|
|
| When I started Muskie fishing in the mid 1970's it was considered common knowledge (per Muskie experts) that Muskies 'topped out' at 52 inches. Now it is 54 inches?????? The first big Muskie (51 inches) I caught I killed figuring it would die soon anyway. As I made the long trip back to the resort with that fish at my feet, I looked at it long and hard. It was not old. It was perfect and probably healther (before I killed it) than I was. Then Wabigoon happened, bringing the 'top out' to the mid-fifties and then Lac Seul brought the 'top out' close to the sixties. As a matter of fact we don't know how big Muskies can get and if after nearly thirty years we are still argueing about it maybe we never will. I have seen at least 4 fish over 60 inches in my years of Muskie fishing, don't let ANYONE tell you they 'TOP OUT' at any length. Spreading that philosophy is much more dangerous to the Muskie fishery than the incidental catches and harvests made by tourists and the like. | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I whole-heartedly agree with you, Sir! Given genetics, food source, pressure, habitat, etc., There may in fact be muskys swimming around that are bigger than anything we as fisherman can even dream about. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is a VERY general statement that applies to some waters, and not to others. I am guessing you are jumping my statements in another thread about some waters, without regard to the statement about the waters that DO support muskies that grow much larger.
I have been around this for a very long time, and do not ever recall seeing a scientific paper or claim from fisheries management that states what you claim in the 70's, 80's or now.
What I have read clearly states the growth rate and potential maximum length and weight of Muskies depends on forage, water temps, competition, genetics, water chemistry, and more.
It IS a fact that there are lakes in which the muskies WILL top out at way less than 54", so in that case, it makes no sense to have a 54" limit unless one is after total CPR only and a management strategy that supports that goal.
I've fished muskies since the late 60's and early seventies as well. There have always been areas that produced big fish. The St Lawrence produced fish in the Mid to Upper 50 inch class in the 40's and 50's, as did some Wisconsin waters. Lake of the Woods put out mid 50" fish in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Also, to clarify, I never set any size which muskies top out at. I was simply responding to the suggestion that Metro lakes be set at 54", and if one wants to kill a muskie go to Central Minnesota and have at it. That seemed a bit 'backwards' to me, knowing the potential of the Mississippi, Cass, Leech, Mille Lacs, etc.
There a case certainly can be made for trophy management strategies, because everything is correct for the Muskies to reach potential record size. There are even a couple waters around the Cities that could benefit from perhaps a 50" limit, but 54" just seemed excessive to me unless the goal is to create a CPR only situation.
It certainly would be on many waters here in Wisconsin, but not because of harvest. In fact, quite the contrary is true; the fish simply don't have the correct forage, genetics, water quality, or any number of other factors in many of our lakes to reach that lofty, admirable, but unrealistic goal. Does that mean I am supporting the harvest of 43" fish from lake Julia in Rhinelander? Of course not, but I do know the politics of management here, and we (the experienced muskie anglers) are not the only consideration. Far from it, in fact. If we set the realistic limit there at zero, the reaction of our management folks would be a reduction in stocking or other management practices that would otherwise increase numbers of catchable adult muskies in the lake if indeed we succeed at getting CPR ideals at 90% or better.
Many other waters here in Wisconsin would definitely benefit as a trophy managed system. Hopefully there are 13 we can get passed in the near future for a 50" limit. | |
| | |
| I'm sorry, I misunderstand the 54 inch reference and thought we were back to the days when it was considered common knowledge that Muskie grew to about 52 inches and then went downhill. That was my error. It is a joy to me that even stocked waters now have the potential to consistently produce Muskie over 54 inches ie. Mille Lacs and Vermilion to name a couple. Your (Muskie anglers) committment to C & R has changed the future, for the positive,for Muskie fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | There are always those odd balls, there is small lake in vilas Co considered a numbers lake that had a rep of producing fish up to 40 inches and nothing bigger but a few years ago someone got a 53, so if a lake has a rep of topping out at 54 I wonder what else could actually be lurking in the depths
| |
| |
|
Muskies now top out at 54 inches