|
|
Location: varies | With the minimum size limit pushed to 54" next season (Yay!) in Minnesota, Im curious as to when we might see a real impact on this increase in size limit? 5years, 10? What are your thoughts? Are other states pushing for larger sizes as well? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I don't know how you would get any sort of quantitative measurement that you can track from year to year or after a certain period of time, considering that so many fish are simply caught and released and not ever recorded, registered or even mentioned. But you can be assured that there will be more for the catching, so your odds may go up depending on where you fish.
|
|
| |
|
Location: varies | probably right. I was thinking that catch sizes overall might creep up over time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1126
Location: Minnesota. | 54"!!! Man, I love that number...*silly winky thingy*
Inside joke...After 35 yrs. trying I boated one last July. It changed me...really!!!
With thanks to all involved with the fisheries management profession! It changed me...!!!
Jeremy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2274
Location: Chisholm, MN | Immediately! Every 50 incher not kept will help the fishery right away! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| This topic turned into a big argument on another site....I myself am for it.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| I am a supporter of the 54" minimum. I just don't see this restriction helping our fishery when the DNR has basically discontinued stocking muskies in MN. If the DNR had continued to stock lakes (Mille Lacs, Tonka, Vermillion)in the same manner that turned these lakes into GREAT muskie fisheries I would be doing cartwheels right now. They should have put that restriction in 8 years ago and continued stocking yearlings and adult muskies. Now, its like saying to can't kill a female Dodo bird. There just will not be a population of 54"er in any (STOCKED)lakes in MN to worry about. Not like we had 5-8 years ago. Putting back a 49 or 50"er is always a good thing. But if there is not a future generation of muskies growing behind them it really won't matter. The remaining large fish will reach maturity and die and that will be it for a very long time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20178
Location: oswego, il | What could possibly be the argument raising the size limit 4" on this body of water? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1284
Location: WI | It's going to suck if a nice 52" dies on me and I have to release it for the turtles. I haven't had a big one die yet, sure hope it doesn't happen now. That said, I think it's a good thing as most of the kept fish are incidentals. I wonder if the walleye/panfish guys will know the muskie size limit went up or not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 80
| will 54" minimum signs be placed at lake accesses? without that, I don' think the every day Joe will have a clue about the new law. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2274
Location: Chisholm, MN | I'm sure they will have signs. |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | ^or at least White out and Sharpies...budgets you know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| Todd it just got outta control..... It was one guys option on how a larger size limit was going to do more harm then good .The larger fish were going to eat all the smaller muskies and wreck the fisheries. I'm not trying to stir anything up ,but there are people out there that don't think it's a good idea. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8716
| So wait a minute..
Let me see if I have this straight. We should kill the big muskies so they don't eat the small muskies, thereby giving the small muskies a chance to grow big. And then when those got big, we would kill them too? I don't get it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 535
| im all for it but it would be nice to actually have people know what the size limit is. there is lots of landing that don't have the size limit at 48" even and don't even mention there are muskellunge present in the waters. Granted I know its the fishermans responsibility to know the rules and regs but a lot of them still think its 40". Lame |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| Sorry to have even brought it up. I really couldn't make to much sense of it either... the topic got nuked about a hour after it started... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| This is a great first step. Next step is expanding our stocking program to take some of the pressure of these fish. TC metro fish are probably the most conditioned in the world right now lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| tolle141: It would be great if the MN DNR would expand their stocking program but don't hold your breath. We'll all be dead before that happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| I have to agree with Doc Obvious, getting new lakes is about impossible. We have been trying/waiting to get something in the Brainerd Lakes area and the DNR comes up with the most ridiculous reasons not to stock. I wish Muskies Inc. would stop contributing any money to them until they do something for the muskies anglers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | BFD - 11/24/2014 9:48 AM
I have to agree with Doc Obvious, getting new lakes is about impossible. We have been trying/waiting to get something in the Brainerd Lakes area and the DNR comes up with the most ridiculous reasons not to stock. I wish Muskies Inc. would stop contributing any money to them until they do something for the muskies anglers.
only issue here is, if muskies inc stopped giving them money, NO stocking would get done at all. So giving them money for the little stocking they do do, is better then not at all. Muskies INC over the last few years has been picking up all the MNDNR's slack. We need muskies inc to keep giving them money or were all screwed |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Why has the MN DNR cut back on stocking? Was that a part of the plan or a change in budget allocation? |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | Unrelated, yet related that on kare11 news last week some group including resort owners are suing the DNR on Mille lacs. Saying their turning it into a pike and bass fishery and not managing walleye. May be far fetched? But at least it draws attention. Maybe us musky folks have to do the same. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| Letting guys kill all the pike and bass equals turning it into a pike and bass fishery? Morons.
Edited by BALDY 11/25/2014 12:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Due to insufficient muskie stocking, out of state guides are going to sue the DNR for loss of revenue and the emotional distress of having to relocate to Detroit. |
|
| |
|
Location: varies | Flambeauski - 11/25/2014 12:47 PM
Due to insufficient muskie stocking, out of state guides are going to sue the DNR for loss of revenue and the emotional distress of having to relocate to Detroit.
Well....if there is a silver lining in this grey cloud, at least you can buy a home in Detroit for like $9. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| FAT-SKI - 11/25/2014 11:37 AM
only issue here is, if muskies inc stopped giving them money, NO stocking would get done at all. So giving them money for the little stocking they do do, is better then not at all. Muskies INC over the last few years has been picking up all the MNDNR's slack. We need muskies inc to keep giving them money or were all screwed
FAT-SKI
I don't know where you got that information, but that is not correct. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is quite a bit of misinformation in this thread.
Interesting how the MNDNR went from 'the best in the world' to what you guys are serving up and all that happened is almost exactly what was predicted in the 'it's the fish' debate a few years back. Look it up on the research board.
You have NO idea how fortunate you are to have the program you have in place. Learn about it (everything Muskie the MNDNR has done, is doing, and is dealing with trying to move forward) before complaining.
Then join the folks who actually do something proactively.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| Steve,
While I do respect your opinion, I had worked directly with the MNDNR for 5 years. The focus was stocking new waters. I put in hundreds of hours working with lake assoc., DNR officers, and muskie inc chapters. So, you can't say I don't know what I'm talking about because I do. I know more then most muskie guys who just complain and don't put in time to help grow the resource. In any case, You are completely wrong about the MNDNR. I think many MNDNR managers regret the muskie stocking programs that did back in the 80's. The only people who want a great muskie fishery and muskie fisherman. That being said, They have been beatin up by the other fishing groups to the point where they really don't want to deal with it. Take an honest look at how many quality muskie lakes we have in this state. I would hardly use the word "fortunate". Then you take the few lakes that were great successes and change the whole stocking program. I had a few friends from out of state who hadn't fished Mille Lacs in about 8 years. They spent 3 days on the lake from dawn till dusk and made one statement that really stuck, "Your lake is broken".
You can go ahead now and call me an idiot but you can't say I don't the DNR, the lakes, or that I'm not "proactive". I refuse to work with the DNR anymore and haven't for the past 5 years.....so I guess you can say I'm not proactive now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | As far as I know the DNR hasn't cut back on the number of fish they produce. They've been making around 30k +/- for the past 20 years. (Funny how they "needed" a $12,000 feeder system to "boost production" in their Waterville site but haven't made more muskies. But I digress).
The Commissioner is the one to point the finger at when it comes to new lakes. He is more of a hunter/spearer and feels that we've "gotten too much" in the past.
Personally I've had enough at this time of my life and am retiring from working with the DNR until we get a new Commissioner. I have too much going on in my life and don't have the patience to do it anymore. In case of emergency, break glass and take me out to put out any fire that may arise.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'In any case, You are completely wrong about the MNDNR. I think many MNDNR managers regret the muskie stocking programs that did back in the 80's. The only people who want a great muskie fishery and muskie fisherman.'
You know why there have not been more muskie lakes introduced, right? How am I 'completely wrong' about the MNDNR? What did I say that's not accurate? I was responding to several comments on the thread.
Back when that fishery was relatively new other than the original muskie waters over there, this was addressed in detail, what the hurdles would be to 'keep the magic' that was the new reservoir syndrome on the stocked lakes, what opposition would do (and has done) to get access to spearing and to stop any new introductions. All has actually happened as was pretty much predicted; add to that a major recession style DNR budget killer, and there it is. And yes, MN IS VERY fortunate to have the Muskie lakes you have now. Maintaining them at the level they were at after first introduction wasn't going to be either possible (for a number of reasons) or as easy as everyone originally insisted.
There was, just a few years ago a vociferous demand over here to have our DNR folks mirror the Minnesota program. Not so much anymore, and nothing has really changed that wasn't inevitable.
I'm going hunting.
|
|
| |
