seeth07
Well-known member
Better be careful with that reference around these parts. Some will think you are talking about the gentlemen's club...In today's episode of Northern Exposure...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Better be careful with that reference around these parts. Some will think you are talking about the gentlemen's club...In today's episode of Northern Exposure...
I am no expert but I think to date (but who knows in a post-Chevron world) individual successful pockets are not determinative of overall ESA status. I don’t have a position on sturgeon, just curious to see how the science, laws and regs are applied in these types of circumstances. In general I am not sure a given state saying “we got this” fits well with ESA framework.The Wisconsin DNR has been highly successful for many decades in scientifically managing sustainable sturgeon populations in the Lake Winnebago system. The Wisconsin Sturgeon plan is the "gold standard" of fisheries science for these fish. A genuine success story of scientific management of this extraordinary natural resource. If we do actually follow the science, it will lead us to the highly defensible position that sturgeon do not need to be on the endangered species list in Wisconsin.
Good luck to all of the spearing crews next month!
In general I am not sure a given state saying “we got this” fits well with ESA framework.
The spearing of sturgeon.Which part, the spearing of a fish or the partying? If its the former, I will treat you like you treat me heading to ID to hunt an elk. If the latter, I'll give you a bed and all the beer you can drink!
I couldn't make it, how many people were there?That is my concern as well- Stockbridge High School was crazy the other night, people in this area are loco about spearing. This could get very interesting.
*Sitting on 5 points, looking forward to going up-river.
I am no expert but I think to date (but who knows in a post-Chevron world) individual successful pockets are not determinative of overall ESA status. I don’t have a position on sturgeon, just curious to see how the science, laws and regs are applied in these types of circumstances. In general I am not sure a given state saying “we got this” fits well with ESA framework.
edited: fixed a missing “not”
I would think that for a fish, the range considered for ESA listing would only be for the water body/system. For this case, the lake sturgeon range would only be the Winnebago, Fox, Wolf, Green Bay system. If the historic range included also other tributary systems of Lake Michigan, then those should be included as well. I think this is what you were pointing out here with your statement and I'm just trying to clarify and see if we are on the same page.This.
The species must be accounted for within it's historical range, not based on political boundaries. Isolated populations are not generally considered singular, but part of the larger overall population so Wisconsin is tied to all other Great Lakes States, or states that would fall w/in the historic range for this species.
They fly and count shacks every year to determine pressure on a given year. Last year the number was only 3100. Its normally over 6000.One might suggest that falling fish numbers are as responsible or more responsible for declining harvests. You claim conditions, but we really don't have a metric for any of that. Not to mention, there is a whole bunch of the life cycle of sturgeon that aren't addressed by harvest numbers. I suspect there are lots of data that might play a role here.
They fly and count shacks every year to determine pressure on a given year. Last year the number was only 3100. Its normally over 6000.
So yes, they do have a metric to determine conditions. and actually with half as many people, harvest was comparably solid. SO maybe the numbers are raising not falling.
Yes, as well as water clarity. They not only count the shacks but also exactly where they are located. On good water clarity years, the shacks will be spread out over and over the deeper water and on those years the harvest numbers will be better.You're referring to fishing conditions, yes? I imagine this is impacted by ice quality?
Hardly sufficient to say anything about endangerment or not.
So, hunter numbers are down because fish are down, perhaps. Shack count is a pretty weak estimator of effort I suspect.They fly and count shacks every year to determine pressure on a given year. Last year the number was only 3100. Its normally over 6000.
So yes, they do have a metric to determine conditions. and actually with half as many people, harvest was comparably solid. SO maybe the numbers are raising not falling. Makes sense because conditions, people and harvest numbers have been really low the last 3 seasons.
Did you not see how the harvest numbers were still close to the cap thresholds? Last year was just extremely unsafe to haul out spearing shacks unless you had a way to tow your shack out with a 4 wheeler.So, hunter numbers are down because fish are down, perhaps. Shack count is a pretty weak estimator of effort I suspect.
Since you don't know how to use google, here you go:Bottom line is you haven't shown any data that is very helpful. We can make up reasonable stories in either direction. Recruitment rate, average fish size and age, etc, might be more enlightening. I'm sure there is a lot more behind their rational than we can address here.
So, hunter numbers are down because fish are down, perhaps.
How so?That is certainly understandable, my dad feels the exact same way.
Important distinction here, and I don’t mean to get tacky-tack: it’s not that sturgeon spearing “doesn’t hurt” the population- it has significantly improved it.