|
|
| After being beat up for suggesting this awhile back I have not given up on it. I ask you to read the commentary in the Nov. 5 issue of the Wisconsin Outdoor News.
Its by Dave Neuswanger D.N.R. team leader for the upper chippewa basin. What it says is basically what I have been saying all along. The difference is he suggests 36 to 48 and on some lakes where this would be (NOT ALL) that the limit be for a legal be 28. He addresses the problem of abundant fish in the commentary.
If you want bigger muskies in wisconsin this is the right step to take. They however also need to stop taking eggs from small fish and take from bigger females only. Hatchery raised fish from eggs have a much higher survival rate and pocess the genes to get big if taken from big females.
This only makes sense if you'll take the time to study it
The view on the egss was mine and not in the commentary.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Don,
You need to jump on the 'Genetics' thread under Musky Research.
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | Don, at first I was against this. After thinking about it, I think it has some good things to it but does have some drawbacks. I think it will work for a lake that has a good population of muskies that are not reaching their max size potential but not a lake that is. A lake like bone, butternut or the tiger cat it would be good but a lake like grindstone it would not. I think it has a good chance of appealing to the meathunters that have to vote on this since they understand a slot limit. the crawback there is it may give them more incentive to keep one on a slot lake and that may have a worse effect as it may promote too much harvest.
One thing for sure and nobody can deny, a slot of say 36-44" is alot better than a 34" size limit. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The other thing a slot limit would do is pacify those who want to be able to insure at least some kind of selective harvest, and allow us to get the 50" plus top end done. Maybe. | |
| | |
| I think a slot limit is a great idea. My only concern with the slot limit is that we won't put the slot limit High enough.
The benefit of slot limits is that it allows you to protect the fish you want to have in the lake. A slot limit would need to allow protection of the largest females so that they can continue to breed, and also keep them in the lake so that we can fish for and hopefully catch them. Personally I'd like to see a 42" to 54" slot limit in Wisconsin - as a starting point. If fish larger than 54" are caught we should continue to move the slot up. This could be done on a lake to lake basis, but we should push for it to happen across the board. We need to speak up to change our management goals. We need to aim high. Our goal should be to create a self-sustaining population of Muskies with fish reaching the 60 inch mark on occasion. Slot limit's will help us do this, as long as we are stocking fish capable of growing to the upper edge of the slot. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| I will disagree, as if you put a slot on ski`s hence you just classify them like walleyes and bass as a mainly eating harvest fish. After all this crap for years and years of a zilloin different opinions it seems TO ME that the best approach right now is to keep up the CPR education and the more and more of PRIVATE CLUBS doing a majority of very successful stocking(Wi.) is working pretty good, things with a slot will only make the whole situation ALLOT WORSE! 50" above hwy.10 accross the board or just leave well enough alone. Why cause more headaches and confusion, I know a ton that will not back a slot, myself included!
Edited by The Handyman 12/7/2004 12:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Handyman. I think if you read the whole thread on genetics under pro prospectives you will under slots better. Also a great thread at musky hunter about slots and genetics. Think you have to agree what we are doing now is not working and on the lakes where they made it 45 or 50 inches I have seen no research on it as of yet. I do know that I fish some of these lakes and I don't think I see any change at all with the higher limits. Keep in mind the goal of slots is to produce not just a better and healthier fishery but also a trophy one.
Don pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The slotson walleyes seem to be working in Canada, are they working in WI on the smaller waters? I could see trying it in one of the systems with a current limit of 28" to see if the overall density could be lowered, and size structure increased. Go from there I guess. There is alot of truth spoken when you say we can't just do nothing. Size structure is in muskies is a problem in WI when comparing to other states, and maybe top end size limits are not the answer. MN does not have 50" limits and look at the fish they produce. I feel it has more to do with strain, and even more so, local genetics. A lake that used to priduce 50's and does not anymore, may not be helped with a top end limit. These lakes may be too far gone, genetics wise for the reasons Don stated, and may need to be nurtured back to health. If the slot thing happens, it needs to happen county, state, or regionwide as one lake will only concentrate 'harvestors' and we will not see desired results. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | What difference would slotting the fish make, when everybody is letting them go anyway.
I like what is being done in Green Bay and I wish Wisconsin would try doing something different for our bigger waters. The fish that were originally stocked in the Chippewa Flowage came from the Mississippi.
A lot of our lakes have too many muskies in them. I fish in the Madison area a lot and Lake Wingra is an example of a lake that the fish are not growing. The DNR thinks this lake is a "crowned jewel" it is not. They net fish every spring and brag about how many muskies are in it. They should transport these netted fish to Monona and Waubesa, bigger lakes that have bigger fish.
Everybody would like huge fish, but some lakes aren't capable of producing huge fish. Overpopulating lakes makes for small(stunted) fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| We really don`t know what would happen if all northern Wi. was at 50". How can it hurt being forced to let a 4`er go????????? We can`t even compare MN. to Wi. the point is moote. I still can`t see how labeling musky a slot fish and creating it for harvest is any good at all, period!!! To me it seems there goes the "TROPHY STATUS" that many seem to strive for, for the musky and put it in the same catagory as slot fish! I just cannot be convinced that this is the best thing for the overall Wisconsin Musky fishery.
There has to be a betterway???????????????????????
Edited by The Handyman 12/7/2004 4:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Not to argue, as I basically agree with you that placing a slot on muskies would allow people to harvest more smaller fish and that is a frightening concept to think about if it did not work as planned, but as I stated earlier there are already lakes at 28" and those would be good ones to try it on as it would actually protect more fish on the lake than the current limit. You can compare MN lakes of the same size and type to similar waters in WI from a sheer production standpoint and see why things are so blatently different. They have a different strain of fish that attains bigger sizes quicker, yes, but many WI lakes of the that used to do the same and are not now. Why is that? I am not sure size limits would help some of those lakes as much as a better gene pool would. Don't get me wrong, I am for higher limits accross the board, but it seems that the public is not responding to it, and we need to keep searching for ways of improving the resource while keeping locals happy(which we need to do if we are going to use the Conservation Congress process instead of allowing managers to manage). Maybe it is time to do more intensive research on the fish that we stock and see why more fish are not attaining the sizes they should. I know spearing does not help, but this occurs in MN too. Now is a great time to explore ways of improving things! Here is one vote for getting the Mississippi(or leach lake as some know it) strain stocked in WI on select waters. WI did an experiment with them aleady and they attained sizes up to 54" in 10 years. Why not try it again???? I know the DNR is worried about the strains becomming crossed, but isn't the WI strain that is being stocked already somewhat diluted for reasons stated above? I also agree with Don that eggs taken from bigger fish would be a key to get the WI strain back on track. Couldn't eggs be taken from some larger fish on some naturally sustained lakes in WI so one could be sure of good genetics in the new fry??
Jeff, we need ice!!!!!!!!
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/8/2004 6:30 AM
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | The slot would help lakes that are overpopulated, if people were keeping fish.
Raising size limits doesn't make fish bigger in fact on a lot of lakes it could make the fish smaller.
I don't want to sound like a guy that keeps fish, in twenty years of Musky fishing I have kept zero fish.But, I think a lot of people go overboard on preaching release only. A lot of our lakes need a selective harvest to become healthier. A universal 50" limit would be harmful to a lot of lakes.
I would like the DNR to stock some type of riverine strain into our bigger bodies of water. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I think a slot limit would be a political tool first and a biological tool second. Not that it is a bad thing, as I think it could work as a political tool.
First take these factors into consideration: We couldn’t get a 50” limit passed on 10 % +/- of Vilas/Oneida County lakes, because people didn’t want to give up the thought of someone keeping there first fish, a long with a few other simple reasons. Second it would’t be a blanket slot on all lakes, lakes with current special regs like 45” and 50” limits should be left alone, don’t go back words on those lakes.
I don’t think any more fish would be kept under a slot limit than are being kept now with the limit at 34 inches. Musky fishermen aren’t going to keep more fish, and incidental catches will still be the same. There will still be a good and growing Catch and Release ethic among many fishermen. What the slot does is protect the fish once they reach a larger size. So you would have all the same people keeping fish in the lower slot that currently keep them. But once the fish grow above the slot they become protected.
We would effectively be protecting our best breeders and that is how the idea should be sold. Little Jonnie can still keep his first musky, we protect the breeders to save money on potential stocking and people can still keep a trophy fish.
This is far better than what we have now which is a state minimum of 34 inches and could be a very good first step politically. My guess is even then it still wouldn’t get much public support, unless it was sold very well. Muskie Inc, and other clubs should pool their money and hire a marketing company to address the next big push for better musky regs. in WI. This may be the only way to get progress, the masses need to be convinced.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/8/2004 10:45 AM
| |
| | |
| Don and I basically had a long discussion of slot limits a while back. I went over several specific reasons for not having slot limits at that time. Handyman comes close to covering my number 1 reason-that slots are potentially a big problem, and their effect on the education effort that has been in place for years.
Bytor and others seem to have an odd elitist view of the fishery that I certainly don't share. I have never been on a musky lake that I felt had TOO MANY FISH. I have fished Wingra, Teal, and a couple other fisheries with good populations and cannot say that when catching multiple muskies I bitched about the size of the same. I have fished Bone, and Butternut, and consider both of them to be interesting gems in the AMERICAN CROWN JEWELS OF MUSKY FISHING, a crown which I still fully believe resides in the WI MUSKY FISHERY, NOT MN AND NOT CANADA.
You will have to do some significant research to prove to me that you can maintain numbers in a fishery and also put out a large proportion of trophy size fish. Bone lake is cited several times in those arguing size. Bone lake is probably one of the few fisheries in WI which is maintaining maximum density of mature fish per acre. Bone lake is an awesome body of water to be on when the bite is hot. It is an awesome body of water to be on anytime in search of a musky. It has reached a point of self limitation for fish numbers if I read my research correctly, and the mature population is the limiting factor on the survival of young fish. If I remember what I have been told in the past, more fish into this system resulted in no increase in the adult population, ie they became expensive fish food. We can look at several other systems in WI and see the same type of fishery. Weeds, cover and diminished water clarity all seem to maximize populations possibly at the expense of the genetic ability to express growth, ie more muskies but not maximum size, not neccessarily in very large systems with multiple habitat and forage choices, much more so in limited acreages and simpler habitat systems.
The research proposed on Butternut lake is very interesting from several perspectives and much more palatable since they plan to lower the population through relocation, with hopefully no large mortality figure. However, IMO this research should be a limited study and not in of itself the basis for slot limit proposals nor the findings generalized in any way to extend to the rest of the state. Somehow Don has taken the research idea and used it as proof of his view of slot limits being a good thing. I do not think that viewpoint is warranted in any way, and don't feel that Don should be attempting to confuse people in this way. There is no reason at this point in time to support the idea that this research will prove slot limits have any value, or might suggest they have a value to the WI fishery. That is probably why they call it RESEARCH and not fact. A very simple fact that I am sure the research people are aware of, but Don may not be, is that Musky are not significant predators of their own population until the young become fingerling, to yearling size. Before that, the many other parts of the biomass eat and eat musky young. This research may set the stage for a population crash in Butternut lake, a population which is maximized at this time but supported by many spawning fish, the sudden decline in adult numbers may cause an even larger decline in recruitment than what is expected. There is also the chance that the decline in adult and subadult populations may offer the opportunity for a massive year class moving from fry stage toward adulthood. No one really knows. There is the definite possibilty and full likelihood that musky fishing action in Butternut lake will decline significantly due to the research. You probably cannot change population numbers the way it is proposed without having a major effect on the fishing action in the lake. No proof of that on my side, and again, that is why they call it RESEARCH.
If you examine benefits of slot limits I see them slanted heavily toward commercial consumers of the resource such as Don and others trying to make a buck from musky fishing. I also see a benefit for meat fisherman, and of course the "look what I caught" fisherman who drags his catch home and then wraps it in newspaper for...
I do not see a major benefit to myself having less muskies but a greater chance of a 50" occasional fish in the boat. If someone wants numbers of 50" fish, WI is probably never going to be the destination of choice. Indian spearing itself may be enough to limit the top end of the resource in many waters. Slot limits, in my view, will generally decline catch opportunities in many waters, with a limited increase of fish on the top end as payback for this overall decline. While I can be persuaded to maximize size potential of the population, I am not of the opinion that less opportunites for encountering a fish on the end of the line is a reasonable exchange for that(one of the potential costs of slot limits).
Size is nice, but fisherman should discriminate between slot limits and genetic effect because they are not one and the same. There are clearly some parameters that can overlap between the two effects but until there is some research done I think it is premature to get overly excited about the questionable and limited(my view)benefits of slot limits. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | "Bytor and others seem to have an odd elitist view of the fishery that I certainly don't share. I have never been on a musky lake that I felt had TOO MANY FISH."
How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist.
Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource.
I do believe that the DNR started using Bone lake fish for their stocking program because the fish in that lake used to have an exceptional growth rate. While I would not classify current Bone lake fish as stunted, the fish are now showing an average to below average growth rate. The DNR puts a lot of fish back in the lake, to "replace the eggs they take out" , this is what I was told at the boat landing by DNR personnel as they were throwing a tremendous amount of muskies into the lake. The fact that the fish are growing slower has nothing to do with the genetics and everything to do with the fact that they are overpopulating the lake. While it is a lot easier to throw small lakes, like Wingra or the Tiger Cat Flowage out of balance, The same thing is slowly happenning in Bone.
I have never fished Butternut Lake but I applaud what they are doing, I feel it will improve their fishery.
"I also see a benefit for meat fisherman, and of course the "look what I caught" fisherman who drags his catch home and then wraps it in newspaper for..." Where are these guys at???? Zero percent of the Musky fisherman I know do this.
I am going back to the river Styx, now.
Don, thanks for starting this thread. I find it very interesting | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Are we talking Butternut in Price??? Is it overpopulated??? Boy, I must just be bad at catching numbers of muskies, as I thought that was one WI fishery that had nearly everything, good size and fair numbers. I think it would be a shame to do anything like that there. Just my $.02. | |
| | |
| With regards to Bone Lake - I don't believe there is any evidence that the length of fish decreased when the number of Muskies increased. There was a SLIGHT reduction in weight of the Bone lake fish, but the average weight was still above average for Wisconsin fish. THE GROWTH RATE IN LENGTH REMAINS AMONG THE FASTEST IN THE STATE WITH THE DENSE POPULATION THAT exists today.
I have done a lot of research on this and can find no reduction in length of Muskies based on numbers of Muskies per acre. We can have numbers and size at the same time if we stock fish that have the genetics to grow big, stock them at the same rate we do today in wisconsin (2 per acre in Bone) and stock them in Lakes without Pike. Slot limits keep muskies with good genetics in the lake, while allowing the removal of fish with poor genetics. This my friends is a wonderful thing, and something we need to get done. I do not like slot limits as a means to reduce population numbers, I like slot limits because they can protect the largest fish while giving Meatheads something to eat instead of forcing them to eat trophies.
(There is a lot of related info on the Genetics thread that I won't throw into this conversation)
| |
| | |
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | Any system that is more specific and scientific instead of county wide would be a step in the right direction. Having 20 year old fish that are 32 inches is a prime example why a slot limit or selective harvest might work. I don't think a slot limit of 36-40 inch musky would hurt the Tiger Cat at all. In fact, you might see bigger fish in the system if the smaller fish were harvested and there were less top line competition. Putting a state wide 50 inch limit would be great for many lakes but there are exceptions. The regs should be specific to the body of water and it's characteristics and needs. Handyman, the people who are thumping muskies are the casual fisherman who are going to keep what they believe the law allows. I would rather protect the large prime spawners than the 35 inch males. When you talk about putting musky in the same class as walleye and bass I don't cringe. It seems that slot limits have worked for some species but not others. There are plenty of lakes they shouldn't touch but how could an experimental slot limit hurt a high density body of water? | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| HJ, you don`t think a 35" is a prime spawner. I will also disagree about who is keeping fish, I have seen a couple dozen fish under say 45" kept by musky fisherman for what purpose I don`t know and also why are the wardens constantly checking livewells in Vilas county and not even looking at liscences most of the time? Because of overbagging and under limit. Who are you people kidding,? yourselfs? For an overall trophy state the way things stand now is to stop all harvest untill 50". Look at alot of walleyes that are 1 over 28" or Smallies that are 1 over 18". I feel we need to stop harvest of muskys and not condone it with a stupid slot limit! Anglers need to open there eyes, there are alot more fish being harvested then most think. Most are just not talking about it. We as a whole need to wake up and smell the coffee! Where has a musky slot worked elsewhere? Canada, MN., MI???? You tell me! | |
| | |
| Bytor says,
"How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist.
Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource.
I think the comment about the 20 year old fish is also elitist. Some genetics in muskydom are not big fish genetics. When you label them like this you are expressing a view that such genetics are "bad". Very elitist, imo. Different, and perhaps not what trophy fisherman seek, but if you truly appreciate fish and what they are, you would probably not come to this conclusion. Bio diversity is always in style as far as I am concerned.
As for you never coming into contact with "meat fisherman" or "show and tell" fisherman, maybe you need to leave the river Styx long enough to get an eyeful of the real world out here!;-)
| |
| | |
| Guest - 12/8/2004 7:22 PM
Bytor says,
"How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist.
Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource.
I think the comment about the 20 year old fish is also elitist. Some genetics in muskydom are not big fish genetics. When you label them like this you are expressing a view that such genetics are "bad". Very elitist, imo. Different, and perhaps not what trophy fisherman seek, but if you truly appreciate fish and what they are, you would probably not come to this conclusion. Bio diversity is always in style as far as I am concerned.
As for you never coming into contact with "meat fisherman" or "show and tell" fisherman, maybe you need to leave the river Styx long enough to get an eyeful of the real world out here!;-)
btw this is my response, forgot to sign in, sorry. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I really think this all boils down to politics. I don’t think a slot limit is the best option to grow trophy fish. But I do think it has the best chance of being implemented using the screwy way the State of Wisconsin goes about implementing regulations.
For example lakes take 5 popular North Eastern Wisconsin lake/lakegroups: Lake Minocqua and Kawagesaga – 1575 acres, Lake Tomahawk - 3600 acres, Pelican – 3500 acres, North and South Twin Lake – 3430 acres, Wisconsin River and Boom Lake flowage – 2200 acres. All of these bodies of water have a 34 inch limit, have excellent forage base and a history of big fish. All but Pelican where on the list for the 50” limit a couple of years ago, all got soundly defeated. There are a few people saying that the slot would be detrimental to the fishery, could you explain how a protective slot from say 44 to 50 would be worse than a 34 inches limit. I think it’s a good first step on the way to maybe someday seeing trophy minimums. It’s better than doing nothing.
Like I said before I think a slot actually has a chance of getting public support, a 50” limit will take a long time, if ever. This isn’t about convincing musky fishermen, it’s about convincing the general public. But don’t kid yourself there are still a bunch of musky fishermen that would who have no problem killing a 48 incher for a mount, they don’t read these boards, but I bet there are more of them than there are of us.
The other thing to keep in mind is, this idea should not be sold as an attempt at weeding out the small fish from the population, it should be sold as, leaving the opportunity for people to keep incidental catches and while protecting the best breeders along with the potential of growing musky to trophy size. Sold this way, I don’t think it would increase the amount of fish being kept, no more than are currently being kept with the 34” limit.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I won't even consider a slot limit until the NA's are required to abide by a size limit and a number reduction. How many big fish wind up with a piece of steel through their skull while they are trying to pass on their genetics.
Granted not every lake can produce big fish and may be overrun by small fish. Let those lakes get speared and leave the true trophy waters off of the list of lakes that get speared.
They can put all kinds of limits on lakes, the truth remains that the majority of us on this board and others don't need to worry about them because we release all of our fish anyway.
How does MN handle their fishery? That State seems to have it's act together. Maybe we could follow their lead.
You got beat up over this?
I must have been hibernating. 
Beav
Edited by Beaver 12/9/2004 10:27 AM
| |
| | |
| Handyman, I think a 35 inch fish can spawn but it is the 45 inch fish I am more concerned with. Like MRoberts said, the 50 inch size limit was soundly defeated. There has to be some room for compromise. I think one of the biggest mistakes we make as musky fisherman is to put our fishery above all others. Instead, we need to work alongside and with the rest of the fishing community when discussing size limits. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Beav, the spearing argument can be made about any more restrictive limit. And it was made by many of the people against the 50” limit a couple of years ago. The fact is as it stands right now we can’t do anything about it, maybe if we show we are willing to be more conservation minded, we will be in a better negotiating position.
The other thing to consider is that we on this board are a small number of the total musky fishermen out there and an even smaller total fishermen in general. I don’t remember the exact numbers but I believe that someone on the Genitic thread posted that Muskies Inc. data shows that the overall release rate is in the high 90 percent range, while the release rate for fish over 45 inches is only in the 70% range or something like that. That tells me that even among a group like Muskies Inc. people are still keep a fair number of fish that would end up in a slot and therefore be protected.
I would wonder how many muskies are caught by general fishermen compared to musky fishermen, considering there are 6+ million Fishermen in the state and only about 100,000 of them are actual musky fishermen. That 100,000 may be high, but think about it. This why we need to increase the minimum limit or do something like a slot, that is also why they think we are elitist.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1189
Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | The amount of musky fihserman in Wis is HUGE....I talk to fisherman everyday in the boat biz. The amount of "occassional" musky fisherman is staggering, they all want a piece of the action.
The amount of kept fish if ever stated on an internet thread would put most of us hardcore "preaching to the choir, know what we are doing,very SMALL portion of the total musky fishing community" people into convulsions. A LOT of people keep their first legal and dont neccessarily continue on with the musky bug...they cought a huge fish, incidentaly or on purpose and it was too big to eat so they mounted it.
I am torn on this issue.
One side of me (like Mroberts) is FOR slots for his same reasons.
The other side is (like handyman) AGAINST slots thinking it could encourage people to harvest.
granted they are harvesting smaller fish.....but how do we know they wont grow to be 50? | |
| | |
| With regards to the thought that too many Muskies will reduce the length of Muskies in a lake - it should be noted that Lake Webster in Indiana reportedly has two muskies per acre and has produced 5 50 inch fish in recent years, while Bone lake with "only" 1 muskie per acre has produced only two 50 inchers since Muskies Inc.began registering fish. (All information is from MI records.) I also believe Webster is smaller than Bone - so much for needing big lakes.
Bottom line is we have too many small fish and too few big fish. We need to do everything we can to get more balance, the way to do this is to protect the big girls(and Big Boys). Slot limits may allow us to get more people on board than just a high size limit. I'm all for having some action lakes, but think that's a small percentage of the lakes in Wisconsin (maybe 25%) I'm convinced we can have action lakes with big fish if we stock fish that can grow big and protect them when they get big.
By the DNR's own survey - most Muskie fisherman believe a trophy is a minimum of 50" long. If that is the case - WHY do we have no size limit's in the state that protect 50" fish? The DNR understands that the best way to get more fish of a certain size is to protect them AFTER they reach that size - not before.
Nothing will change if we don't change the management of the resource. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Ditto to what Mike Roberts said.
I don't think the slot limit is the optimum solution for a trophy management plan, at least not as seen through the eyes of the hardcore musky fisherman. The thought of voting for something that includes such language as "the harvestable size range of muskies" turns the stomach a bit. But........as Mike said, we are playing politics and our side is not in the majority. It does a fairly good job of combatting the Little Johnnie's first fish argument.
A slot limit protecting some of our bigger fish is better than having a free for all on anything over 34". Appease the masses and we may make some progress, no matter how small you may view it. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| MRoberts has an excellent point. I think if most of us had our way the limits would be set on a lake specific basis. We know that isn't going to happen. We also already know that there is nowhere near enough support for setting high size limits across the board or for that matter even on a limited basis. The idea of a slot limit is right now possibly the only thing that MIGHT get a chance at going through the process. Frankly, I think even that is pretty remote. I don't like to sound negative but from what I've experienced a large percentage of "sportsmen" in Wisconsin view any type of regulation as the government taking away their God given right to do whatever the heck they want. Lets face it, there are a whole ton of people out there who don't have any concept or regard for the idea of conservation. I wish I would have counted how many people who hunted this year and said that they couldn't find any decent bucks to shoot so they nailed a little spiker just to fill their tag.! See, people just don't get it that if you let something live it may grow into something bigger later on. Sorry guys, I know that I'm preaching to the choir here and although we have different concepts of how to get there I think we all want the same thing: a better musky fishery in the state of Wisconsin. Keep up the thoughts and keep talking about it. Maybe we'll get there someday. | |
| | |
| This conversation is running many different directions and I think some clarifications need to be made.
Slot limits, to me, don't make sense for any water that does not have natural reproduction and good year class promotion most every year, or water that is used to produce broodstock. Bone lake would qualify since it is used to produce broodstock, but am not really sure those fish reproduce at any significant level, nor do I think they were native in that lake? Might be wrong.
A lake like Wingra which is supported through stocking, would not make sense for slot limits imo. It supports good survival of young musky and size might be limited somewhat by the same parameters that support good survival of the young. Thus it is a good action lake and probably will never be a good trophy lake regardless of slot limits. It would just have less catchable musky. If someone WANTS less fish in the lake then it would make more sense just to stock less.
That of course would decrease encounters, and would probably decrease pressure as a secondary effect, which actually might increase longevity of some fish.
The lakes that do support good natural reproduction COULD be enrolled into slot limit programs, however as pointed out before there is no guarantee that good natural reproduction and the ultimate size of fish produced, go hand in hand. Would populations respond to slots the way we would like or in some totally unexpected direction? Don't know myself. Musky unfortunately do not have the massive populations of other fish and due to this fact reproductive failure can have tremendous repercussions, short and long term. Tiger Cat, Callahan, Teal Lake, Ballard, Irving muskies, would we be able to genetically manipulate them to a larger fish with excellent reproduction? What do you think? Dark water, lots of weeds, limited soft rayed forage, a warm water fishery? Is it environment doing the sorting or simply polluted genetics that have occurred since man became a factor in sorting populations? Has anybody looked at these fish in prime big fish environments? What happens to them there? Now these might be interesting lakes to experiment on, but starting on a large scale basis with no prior study would never make any sense.
Many populations are manipulated by us rather than nature. Webster has been brought up, as have Wingra and Bone lake. All three lakes have been stocked to maximum carrying capacity. Webster, whom someone cited for growth, has I believe Ohio/KY strain fish in it? but regardless of strain, has a large population of shad. And those 50's? They may not be so common in the next 10 years, sorry to say. Pioneer populations always perform at the maximum of their genetic capability due to low stress and disease levels and maximum growth opportunities. Hard to compare apples and oranges. Lots of factors go into maximizing growth and almost anyplace that has abundant quality forage will grow big muskies if they have time and good water quality. Wingra, with some water quality problems and a maximum depth of less than 12 feet over all but a few acres is never going to be putting out numbers of 50 inch fish, but can offer SPECTACULAR FISHING FOR SMALLER FISH AT TIMES. Comparing Webster and Bone is once again apples and oranges. Comparing Webster in the future to Webster in the past will also not be a fair comparison. Good fishing has population, and growth costs to the resource.
I think everyone needs to answer the question as to WHY we would have slot limits? #1 Is it to increase the genetic incidence of large fish in the breeding pool? #2 Is it to make the big fish available through more seasons? #3 Is it to "de-stress" abundant populations, allowing for more rapid growth of the remainder?
My answer would be that it seems obvious that #1 and #3 don't make any sense at all for populations maintained primarily by stocking, and #2 could be more easily implemented by simply raising the size limit.
So, to me #2 never makes any sense, only leaving #1 and #3 as options, and then only on waters either supported primarily or totally by natural reproduction, or waters forming the reproductive stock for hatcheries(brood fish lake). Now we kind of have arrived at the question of a 20 year old 32 inch fish(probably male) in Tiger Cat flowage, and does the state of WI want to spend a lot of time and money trying to change this fishery, and another question, is this fishery broken? My guess would be NO to both questions.
Theoretical history is interesting but not neccessarily truth, and fish populations today may not actually be a picture of what they once were. I think however that these "lost gene theorists" are as much on unproven ground as are those they accuse of not even knowing there is a problem. Hard deal to sort out. Quite a different fishery historically than what exists now. And though we might have all these fantasies about what the fishery COULD BE, it might just be that, a fantasy. Super fish have never been common, even in undiscovered populations. Extremely hard job I think to grow superfish in the face of fishing pressure.
I really think there are a lot of questions unanswered in this whole equation and don't really think that slot limits are going to answer them. Also I am unsure that there IS a genetic problem. NOBODY has actually even been able to document anything that would support that yet. As far as stocking strains, hey, lets go with the biggest, cheapest to raise and easiest to maintain, but when we start changing genetics of the natural reproduction we have to take a long look before leaping.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | F.S.F. lets say the goal is your #2 what makes more sense, trying to raise the size limit for the next 20 years and getting nothing accomplished in the mean time or getting a slot limit passed in the next two years while still thinking that the next step is high limits.
I agree this should not be a state wide thing, it should be lake by lake, taking into account all factors including current limits on existing lakes.
On a different note, why do you and others think that a slot limit would encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
I think you hit it. Slot limits are designed primarily to allow harvest of a reasonably abundant self sustaining population while protecting mature fish and for that reason may not be successful with Muskie populations in many waters.
One example where slots on Pike and Walleye worked pretty well is NE Ontario. There were two measures that were placed to protect the trophy pike population; a lowered limit from 6 to 4, and a slot of any fish under about 27", and only one over about 35" to be present in the limit. The problem was anglers harvesting mid to upper 30" fish for the freezer. The population of big pike has grown steadily in Wabigoon, for example, and walleye too with a similar slot in place.
Note they did NOT slot limit the Muskies there. On trophy waters the limit went to 54", creating an atmosphere where VERY few fish will ever be harvested. The system supports the Muskies in the density they are present, and they WILL grow to a large size as a result because there isn't a 'harvest' of any consequence. From what I've been told, the reason for the different management techniques is overall recruitment and the fact Muskies are not as prolific as species that react well to slot limits. I'll have the straight skinny on that issue after a couple more interviews, I hope. One problem, believe it or not, is CPR. If a slot limit is placed, and most of the fish in the unprotected slot are CPR anyway, the result will be no different than a maximum size limit. Since most of the fish harvested now would probably be protected, one might assume that could happen. After all, several management folks I have talked to in Wisconsin and other states tell me the single largest reason for BIG muskies disappearing from some systems is HARVEST of those fish as they reach 'trophy' size. They are not there because they are kept. If that is indeed the fact, a slot wouldn't do much, because the 33" fish that is not protected is likely to be released anyway.
The 50" plus size limit was tried here with full support from our muskie fisheries managers in an attempt to get a 50" limit on some lakes the DNR felt would support a trophy fishery, but didn't get past the Conservation Congress.
I don't like posting 'supporting' documents for an opinion that has nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand, but these are examples of Slot limit discussions elsewhere, by those who should know.
1)
I've heard that some state's use slot limits, where you can legally take fish in a certain size range, but anything smaller or bigger has to be released. Has anything like this been considered for trout in Pennsylvania? Would it give more protection to those trout that are the prime breeders?
Slot limits were originally implemented for the management of largemouth bass fisheries. The basic idea with these regulations was to provide protection for some quality size fish and also protect a segment of the population for recruitment purposes.
The variation of the slot limit regulations that you asked about is very similar to a regulation that was used on an experimental basis to manage a wild brown trout fishery in Wisconsin during the mid 1980's. The study was conducted on a fertile limestone stream, similar in productivity to our limestone streams in Pennsylvania. Under this variation of the slot limit, anglers were permitted to harvest one trout per day between 14 and 17 inches in length.
The results of this study concluded that the slot limit regulations did not improve numbers of larger trout (20-inch range), and essentially the same results could have been accomplished with the use of a 14-inch minimum length limit. Therefore, at the completion of the study, it was recommended that the slot limit regulations should be replaced with a simpler 14-inch minimum length limit. Other studies using slot limit regulations for wild trout fisheries have provided mixed reviews, at best. In most cases, the best management practice for these special regulations fisheries would be to manage them with the use of an elevated minimum length limit such as 14 inches.
In Pennsylvania, we utilize a variety of management programs for wild trout. For example, Trophy Trout regulations are one form of special regulations designed to stockpile adult trout and provide a high catch and release rate fishery for trout that are somewhat larger than the average 10-inch catchable size trout. In addition, Trophy Trout regulations also provide anglers with an opportunity to catch some larger trout (greater than 14 inches in length) on the waters managed under these regulations. Typically, anglers do not place a great deal of emphasis on harvesting trout when they visit the waters that we manage under special regulations. Based on the results from some of our recent surveys, we know that many of the legal size trout caught by anglers in these areas are being released.
Fisheries Managers are sometimes criticized for implementing regulations that are confusing to the average angler. Slot limits are certainly more complicated than a simple minimum length limit. Considering the fact that slot limits have not been more effective (and in some cases less effective) than a simple minimum length limit, we have not implemented them as part of the special regulations package to manage Pennsylvania wild trout fisheries.
2)
Site Map | Contact the DNR | What's New? | Newsroom | Events
> MN DNR Home > Fisheries > Management >
Management myths dispelled
Dispelling some common myths and misconceptions about Minnesota fishing, fisheries management, and fish populations.
The reality of fishing in Minnesota
1. Fishing is thriving
There's a rumor that people just aren't fishing anymore. That may be true in New York City or wherever this myth began, but fishing is definitely doing well in Minnesota. Just check the graph below. Fishing license sales have remained steady in recent years. Though the number of anglers as a percent of population has dropped slightly, there are today 200,000 more licensed anglers than 30 years ago. Obviously, plenty of people still fish in Minnesota each year.
2. Fishing is big money in Minnesota
Another common misconception, especially among those who don't fish, is that angling is a rinky-dink affair, far less important than, say, professional sports.
Yet each year anglers spend more than $1.8 billion in Minnesota on fishing-related recreation. That's billion, with a B. The big money goes to boats, gas, and lodging. But the little items add up too. For example, each year anglers in Minnesota spend
$50 million on bait
$34 million on lures, line, and tackle
$8 million on ice.
The figures come from a federal government study on 1996 spending.
On average, an angler spends $1,086 on fishing in Minnesota each year. Benefiting from this outlay of cash are gas stations, cafes, bait shops, motels, and resorts-mostly in rural Minnesota.
Big companies thrive off fishing, too. Among the top national names based in Minnesota are Alumacraft, Crestliner, Inc., Johnson Fishing, Inc., Lund, Northland Tackle, Stearns Manufacturing, Inc., and Water Gremlin.
Cabela's is a fishing retail powerhouse thriving in Minnesota. The Nebraska-based company's 150,000-square-foot Owatonna store is second only to the Mall of America as the most visited retail attraction in Minnesota.
3. Minnesota is doing well compared to the so-called "better" fishing states
A common myth is that "everyone" is fishing in other states such as Wisconsin and Michigan because the fishing in Minnesota has gotten so poor. Statistics show otherwise.
Though it's not possible to determine if fishing is "better" in one state or another, there are ways to compare the popularity and extent of fishing in various states.
Minnesota has more total anglers, receives more income from fishing, and attracts more angling tourists than any surrounding state. For example, anglers spend $360 million more in Minnesota each year than they do in Michigan, which has more people and is surrounded by the Great Lakes and their lucrative charter boat industry.
These figures indicate that Minnesota remains one of the top fishing states in the country.
The reality about DNR fisheries management
1. The DNR works cooperatively with many local groups
One rumor has it that the DNR doesn't work with anglers. Yet Minnesota's 28 fisheries managers and their staff regularly work with hundreds of local fishing clubs, lake associations, individuals, and conservation groups. Such coordination, as this work is called, is essential because it brings fisheries workers face to face with anglers, resort owners, and other citizens who care about the state of fishing. And these daily conversations between managers and citizens in turn drive fisheries management programs on Minnesota's lakes and streams.
Take Lee Sundmark, for example. At his are fisheries office in Hutchinson, he and his small crew are responsible for 40 lakes in five central Minnesota counties. Sundmark says that one of his most important jobs is working with more than two dozen local groups to improve water quality and fish habitat. He encourages the clubs and lake associations to participate in the various programs run by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that show interested citizens how to monitor the health of their local lakes.
Sundmark also sits down with local groups to hear their concerns and to discuss various ways to improve fishing, such as installing aeration systems, planting buffer strips along lakeshores, stabilizing shorelines, and transplanting aquatic plants to reduce erosive wave action.
"The anglers I talk to each day are increasingly interested in lake ecology and how it affects fish habitat and populations," Sundmark says.
2. Few DNR Fisheries staff work in St. Paul
A common belief among anglers is that DNR Fisheries is bloated with bureaucrats. That's not true. Of our 320 staff members, just 18, or less than 6 percent, work in the St. Paul headquarters. The rest are in regional or area field stations statewide.
3. There is lots of public oversight
Many anglers want to know if we are spending their license dollars wisely. "Who's watching the pot?" they ask.
Since 1994, three different citizens committees have been scrutinizing our budge and the Game and Fish Fund. The committees were formed by the Minnesota Legislature to review DNR reports on how we spend money from a range of special accounts. The DNR commissioner appointed citizen leaders to review the:
Game and Fish Fund
DNR Fisheries budget
Trout and Salmon Stamp Fund.
Committee members, who mainly represent major fishing organizations, are charged with reviewing various reports and making recommendations to the legislature.
This oversight is in addition to regular legislative audits of our budget, which is open to public review, and biennial review by state lawmakers.
Even more oversight takes place each January when the Fishing Roundtable convenes. Representing angling groups and other fishing interests, roundtable members spend two days discussing DNR fisheries management proposals and offering suggestions for new ways to improve fishing and management.
4. Fishing licenses are a tiny fraction of overall angler spending
One persistent myth is that the cost of a fishing license is a financial burden for anglers. Maybe it is for some people, but not most. On average, an angler spends $1,086 on fishing (gas, gear, bait, lodging, food, etc.) in Minnesota each year. The $17 individual fishing license represents less than 2 percent of that total.
The reality about lakes and fisheries
1. Lakes can only hold so much fish biomass
Some angles urge us to "make" lakes produce more fish. But a lake can only support a certain amount of fish over the long haul. Referred to as a lake's carrying capacity, this biological limit is based on a lake's size, fertility, amount of available habitat, and length of growing season. There's no way to force a lake to hold more fish than it can, any more than a field can be forced to grow more corn that its soil can support.
In lakes with good spawning habitat, new additions to the fish population come each spring from natural reproduction. They replace fish lost by predation, starvation, old age, angling, and disease. To stock additional fish into a "full" lake won't work because it creates overpopulation. There isn't enough habitat (food and shelter) for the new fish, so they either displace existing fish or die off.
2. lake fertility determines fish abundance and species
Many anglers still believe that northern lakes-cool, deep, clear, clean-are the ones packed with fish. But actually, it's southwestern lakes that contain and produce the most fish per acre. A northern Minnesota lake simply can't produce as much fish as a similar sized southwestern lake, any more than an acre of land in St. Louis County can grow as much corn as an acre in Le Sueur County. A northern Minnesota lake such as Vermillion in St. Louis County produces about 8 pounds of game fish per acre, while a southern Minnesota lake such as Tetonka in Le Sueur County produces about 40 pounds of game fish per acre.
Why the difference? Because lake fertility is one of the most important factors limiting the number and size of fish in a lake. The more fertile the lake-up to a limit-the more fish per acre it can produce. That's because fertile lakes support more plant life, and plant life supports the entire food chain.
Minnesota's lakes range from the relatively infertile oligotrophic ("scantily nourished") Northern Minnesota lakes, which have steep, rocky shores and contain few nutrients, and are so deep that the sun can penetrate only a small amount of water, to the extremely fertile eutrophic ("richly nourished") southwestern Minnesota lakes, which are surrounded by rich farmland and are so shallow that sunlight can reach -and thus stimulate plant growth in-a relatively large percentage of the water mass.
Between two regions are the central Minnesota lakes, called mesotrophic ("moderately nourished").
One qualifier: Lakes can actually have too many nutrients and grow too fertile to support game fish. That's because the same plants that provide food and oxygen to the lake also consume oxygen when they die and decompose. Every few winters, thick ice and snow on shallow lakes block adequate sunlight from reaching plants, which then die. As the vegetation decomposes, it uses up dissolved oxygen needed by fish to survive. When fish die in large numbers in late winter from lack of oxygen, it is called winterkill. This commonly occurs on overly fertile southwestern lakes and ponds.
3. Much depends on year classes
Anglers on Lake Mille Lacs and Rainy Lake now understand the importance of year classes. Anglers on other lakes are catching on too.
The single most important factor affecting whether or not anglers catch walleyes is year class variability. A year class is a generation of walleyes born the same year. Each spring a new year class is born. Depending on spawning conditions and survival-determined largely by water temperatures from April to June-some year classes have lots of fish, and some have few.
In any given decade, a lake usually has two or three abundant ("strong") year classes, two or three sparse ("weak") year classes, and four or five medium year classes.
When, after four or five years, a strong year class reaches catchable size (14 inches), anglers start hooking more fish. When two or three strong year classes are in the main catchable size range (14 to 24 inches), the fishing can be fantastic. That's been the case on Rainy Lake in recent years.
But the converse is also true. When several weak year classes in a row reach catchable size, the fishing can get difficult. The lake just didn't have the right biological conditions those years to produce more fish. Usually the cause was a cold spring that killed young walleye fry as they hatched.
Fortunately for anglers, lakes that have strong natural reproduction usually have enough strong year classes to provide plenty of catchable fish to offset the effects of a few consecutive weak year classes.
4. Limits of fishing success
Didn't catch a lot of walleyes last Saturday? The fact is, most anglers don't catch even on keeper-sized game fish on a typical day of fishing. That's not because the fishing is poor; it's just the nature of fishing.
On any given day, 95 percent of walleye anglers harvest two or fewer walleyes. This generally hold true on every walleye lake in Minnesota and across the U.S. For example, 1992 was considered the best year in modern history for fishing on Mille Lacs, one of the top walleye lakes in the United States. Yet even during that banner year, 76 percent of anglers there on any given day did not catch a fish.
It's not such a bad thing that anglers don't always or even regularly catch their limit. There simply aren't enough fish. For example, we estimate that Minnesota has roughly 18 million walleyes over 14 inches long (general keeper size). Approximately 27 million angler days are spent fishing each year. If every angler caught and kept just one walleye on average per outing, the state's entire keeper-sized walleye population would be wiped out before the year was over.
As fishing pressure increase while the number of fishing waters stays the same, anglers crop off the keeper-sized fish as soon as the fish reach keeper size. Soon, more and more small fish dominate the fish populations. Decent-sized fish become rare.
The only solution, says biologist and a growing number of anglers, is to limit the number of medium-sized and large fish that are harvested. In time, that would result in an increase in the average size of fish that anglers catch.
Terminology of limits
Bag, or possession limit:
This is the total number of a certain species that an angler may possess, in one day or over several days, both on the water or off. For example, you may not have in your possession more than six walleyes, and that includes what's in the livewell and in the cabin freezer.
Use: This general, statewide limit prevents the commercialization of sportfishing and distributes the catch among anglers. But because so few anglers ever catch a limit (roughly 1 percent of anglers on any given day harvests a walleye limit), current bag limits generally do little to protect fish populations from overharvest.
Protected slot limit:
This is a size range, or slot, in which fish must be released. For example, a 12- to 16-inch slot limit for bass means that all bass from 12 to 16 inches long must be released.
Use: Protected slot limits protect medium-sized fish so they can grow to be the large fish anglers most enjoy catching. They also preserve fish that are at their most prolific spawning age.
Harvest slot limit:
This is a size range in which fish may be kept. For example, a 14- to 18-inch harvest slot means that only fish between 14 and 18 inches may be kept. All others must be released.
Use: Harvest slot limits protect larger, spawning-aged fish while limiting the overall harvest.
Minimum size limit:
This limit requires that all fish below a set length must be released. For example, the statewide minimum size limit for muskellunge is 40 inches, meaning that you may not keep a muskie less than 40 inches long.
Use: this protects slow-maturing fish such as muskies, steelhead, and lake sturgeon until they can spawn at least once.
Maximum size limit:
This means that all fish above a set length must be released. A 24-inch maximum size limit for northern pike means you may keep a northern that's longer than 24 inches.
Use: this works much like a protected slot limit to increase the number of medium and large-sized fish.
One-over limit:
This means you may keep one fish over a set length. For example, in 2001 on Lake Mille Lacs you may only keep one walleye that is more than 28 inches long.
Use: This limit allows the harvest of a true trophy fish that an angler might catch once in a lifetime.
3)Slot Limit - A limit on the size of fish that may be kept. Allows a harvester to keep fish under a minimum size and over a maximum size, but not those in between the minimum and maximum. *Can also refer to size limits that allow a harvester to keep only fish that fall between a minimum and maximum size.
Social Impacts - The changes in people, families, and communities resulting from a fishery management decision.
Socioeconomics - A word used to identify the importance of factors other than biology in fishery management decisions. For example, if management results in more fishing income, it is important to know how the income is distributed between small and large boats or part-time and full-time fishermen.
------COPY DELETED-----10/6/2012- yes, 2012.
Deleted because Glenn, who has no clue what we do in the Bass world, was offended (and threatened us with copyright infringement) that the article was similar to one on his website. The piece we had posted here was one the author had published internally while working in Florida, similar to but not the same as the piece Glenn's website has published. I believe this was originally published NOT on that website, but in Honey Hole magazine in 2001. What we had posted here had been forwarded to us by one of our reference sources in Fisheries management. Sorry Glenn, but I sincerely hope you learn some civility in working with other Media sources in the future. I will respectfully decline to 'link' to your website as requested on the page you forwarder us.
There are a ton more, and all indicate clearly there is NO simple answer to 'wholesale' trophy muskie management. I guess I'll defer to those who make their living in that field, and will report what I'm told in the upcoming interviews. | |
| | |
| Roberts - 12/10/2004 10:29 AM
F.S.F. lets say the goal is your #2 what makes more sense, trying to raise the size limit for the next 20 years and getting nothing accomplished in the mean time or getting a slot limit passed in the next two years while still thinking that the next step is high limits.
I agree this should not be a state wide thing, it should be lake by lake, taking into account all factors including current limits on existing lakes.
On a different note, why do you and others think that a slot limit would encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Two questions. Two answers.
Your way of looking at this, to use the slots as a backdoor to raise size limits, has a couple drawkbacks. #1 If slots are used in this method, the overall abundance in those waters capable of raising big fish(limited imo)will be decreased efore they ever reach a the trophy stage, and thus the overall number of encounters with musky will probably decrease, even though the small percentage of really large fish, above the slot, may increase. #2 Tremendous size limit enforcement problems crop up with slot limits, almost unenforceable unless the angler is caught on the lake(I guess it is that way anyway but it will be worse with slots)once an angler is off any lake with a slot fish he can claim it was caught on a slot lake. #3 After some thought about the whole idea, I do not see much point in stockpiling fish after they reach 40" to 45", IF there is going to be ANY harvest of musky. I am not against total catch and release, but since stocked waters are dominated by male musky, I don't see the value of artificially protecting these fish that are at or close to maxing out size wise. I would rather protect healthy growing fish and allow them to reach this basic "trophy" size before harvest. The incidental catch will primarily be young fish, not fish in the 40 and up category. I believe that this size fish, and larger fish are the true ambassadours of our sport and walleye guys, bass guys or crappie guys that catch one of these and want to keep them should be allowed to do so. Think about it yourself, most of the waters capable of producing 50 inch fish are NOT overpopulated with musky, and are NOT stressed in terms of territory, or food resources. Would YOU rather A.) decrease the base of fish in the lake which will provide most of your action anyway, while at the same time maintaining or possibly increasing angler mortality on the bigger fish(remembering that the bigger fish are more likely to be contacted and landed by dedicated musky anglers in the first place and also more likely to be released, regardless of the slot)or B.)Increase the number of fish up to 40-45", a reasonable goal, and then let them take their chances knowing that their vulnerablity to less skilled anglers has taken quite a dip and those that can catch them on a regular basis are more than likely going to release the majority same as before. Which do you choose? I guess I am in favor of a pyramid with a big base, and would prefer protection up to 40 inches for most growth capable populations. Thus I would view slots as working against my goals.
To answer the second question, I cannot see anyway to put slots in place without encouraging theoretically, tacitly, or openly, kill. Simple to see on my part. Explain to me how you would justify emplacing more regulations, and complicated ones at that, without making this part of your justification of those regulations. It will be a really tough sell I think to say, "ok, these fish do not reproduce, and if you want to keep one, ok you can keep a small one, but then all us elitist musky fisherman want you to NOT keep any from then on, until they get huge, so we can enjoy them for 5-6 years, and by then your chances of potting a big one are next to none, unless luck really really rides in your boat." (Now personally I would not mind IF I COULD SHOVE THAT DOWN THE THROAT OF ALL OTHER FISHERMAN, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE WHAT A SELFISH DOLT I AM, AND WHAT A LIMITED VIEWPOINT THIS MIGHT BE, LOL!!) | |
| | |
| Is it really selfish to want more large Muskies for everyone to catch? I do not understand this - please explain.
I would think that the people killing the fish to show their neighbors would be the selfish ones.
Mr. Worrall - thanks again for the input, I'm looking forward to your interviews - I'm hoping you ask the tough questions. I'd be interested in going with you. | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| Sworrall, the next time my wife wants to know what the hell we talk about for a whole day while we're fishing, I'll just have her read your post. And a great post it was. There are so many options and variable to take into account, and our DNR has proven that it is not willing to "micromanage", and that is what they would have to do in the case of a slot.
You must first concider the beast itself. I believe muskies will be much harder to manage than bass or walleyes simply because fewer of them are caught, and there are fewer in the system and the numbers that would be needed would be hard to come up with.
Besides being afflicted by the muskie bug, I also spend a great deal of time on The Mississippi River fishing for walleyes and saugers. River rats....I mean real river rats, just like real muskie fishermen, have been screaming for reduced bag limits and a size limit on saugers and a size limit that would state walleyes from 22-28 inches must be released with only one over 28 being allowed. Rats have been practicing these restrictions and tighter ones for decades. Anglers yelling for protection of a great fishery, and we were met with DNR input that...sauger don't need a size limit because of their population numbers, walleyes don't need protection because there are still plenty of spawners and on top of it, there is an abundant forrage base to support all of those fish. Fishermen trying to protect the fish that they love. We rats release anything over 20'' and any sauger that even appears to be female, some release all while some people fill 5 gallon buckets with 12 inch saugers because "they're as good as perch".
There's always going to be a Hatfields and McCoys thing going on. Whether it's between the elitists and the CPR's and people that support harvest of them walleye eating slimy green pigs. I don't forsee anything ever happening to protect huge fish or to protect prime spawners. All I can do is what I do. I let every fish go and will continue to do so because it's all one man can do. Maybe I'm pissing in the wind, but I want my kid to have it better than I have it, and the only way that I see it happening is by practicing CPR and eating walleyes and panfish. And I'm selective about which of those I keep.
All these numbers flying around, who's got numbers that show how many people fish strictly for food vs stricly for enjoyment?
Enough babbling.
Beav
| |
| | |
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | What is the official first day of winter, because on MuskieFIRST, it seems to be about November 31st. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Not to be a stickler for details Slamr, but November 31st???? Is that anything like February 30th?
Edited by nwild 12/10/2004 2:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | D'oh.
On second thought, the first day of winter for MuskieeFIRST seems to coincide with the first sight of hard water anywhere south of International Falls, MN. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| nwild - 12/10/2004 2:33 PM
Not to be a stickler for details Slamr, but November 31st???? Is that anything like February 30th? ;)
You smote him soundly and well with that one!!!
LOL!  | |
| | |
| However unattainable at this time in all states, my preference is DO NOT KEEP ANY MUSKIES. | |
| | |
| Saying the DNR needs to micromanage all lakes with different slot limits is just an excuse to keep doing nothing. The DNR needs to do something to protect the large breeding female fish on all of our lakes. I do not buy the theory that slot limits don't make sense where fish don't grow big. Protecting Big Muskies where they are rare may be more inportant then protecting where they are common. The people who fish lakes where big fish are rare are more likely to keep big fish - because they have never caught one before. I'm for a one-size fits all slot limit state-wide. On the growth challenged lakes that we have, we try to fix the problem by allowing the killing of all large fish over 28" - this makes sense? We have 15 year old fish at 27 inches and these are protected, while every one that get's to 35inches get's harvested so that 27 incher can grow. It's Ridiculous. We need to overhaul the whole management plan from top to bottom.
I'm for a slot that protects all fish from 42" to 52" with a limit of one per season over 52". If the slot proves successful in changing size structure after 5 years, I'd like to see the slot bumped up to 54". With todays Replicas and the mercury content in large predator fish there is no reason to keep a big fish other than selfishness.
I understand the thought that many of us would prefer that no Muskies be kept. We need to understand that total C&R is not likely going to happen anytime soon. Slots offer the best compromise and gives us an opportunity to get something done NOW. Opposition is essentially a vote for current 34" size limits to remain in effect. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
The DNR TRIED to do something to protect the large muskies in many waters of Wisconsin. It was voted down resoundingly by the public.
I don't agree with implementing a possibly ineffective management technique to 'back door' what I personally feel we really need, a 50" minimum size limit on some waters here in Wisconsin. We already have that on a couple, but I'd like to see it on another 20 lakes and impoundments or so.
Where in the US and Canada is there a slot size limit on Muskies? Anywhere? I'd like to interview a fisheries manager who has the system in place.
Overhaul the enire management program? Let's see you get THAT past the folks who voted down the 50" limit. | |
| | |
| Steve does one really need to interview someone that has slots in place on muskies. You know better then that and its a loaded statement as you know there is not any. What we know is it works for other fish and the goal basically is the same to protect mature fish. and to cull out some of the smaller ones. We are not saying its for every lake and it certaily is not but would work on some and you know it whether you will admitt to it or not.
A slot will protect the bigger fish. It will cull out some of the smaller ones. Some of them don't make it anyway so if just those are kept that seem in critical condition it would benift the system.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to look at this and say yes lets try it. My god its as plain as the nose on each and everyones faces. This should by all reasoning and all the research we have looked at work. Get off your horses and support it. its better then what we have now and and better then what we are doing now which is nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want to interview someone on slots. well I want someone to show me facts that a 50 inch limit on wisconsin lakes has worked. I fish them and by god I am not seeing any more big fish then I did 10 years ago. Where is the data on that. I have not seen any to prove it. In fact I believe the lakes in wisconsin without the 50 inch limitproduce way more 50 in inch fish then those with the higher limit. I don't know for sure but would like to see the numbers. As I said I fish some of them and I don't see the change in anything. Yet when it was passed I was told in 5 years you'll see the difference. I doubted it then and still do.
Our d.n.r hasmade the changes now let them tel usif itworked or not,The excuse that they don't have money to run the test or do the research is bogus to me. you have that in the plannining when you make the changes..
With slots I believe you won't need them to run a test or a study, the evidence will will be there. You will be seeing more big fish.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | Why does the Wisconsin DNR let the PUBLIC set the rules? Why don't they do what they feel is best
for the Muskies?
In Minnesota, if the DNR plans to make changes, they will hold public hearings where people can
have their say. BUT the DNR sets the rules! They take the publics thoughts and concerns into mind
but the mostly for damage control. They know from the meetings what the concerns are, and what
if any misconceptions are around. Then they set the rules based on what is right, as the EXPERTS
see it, and explain what was wrong with the PUBLICS ideas. That way they can have the answers
ready before the questions are asked. The Wisconsin DNR employees a bunch of very smart, well
educated people, that have a real grasp of what needs to be done. The hurdles they have to cross
are the PUBLIC and the COST. We as Muskie fishermen, need to help them on both fronts. Groups,
Clubs and MI Chapters need to educate the public and support the DNR. If that means a fee increase
on all licenses or a Muskie stamp, or a Muskie fund that can be donated too? Something needs to
change.
I have been fishing Muskies in Minnesota for 22 years. I have seen the effects of the Muskie Fishing
BOOM, on many of Minnesota's lakes. The few Muskie lakes were very crowded, now the DNR has
made the Muskie a widespread resource and more and more lakes are supporting both numbers and
trophy size fish. There are both large clear water lakes and small green lakes being stocked. We are
seeing 50"+ fish coming from all around the state. Now the crowds are spread out and lakes were once
VERY crowded are fishable again. We are seeing another BOOM in the number of people fishing Mn Muskies,
but this time it's more Wisconsin fishermen than new comers from MN.
MN has a 40" minimum size state wide, with many lakes being 48 or even 50" minimums. We got our first
total Catch & Release lake this year! Elk lake in Itasca State Park (a brood stock lake) was getting hit by trophy
hunters. They managed to kill 4 or 5 BIG fish in 2003. MI stepped in and the DNR closed the door. Now that we have
a NO KILL lake, the stage is set -- it's harder to get the first, than it is the second, third....
Wisconsin had it days of producing some real BIG fish -- what happened? I want to know, just as much as anybody else.
What if MN has the same problem in 10 or 20 years? It would be nice to see the Wisconsin fishery come back to help MN see
what needs to be done to prevent a drop in big fish, or to recover if one happens. I am very intersted in what is found and
what is done and what the results are.
The Genetics portion of this debate is a whole another post. The Genetics just might be more important than a slot or size
limit. If the fish CAN'T grow to 50" than a 50" size limit is basically a mandate of total CPR. Which is both good and bad.
I have been watching Bob, try to fight this battle on his own. People are quick to shoot down his ideas, but I don't see many offering
an alternative solution. I think the first step is the Wisconsin DNR taking control and not allowing the PUBLIC to make decisions.
Just another Muskie Nut point of view.
Steve Sedesky
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Don, take it easy. You involved are in a debate here, not an argument. Any argument anyone might wish to enter in to should be fought out via email.
Yes, I WOULD like to interview a fisheries manager who has a Muskie slot in place. No, I wasn't sure there wasn't. I couldn't find one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere.
I read source material extensively about the slot idea and came to the 'conclusion' that it might or might not be a good idea. As I said before, I'll defer to the experts there, but as a state wide rule, it doesn't look very promising. Generally speaking, there's lots of warnings in the literature that each system has it's own set of variables and those variables should be carefully considered before a slot on ANY fish is implemented.
You didn't say that you wanted slot limits statewide, but Bob did. I was answering him.
As far as the 50" limit, when were those limits placed on the waters you mention, and which waters are you speaking of?
I know what the 54" limit has done on some NW Ontario waters, and so far, I like what I have seen.
I have to go with what I see so far on the North American continent. I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada. I do have questions, which I attempt to get answered, and ideas that I like to air, just like anyone might here. If fisheries folks want to protect the adult muskies to allow them to reach trophy potential, so far everywhere I've studied the technique seems to be managing specific waters for that goal with minimum size limits in the 50" to 54" area. Why, then, doesn't any fisheries management program in states and provinces where slots on Walleyes and Northern Pike are in place, implement a slot limit on Muskies?
That's the question I intend to ask them. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | To me it is pretty simple: Slot limits only makes it even more okay for people to kill fish.
It is just another way for Wisconsin folk to kill even more muskies.
Catch and Release is the only way to go. | |
| | |
Posts: 305
Location: Illinois | "Saying the DNR needs to micromanage all lakes with different slot limits is just an excuse to keep doing nothing" It's not a question of it will happen but when. There will never be less pressure on our waters than we see today. Musky fishing is in it's infancy compared to 25 years from now. At some point there will have to be micromanagement to keep fisheries healthy. I don't think slot limits are a step backward but instead an inevitible step in the right direction. We will undoubtedly see higher limits and more lake specific regulations imposed as a neccessity. It's brutally simple. A regulation that is not protective enough but is an improvement over existing limits is a good thing. Years down the road, maybe the limit changes again for the better. Thats the way it works and anything else,right or wrong, is seen as exreme and unnecessary in the minds of the people who make or influence size limit changes. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Mike H, its not just wisconsin fishermen that keep muskies. They come from all over the united states to fish them here. Anyone that has a license has the right to keep a musky. With that said I would think you would look at slot limits as a blessing. It will protect fish! I do not understand why all of you that are against slot limits would not get behind it and see that you would have more fish going back into the water. Its just common sense that if you keep the limit at 34 and put a slot on of 40 to 50 all those fish have to go back in the water. Its better then what we have going for us now. Ask yourself if you want more fish released or kept. If you say released then you should be for the slot limit.
In reply to another post!
I would like to also like to say that any research I have used has been used as written. I have not kept anything back or twisted the facts as I have been accused of. Also there is no profit to be made for me from this in any way. In 6 years fishing the P.M.T.T. I have done pretty good. Even with winning one event I am in the red for the 6 years.
When larry .bob or I post a site that you can go to and read please do so. If you read it you cannot say I or anyone else twisted it for our cause.
Research is what it is and I have called for more of it especially pretainning to slots. I do know what research is. I ask firstsixfeet to show me the research that slots will not work for musky. None of us know for sure what will work and what won't. I have just been saying try slots on a few dozen lakes and see. It won't hurt anything and we just may learn something. Is that research? an experiment? or fact finding hunt? Whatever you want to call it it would give us some answers
I continue to push for this as I know it will benifit the fishery and younger musky anglers. I'm getting long in the tooth and probably will not be musky fishing by the time great changes will be made.
If you have a question on this e-mail me if you don't want to post. [email protected]
I know this for a fact, if you don't put the fish back it has no chance to grow. The slot will insure that more fish are going back in. This is better then what we have working for us now.
If you have a fishing club and would like someone to come and speak to your club on this subject please contact me as it can be arranged.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
| The biggest threat to Minnesota's Muskie Fishery is the continued failure of Wisconsin (Both the Fisherman and DNR) to manage the Muskie fishery to provide a quality chance to catch big fish. Slot limit's and stocking the right fish are a step in the right direction.
Let me clarify my position on slot limits. I do believe that slot's would be most effective if done on a lake by lake basis for all 700 lakes. However - I believe that a statewide slot of 42-52 inches would be a better management tool for all of Wisconsin than what is in existence today. I'd support the statewide slot to remove the arguments that it is too costly, too hard to enforce or is to confusing to manage every different lake with different size limits.
It is often stated that slots of this size make no sense where fish rarely reach that size. I can't disagree more. Where fish are smallest we go to minimum size limits of 28" which still protects the smallest muskies while allowing even more over the minimum size to be killed. If we catch a 25 inch skinny disease ridden fish in these lakes we are forced by law to throw it pack, when we catch a healthy 33 inch fish we are encouraged to remove these so the smaller fish grow. It doesn't work that way, and never has. We need to have a sytem that protects and rewards fish for growing large. We need to start protecting the fish we want. This is a total change in management philosophy and one we need and need now.
With the exception of a slight increase in minimum size limits, our management philosophy has not changed in 100 years. We should be looking to combine all the effective techniques that have been used elsewhere. That includes stocking fish that grow the largest (Minnesota's study ) and setting size limits that protect 50 inch fish (Ontario's 54" size limits). We need to do both - THEY BOTH WORK!!!!! I'm for slot limit's primarily because I think we can get a higher top end slot (52" or 54") than we can get a minimum size limit (50"). I'd be OK with strictly a High size limit - if we protect some 50 inch fish with a 52" or 54" size limit. My feeling is we should do everything better than everywhere else has done it. I think we can support a 54" or bigger size limit as historically Wisconsin has produced longer and heavier Muskies than anywhere else in North America. I'm tired of hearing why we can't make things better, we should be making the fishery the best it can be - the best in North America. 28 ,34 and 40 inch size limits have no place here. Stocking fish from Bone Lake has no place here. If we are managing for large fish and it is determined that we have both "Genetically large" and "Genetically small" fish in our lakes than I believe there is no argument against Slot Limits.
(Steve - please ask the DNR if we have both "Genetically large" and "Genetically small" fish in our state. Please ask which ones are protected under current regs and which can be harvested. Ask if this promotes more large fish or more small fish. Thanks)
We need a new "Mission Statement" for our Muskie Management Philosophy. I may write one up and start a new thread to see what all of you can come up with. Maybe we can use the Conservation Congress to adopt the Mission statement as the DNR's mandate and give them the freedom to do what ever they want without coming back to the Conservation Congress.
| |
| | |
| Slot limit = harvest
Harvest = some subset of the musky population not growing to full size = Fewer large muskies (than if a slot limit was in place)
Higher size limits based on individual lake characteristics are what's needed along with mass education regarding catch and release | |
| | |
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Just a quick question: where have muskie slot limits been tried?
Muskies are not Walleyes.
Muskies are not Pike.
Walleyes are an abundant schooling fish in the middle of the predatory chain (higher than bait fish or panfish, but not the top of the line predator).
Pike are prolific spawners who have been known to overpopulate lakes to the point where there growth suffers.
None of the above facts are true for muskies. For muskies it appears over-harvest and genetics are the stopping points that most people agree are the problems with Wisconsin muskie populations. Putting a "slot" in is supposed to encourage the big spawning females to have a better chance at growing to sexual maturity, right? That argument doesnt really seeem to work when one considers that 98% of muskie fisherman cant "sex" a muskie, therefore in putting a slot in, those females are as prone to being harvested when "in the slot".
How many muskie lakes in Wisconsin have TOO MANY muskies? 3, maybe 5? Putting a slot in would possibly help THOSE lakes, but would it really help the others?
What we need to do (IMHO) is work to get the statewide 34" limit pushed up A BIT. Also IMHO, the 50" limit was too extreme. Would a 40" limit have passed?
And in the end, as long as we can't find a way (through negotiation WITH the tribes) to end or at least curtail Native American spearing, the populations of larger fish will still be very negatively affected every spring.
| |
| | |
| Slot limit = harvest of small fish
Size limits = harvest of big fish
More small fish = more small fish
More Big fish = more big fish
Harvest within a slot = some subset of the smallest musky population being removed while leaving the largest Muskies in the system for a longer period of time, making larger offspring. = More large muskies (than if a Min Size limit was in place)
Higher size limits based on individual lake characteristics and mass education regarding catch and release is what we are doing now and it ain't working.
| |
| | |
| Quick question:
Where had size limits based on Ultimate max size been tried before Ontario implemented it on Muskies? That worked without being tried or studied for 20 years.
The difference is where Ontario used it they were looking at a potential lack of all Muskies with a notable absence of the largest fish. On many Wisconsin lakes we have a notable absence of large Muskies, without a lack of numbers. This where a slot becomes useful - I'd call it tweaking the Ontario plan to manage within our specific waters and our specific fish. The slot concept allow the meat fisherman to be "with us" as opposed to against us.
Whether it be slots or High size limits - we have to protect the fish we want to catch - not protect the runts and kill the ones we want to catch.
Not all Muskies are created equal. For the record I wouldn't kill any Muskie and think slot limits will equate to less harvest than a Minimum size limit of 40", but the harvest will be focused away from the largest best breeding fish. | |
| | |
| "And in the end, as long as we can't find a way (through negotiation WITH the tribes) to end or at least curtail Native American spearing, the populations of larger fish will still be very negatively affected every spring. "
I'd suggest we not point the finger at spearing until we can agree on a mangement philosophy that protects large fish from other anglers too. We aren't creating a lot of big Muskies on lakes that aren't speared - are we?
With that said - it's in our best interest to bring the spearers in with us - and a slot limit would be the best way to allow some harvest of smaller fish for spearers. with perhaps one large fish per season to be speared. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, AKA Guest,
We JUST got many of the increased size limits implemented in Wisconsin, so how can you say 'it aint working?' Also, saying CPR education isn't working is just plain incorrect, and in my opinion, condescending.
Also, I question your Ontario comments; the study they undertook up there was pretty comprehensive and they determined the best way to protect the systems that supported BIG fish was a size limit of 54". I'm not sure LOTW was lacking numbers, and the perceived problem on other systems wasn't just harvest, it was recruitment, water levels at the time of spawning and directly after, competition with Northern Pike and more. I think they intended to protect ALL breeding muskies in those waters and allow only harvest of true trophy class fish, effectively reducing the harvest to near zero. Even the move to take the limit to 54" on many Canadian waters was a fairly recent decision.
I'd also like to ask how you might obtain the cooperation of the Tribes with the slot; that is going to be a very comprehensive project all by itself. At this point in time I'm pretty sure the Native American tribes who took a hard fought legal decision all the way to the Supreme Court will not feel compelled to even discuss what we might want as sports fishermen, but maybe I'm incorrect. | |
| | |
| Steve,
I beg to differ, we have had various size limits for a long time. Bone and lake Winter have had "higher size limits" for a long time to name a few of the earliest ones. Interesting to note those early "high size limit lakes" do not have more 50" fish than lakes with smaller size limits. They actually have less. Hmmm......
We've had 40 inch size limits on whole counties over here on the NW side of the state as well as 50 inch size limits on select lakes for the last few years. C & R has been around since the 70's , and while C&R education is important, it ain't working to produce bigger fish (here) - or we wouldn't be discussing this now. Why aren't 50 inch size limits necessary in Minnesota for big fish? Why isn't C&R education necessary in Minneapolis, but is necessary in the woods of Wisconsin to get big fish? My statements were not condescending, they are the truth (in my opinion).
You question my comments on Ontario? I question your comments on slot limits. You asked where Slot limits have been tried on Muskies. I ask where Minimum size limits based on ultimate maximum size of Muskies had been tried before Ontario. Just because something has not been tried does not mean it's not a good thing.
The move to 54" size limits on Canadian waters improved the fishery almost immediately, while the 50 inch size limits here have had little to no effect - that I'm aware of. Maybe it's because they don't stock fish from Bone lake in Ontario?
As for native American spearing, I'd suggest that they'd be more receptive to talking about an option that allows them to continue some level of harvesting smaller fish with the opportunity at a (single) trophy each year, than trying to convince them that a total ban is necessary. We aren't going to be able to address spearing while the DNR keeps telling us that anglers keep too many large fish.
I'd support an increase in size limits to 50". I'd be much happier with size limits at 56". If it were up to me I'd go 56" statewide with many lakes with slow growth having a 40" to 56" slot. I don't think many of you that are against the slot have considered that we may have genetically slower growing fish in our lakes, and that removing them may help. Size limit increases will Help if this is the case, just not as much as slot limits. My guess is that 100% of muskie fisherman would like to catch more 50" fish, yet we don't manage a single lake in the state towards the goal of producing more 50" fish. Why is it the Muskie fishery that always get's hosed. How do Sturgeon Regs get changed? Why can we have Sturgeon registration and not Muskie registration. Why do we waste money on a registration for fish very few people care about(sturgeon) but not a fish (Muskie)that whole businessed revolve around? If we can't change the size limits - maybe we should leave the size limits as they are and make it C&R only from July 10th through December 30th? I'm open to almost anything, but I refuse to be satisfied with outdated policies that are significantly less than being done everywhere else in the country - as the 50" proposal would be. Why would we not go to 54" to create a record class fishery as Ontario has done? Why do we have to settle for less?
Steve - you stated - "I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada." I'd like to say that I wouldn't assume that people who are managing Wisconsin's trophy Muskie fisheries with 34 inch size limits and Brood stock from Bone lake know more than you and I. Not all the DNR managers are able to go to far off waters to see these large fish really exist in numbers. I have seen the light - and it ain't coming from Bone Lake.
(I do realize that Wis DNR personnel do not have ability to manage as they want, but are tied to the Conservation congress - unlike MN DNR. This is one reason that I think we need to start pointing the finger at OURSELVES. We need to demand these things get fixed and fixed now. we need to do everything we can to get this right. Dismissing Slot's and Selective breeding while blindly looking at 50" size limits(which have not proven to be effective in Wisconsin) is not in our best interests. I'm open minded to both slots and high size limits - but 50" Minimum isn't going to get me on board." We need to do better. Once we get 50" we're going to have to study it for 20 year. Let's do better.
As a group we need to decide what we want. If we want more 50" fish we need to ask for size limits that actually protect these fish with size limits in excess of 50". If we are told we can't have more 50 inch fish because we already have too many fish, than a slot makes sense. It'll be interesting to see how your interviews go. I'm disappointed that you have not asked for our assistance in getting answers. I guess by not involving us, you'll be able to format the questions and answers to prove your own views like the last interview. Don't take that comment the wrong way - we all take info and use it to profess our own views, including myself. I was hoping the DNR interviews would be more middle of the road. I may have to do my own interviews - If they'll talk to me!!!!
Bob
PS - as soon as I get my password I'll be posting as BBenson. Didn't intend to hide my identity - my comments typically give me away anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Guest - 12/14/2004 12:01 PM
Not all Muskies are created equal. For the record I wouldn't kill any Muskie and think slot limits will equate to less harvest than a Minimum size limit of 40", but the harvest will be focused away from the largest best breeding fish.
I think this statement is one of the best that I have seen during this discussion. You may not be able to do away with harvest but focussing it in a way to work for the greater good could be the answer. On select waters anyway.
I think it is a shame that the Cranberry bogs are not shut down on LCO so the world would be able to see what good genetics and a 50" limit can do in Wisconsin. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
You wish to ask for support for your goals, yet you accuse me of pandering. Get real, sir, I want what you do, but as stated before, I'm a realist. 'We' can 'want' all manner of things, but getting our 'wants' turned into reality isn't as simple as stating personal beliefs and letting our fisheries folks know that 'we' disagree with what they are doing. Your comment about 'not involving 'us' baffles me, who is 'us'?
Tell, me, sir, how do you see this process moving forward; who will be the 'we' or 'us' you speak of, who will represent 'we's' ideas to the DNR and to the public? How will 'we' get this idea past the Conservation Congress and acquire the broad support of fishermen and outdoorsmen across the state of Wisconsin? What if you are wrong about some of the premises you present, are you willing to accept that? Are you willing to listen to the people who manage muskies all over the NA continent if they don't support your ideas? And if they do support your ideas in Wisconsin, which is very possible, how do you intend to help them get the ideas past a doubting and suspicious public?
I did NOT say I was against slot limits, in fact I clearly stated I read a ton of information, and came down firmly on the side of 'Maybe they are a good idea, and maybe not'. I also said this after posting some of the documents I read:
'There are a ton more, and all indicate clearly there is NO simple answer to 'wholesale' trophy muskie management. I guess I'll defer to those who make their living in that field, and will report what I'm told in the upcoming interviews.'
You then say:
Steve - you stated - "I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada." I'd like to say that I wouldn't assume that people who are managing Wisconsin's trophy Muskie fisheries with 34 inch size limits and Brood stock from Bone lake know more than you and I. Not all the DNR managers are able to go to far off waters to see these large fish really exist in numbers. I have seen the light - and it ain't coming from Bone Lake.'
That statement won't endear you to the folks you want answers from. | |
| | |
| Bob, as you continue arguing you get more and more extreme and then start antagonizing the person you are supposably "discussing" this with, at the same time belittling the main target, those with the power to change regulations. I am not nearly as even keeled nor as polite as Sworrall. I have no problem with your agenda nor your search for further management options which might offer more big fish. I am fine with your goal, as I feel most are on this board, but don't antagonize potential allies when stating your unsupported theoretical case. Sworrall IS NOT THE ENEMY, but you are getting into the territory of being your own enemy with the tone and tude of your posts. I doubt Sworrall has any particular agenda other than sincere interest in the subject and brings it to the board and interviews out of trying to satisfy angler interest in the same. He has never seemed to me to be anyone wanting to prove his own point when talking about management and "facts"(of course he has some rather bizarre fishing theories I have tried to reeducate him out of but...nobodies perfect). You are perfectly free to do extensive interviews and research on this yourself and I am sure many of the fishing magazines would snap up a well written article regardless of viewpoint as long as it is supported by good background material, so don't hack on anybody. Sworralls bread is buttered(in part) by having more musky fishing
and more happy musky fisherman. He does not have any secret alliance with the DNR but seems to clearly understand the paramaters they work within. I am not sure that you do. I am positive that his face and personality and non accusatory style will encourage free discourse and disclosure and that he is well known and respected among fishing managers because of it, and that THEY are interested in what he has to say and the questions he might ask.
So before you start burning your own boat take time to step back once again and get a grip on your enthusiasm(which I fully encourage btw), and take the high road in your search at all times. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Dang it, I forgot about that. I WILL fish with a cube with hooks on it next year.
In defense of Bob, and everyone else supporting the initiative he's forming up; lots of emotion, and sometimes reality checks and questions look like obstacles or opposition. I don't intend to offer either, what I offer are better considered 'speed bumps' in an effort to be sure the entire concept is correctly based in fact,is well focused and backed up by a representative sample of the Muskie anglers from Wisconsin AND the Fisheries Managers from Wisconsin's DNR, realistic in the requests proposed to the regulatory agencies involved, and well enough thought out for a clear,well written educational presentation to the public WELL BEFORE the Conservation Congress meetings and during those meetings across the state when the time comes.I personally feel the 50" proposal failed a couple years back because some the above considerations were missing or not ready for public consumption. | |
| | |
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Here's a thought, how about seasonal slot limits? Just for arguments sake let's say there's a State wide 36 in Minimum but from Opening Day and 4 weeks after the size limit is 54 then the limit drops back to 36, in the fall let's say Sep 1 thru the rest of the season the Min goes back up to 54.
This would protect most of the Late Spawners, During the summer months Joe Weekender can still catch and hopefully release a 36 incher ( This would Keep the Resorts Happy ), And the Fall would be PIGGY time
Keep in mind that all this talk about size / slot limits does not really apply to the majority of those on this board as the majority here practice CPR it's the Joe Weekender and Bob Vacationers that really keep most of the fish they catch and as long as they do so within the law there's not much that can be done other than educate them and change the law
Just a Thought
Edited by JohnMD 12/15/2004 9:03 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I didn’t know if I should post this in the slot discussion of the Mission Statement discussion so I posted it both places.
The major problem is that, in Wisconsin the DNR does not make lake management decisions! If they did we would currently have 10 percent of the Vilas/Oneida county lakes with trophy limits of 50”.
By the way the 50” limit on Namekagon has shown improvement. The lake was sample netted before the limit and it showed an average size of 38” +/-. Eight years after the increase the average size fish was at 43” +/-. These limits work if place on the right Wisconsin lakes.
Anyway, in reality it doesn’t matter how the DNR feel about, slot limits or size limits, about the only thing the paid experts can do is place emergency bag limits on lakes. That is the crux of the problem.
What does this mean for us? In my opinion, it means we need a grass roots political movement that can convince a state full of people, who feel they are over regulated and under represented that more restrictive limits on musky will be good for the state and fishermen.
So what can we do, other than argue about it between our selves? What is the current DNR plan? Are there any changes being addressed at the up coming Spring Hearings? These are questions that I think Steve should be asking the DNR when he interviews them. What can we do, to help put control of the lakes where it needs to be, in the hands of the experts. Can this be done, or does State legislation prohibit it. The mission statement is a good idea and something friends and I have talked about, (taking the management decisions out of the spring hearings) but is it possible or even legal.
These are question I would like to see answers to.
If major sweeping changes are not possible we need to consider the island hopping strategy, take one lake at a time and get some progress done. If this is the case where and how do we start? Some have already started, thank you Ken Jackson and Jason for getting changes going on the Little Saint, and the Wisconsin River. Maybe the first logical place to start is the Wisconsin River and keep working our way north.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | jOHN MD,
Interesting take you have there, I have to pnder that awhile. Thanks for the post.
MrRoberts also thanking you for the information on Namekagon. Thats the first I have heard about that. The D.N.R. did not even give me that. Where did you get it?
I would also like to say a slot will not encourage people to keep fish. Those that release still will and those that are takers still will keep them. The diffference is they will have a much smaller window of opportunity to keep fish with a slot in place.
Also I never said this is for all lakes. It is NOT for all lakes but selected lakes. Maybe the lakes where no slot is in place the limit can be raised to to to as much as 40.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| Where on earth do you get these ideas Don? How can you put slots in place, explain them, AND NOT ENCOURAGE KILL?
Clearly, slots by their nature encourage kill, and this is my overriding objection to them, that they reverse years of education done by Muskies Inc., the same education that has benefitted us all as musky fisherman. | |
| | |
| Slot limits = harvest = dead muskies that would have been released if higher size limits were in place in states like WI and KY.  | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Don, I got the info for Namekagon from Mike Vogelsang a couple months after the 50” vote, I heard he had charts that showed the data at a meeting someplace. I asked for them and he sent them to me. I don’t have them here but I think I have them on my computer at home. I may have even posted them once on the Musky Hunter website way back when.
FSF, from what I understand the type of slot limit being explored here is not a harvest slot but a protective slot. In conjunction with the current 34" minimum. From Steve’s huge post with info:
Protected slot limit:
This is a size range, or slot, in which fish must be released. For example, a 12- to 16-inch slot limit for bass means that all bass from 12 to 16 inches long must be released.
Use: Protected slot limits protect medium-sized fish so they can grow to be the large fish anglers most enjoy catching. They also preserve fish that are at their most prolific spawning age.
Remember currently the lakes have a 34” minimum size limit, I will ask again how does a protected slot encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum limit?
If a high minimum can’t be imposed, why is a slot worse than the current 34” minimum?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Bottom line is this:
currently we have a 34 inch limit on most lakes. This means anything over 34 can be harvested.
If you leave the limit at 34 and impose a slot of 40 to 50 inches the fish that fall in that range have to be RELEASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THATS PROTECTING MORE FISH NOT ENCOURAGING HARVEST!!!!!!!!
That equals more fish being put back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thats not hard to understand!!!!!!!!!!!!! PUTTING BACK MORE FISH THEN WE ARE PRESENTLY DOING IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!
When the slot has been in force for a time and it is working and people are catching more quaility fish it will be easy to pursuade them to increase the top end to 54 inches which will will even protect more more fish.
Fsf what don't you you understand about PROTECTING MORE FISH.
How about sending me your e_mail address so we can discuss this off board, mine is [email protected]
I really have nothing else to add to the arguements and facts given here by myself and others. I know the d.n.r is looking at this and I believe they are smart enough to make the right choices. That being polotics does not get in the way.
I don't want to post on this again, its all been said. Use my e-mail if you wish to discuss it. I do answer them. That hopefully is my final word on it here.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Do you think there are 34-40 inch muskies caught, or 40-50 inch muskies? | |
| | |
| MR, the only thing clear about what is being proposed is that you and other slot limit supporters seem to not be on the same page.
Pfeiffer alludes to comments about a fish manager recognizing "overabundant" fish, also he clearly states it will cull out some of the smaller fish. Now to me, any slot proposal working from this base by its nature will have to encourage kill. Tell me how it won't when it is explained to the public. Also keep in mind that musky fisherman are the minority, and in some lakes smaller fish may actually be encountrered more frequently by incidental fisherman than by musky fisherman, particularly those under the slot. This equates to kill. No two ways about it. People also overestimate at times the altruism of musky fisherman. There are a whole lot of them out there that are NOT members of MI and would be perfectly willing to take fish home(might already), if the sin of keeping small fish was not only forgiven but encouraged(slots).
Bob, another perpetrator, states that their are too many small fish and not enough big fish(not sure how anyone can reach this conclusion about muskies but that is what he says). Anyone emplacing slots, holding that view, would be encouraging kill imo. Do you disagree?
I earlier went over the 3 conditions in which slots might be emplaced and noted that there would never be a reason to emplace slots on populations supported by stocking. No sense at all, do you not agree with that?
So this brings us to what you consider the proposal to be, a "protective slot". I have already put forth my belief that it would be extremely elitist AND a difficult sell, to tell other anglers, well you can keep a little one if you want but after they get decent sized you have to throw them all back until they are monsters(so us musky fisherman can enjoy them while your chances of capturing a fish decrease with each years growth, until landing one out of the slot will take much good fortune if not a minor miracle). Bob, came up with the wild idea of putting this in place all over the state. Now if you can sell THAT to the general populace by gosh you are a heckuva salesman.
So then, if you put into effect a protective slot, where would you do it? It would have to be in a lake with abundant natural reproduction, and for it to have ANY meanigful results you would HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL OF MUSKIES BELOW THE SLOT. If you don't do this, and encourage release, nothing has changed and there is no purpose in putting the slot limits, in other than a back door raise in the size limits. We have already discussed that and the problems that entails.
My contention is still that a 40" size limit is a much more effective method of maintaining fish and increasing the big fish in the system, without stockpiling males beyond maturity, on most waters that have good growth potential.
So let's say you place slots somewhere in the state, on a system with good natural reproduction that does not produce meaningful numbers of large fish(the only place I see much value for slots, if there is ANY VALUE FOR SLOTS). Next, and implicit in the placement of slots, you HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL. There is no purpose in putting slots in place to eliminate smaller fish(either due to overabundance or due to bad genetics)if you do not utilize them to take the targeted sizes out of the system. That is simply the fact of it. This imo will have a trickle down, ripple effect through the occasional, and accidental musky catchers, that it is alright, and in fact GOOD, to knock off a smaller musky(these will be the fisherman on other lakes). It will HELP THE RESOURCE! If you think differently I just do not think you have held conversations with enough "guys at the dock".
What you are claiming to be the desired slot, "protected slot", when emplaced, makes no sense unless you ARE trying to thin overabundant populations(never saw one of those myself) or are trying shape the genetics of the population.
To put the protective slots in place for primarily musky specialist's enjoyment, while excluding most of the fishing public from utilizing the resource, is going to be a very tough sell, both to the public, and I don't see the managers being in favor of it, or very willing to propose it. Good way to get your tail handed to you in the winter meetings and have ALL your REASONABLE proposals met with skepticism and rejection.
Think about it and tell me where my projections are off here. I don't think you will disagree if you view it in this light.
| |
| | |
| Don, frankly I don't see any point in an email discussion with you about this, and I think it is beneficial to the discussion to continue it in a public forum. Paricularly when dealing with what I feel are missguided views by some.
Please read my response to MRoberts above and maybe you will understand my objections. Since I don't agree with slots as a "backdoor" size limit restriction and would only want research done for population or genetic purposes, I have a very limited view on what slots will or will not do. If emplaced for the only purposes I think are valid, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL. No two ways about that.
If you encourage kill, there is NO WAY you will have MORE muskies. Encouraging kill can work against the resource very easily and work against the 30 year education effort by MI. Many fisherman have only a limited or peripheral knowledge of management issues, and probably even less knowledge of what is important to special interest groups like ours. They understand simple things though, and tend to carry that simple knowledge with them. In this case, slots say, it is ok to KILL small muskies, and in fact it is GOOD to kill them. They will be thinking that next time they catch a 34" fish by accident while out for walleye. Bonk!
Your view that slot limits are protecting more fish and not encouraging harvest, comes about through leaving a few links out of the chain of logic. Your statements are completly unsupported, and require others to ignore the probable and predictable pitfalls involved with emplacing such regulations.
You have claimed in other arguments, and some of your codefendents also claim that 90-95% of all muskies are released anyway so slots won't have that much effect. Now you state that anything 34" can be harvested-as if it is a problem(and I have always contended that it is). You cannot propose multiple viewpoints to support your arguments depending on which one seems to offer the best proof at the time. You need to be consistent in your views.
Slot limits have to:
Encourage kill of small fish.
Have some purpose other than to exclude certain seqments of the fishing public from enjoying the resource the way they would like to(of course all legislation does this to some extent, but in this case regs would be tilted very heavily to the desires of a special interest group, us!).
and even if you are on the good drugs, when fish are killed at 28-40", it does not in any way equal protecting more fish...
| |
| | |
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | A 40" to 50" slot sounds nice to me,but would not have the effect some think it would. The average size Muskie that is harvested in Wi. is only 37 inches long. And as long as we have members sitting on the Conservation Congress that blame "TROPHY" management as a reason for declining license sales,they would not even recomend it to the D.N.R. even if you could get it to pass at the spring hearings. btw..Muskie fishermen/women are the minority at these meetings. The reason I think education is the key is that we still have huge sport fishing councils that are anti Muskie, and the average joe fisherman still views a Muskie as a Wolf that gobbles up all his favorite fish. Just my 2cents .Howie. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF,
For me it’s simple, call it a back door if you want, but I will call it a comprimise.
2 years ago a 50” minimum was tried on 10% of Vilas/Oneida County lakes. Why is putting a slot limit on the fish more elitist. Especially considering that the main augments used against the 50” limit where, tourists and young fishermen not being able to keep there first fish.
I don’t dream of a statewide slot, or a statewide 40” minimum or a statewide 50”. It would be hard to get a slot on the same 10% of the lakes asked for in ’03. All I am saying is something should be tried.
I don’t believe you have to encourage harvest to implement a slot, you do, but I think it could be sold exactly as it is, a compromise that allows fish from 34 to whatever to be kept exactly as they currently are, but then protects the older breeding stock. Plus it gives people desiring it, a better chance at a trophy fish as determined by DNR surveys.
The same people keeping fish now will be able to keep them with a slot, you said so yourself, that “musky fisherman are the minority, and in some lakes smaller fish may actually be encountered more frequently by incidental fisherman than by musky fisherman, particularly those under the slot.” If these fishermen choose to keep a fish with a 34” limit they will still be able to keep a fish with the slot limit, but remember not everyone of these fishermen kill all the musky the catch and a slot wouldn’t change that either. But the bigger fish are protected from people with the largest fish on the wall mentality. Every time they break there personal best they mount it or eat it. There are many people out there like that, but I think they are the minority. This would affect them. Making these people put the fish back isn’t anymore elitist than thrying to impose a high minimum, I firmly believe that. In fact I think it is far less elitist as it is keeping all fishermen more in mind.
After all these decision on Genetics I also now believe that a slot may have the added benefit of weeding out slow growing fish, without promoting increased harvest. I explained this theory once before but will reiterate. With say an overall 90% release rate, on average a fish should be able to be caught 9 times before it is kept. Hopefully with a protected slot the fish could make the slot before it was kept, but slow growing, or small high end fish would eventually be removed before reaching the slot. Remember still overall the release rate is 90% the fast growing fish will make that slot easier and therefore breed on.
The big thing here is a compromise to get something done. I have come to the opinion that something is better than nothing. To quote Dick Pearson: “If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.” This applies to fishing techniques as well as management techniques.
I’m not saying this is the best option out there, but I feel it is our best shot at some positive change.
The key is NOT to ENCOURAGE KILL, and I believe it can be done. It is keeping the status quo on small fish and protecting the large fish. C&R education would still be necessary and should be encouraged as the best option, but it is not mandated on all fish.
Look at any of the A1 or A2 lakes in Appendix 2 of the DNRs Muskellunge Management Update, (linked above) for a place to start. These are lakes, with natural reproduction, that have had stocking suspended for up to 10 years. Some lakes in this group include, Lake Tomahawk Chain, Rhinelander Flowage/Boom, Pelican, Plum, Butternut, Crescent.
In my Opinion Slot limits:
DO NOT Encourage kill of small fish, but they would allow it to continue as is.
They could have multiple purposes, including protecting breeding stock while creating a trophy fishery as well as the added benefit of possible weeding out genetically small fish, WITHOUT ENCOURAGING MORE HARVEST.
They are no more exclude certain segment of the fishing public than any other proposed, stricter, musky regulation, in fact they are friendlier to other segments of the fishing public.
Are not better suited, than high minimum length limits at creating trophy fisheries, but are more politically accessible.
I hope that clarifies my position on this subject, I know there are people out there that come down on this issue pretty mush the same place I do. They just want to see something better, anything as long as it isn’t more destructive than constructive. I haven’t seen any PROOF that a slot would be destructive.
It was done on the Fox River in Green Bay with Walleye, strictly to create a trophy population of walleye, not to decrease the total population. I have buddies that go there every spring and catch 10 pound walleyes. I know Musky aren’t walleye, but my guess is it could work the same way.
I agree that this discussion should remain on the board as it is good debate, even though there is probably limited people viewing it at this juncture as it is just to much to read from start to finish.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Folks - I'll concede that I need to tone it down it a bit, but I tend to get emotional over these topics. I'd like to point out that while I tend to be disgruntled towards the "DNR", it's actually the policies and restrictions put in place by the Conservation Congress that have me upset. If we could put everything in the hands of the DNR personnel that should be making these decisions I'd be a very happy person. The fact that a change in Muskie management needs to be approved by the Bluegill Fisherman and Squirrel hunters in the state does not sit well with me - or any of us I'm sure.
If the information on the size increase in Namekagon is accurate - it needs to get publicity, and we'd all like to see the details (was there an increase in 50" fish is one question I have).
There is so much inaccurate information out there it's difficult to sort through it all. Mr. Worrall got me riled up a couple threads back when I felt he was spreading some inaccurate information and I have not been able to get over it. (I need to get over it.) I realize Steve as well as the rest of us want the same thing, and appreciate everyone's opinion. We'll all need to work together to get anything done. (Steve - nice job quoting me with out including the next line that pointed to the problem being the Conservation Congress and not the DNR. It's not just me - no hard feelings - ok?)
Mike said it well in his reply to FSF, so I see no need to reply to some of the above comments.
Friends are telling me I'll (we'll) be better off if I say less here, and work towards something that will actually help. I'm going to try that for a while. But I'll be watching. Whatever happens don't settle for less than we need to get done.
| |
| | |
| MR
This ought to be real interesting. You could not sell 40" size limit, or 50" size limit and now you hope to ok the kill of small musky but quash the kill of anything remotely close to trophy fish. You are really going to have a difficult time selling and educating fisherman, to avoid giving them the message that it is ok to kill small musky, and in fact it may be good, and then at the same time tell them "well if you catch any kind of a decent fish 40" up to 50" you have to put it back". Now you can try and sell this as protecting the large brood fish, but I read it as an elitist and selfish monopolization of the resource(being the devil's advocate here). You may THINK you can put forth that message, but I believe it is of itself, conflicting information, and cannot be expected not to impact populations of catchable fish in a negative way.
The second point is that ALL OF THIS IS THEORETICAL, particularly the genetics part. You realize of course that ALL fish are vulnerable in the lower section of the slot and there is no sort for growth or genetics other than your supposed longer exposure of the slow growing genetics. That would of course assume that they really do exist in the population, and breed this problem into the genetic base. But?...how do you know that one component of the slow growing genetics is not made up of females that mature at under 45 inches, and under your system could grow into slot protection and stay there for 20 years?? Tell me that you know that NOT to be true.
Regardless, I don't mind research, but have to look at this whole idea with the suspicion that there are many assumptions being made by those purporting the value of slot limits. For all the griping going on, it is sometimes overlooked that there has been and still is, a great fishery in WI. You are basically using the same twisted argument Pfeiffer is tooting, in that you say a 90% release rate already exists, but that the slot is going to protect all these fish when this 90% release rate already exists. How can it be both?
Before WI goes too far with this, it needs to be proven that a problem exists, and as I pointed out before, for all the fuss and indignation, no one really has ANY EMPIRICAL DATA PROVING THAT TO BE THE CASE. Frankly my same time invested in fishing northern WI would have yielded much bigger, and if not more, equal amounts of fish to what I catch down here. People often point to the 50 inch+ fish coming out of Cave Run as more proof that WI has a bad management program, and never really look at why things are the way they are, in this lake, and other lakes(and I do not consider the Cave population to be very heavily laden with 40" fish). I wish it were a simple problem with a clear solution but realistically, you guys haven't even proven that there is a problem yet. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF,
I know of no 40” limit that was attempted and not passed. Maybe it was brought in a few counties, but I don’t remember seeing it on the statewide ballot. When I brought up the idea of a 40” limit to the now retired Oneida county Fisheries manager about 5 years ago he called it a dumb idea because it would stack males just under 40”. I mentioned Minn. and he said “Apples and Oranges!”
The 50” limit didn’t pass because the majority of people wanted to keep fish. This will also be a problem with a slot limt or any other future attempts at more stringent regs.
I’ll ask AGAIN, how is it any more elitist than asking for high minimums?
Of course it is THEORETICAL, regarding musky, but it has and does work with other fish. If it is never tried it will always be theoretical.
You make a good point about a 45” female, this type of thing is why I have tried to stay away from mentioning the actual numbers that would be in the slot. I have used some numbers to try and clarify some points, but this is something the biologists would have to do. But I agree if the slot is set two low you risk small females reproducing indefinitely. One thing to think about though with this genetic stuff is that these same issues would be in other species where slot limits have been used. And given the fact that these other species have higher numbers would this type of stuff show up easier.
I used the 90% figure to make a point, I don’t know the release rate including all fishermen. The DNR does have a number on this from survey information and creel numbers. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the way things are now the majority of the fish being kept are the bigger fish caught. If we want to catch more bigger fish, fish over 50” and beyond those fish have to be protected.
This simple problem in Wisconsin is the shear number of people fishing. This needs to be taken into consideration. History shows that the lakes in Wisconsin can produce trophy fish, they just need to be allowed to grow big. I have never said the fishing in Wisconsin is bad, I just believe it has the potential to be better. I have seen that potential, by living here I get a chance to explore many lake. My biggest Wisconsin fish came from a small 100 acre +\- lake and we have seen many more there that size. Until my trip to LOTW this year the largest fish I have ever seen was in a small sub 200 acre lake in Northern Wisconsin. What makes these lakes different is they don’t get fished. So the big fish don’t get kept.
I will also ask the following again, What makes a slot worse than the current 34” limit. Why not try it on a few lakes like the ones I listed above?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/16/2004 10:49 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | (Steve - nice job quoting me with out including the next line that pointed to the problem being the Conservation Congress and not the DNR. It's not just me - no hard feelings - ok?)
Bob,
With all due respect, you said what you said. The next statement did say that you feel much is the fault of the CC system, but if I was a Fisheries manager in Wisconsin and read your statement, I know what I'd think. You can't blast someone and then say, 'Well gee, I guess it isn't ALL your fault' and expect the resulting interpretation to be positive. You then let the Conservation Congress folks dedicated enough to show up and vote (activists, as well) have it, which will endear THEM to our cause too, I'm sure. Don't politics just plain suck?
I guess I was and am trying to indicate a foul when I see one as a 'player/referee' here. Doesn't mean you don't play the game well, heck even Jordan fouled another player now and again.
'Friends are telling me I'll (we'll) be better off if I say less here, and work towards something that will actually help. I'm going to try that for a while. But I'll be watching. Whatever happens don't settle for less than we need to get done.'
I challenge you to tell me what you might do that WILL get something done without the cooperation and support of the Muskie angling community. This forum represents a very large crosssection of the very community from which you seek support. We don't have to agree on everything, we need to refine the debate until we CAN agree on a forward moving agenda. Like it or not, Sir, not everyone will agree with you as you press forward with your agenda. Many will not be as polite as most here have been, so this is probably a great place to test your approach, refine it, and develop a delivery technique that will acquire the desired results from your audience. Where else will you obtain an audience as large as this, with as focused a desire to obtain what you offer? If you think discussing your agenda here is not effective, you are mistaken.
It's part of my job here to attempt to refine conversation, challenge what I feel need be, now and again try to steer the direction of a conversation back to subject and perhaps even offer correction when one forgets one's manners, as is going to happen now and again in any good open debate. (Slamr reminds me quite often when I am behaving a bit untoward, causing me to edit, edit, edit) Of course there are no hard feelings, I'm after the same thing as you.
| |
| | |
| Steve - everything's cool.
I stand by everything I've said(although maybe I could have said them differently) - including my thoughts on your creative edit. (foul!) I think if you look at my short history of posts I've both praised and shot down the DNR for doing different things. I'll probably keep doing that. I felt a need to point out that things I sometimes point at the DNR (like size limits) are not under their control - yet they get the blame from many people .(Including me -I guess)
If you want MuskieFirst to be different - I'd like to see a library of Muskie related studies. I've got many I can provide and many more I'd like to find. This would be a great service to many of us.
In particular I'd like to see the study by Johnson (1971) that found genetic growth differences in 3 different Wisconsin lakes 30 plus years ago. It'd be nice to be able to reference these things, and let other readers go take a look and make decisions on their own. In regards t o the Johnson study - was that the first reference in Wisconsin to different Genetic growth differences among lakes. Was anything changed as a result? when was the first change based on Genetic growth differences made? So many questions.....
And finally - I disagree with anyone who say's we need to focus on "education" and other tiny increases in Muskie Management. I think that's been our focus for the last 10 years and hasn't gotten us much. We need to take the control and hand it to the DNR who should be responsible and held accountable for our Fisheries. The education of the non-believers will come when our existing good fisheries become THE destination for trophy Muskie hunters as well as those who just want to catch a Muskie.
I'm hoping to be back sometime before the new year with some things for us to work on to get things changed. | |
| | |
| (I'm sure your all thinking I said I wasn't going to post anymore)
Mr. Worrall and FSF - certainly you two agree that there are genetic growth difference among different fish and lakes in Wisconsin? Please let me know, as I do not feel it needs to be proven, I think most of us accept it as fact. If you need more evidence, I can provide it.
If we agree that there are genetic growth differences, than wouldn't a slot limit be a good way to tilt the odds in favor of larger fish where those fish co-exist? Wouldn't a 50" limit still encourage harvest of only the largest fish?
Wouldn’t it be likely that in places like the Eagle River chain we’d have both slow growing fish and also the potential of Huge 60”class fish that undoubtedly were in places like Lac Vieux Desert, the headwaters of the Wisconsin River? (Documented 60” fish mounted from Lac Vieux Desert – yes. I’ve seen the mount. Pictures in the compendium page 149 60” from 1982 and a 58.5” from 1968 on page 154.) Interesting that these came before C&R and not after. Before 50” or even 40" size limits also. Remember all the big fish the Burmek’s killed during the "12 days"? It happened, they were all killed, verified and weighed. Now people say “it didn’t really happen – because we’d catch them now too”. It’s not happening now because they killed them all!!! And we continue to kill the large one's today. Wisconsin likely has more documented 60" fish than anywhere, yet we pretend the whiskey was just better.
All you people who don’t believe these fish existed are just plain wrong. They were around and they were common. Man came and killed them. Now they are Gone. We still kill big ones and let small ones go, so we get more small fish. The biggest fish remain Gone – or at least very, very few, while small fish are more abundant than ever. This is where a slot can help. We can have big fish back, and have them back soon.
One of my thoughts is to get the DNR to issue an “Emergency Catch and Release only regulation on Muskellunge to Prevent the Extinction of Large Muskies.” This measure would require all muskies in the state between 45” and 55” to be released – EVERYWHERE., yes everywhere. The wording could be changed to be positive - perhaps from "Prevent Extinction" to "Increase the Numbers".
Can’t beat the Conservation Congress? Find a way to go around it. If we can't protect them all, let's protect the right ones, the BIG ones.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7123
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "And finally - I disagree with anyone who say's we need to focus on "education" and other tiny increases in Muskie Management. I think that's been our focus for the last 10 years and hasn't gotten us much. We need to take the control and hand it to the DNR who should be responsible and held accountable for our Fisheries."
So....how are YOU going to get the DNR to take responsibility for what YOU think they should do? What have YOU DONE other than yell on a message board to get this accomplished. As much as I love a good debate, right now you're passing the buck. Yell and scream, then blame someone, then give them responsibility. Thats a really good way to get things accomplished.
And btw, you just said we should stop focusing on education, read what you wrote again, then think if thats a good way to approach this. Instead of educating the masses, you advocate that we force those who you have criticized over and over again to now do what you've said they dont do already.
I personally disagree with the slot limit for no other reason than this: IT WONT PASS. Right or wrong, yelling for something that the masses (who you dont want to educate) won't understand and thusly won't support, basically amounts to yelling in the wind.
All the time and energy you spend on here yelling for something that WONT HAPPEN is wasted energy. Rather you had put together a flyer to pass out at a walleye show to educate them on how muskies HELP an ecosystem......SOMETHING more than yelling at the wind. | |
| |
|
slot limits