WI DNR – Spring Survey Results

Results

Some Interesting Results/Observations:

– About 52% of the over 13,000 participants indicated that they SUPPORTED a ban of livescope/FFS sonar. I doubt this changes anything for now, but it’s clear that there are more people questioning the future impacts than I originally suspected. I could see down the road where people in possession of FFS had different bag limits than those who don’t have it with them/their group. The WI DNR has not shyed away from taking public opinion and adding it to regulations (see Pool 4 for example).

– Most bag limit reductions continue to get widespread support which is not a surprise.

– The question asking about a lead ban for ammunition used in hunting by 2030 was one that had more “No” than “Yes” responses. I don’t think this change will ever be popular for those who are actually hunting solely due to costs associated with it.

– The question about border water guides being required to keep their mode of transportation with clients at all times garnered widespread support. This would greatly change the business model for some of the airboat operations that bring a few loads of clients out for a day on the Mississippi. It’s a lot less profitable to have 3-4 people out for a day of fishing than it is to have 10-15.

– A healthy majority of respondents want to either ban the use of ballast systems in wake boats or require better drainage and inspection opportunities as noted in multiple survey questions. I did a little wake surfing with a friend on the river last year who came down for the 4th of July with his boat. He admitted there was no way the water all drained as it was designed. His best guess was the system held ~5 gallons of water even after drainage.

It’s no surprise to me that there is a majority behind banning Livescope/FFS. That number will be 60% favoring a ban within another year, I’d bet.

I also think that the survey results show the myth behind angler attitudes toward bag limits. That myth being that anglers are in it to catch and keep fish and that reducing bag limits is unpopular. The fact is that rarely do I encounter any angler who thinks the current bag limits are too restrictive, it’s almost 100% the opposite. Then only ones who are against smaller bag limits are the ones already filling their freezers in blatant violation of possession limits and they don’t generally care one way or the other because they aren’t going to abide by limits no matter what.

I have been thinking the same things for years. The technology will evolve to show every living creature in the body of water. Then what? Fair chase?
They ban radios dear hunting for a reason. And cell phones used for the same purpose. There need to be limits.

Im just glad to see the majority support leaving uneatable deer parts at the kill site.

suzuki wrote:

I have been thinking the same things for years. The technology will evolve to show every living creature in the body of water. Then what? Fair chase?
They ban radios dear hunting for a reason. And cell phones used for the same purpose. There need to be limits.

…by that point I will find a new hobby as I enjoy the challenge/chase as well as some of the mystery to what lurks beneath.

I feel like I am currently equipped for “the sweet spot” of what I enjoy fishing as (realizing that threshold is different for everyone). I utilize a reliable boat, spot lock, side imaging, gps mapping, and modern rods/tackle. Too much more “technology” to aid in the chase and fishing in general would lose its luster for me. I could win the lottery and you wouldn’t see me staring at multiple FFS units mounted at the bow casting once every 5 minutes when I see my target fish. Different strokes for different folks.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

It’s no surprise to me that there is a majority behind banning Livescope/FFS. That number will be 60% favoring a ban within another year, I’d bet.

Did you take into consideration that the population ages and young people move into the limelight? Consider the thousands of youth anglers in High school and younger that did not weigh into this pole. The young love tech, the number will increase.

I’d be very interested in seeing how the answers differed in < 50 years old individuals vs > 50 years old.

my personal experiences tell me the young value tech more and care less about harvest. Of course the exact opposite with the older group.

This seems super obvious to me. the older gen doesn’t want “their” fish taken by the cheating wipper snappers. the wipper snappers want to catch and could give a rip (or don’t want the work of) about harvesting the older gen’s sustenance.

IMO this survey is completely dependent on age…. and will completely evolve almost yearly.

The passion is on the ban FFS end. The silent majority like me wasn’t going to take their time to take a survey in a state where they no longer fish. The anti-side is astroturf, which had no business trying to influence policy in a state where they do not fish.

~52% of all people who shared their opinion supported the ban.

~52.3% of all WI Residents specifically who shared their opinion supported the ban.

Like you said, there are people who aren’t going to take their time filling out a survey but like FFS unregulated. The other side of the coin is that this is a decent sample size, AND an online survey…with no paper option…that is mainly shared on social media and likely skews the age of respondents younger than many people realize. There are plenty of local river rats here that fish 5 days a week in retirement who would never fill out this survey. I bet a majority don’t use FFS either as Joe mentioned.

As far as demographics go, it would be interesting to see the ages and frequent places the people fish. Different species and fisheries are impacted differently by this type of technology. I don’t see it significantly impacting fish populations say on the river here locally except maybe panfish through the ice. Smaller and medium sized lakes with minimal natural reproduction or ones that have solid populations of mature crappies could be negatively impacted in a hurry.

I wish they would have had a write in for worst lake in the state. But I already know the answer, lake wissota would have won in a landslide.

Nice to see the overwhelming support for a potential extended catch and release Sturgeon fishing season!

How many of the respondents are sportsman vs. anti fishing hunting? The lead bullets question is prime example, wouldn’t expect more sportsman to favor banning lead than not. Could lead into why the ban on FFS came out the way it did too.

buckybadger wrote:

The other side of the coin is that this is a decent sample size, AND an online survey…with no paper option

Not sure if you are implying this is an online survey only because it is not. They actually hold in person meetings in every Wisconsin County as they have for as long as I can remember. They added the online choice but I am not sure how long ago that was.
I attended a lot of these 15-20 years ago and they were well attended. I do it online now so not sure if that affected turnout but I will assume it did.
Remember, this is just an advisory referendum with no teeth to change any law/regulation. A lot of things brought up in the past were never acted on in the State Legislature.

^I guess I misspoke. If there were indeed paper copies of this specific survey, I had no idea of it nor would’ve known where to get one (and I was looking out for the survey and results). That probably tells you how many actually did complete a paper one.

Where could a person get one and fill it out or find information about every county holding a meeting?

I know I seen it a few places. I received an e-mail, local TV news and Facebook were the 3 places I seen it. There was already people griping about the FFS question so it was on my FB feed numerous times.
I dont feel like looking back but I thought someone mentioned it on this forum also (not 100% sure).
Either way, you should have heard of the local meetings that have been held in the counties going back at least 30 years (every year).