|
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I have to beleive that I am not alone when I read tournament results only to see a multitude of fish in the 35" catagory, and wonder what it is all about. I know there are allot of guys in these tournies that have caught big fish...are they truly excited to boat a handful of 35"ers to win a tourny??? Why doesn't the PMTT, regardless of the minimum size on the lake being fished, make a statement by raising the qualifying length to 40" in the Tournies?
If the general concensus amongst musky fisherman is move toward higher size limits on our musky waters in order to grow bigger fish, then why are we patting ourselves on the back for catching 35" fish?
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Sean, have you ever fished a tourny? Do you know how hard it is to get a legal, much less a fish larger than legal? You take 120 teams (240 guys) that all know what they're doing and putting a hell of alot of pressure on a system, I'm shocked to hear 3 legals in a weekend much less 7.
Let's put it this way.
There was 70 teams (roughly) that fished the 2 Day WMT on Pewaukee, Okauchee and LaBelle this past May. Thats 140 guys fishing 16 hours each..that's 2,240 man hours of fishing...you know how many legals (including Dan Buss's 34" exactly) were registered? 12. That's one fish for every 186.66 man hours.....and you want to raise the Tourny limit to 40"????
What's wrong with following the limit set for everybody? Why should Tourny's have different rules? Hell the WMT doesn't allow trolling or live bait....what's next?...No use of a boat?
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 10/26/2004 9:00 AM
| |
| | |
| I have wondered the same thing about Muskies Inc. and the Lunge log measuring 30" fish. here is a organization that is supposed to be about the fish and not money and they are saying take a 30" fish out of the water, measure it, get a picture and put it back. Strange isn't it?
Tom | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | Tommy, you don't have to take the fish out of the water OR have a picture taken to measure it and send it in to M.I. for the fish log...That log is important for many reasons and they use it for research on the bodies of water and to see how the stocking is going etc...Also, taking a 30" fish out of the water for 10 seconds for a quick measure, is much less stressful than a 45" fish taken out for multiple pics and maybe vertical holds. etc etc....Don't bash M.I. for the 30" mark, the organization does way more good for musky fishing than harm.....
| |
| | |
| What is the problem? People are not keeping these fish. Is is more stressful for a 35 inch fish than a 40 inch fish to be measured and released? I think not. What exactly are you going to accomplish by going to a 40 inch limit for all tourneys? Nothing. Fact is , some lakes produce 35 inch fish and some lakes have many fish over 40. Tourneys should mirror the size limits that are already in place. I am all for cartch and release. I will never keep a fish, but I think some guys go overboard on protecting a fish that they themselves try to capture with sharp hooks. hj | |
| | |
| I don't know what the difference would be: these fish are being caught anyway, so why not count them for the tournament. I do not go out to target 36-38" fish but on most waters that is the size that ends up in my boat the most, even though I'm looking for their big sisters. We can't go to Deer Lake and put a sign in the water saying "No 39's may apply" behind our baits. The way these fish are handled in most tournaments that would be willing to go to your proposed stricter standard eliminates concerns that a few sub 40's are being stessed due to mishandling. Joe Bobber will do in a lot more 36" fish by holding them by the eyes or squeezing them by the gills trying to get his $5 shadrap back. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, it's not strange at all. Muskies are muskies, and I'm as happy with a 35" fish as I am with a 45. The only difference is the 45" fish is bigger. The idea that a 50" fish is somehow more difficult to catch is partly hooey, anyway. It's not the intelligence or craft of a 50 that makes them harder to get in the net, it's mostly the fact there are a heck of alot fewer of them in any system than the aggregate of fish up to that size. I'm not sure who raised the bar to 50" for a 'good fish', but if one was to count the 50's caught VS the hours put in, and the fish from 30" to 40" caught during those hours,I suspect the numbers across the country would be largely in the lower middle of that range. I have no problem with registering a 30" fish in MI, adds to the overall available information database and does little if any harm. I am a moderate when it comes to muskie 'protection'. I rely on reality and the data from biologists, studies, and reports instead of emotion when looking at the muskie fishing big picture. Muskies are FISH, not 1 month old children, and in general they are much tougher than we like to discuss.
I think the area fisheries folks are perfectly capable to set the limit at what they feel is correct for a tournament. If that's the legal size limit, OK. If it's a smaller number, that's OK too. The fish would have probably been caught anyway, and tournament anglers on the whole are VERY careful to keep their catch alive and kicking.
The overall average in muskie events is about 11% of the field registering a fish. Take the registration to 40", and that number will drop. On some waters that makes perfect sense, on others it doesn't. I'll leave that to the biologists. As far as not being proud of a multiple 30" to 39" fish day, I'll leave that to the folks who just might have forgotten what a thrill capturing a 38" fish should represent. Mid thirties fish 'ho hum'? Not for me. Those are the fish that will someday be 45 or 50". I'm happy to make the acquaintance! | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Gander Mt Guide,
I have pulled my boat from Chicago to Leech Lake for the last nine years to fish the MI Frank Schneider Tournament, where you need to boat a 40"er to get your name on the board. I know very well how much time and effort it takes to get a 40"er in the boat. Over the nine years, my partner and I have managed to boat only one qualifying fish, a 51.1", lost a few around the same size and boated a few sub 40"ers. But I keep going back up there!
Using the numbers from this years tourney and applying your math: 724 folks fished on 10 lakes for 24 hours = 17,376 man hours fished. 88 40"+ muskies were caught and released. That's one fish for every 197.45 man hours.
We are comparing 186.66 man hours per 34" fish vs 197.45 per 40"+ fish. It seems to me part of working towards a fishery with Trophy muskies (if that is indeed the goal) as MN and Ontario have done, is to align the amateur and proffessional tourny rules with those goals.
The bottom line is simple. If you are happy with 34" size limits on many lakes, then continue with the current tourney rules. If you would rather see many of these lakes go to a 40" limit, and some even to a 50", then change the rules accordingly and be consistent.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | When you fish a tourny every fish, every follow, every strike and every lost fish is compounded 10x. I'm not a seasoned 10 year touring pro, I'm a newbie to the tourny ranks, but I can tell you this. I'd take the thrill of a 34" legal tourny fish over a 45" while fishing for fun any day of the week.....Hell, I'd trade with the devil....give me one 42" tourny fish on LVD and I'll spend the rest of the year fishing BlueGills (no offense Mr.Bluegill).To be 100% honest, after fishing and catching musky (nothing legal) during my first tournament, fishing the Musky opener in northern Wis was a let down.
Guys are still going to catch the 34"ers if the size limit is 40", so all you're doing is making it harder to win money with a 34". Tourny's are 100% release. Anglers can't chose what they catch, that's up to God. You might as well say.."God, only let the 40"ers get caught during tournys...ok?" | |
| | |
Posts: 184
Location: Rockford Il 61108 | Dont start Monkeying around with the tournaments. There fine the way they are. You guys will ruin the sport. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Getting away from the original subject, but....have you noticed that time and time again you see certain names mentioned when it comes to BIG fish? Steve Herbeck, Mike Lazarus, Jodi Mills, Ed Barbosa, Bill Hamblin, just name a few. When I say BIG, I mean fish in the 40lb+ range. These guys catch big fish because they target big fish. To say that catching a Trophy musky is a random event is not giving credit where it is due. | |
| | |
| I've fished the Imtt,PMTT,WMT,and a few others in my day. The only thing I would like to see is the tournaments going to a non transport of any fish. I know when Im running back to the starting point with a fish i'm going all out. Time is critical in a tournament. If they must transport I believe all livewells should be checked to make sure they are of proper size and working condition by tournament directors.
If more money is needed to get judge boats charge us more on entry.
The safety of the fishery is most important. Money can get you only so far. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sean61s,
I know a few of the anglers you mentioned, and have caught a few fish in the class you listed myself. When I was guiding full time in Vilas and Oneida, I could count on at least 2 and some years as many as 4 over 50" in the boat every year. Now if I get one, it's an event. WHY? Time on the water, and that's all. Now:
If I wanted to put numbers of true monster fish in the net, I'd go where there are numbers of monster fish. The Ottawa, St. Lawrence, Wabigoon, Eagle, parts of LOTW and other systems produce quality fish for the anglers fishing them as they should. Ever notice that when a 'new' trophy lake is discovered, one can expect a certain elite to hit it hard, camera and notebook computer for the story in hand? Trophy hunters. Anything wrong with that? Heck no, that's part of the game; I am as guilty of that as anyone. Simple fact is there are many very good sticks out there who can't do that because of job, family, or other comittments.
All the mentioned waters are managed well, and should continue to kick out the big girls into the future. If I had a full summer on the Goon, I imagine I could trip the 50" meter a few times, and the 55" meter maybe as well. So could a bunch of other anglers I know who's names are not so recognizable as those you listed. Am I diminishing the abilities of those you mentioned? Heck no, they are top sticks, no question. Herbie is a GREAT stick. What I AM saying is they either started their career on trophy water, or went to the trophy water mid stream, and went there permanently or spend alot of time there for a very good reason. 'Targeting' big fish means that the angler has the time on the water to locate, pattern, and fish them, which I assume is EVERYONE'S goal in the long run on whatever waters they fish. I look carefully for the big muskies here in Oneida County and key on them whenever possible. Time is everything. Location is, too.
A serious whtetail hunter should look into an Alberta hunt, but I can't afford that, so I hunt the area in which I live and am estatic with a low 130's buck. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The bottom line is simple. If you are happy with 34" size limits on many lakes, then continue with the current tourney rules. If you would rather see many of these lakes go to a 40" limit, and some even to a 50", then change the rules accordingly and be consistent'
Actually, the tournament organizations react to the regulations on the waters they choose to hold an event, not the other way around. The minumum size limit on the waters I fish have absolutely nothing to do with tournaments at all. This has been hashed over pretty well in the Genetics thread in the biology section of MuskieFIRST, the arguments put forth there mirror this one to a degree.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve,
I agree 100% that if you want to catch giant muskys, you need to fish giant musky waters. I also agree that if, for whatever reason, you can only fish near your home, that you should manage your expectations. But if the waters near your home used to be trophy musky waters, and are no longer, I do not believe that we shoudl be content with that, and reward folks for boating small muskys.
Is it really an accomplishment to boat a 34"er when that very same lake used to give up 50s? | |
| | |
| First off I think its ok to lower the limits for a tournament. The fish is caught regardless and you have to release it so the extra time spent to register it is no big deal.
Now WHY! Because its good for the area to have alot of fish reported. Its about public relations for the area and the tournament. It comes down to getting a bang for your buck. I know some of you don't like to see it lowered. However for the P.M.T.T. to grow and get recognition having lots of fish registered is important. It shows what a good fishery a body of water is. Thats pretty much the bottom line.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The only problem with that DP is that there's always going to be an asterik behind the fish caught....ie. If the tourny is on a lake with a 48" limit and you let the the tourny use a 40" as a limit, some folks are gonna say...'Well, they had to lower the limit in order for them to catch fish".
I'm not one who believes in making things easier in order to make them look better. Yes, the PMTT could use a boost in popularity(not because it's not popular, but because it could be more popular), but it has to be done on the same terms as your "average joe" does it. I'd say don't fish waters with limits that high. Tourny's get a bad rap the way it is, decreasing size limits isn't going to help matters. | |
| | |
| What I recognize when I see all those sub 40" muskies is that the fish in those lakes are genetically incapable of consistently producing fish over 40 inches long. When these same anglers participate in tournaments on waters where fish can grow large, they catch more over 40" than under 40". (See the Simply fishing tourney for example). It's not the rules, It's not the anglers, It's the fish.
Fish will resemble their parents. If the local DNR considers 30" Muskies an adult - you are not going to see many large fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I agree 100% that if you want to catch giant muskys, you need to fish giant musky waters. I also agree that if, for whatever reason, you can only fish near your home, that you should manage your expectations. But if the waters near your home used to be trophy musky waters, and are no longer, I do not believe that we shoudl be content with that, and reward folks for boating small muskys.
Is it really an accomplishment to boat a 34"er when that very same lake used to give up 50s?'
I said alot more than that.
You are attempting to argue muskie managenent through a Tournament minimum registered fish size, which is not going to work. What 'used to be trophy waters' and 'are no longer' can be the subject of a long debate, in fact, I think I made a reference to that earlier.
Again, the tournament legal decision is up to the fisheries manager and the event promoter. Nothing there will change the growth rate, competition with other fish, food chain, water temps, spawning success,habitat and about a hundred other variables that can and do change a system's ability to kick out big fish. We already argued this as well as can be in the Genetics thread, and I see Bob found this thread too.
Reward the angler for boating small muskies? That is a somewhat sarcastic interpretation of what's actually happening; the anglers obviously are trying to boat large ones, too, but will register what is allowed for the points. Some may actually 'target' smaller fish to try to take the win with numbers, but a couple big fish usually will beat several smaller ones due to the scoring in many events, which DOES reward anglers for big fish. Would you rather that tournaments are held only on 'Trophy' lakes, and never 'numbers' lakes? Your last statement makes no sense, are you saying that we should only 'reward' a tournament angler if the fish is 50" if the lake used to put one out now and again? These 'tournament' fish are not harvested, so that entire line of thinking doesn't fit the situation.
'
We pretty much have an 'apples oranges' debate going on now.
| |
| | |
Location: Athens, Ohio | I tell you, as a rank novice to fishing for muskies, it just amazes me that tourney folks can travel to a lake, fish it for a couple days, enter the tourney, and catch enough fish to win or even place! I have lakes that I've fished 'regularly' where I still can't find the fish. I guess that's why a lot of these people are the best of the best. more power, and fish, to ya! m | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I'd be affraid to show Sean my box come early spring events...a ton of small, bass sized spinners and cranks, hell even bass jigs and soft plastics. One of the largest baits I throw is a 7" Slammer. It's a little hard to win or place at a tourny when you don't get on the board, I'm sorry, but I'm not tossing a 10" Jake all day in an attempt to get one big hen, when 1 or 2 34"ers will either win an event or place me for an invite to a Championship at season's end.
Mikie, don't feel bad, I fish some tournys against some of these guys and I can't believe how good they are. They always have a knack for scraping up something....its amazing. | |
| | |
Posts: 723
| sean61, by stating before that you only placed one time in a tourney in 9 years, you would rather have the limits upped to make it more difficult for yourself if you were to fish a different tourney other than the one you fish. I don't see the big deal, as long as these fish aren't harvested, they're caught anyway, why not make them count.
You obviously have lost the pure excitement of just catching an average size musky, | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | "...are you saying that we should only 'reward' a tournament angler if the fish is 50" if the lake used to put one out now and again?"
No, I am simply saying that we shouldn't be happy with 34" inch fish coming out of a lake that in its' hay day used to spit out 50"s.
| |
| | |
| I think worrall and I and I few others hit this on the head pretty much. I am glad to see bob feels genetics play a role in in this. As I still advocate slot size limits to produce trophy muskies. Some anglers think genetics have nothing to do with it.
As steve said id ant States governing agency felt lowering the size limit for a tournament they would not do it. That plain and simple.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
| "I am simply saying that we shouldn't be happy with 34" inch fish coming out of a lake that in its' hay day used to spit out 50"s."
what does being "happy with 34" fish" from a lake that used to "spit out 50"s" have to do with tournaments???
first...i don't think anywhere ever has "spit out" fish that big.  but i see your point...
and second...just because we might be unhappy with the current productivity of a lake that has demonstrated potential for bigger fish doesn't mean changing the point limits on a couple tournaments will mean a return to the glory days. that's just crazy. tournament "minimums" are not the same as long-term management and minimum size restrictions, etc.
should we reward the angler for boating small muskies?
you tell me...who did better? the person who catches a 45", the person who catches a 34", or the person who got skunked??? clearly the person who caught the 45". but didn't the person who caught the 34" do better than the person who got skunked? why in the world would you NOT reward them for that???
you seem to be mixing dissatisfaction with current management practices in with thoughts about what it means to be successful in a tournament.
tournament success is RELATIVE. it's only measure is comparison to the other anglers on that water on the day of the tournament. for example - in my last MatchFishing match i won it with 1 fish 31" long. was that "success"??? they got nothing, so in a relative sense, yes. if i compare it to my other fish this year, or the fish that can come out of the lake i was fishing (or where they were fishing)...no. but it "won" for me within the rules of the contest.
management success is comparable to what the water is capable of over the long-term.
it's apples and oranges. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | dogboy,
The day that I boat a 34"er without my heart skipping a few beats, will indeed be a sad day...I hope that it never happens. I hope to pass that same excitement along to my kids, and I hope they do the same.
But what gets my heart skipping is the initial strike and the flash through my mind that this could be a nice fish. The reality is, a 34"er is generally around an 8 pound fish. The reality is, an 8 pound fish is nicely suited for an 8 weight fly rod but not much of a fight on 30-80 pound test line and a 7.5 ft musky rod. Let's not lose sight of how big these fish can get...should get.
By no means am I making an attempt to undermind what the PMTT boys are accomplishing...those guys are #*^@ good. But they don't make the rules, they just play by them.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | "...just because we might be unhappy with the current productivity of a lake that has demonstrated potential for bigger fish doesn't mean changing the point limits on a couple tournaments will mean a return to the glory days."
There are many things that we need to do to return to the glory days. As I said at the very start of this thread, I feel that Tourney Regs should be more aligned with bigger fish goals, so that we are not taking our eye off of the ball. Heck, let's raise the bar for these PMTT guys and see what they can really do.
Having said that, it is clear to me based on this discussion that I am in the minority on this. So, I will end it here.
Congrats on your 31" winning fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I was serious! | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | lambeau,
Who am I to diminish another musky fisherman's enjoyment?
You won the Tourney which I am sure was a thrill..I mean it when I say, Congrats. | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| Any fish, caught in a legal manner and said to be of legal size set forth by the governing DNR of the State in which the contestants are fishing, is a legal fish, and an accomplishment.
Should we throw stones and fight among eachother?
NO, let's same our ammo for the people who want to take away our hunting and fishing privleges, because if we lose them, we will sorely miss those 30"ers and they days we used to chase them.
In-fighting only makes PETA people smile.
I have an old 1 X 6 that my dad gave me with a ruler on one side and a log of who/what/where/when and on what on the back. There are 30's and 32's on there that I'll never forget. My wifes first fish. The first fish that I ever caught on a lure that I made, and someday my daughters name will go on that board when she catches her first. And if it's a 30, she'll be smiling ear to ear.
Beaver | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Every 50" fish on the planet was 34" once. | |
| | |
| But not every 34" fish get's to 50".
Only the ones who get the proper genetics from their parents do.(Their parents were also likely 50")
No fish that ever spawned at 34" long EVER grew to 50". Disagree? Please provide evidence. I'd go further to say that no egg hatched from a 34" fish ever grew up to be 50".
| |
| | |
| Bob - 11/17/2004 4:12 PM
But not every 34" fish get's to 50".
Only the ones who get the proper genetics from their parents do.(Their parents were also likely 50")
No fish that ever spawned at 34" long EVER grew to 50". Disagree? Please provide evidence. I'd go further to say that no egg hatched from a 34" fish ever grew up to be 50".
holey moley.
provide evidence that they HAVEN'T!!!
that's simply barber shop science.
genetics are genetics, and a fish's genes (which it passes on to offspring) don't change based on it's size when it spawns. does a 34" fish suddenly stop growing just because it happens to spawn???
if a fish that reaches it's genetic maximum potential at 40" spawns, it will replicate more fish with a propensity for that size - moderated by the genetic mix it gets from the other parent it spawns with.
if a fish with the genetic potential to reach 50" spawns when it's younger, say, at 34", it is passing on the genetic potential to get that big - again moderated by the mix from the other parent.
i'll grant you that fish which are going to grow bigger will reach a larger percentage of that maximum growth prior to reaching sexual maturity. however, to talk in "ALWAYS" or "NEVER" is blind.
selectively breeding only "big" fish would quickly lead to a narrowed gene pool, and diversity is nature's success tool for survivability. "hey look, these fish grow really big really fast! yep, but 'oops' they also have a genetic defect which kills 90% of them before they reach 3 years old." that may be hypothetical, but that is exactly what's happened in dog breeding. narrowing the gene pool creates very specified dogs - and the more specialized, the less survivable they become.
is that a good solution??? we're not smart enough to outdo Mother Nature - hundreds (thousands) of years of trying it with dogs and cows and whatever else has shown us that much. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
That commnet is so far out of context here it will mostly serve to confuse. The discussion here wasn't genetics, accelerated evolution, or selective breeding. The discussion was about tournaments that allow fish under 40" to be registered. My comment was intended, in context, to point out that 34" muskies can and do become 50" muskies, and that I feel a 34" fish is just fine as a tournament entry, and the fact I LIKE catching muskies whether they are 34", 44", or 54". By the way, part of the tournament discussion was about Minnesota waters. | |
| |
|
Tournament Fishing and sub 40" Muskies