|
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | There is a muskie lake not to far from me with a 28" limit. There is a lot of small muskies there. I have heard some say the DNR sets it low because there is to many muskies and as such there growth is stunted (they want people to take some out). Anybody heard anything like this?
If it is true, couldn't the DNR just transport some to a different lake? Or have a slot keeper size?
Just seems odd to take the larger fish out of a lake if you are trying to raise bigger fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The short answer to transferring muskies is no and slots are a bigger no at least here in WI.
Don't take the word on 'some say' as that stuff is frequently not factual, give your local fisheries manager a call.
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I know of a few lakes in your area that have 28" size limit. At the boat launch on Butternut Lake it says they encourage people to keep muskys between 28" and 40". Another one is Black lake. I guess they figure the less in there the less competition for foodand the ones left will be able to grow larger. I |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Generally speaking, you have to look at the size structure of the fishery when thinking about slot limits. For instance, what is the size of the average fish of a given species in the lake? Sure there are outliers, but if the average musky is say 28" long...then that means there are likely more fish at that length in the given body of water. So then, which fish are eating the most forage? Well, probably the 28" fish. When you add up all the 28" fish in the lake and multiply that number by the average number of forage fish eaten by one 28" musky per day, those fish put a bigger dent in the forage base than the larger or smaller fish. Since there are fewer larger fish, they likely aren't going to take as many fish (mathematically), and the smaller fish probably aren't targeting the size of forage targeted by the larger fish--so they likely aren't making as big a dent as the 28" fish, in this example.
Population dynamics was a long time ago for me, but this is (I think) the basic idea behind how they determine the boundaries of a slot limit. Obviously I've simplified it, but I think the general idea is there.
Edited by tcbetka 11/30/2014 9:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 571
| My family has a cabin up in that neck of the woods and I fish a few of these 28" size limit lakes, and I've had quite a bit of correspondence with the local fisheries biologist as to several of these area lakes. Generally speaking, yes, its my understanding that the smaller size limit is in place because the adult muskie population density is too high given the lake's forage base. This is causing suppressed growth rates, and therefore, its not a bad idea to encourage harvest and thereby decrease competition for the available forage.
As Steve says, the fisheries biologist is a great source of information. Let me know if you want his email address. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | Matt DeVos - 12/2/2014 4:57 PM
My family has a cabin up in that neck of the woods and I fish a few of these 28" size limit lakes, and I've had quite a bit of correspondence with the local fisheries biologist as to several of these area lakes. Generally speaking, yes, its my understanding that the smaller size limit is in place because the adult muskie population density is too high given the lake's forage base. This is causing suppressed growth rates, and therefore, its not a bad idea to encourage harvest and thereby decrease competition for the available forage.
As Steve says, the fisheries biologist is a great source of information. Let me know if you want his email address.
I would be interested in his email. PM me if you don't want to post it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | If you guys catch a 35" fish from one of these 28" lake x's post it in the fall giants thread! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 571
| ToddM - 12/3/2014 12:43 PM
If you guys catch a 35" fish from one of these 28" lake x's post it in the fall giants thread!
I will say that several of these little Ashland County lakes are amongst the prettiest spots in the state, and great places for kids or beginners to catch the muskie bug. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Isn't this basically the issue with Pike size structure in many of the lakes in Minnesota? People have kept or speared all the big pike and the populations explode because they have no predators. They then get stunted due to the competition and lack of food and it is difficult for the lakes to produce big pike without getting rid of some of the little stunted ones.
If everyone had their own personal slots (not referring to muskies) I think a lot of fisheries would be in a lot better shape. Just because it's legal to keep it doesn't necessarily mean you should. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You need to look into why the WIDNR set the limit at 28" on those lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Madison, WI | Some lakes were deserving, some were not. They missed on a few. I spoke with the DNR when they set their fyke nets 5-6 years ago on a specific lake in the Hayward area that I grew up on and locations were not good (they were based out of my folks resort). Needless to say they went off old data and assumptions and what the population studies showed 10-15 years support the 28" size. Today now, well, those fish are grown up due to catch and release and angler education, and growing and are in need of the 40" protection. Case in point, look at Muskies Inc. tournament data in the Hayward area.
We have 30 years of catch and release/kept data for one of those lakes and that data was complied and processed. It was put into the hands of people who are part of the process and questioned were raised why this lake was put on the 28" list. Some of those lakes have been put on the questionnaire to get them raised to 40"(always passing) but so far nothing. Hopefully that changes.
All im saying is that the process isnt perfect as long as they get it right in the end. If a lake doesnt deserve to be on the 28" list so be it...people arent going to start keeping 28" fish to eat and kill. Catch and release ethics have taken care of that for that most part so those fish are generally safe from harvest.
Edited by PredLuR 12/3/2014 8:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | nevermind.
Edited by Flambeauski 12/9/2014 4:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
Location: Hayward, WI | The 28" lakes in Sawyer county will be on the spring ballot, looking to be changed to the statewide 40". People are encourged to get out and vote on this next spring. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | Has the 28" size limit ever worked? Seems like those lakes have been that way forever with no improvement? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8716
| It would work if people actually harvested those fish, but I don't believe most musky anglers really see that as a solution to anything. Some lakes would probably benefit in terms of size structure if we took some fish out of the system. But then what's wrong with a numbers lake? I like having a few around just for fun and for kids and beginners. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | esoxaddict - 12/11/2014 4:22 PM
It would work if people actually harvested those fish, but I don't believe most musky anglers really see that as a solution to anything. Some lakes would probably benefit in terms of size structure if we took some fish out of the system. But then what's wrong with a numbers lake? I like having a few around just for fun and for kids and beginners.
A few around is not a bad thing. It kind of stinks when the closest muskie lakes to my house are though.
Edited by 14ledo81 12/11/2014 6:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 571
| ToddM - 12/11/2014 3:58 PM
Has the 28" size limit ever worked? Seems like those lakes have been that way forever with no improvement?
Yeah, there are a few where abundance is trending down and size structure and body condition is trending up...(speaking in relative terms here, of course)....though its probably tough to say that the improvements are directly attributable to the size limit vs. some other factor(s)... |
|
| |
