Hi Steve
The attachment did not come through with your email, only this
-If you want trout fishing to continue as we know it, please attend the Conservation Congress meeting in your county on April 11 to speak and vote against allowing bait fishing on all trout streams. Jim
And your question
Is the DNR seriously considering bait fishing on the Rush, Kinni and Brule?
I think you might be referring to this Wisconsin Conservation Congress, 2016 spring hearing question. I just read this for the first time. Lets get you some early answers to your question.
Wisconsin Conservation Congress
County Meeting
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ADVISORY QUESTIONS
QUESTION 14. Eliminate the “artificial-only” restriction from regular season trout regulations
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress has joined the effort to make the rules governing hunting, fishing and trapping more understandable to the state’s sportsmen and women and thus add to their enjoyment of the outdoors. At its most recent meeting, the members of the WCC Rule Simplification Committee advanced a proposal to remove artificial restrictions from all trout waters in Wisconsin. The WCC Executive Council voted to forward the proposal for public input. Surveys of trout anglers in Wisconsin show preferences for the use of both artificial and live baits and this proposal would respect the rights of both. While some studies have shown that post-release mortality of trout caught with bait can exceed that of trout caught with artificial lures, there are no rigorous studies on population-level effects of post-release mortality of trout caught by bait in Wisconsin streams.
14. Do you favor eliminating the “artificial-only” restriction from the regular season trout regulations?
First thing to remember, this question is posed by and passed through process by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress to appear on the spring hearing questionnaire.
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress is the only statutory body in the state where citizens elect delegates to advise the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources on how to responsibly manage Wisconsin’s natural resources for present and future generations. http://dnr.wi.gov/about/wcc/
The DNR is bound by state statute to consider the question and the publics input on questions like these. The people of the great state of Wisconsin elected these folks who propose these questions. They may have the same views as you,,,,,, or maybe not. Regardless, the DNR is bound by law to consider the proposals. Also it should be said, anyone may submit a proposal to appear in the hearings as long as it passes through the process which can be viewed at the link below.
2016 Spring questions PDF
Goat Talk:
— In short, until I scour the regs, make a few calls and dig into it a bit further.
The proposal is worded for the “Regular Season” which is the first Saturday in May to, now, October 15th. This would leave the “Early season” (January -April) outside of this proposal. The Early season is already artificial only. My guess is that the question is targeting any artificial only waters that have been protected year round, under special regulation(red), in the Trout Regulations Booklet. I am not sure how many miles of trout water are protected under this status but I will look into it. From my years in the mix of this process, it is my understanding that those anglers who like to fish with live bait feel they have been unfairly regulated off of these waters. As far as I know the rivers you speak of, all allow live bait to be used on all sections of river right now during the regular season. I must admit, so few trout leave the river with me these days and I have not checked on the specific sections of water that I normally fish to see if anything has changed for 2016. If I do take trout for food, I make sure I know the rules and regulations of the waters I am fishing.
Thanks Steve for the inspiration for a blog post to get me out of hibernation.
Andy
6 users commented in " LIVE BAIT "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThe Kinni, the Rush, and all but one stretch of the (upper) Brule already allow bait. There is not a single artificial only stream in either St Croix or Pierce county, and only one in Dunn. Neither the Kinni, nor the Rush were artificial only last year either.
Going off the proposed 2016 regs, the vast majority of the artificial only water is strictly catch and release water in the first place – where it makes sense for delicate fisheries. There are a few ‘trophy’ fisheries with restrcitive bag limits – i.e. the Namekagon, (one fish over 14″), a few places with 1 over 18″ limits, and a small number (mostly, but not exclusively lakes) with 2 over 12″ limits. And then there are a small number of streams with catch-and-release for brook trout only.
Thanks Shebs
I knew we would begin to sort this out. I am waiting for some info back from the DNR as well.
If I remember,(always a possibility, but the probability is growing lower with age) there is a very small percentage of water that would be affected by this proposal. HOWEVER, if I also remember correctly, the waters that fall under this heading are the most delicate. Operating under the guise of “make the rules governing fishing more understandable to the state’s sportsmen and women” seems a bit disingenuous. I realize that those who prefer to catch fish using live bait have been excluded from fishing these waters. I also understand that they are not happy about the “artificial only” regulation and have been upset by this for some time.
By the way, if I am reading between the lines on this one incorrectly, please let me know.
It is my opinion that meaningful discussions are a better way to sort out what is best for the conservation of Wisconsin’s natural resources rather than the way this question is being posed. As one who believes that advising the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources on how to responsibly manage Wisconsin’s natural resources for present and future generations is a privilege, lets not waste the time beating around the bush.
Realize, we should all be in a constant state of learning and embrace the ability to recognize change. I am super interested is any new credible studies on catch and release fishing, its pros and cons. Have you seen this one?? http://www.cbbulletin.com/435859.aspx#.VpmQIFU2OLQ.facebook
I mish the blogs of old.
Yeah, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable regulation, personally. Especially on C&R waters, bait is just a recipe for extra mortality. It’s not like there is a single hook/barbless rule – the proponents of AO removal just need to adapt their strategies, in my opinion. If you want to remove AO regs, most of these waters will just end up totally closed to everyone to protect the fishery, or devoid of fish after we kill them all. Lose/Lose. The regs aren’t that hard, people. This ‘more understandable’ concept is total crap in my mind. Learn the regs for the water you want to fish. They even published a freakin’ book for you. Sheesh.
Even as a dirty spin fisherman, I have no problem with AO regs. There are only a handful of places I use bait anyway, and they tend to be the type of tiny close quarters streams where there isn’t enough room to even throw a spinner. Besides, powerbait/gulp baits work well enough that a guy could still fish most of those without live bait if you had to.
The only place I could see merit in the argument is on some of the restrictive bag streams. Honestly, considering the ability to play fish more quickly on spin gear (especially with stronger braided line), non-passively fished live bait (i.e. tight-lining, not bobbers or lindy rigs) probably has a reasonably similar mortality rate as someone hooking a fish on a 3-wt and playing it for 3 minutes before landing. Some of the exhausted steelhead I’ve seen landed on the Brule probably would have better odds had they been landed quickly on a heavy braid, rather than run around the hole until they could be netted – and don’t get me started on the long out-of-the-water photo ops. Ugh.
Interesting article there too – I can’t remember where I read it (Wild Trout Symposium, maybe?), but I read somewhere that non-passively (again, this is key) fished live bait has only a marginal, and statistically insignificant, effect on mortality vs. artificials. In most situations where I would consider live bait, passive set-ups are pretty much out of the question anyway. Though I do know a guy who catches some absolute monsters by free-lining chubs in deep holes….that’s another argument 😀
I know Big D
I promise to find my way home.
Shebs
Agree.
Received word from DNR. Less than 3% are designated Artificial Only
I think gulp and power bait are considered live bait too by the DNR.
Find the article if you can.
Please define Passive set-ups?
Leave A Reply