Based on watching facial expressions, it’s very evident that the DNR really could care less about actual input from the public. Seemed like there was a lot of eye rolls when comments where made from the committee members who own resorts, businesses etc. That’s just my opinion on what I saw.
Again we are at the mercy of our own DNR. Which from past history has not proven themselves with the general public.
I too logged into the meeting and listened in as well.
I think you summed it up pretty good Ryan.
I also perceived a general dismissive attitude from the DNR representatives as well. I surmise that these meetings are painful for them and they only do so because they are mandated. For them it seems a necessary evil.
(Did you stay logged in to the very end when a couple of them exhibited a huge sense of relief to have it over and were saying they needed a beer ASAP?)
On their side, I imagine they’re worn out and have become impatient of the continual repetition of complaints and fist pounding.
From the committee side, I see their continuing frustration on how this all keeps going round and round with nothing really changing/improving the last 5+ years. Which is certainly justifiable given the unpredicted closures, live bait bans, narrow slots, lack of consistency and transparency.
There’s still little or no trust.
One thing worth mentioning was some kind of lottery harvest “tag” was proposed to limit overall harvest if/when harvest of actual walleyes might be allowed. Perhaps this was an attempt to spread harvest out more evenly across both winter and open water angling?
The committee seemed receptive to this proposal, although personally I have reservations about that.
Another item of concern for me was the reluctance by committee members to backfill open seats that have been vacated. I think there are currently 5 or 6 seats that have been vacated.
Some comments by committee members were “why do we need anymore, what’s left of us can tell you all you need to hear”, implying they want to close this group into a tighter circle of like minded individuals.
It sounded like the DNR recognizes that some diversity amongst committee members would be beneficial and seats need to be backfilled. (Wouldn’t you think?)
The committee argued that “rookies” would just bog down the meetings/discussions because they’d be clueless and require training.
Regardless, they will be offering opportunities to the public to fill these seats at a rate of 3 per year.
Who’s interested?