 11:40am:


Harassing and stressing spawning fish is not a perceived threat.  It’s an actual observed activity I’ve had the displeasure of viewing first hand since the 2 week extension.

Maybe you’re ok with the idea of taking trout off their redds, but I am not.

This is greed.  Pure and simple.

This world needs an attitude change.

JGF wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:37pm:



What I mean by self defeating is the inherent contradiction between these two ideas:

"It's terribly important that we do this so that people will have opportunity."

and

"If many people avail themselves of the opportunity, damage will be done."

If there is a risk, why take it, especially if so few people even want it??

tannin wrote on Mar 20^th, 2018 at 7:06pm:


This is assumes there is a risk of hurting trout populations.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 8:26am:


Did I explain proper etiquette to them?  Of course I did.  They shrugged it off and basically ignored me.

I have an idea.  Why don’t we open every season year round for every living wildlife species.  That way, nobody has to wait for anything and can do whatever the hell they want.

I don’t give a rip whether panfish anglers or deer hunters have this argument or not.  We had the trout regulations right and then caved to impatient whiners. 

We’ve long held trout in high regard and afforded them great protection, but we’re trending away from that.