|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok lets see where this group of people stand and take a poll. If a slot limit was proposed for the same lake groups that the 50” limit was proposed on back in 2003 would you vote yes or no. Basically 10% of Oneida/Vilas lakes, all with trophy potential and natural reproduction.
Just to give something to vote on, the existing minimum would stay at 34” but there would be a protected slot from 43” to 51”.
Thanks
Nail A pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Definitely vote yes for the slot! I like the way you are thinking Mike. I fish a few lakes for walleys that have slot limits, and I feel they have improved the fishery immensely! If the slot is between 15-18 goes back for walleyes, guess what size fish you catch. I would rather fish these lakes all day long and catch slotters the whole time than fish a lake without a slot and catch 50 14" walleyes when the size limit is 15". Hopefully the same would happen with muskies. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | 100% onboard with this one.....Vilas is notorious for not wanting any regulations that tell tourists they can't take or do something, I'm suprised the size limit isn't 28" up there. Sooner or later they'll get the hint that true trophy potential can only be reached with conservation, a good biological plan and firm regs....hopefully it's sooner. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| NO!
slot equals=Harvest! Thanx but NO Thanx! These are Muskys not bass and walleyes! | |
| | |
| i agree, i think we're better off emphasizing the differences between walleye and muskies, not trying to make them look similar.
i prefer the "lake-hopping" technique to raising limits. one at at time, and eventually you've got sea-change. the short-term benefits of a slot (ie., growing nice fish into trophies) would stand in the way of long-term efforts to get solid limits in place. | |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | i voted yes!! id rather se the overall size limit changed.but that didnt work, and man they gotta do somthing, and if that something is a slot limit im all for it!!!! i wish to heck, they could cut a deal with chief yukamuck to cut the spearing totals in half too, i know they will never do away with it all together, but somthin has gotta change in the northwoods!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The problem with not allowing a harvest is that it wont pass up there...never. The 50" limit (which is basically no harvest) was slammed down bad. A slot would allow anglers something. Believe me, I'm all for CPR, but I'm also for a guy keeping a legal if he wants. Slot limits work with the other species, why would'nt it work with Musky? | |
| | |
| I'm for the proposed slot because it protects those big fish for one more inch than a 50" limit. I think that's more important than protecting any number of 36 inch fish. I'm not concerned with educating folks or "lake - hopping" size limits. There's no reason not to do the right thing for the fishery everywhere and as soon as possible. The non-believers will be "educated" after it works.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yes, slots do mean harvest to those who harvest. Since the 50" size limit didn't pass, evidently there are those who want to harvest. So now we go from wanting none to very, very little harvest to the harvesting of anything over the minimum size limit (usually 34" or 40"). Since we will never eliminate harvesting, lets try and control it. Hence the slot. The slot does not promote harvesting, but it does help eliminate some of the harvesting that is happening. In all essence, it is protecting the fish population that are prime breeders if the slot is done correctly.
Anyway we can shrink the amount of harvesting the better. I would take a slot over a no slot. Just another example of how well slots work is Lake of the Woods and a Pike slot. From what I hear a few years ago there weren't a lot of big pike, but now look. With the slot in place there are a lot of pike in the upper 30's and 40's. I hear that the slot for the pike was one of the best things that could have happen. Perhaps someone from LOTW could pipe in hear and let us know what they think of the slot. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Keep pounding away for higher limits, seems like everyone wants to give up and just take a slot. I say leave it alone then ! It took Reefhawg and others 4/5 years for the 45" on the Wisconsin River, now thats forever! A HUGE step! I refuse to settle for a slot, and some I talked to said with a slower growing trophy fish(MUSKY) a slot leaves you a big chance of ending up year classes short on those systems. Then what, wait another 8/12 years and start all over again???? I cannot see anything good coming out of a slot and feel that will be a big step BACKWARDS for us Musky fisherman and the musky`s!
PATIENCE IS A VERTUE!! LETS NOT CUT OUR OWN NOSES OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| | |
| Size limits are proven to increase number of fish under a size limit, not over it. (Wi DNR has done numerous studies - Bass and Muskies both showed this result)
Slot limits are proven to increase numbers of fish within the slot. (Admittedly no proof on Muskies, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't be the case here too)
My question is whether this change is proposed to increase numbers of Muskies or numbers of Big Muskies? If it's for Big Muskies, I'm for the slot - unless you tell me the size limit is going further (say - 54") than the slot at 51".
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Some protection is better than none, hence my yes vote. Going to school at UWSP for natural resources, we were constantly told to think out of the box, not sit on our laurels, make change for good of all that will be met with some resistance, and hold steadfast to virtues of our conservation forefathers. I am for higher size limits, as most already know, but not really in favor of size limits that would allow fish to 'stack up' under the limit either, hence my opposition to total CPR or exorbitant limits like 54+. i am of the school of Conservation, not preservation, and feel harvest to some extent is neccessary for all game species of which muskies are one of. I worked with local DNR managers, and did much research before proposing 45" for the river here. My opinion is that the lakes up north would benefit from 45" limits immediately, and may be more acceptable to public than 50". We would already be seeing bigger fish today if 45" would have been proposed 4 years ago, and most here know that a fish over 45" becomes more difficult for non musky anglers to capture making the survivability potential to even larger sizes more real. I feel we should continue our pursuit for higher limits in northern counties, and possibly adjust the upper size to better suit the public. Trust me, 45" would be more readily acceptable, and will begin helping many of our fisheries immediatly.
But, if we cannot make any headway going about it that way, I would support a slot limit on an experimental basis. Someone had to experiment with higher size limits, as we did with size limits on pike, seasons for bass, etc. etc. No, muskies are not Bass, or pike, or walleyes(thank goodness) but they too need to be managed for all of the public whether we like it or not, and we will not know if some of these management tools work unless they are tried. Bass, and walleyes are much easier to catch and an argument can be made that a slot would actually work better for muskies than walleyes. We have a slot on the WI river now, with the size limit at 15" and the slot of no keep from 20-28". If walleyes cannot make it to the slot, how will they be protected, if they are caught so easily? well, low and behold, some do make it, and us trophy hunters can be satisfied in the end. It may not ever be what it used to be due to pressure, but better? I think so. Last I checked, one could not go out and catch a stringer of muskies at will. Muskies are not readily caught like walleyes. If that were the case, we would see lakes with fish just stacked at 33", just like many 15" size limit walleye waters with fish stacked at 14.5". If they were that easy to capture, there would be very very few fish in the 40+" range now in our WI waters. The pressure is there, as everyone here knows. So how do any muskies survive? They are muskies, and even the best of us get schooled by them even in so called 'numbers' waters in optimum conditions at times.
The size limit is already 34" correct? People can already kill fish from 34-? at their own will, so why not make a move to protect some of these fish? It would not put them into the same class as walleyes. It would not promote keeping any more fish, as the size limit is already at 34" and harvest of any fish of that size is already acceptable under WI statutes. The majority of kept muskies already falls in the 34-38" range, and allowing harvest of fish in that size range would not change things from the way they already are. It would simply put protection on the precious larger fish that we can't afford to lose and take so long to develope. If it was proven that year classes were missing(a valid argument worth studying), the conclusion would end the experiment. I have an idea that this would work where upper limits were shot down, but could also be totally wrong. Not doing anything is much worse than finding out we were wrong and having to simply go back to what we were doing, which is complaining about the 34" limit. Muskies are a renewable resource, and systems can be brought to health in short order, as exhibited by many newer musky waters in WI, and the newly stocked systems in MN and other states.
As a last note I come from a family that growing up in the middle 70's, I got to watch my dad keep muskies that were over the 30" limit. We would party our rear ends off at the resort if we caught a good fish. Dad started to release fish on his own around 1984, and he hasn't kept one since. Things are so much better numbers wise in our lakes now, to the point that I'd bet many systems have higher densities than ever in modern fishing history. I am not sure some of the musky anglers here realize the extent of the harvest that used to take place regarding muskies. Even without special regulations we are so far advanced, from just a couple short decades ago, primarily due to Catch and release as promoted by musky clubs, and pioneering publications such as Musky Hunter. we are simply trying to fine tune our system nowadays, and make it even better. If none these regulations work, or are accepted, please just remind yourself once in awhile of the fine times we do live in. Some lakes are still rebounding from days of overharvest, while some have stagnated due to pressure, and incidental harvest. One thing to remember is to keep an open mind, and realize that we are all here for the better good(is that a term?) of musky fishing, and wouldn't be voicing opinions if we were not trying to make things better for ourselves and our children.
Jason D. Schillinger
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/17/2004 5:35 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Can`t go there~ What about missing year classes, see it tons on walleye slots! Where has this worked on muskys?? What about years of preaching CPR?? There is no way I will ever vote for a slot, its proven that a high no-harvest limit is the way to get big fish, I beleive that has been proven. make it a slot and see the diaster unfold! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Actually the missing year classes on walleyes are because of size limits like 15". Year classes above 15" become missing as is what happened on the river and many lakes up north. Slots are created to bring back those missing classes. we cannot compare the two species though, as muskies would not see losses in year classes with their catch rates and the bag limit at 1 fish. I am not doubting that high size limits will be helpful, and hopefully the public as a whole will take to them. But, if they do not, something else can help. It is just nice that we have so much diversity in lakes in WI upon which to experiment with different regulations to see what really does work. But, unluckily we all get to vote on DNR issues. We should not be allowed to vote on it, but we are. Hopefully some day, we will have a system in place for our managers to manage.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Jason, you just said it, its because the way the slots are. #*^@ near every eye dude knows the DNR should have lowered that 15" and is complaining about it. There in lies the problem, they know its wrong and are not doing anything about it. You want all the states musky`s in that situation? You worked so hard and so long on the 45" river, get a slot and thats gone, all those headaches for not! You know we agree to disagree all the time, that is what makes good friends, I am just surprized you would even take the chance of losing that 45" you and others fought so hard for????? I for one feel if Wisconsin as a whole takes the slot limit approach, we will be the laughing stock of the musky community period, and for myself being born and raised here, I would tend to agree! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I am for higher limits first and foremost, and feel that is the best management tool. Would rather have them, and will keep working towards them, and only them till it is exhausted, or we get them into place over the board. I am not however, for sitting around when we can't get them passed. The problem on the river here is a totally different situation. The fishery has already been devestated due to overharvest, and fish are having a hard time getting into the slot. Luckily the musky population is not in those dire straits. a slot is not meant to repair, but help a good thing stay good, and improve. The walleye problem on the WI should have been addressed 20 years ago before it became a problem. If the slot on the river for the eyes would have been put into place in 1985 when my friend Brian(kronny) and his brother proposed it and the dnr laughed at them, the walleye situation would be alot better today. the slot would not allow as many fish on a certain lake to be kept that are currently being kept today.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/18/2004 7:15 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I voted no on the slot for the lakes you mentioned. I don't think those are the lakes a slot would be most beneficial for, nor what a slot on muskies was intended for. As far as the numbers listed, I have never heard them kicked around before. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Todd, I just pulled those numbers out of the air to give something to take a poll on. I have never heard or seen any official numbers, as far as Iknow there is no offical plan. This is all speculation on a possible proposal to try and get some change done.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| Spent the last couple days analyzing nearly 7000 Muskie catch records from Lake of the Woods (1987-2004). THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING!!!!
(catch data taken from Red Wing Lodge website - the numbers of muskies produced on LOTW is staggering!)
Amazing facts based on the nearly 7000 catches analyzed:
Number 1: It seems that after the 54” size limit went into effect, there has not been an increase in the number of 50” fish caught. (the number of fish in the 45 - 50 inch range and 50 plus fish did increase greatly under the initial 48" size limit increase)
Number 2: There has actually been a reduction in the number of 45 –50 inch fish caught since the 54” size limit went into effect.
Number 3: There has been a Huge increase in the number of fish in the 30 – 40 inch range.
Number 4: Even with the larger size Limits, 50 Inch muskies continue to be a smaller and smaller percentage of the Muskie fishery.
What appears to be happening is that after Years of Harvesting only the larger fish on LOTW, that the genetics have piled up in favor of fish that take a long time to reach 40 inches, and possibly never reach 50 inches let alone 54 inches. As early as 1948 Robert Page Lincoln had noted the Muskies getting smaller in size on LOTW commenting: “When we first fished here 25 to 30 years ago (1918-1923) the species were very numerous and the taking of a 35 or 40 pounder was not considered unusual.” (I’ll acknowledge that there is the possibility of huge year classes coming through on LOTW – but I don’t know that to be the case as the fish are not yet progressing into the larger sizes.)
It’s pretty simple – Muskies live to be 20 years old – Some much longer . By age 10 even most quality males should be 40 inches while most females should be 40 inches by age 7 and getting close to 50 inches by age 12. (The fish I would use grow faster than I have indicated here.) Eliminating harvest of the large females, I’d expect a 50/50 balance of Male to Female fish. Utilizing growth as indicated above, a healthy population of Muskies would have 25% of the population over 50 inches, 41% between 40 and 50 inches and 33% of the population between 25 and 40 inches. I have not included fish that are ages 3 years or less in this analysis.
Before you shoot holes in this – Please note that the numbers match up well with what we see in Minnesota’s fisheries where female Muskies can and do average over 48 inches and males averaging close to 42 inches. Minnesota has done a great job we should all learn from, but even in Minnesota care must be taken – especially when it’s been noted that some Minnesota brood lakes now have 50 inch fish notably absent – due to over-harvest. It's interesting to note that in Minnesota there are no minimum size limits on any fish other than Muskies. They want you to keep the smallest fish.
This is the size structure we should aim for in Wisconsin. It’s possible if we Stock the Right fish (via Selective Breeding or some other means) and balance that with a slot limit to allow harvest of the slower growing fish that have been documented.
Not all Muskies grow to 40 inches, but we can stock Muskies that all grow to 40 inches if we want to. We need to choose wisely on the fish we stock and also choose wisely on the fish we protect.
I'm more in favor of the slot limit everyday. I'd be in favor of a 42-54 inch slot on half our lakes with a 50 inch size limit on the other half.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1189
Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | MRoberts and Bob, good info, sparks my curiosity.
With whatever the slot range ends up being....43-51 OR 43-54 OR whatever...., what would be the harvest requirements?
with walleyes, you can keep so many under the slot (small fish), with usually one over the slot (a big one).
Obviously we only want ONE muskie to be legally harvested (like it is now).
IF a slot were put in place and the local current minimum length limit is 34", would one from 34" to (whatever, 41 or 43 or?) be allowed OR one over the high end?
Or are you suggesting that ONLY one fish per day between the lenth of 34" and the lower slot length could be harvested, NONE over the high end.........make sense?
thx much. | |
| | |
| Bob, you have no basis to come to those conclusions. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
My feelings exactly. Catch logs from a resort, though interesting, do not necessarily indicate recruitment, overall populations, or ratio year class to year class. Although the information is interesting, it's far from conclusive and probably misleading for so many reasons they are too numerous to list at this point. The statement that genetics have 'piled up' in favor of genetically inferior fish is quite a conclusion, one that I am reasonably sure the Ministry would question.
One needs be careful not to conduct 'research' with the intent to prove a point, no matter how noble the point might be. Bob has made a case for a slot limit harvest on LOTW, which isn't the issue and so far hasn't been the focus of the MNR up there, either.
A concern:
The reason behind the management technique is to ENCOURAGE harvest of the fish in the kill slot and FORBID harvest of fish smaller and larger. If that isn't our intent, the technique should not be considered. Announcing to the public that small muskies in half our lakes need to be kept isn't, in my very humble opinion, a good idea. In fact, if the encouraged harvest of the muskies in the slot is not part of the management goal then a slot limit shouldn't be in place.
I don't feel there is ANY actual evidence that a 50" overall limit on certain waters as encouraged by our DNR would not work. Unfortunately, the areas where a similar limit is in place are limited, usually are totally self sustaining and generally speaking may not be comparable to our waters here, and do not have a long enough base line of information as to effect to reach any absolute scientific conclusion as the regulation is reasonably new. There also is no evidence that a slot limit would or would not not work; my question from the beginning is:
If the management people in Canada and the US felt a slot would protect the muskie fishery, why is there none in place
anywhere?
I can personally speak to the fishing on Wabigoon, where the lake was closed to kill for several years , and then set at 54". Have I seen more monster fish? Yes. Is there an increase in numbers, overall? Yes. What does this mean for the future of the trophy fishery there? My opinion, it should be pretty good. Do I know for a fact there are more trophy fish there than ever? No. Just my observation a couple weeks a year. | |
| | |
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | I think that raising the min to 40" would do much for the resource. Then supplement that by emphasizing catch and release. I can't believe that many musky fisherman over the age of 8 would get very excited about keeping a 34" fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Marine-1, talk to Vilas co musky guides, you'll see it's not the 8 year olds who get excited about the 34", it's the lawyer or dentist looking for his first fish for the office wall. No matter which guide it is, they all promote CPR, but they all tell the story of clients agreeing to CPR and then catching a fish and keeping it.
I don't blame folks for getting excited about catching a fish, especially thier first, because to them it looks huge. If I had the opportunity to do Vilas co guides brochures, I'd have pics of 34" and 45" and 50" all next to one another, then folks could listen to what the guide says and realize how small a 34" actually is. When I was new to this sport, if I visited a guide's booth and he had mounts of all three sizes and said..."Hey, this is what you could get", I'd see that a 34" isn't worth the mount. | |
| | |
Posts: 723
| Its tuff to say what a slot would do for our fishery, everyone looks at the fact you need big fish to produce little fish, but if those little fish are being yanked out when they reach the limit, how will they ever get big?
I look at lake winnebago, I grew up on there for 14 yrs, and there used to be a size limit on walleyes of 15". Eversince they dropped it to no size limit, the quality of the fishery has gone up. ever year you do see a prevailing year class, but will catch a wide variety of sizes. when the 15" limit was in effect we would struggle to catch a keeper walleye, now it seems that we'll readily take home a 14" fish rather than a 20" just for a better eating fish. I know there still isn't a true 30" size class out on bago,
but it seems now that filling a limit isn't a problem at all.
I don't know how you could do the same with muskies though, you and I both know that everyone has there own opinion as to whats right for size limits and what is a trophy fish. But eventhough I won't keep a trophy, and will have a replica made, there might be a chance where someday you accidentally kill one and instead of being able to keep it, you have to watch it sink to bottom. I guess under no circumstance what so ever will the system be perfect, but as Jason said I would rather not sit back and complain about a 34" limit, but have some action take place to atleast try to better our fishery.
I myself would love to see higher limits, I have seen what has transpired in the great lakes spotted stocking and just cannot believe the effect of a 50inch limit.
someday it will be a world class fishery, but it takes time, and with other lakes it will take time to see results also, so lets get the ball rolling if people really want to see some big fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 132
Location: Elkhart, IN | Mike,
You should consider starting another poll thread to see who would vote for a 50" limit. Then compare the two polls. If the slot gets it's butt kicked I would think you can expect it to do much worse in actual voting.
My guess is most here would be in favor of a 50" limit. We all saw where that went in the actual vote.
I have always liked the idea of a slot. The comments that no fish will make it to the slot because they will all be kept is complete rubbish. Are there fish over 34" now? Of course there are.
Maybe a slot should be proposed for one or two lakes only, the same with a 45" and 50" limit. Let the DNR decide the details for the slot.
We will never know if a slot will work unless it's tried. We can all speculate and discuss what we feel will happen, but, we will never truly know unless it is tried.
Brian | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Brian, I think amongst this hard core group of musky anglers the 50” limit would beat a slot 10 to 1. Heck I would choose the 50” limit. My feeling on the slot is it is a compromise between what we have now and what we want 50+” minimums. I feel a slot would do better amongst non hard-core musky angles because it allows “Little Johnnie” and “Joe Keepem” the chance to keep a few now and then, while still protecting more fish. Being able to keep some fish was the major concern of the people voting against the limit at the Oneida meeting.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | some facts:
The 50 inch proposal was voted on in wisconsin and was beaten badly. It would be again voted down.
The limit is now 34 on most wisconsin lakes. If we impose a 2% value on every inch up to 50 inches it protects 68% of those fish.
If we add a protected slot of 40 to 50 inches that increases to 88% of the fish up to 50 inches.
Now those of you whose cup is half empty let me say this. Instead of looking at slot limits and saying it encourages harvest. Look at it and say it helps promote how important those fish are and the more we can protect and release the better for the fishery.
Some of you preach education is the answer and its part of it. This can be a great tool to use in musky education.
Can anyone honestly say they would prefer to keep the limit as is instead of prtecting another 20% of the fish? I hope not.
Happy Holidays to all and to all a very musky new year
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why has everyone totally given up on larger size limits in Wisconsin? The DNR supported the concept on a group of lakes here, so they feel it's a good idea to try it. Why didn't it pass? The public wasn't properly informed, plain and simple. On the waters this was proposed, the 50" limit would be a great experiment.
So it was voted down. Many other good ideas have been voted down, and later voted in as the public is educated to the need, positive economic impact, and other immediate and long term benefits. That is the process when you're trying to sell a concept that is broadly misunderstood, it takes some time to get the benefits out there in front of everyone. This isn't a dead concept unless we decide it is because we didn't succeed the first try. Giving up that easily just plain isn't normal behavior for most Muskie anglers. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Steve,
You know why there are no slots in place for musky> NO ONE has pushed for it befor. It has been on the shelf. Now that the anglers see the value in it since it has been brought to light it should be tried.
It cannot be said it will not work when most of the people I talk to feel it could work.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Don,
That's a fact. We can't say the 50" limit we asked for will work either, so either one would be a noble experiment.
I feel the 50" limit would serve our direct goals better, so why use valuable resources trying to educate the public and get enough support to pass a plan nearly everyone admits to being not much more than 'better than nothing'? If the Muskie community in Wisconsin truly speaks with one voice, we can get the limited waters 50" limit passed eventually, and it's my opinion in as little time as a proposed slot. Perhaps we can ask for a slot experiment on some waters, too, as part of the proposal or another proposal. Heck, shoot for both, and get out the vote at the hearings. Since the DNR is already behind the 50" proposal, and we have a good idea who is in opposition and why, we are ahead of the game moving forward on that instead of trying ONLY an entierly new idea that will undoubtably meet with strong opposition.
I don't have a clue if either idea will get us what we want, but doing neither won't, that's for sure. | |
| | |
| I am sure not everyone has given up on it. In fact, I'm sure most of the guys here talking about slots are still more in favor of higher limits. I know I am. Someone needs to take the initiative to get the ball rolling though. I had to do it with the WI river project a few years ago, after it became evident that many wanted it but no one was really doing anything about it at the time. I enjoyed doing it, and got alot of help from many individuals once the process was begun. Another resolution needs to be written by someone from the public(maybe this group) soon so it can be on the ballot in April. I'd be willing to help out again. MRoberts, has anyone from the group proposing the limits last year written anything for this season yet? Has anyone spoken with local fish managers up there to see if we can get it on as a rule change question, eliminating the resolution process, potentially shaving years off the final law change? | |
| | |
| Sworrall, your comments are really too tepid, the slot limit could be much WORSE than nothing. The message slots imply and deliver can easily be gotten wrong by the misinformed/poorly informed general public. When you consider that even the proposers of slot limits, themselves, do not seem to understand the philosophy slots entail from a management standpoint, how can we have much optimism about the general public?!
And Don is now taking a familiar tact for fish and game management in WI, the fish managers were not smart enough to recognize the value of this type of regulation even though it has been in use for a couple of decades, but we the anglers are able to see its value and the need to apply it(thus, we once again know more than the DNR). Why, oh why, does not the DNR follow our advice? Of course the spring meetings are wrong, that is because those yahoos AND the DNR are not as smart as we special interest anglers!!! 
Tell me how you are not saying that Don. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Also, it will not make a difference(slots) with the little johnnie syndrone because if anyone is really paying attention illeagal muskys and walleyes(by size) are the #1&2 violations and the 3rd is illeagal overbagging of panfish. With this along with spearing(ain`t go`in away either) the only way to make a quality fisheree is no-harvest size limits across the board along with alot more PRESS AND EDUCATION. As I quoted early and Steve just now, seems everyone has given up on size for slot! You guys want the DNR to micro-manage certain lakes, ain`t going to happen and should`nt, because with the limited staff that is a job not necessary nor one they will be able to afford. Lets get real, I don`t want my musky fishing under a trail&error system of slots where it has never been done.
One other thing not mentioned is it would seem that a slot would benefit tourny fishers but 50" would not, OH WELL! You want great fishing or tournys ????? That should be the poll!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| One thing that I know for sure.....and that list is short........any harvested fish, no matter what the minimum length, will never see 40" or more.
If you want larger fish, you have to let the small ones go. That seems like some pretty easy logic to me.
Protecting ALL of the fish seems like the way to go in my opinion.
Beav | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| I don't know where the idea that slot encourages harvest comes from but in my opinion it is dead wrong. When you put a slot in place you are telling Johnny Public that he is not smart enough to release the fish needed to establish a natural producing fishery so the law is put in place to force the issue. The only place IMO that need a slot is the genetically inferior waters like Callahan and such. I would sure hope that people don't support replacing the 45" limit on the Chip, Wisconsin river or the 50" lakes that Wisconsin does have in place with the slot. That would be going backwards. | |
| | |
| ChadG - 12/22/2004 10:00 AM
I don't know where the idea that slot encourages harvest comes from but in my opinion it is dead wrong. When you put a slot in place you are telling Johnny Public that he is not smart enough to release the fish needed to establish a natural producing fishery so the law is put in place to force the issue. The only place IMO that need a slot is the genetically inferior waters like Callahan and such. I would sure hope that people don't support replacing the 45" limit on the Chip, Wisconsin river or the 50" lakes that Wisconsin does have in place with the slot. That would be going backwards.
I think here is another case of misunderstanding slots. What good would a slot on Callahan do if you did not encourage harvest of small fish along with preservation of larger fish? And once again, how do you define these populations as genetically "inferior"? I tend to think of them as genetically "fit".
This discussion wanders continually from point to point, but the real value for slots genetically(if there is any real value genetically, and I don't concede that) would possibly be in a lake with a. good natural reproduction. b. good growth opportunity c. a history of producing large fish and some suspicion if not proof that those genetics were being lost due to continued harvest of the larger specimens(and no one has actually proved that to be the case).
| |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Steve,
You said volumes in your last post.
I would, in a worst case scenario, vote for a slot I would not, however, put forth any effort to get that on any ballot. We would be cheating ourselves and any other musky fisherman in Wisconsin.
I think we are further ahead today on achieving our goals of higher limits than we were at the time of the last vote for the exact reasons Steve stated. In order to achieve our goal though, we need to work at it. Just getting it on the ballot won't be enough. We need to have a campaign to get it passed, much like the anti's did two years ago. The resort owners, guides and business owners need to be on board. We have to supply them with informaton from other areas with high size limits that shows them that their cashflow will increase. Face it, those people will vote 100% with their pocket book. Make it attractive to them and they will favor it making the whole process much easier. | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| The slot does not encourage harvest but it does allow it. The genetically inferior lakes like Callahan will over time be repaired by ALLOWING harvest of some fish. After the repair work is done you replace the slot with a higher length limit. Most lakes will do better with a higher length limit, 45" or so. You can put a 50" limit on a lake like Callahan today and never catch one until you eliminate the genetic limitations of the fish there. Seems to me that Louis was chasing a monster fish on Callahan when he bought, I mean caught, the big one on Flemings, I mean..... oh you get my point. When was the last time you heard of anyone chasing big fish on Callahan? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF and Handyman, in my opinion you are looking at slot limits strictly as a tool to thin small fish and protect larger fish. I don’t think this would be the case with Musky. As it is already a low density fish and any plan I would ever support would also keep a very low bag limit. 1 per day wether it is over or under the slot. The following are two pieces of text I found.
Just to make this clear I don’t necessarily favor slot limits, everything would depend on the DNR fisheries managers. I am just bringing this stuff up as talking points. My first goal would be high minimums, but if that can’t happen I am wondering if this would be a viable saleable idea.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
From Florida Fish and Wildlife.
Minimum size limits allow fish to mature to spawning size before being
kept by fishermen. For some species this is adequate protection. Slot limits —
which include both a minimum size and a maximum size limit — permit harvest of
fish that fall within the slot size while protecting smaller, immature fish and
larger, broodstock individuals. Slot limits work best for species with large females
(such as redfish and snook ***also musky***) which produce many more fertile eggs than
smaller females of the species. For example, a single mature 25-pound
female redfish will produce more than 1 million eggs per spawn, repeating the
process every three to five days for up to two months. In comparison, a newly-
matured female red produces less than a half million eggs. Protecting larger, more
fertile females from capture increases the odds of a successful spawning season.
From MN DNR
In 1994 we established a slot limit on this sprawling Canadian border lake. Anglers had to release all walleyes 17 to 25 inches long and could keep only one longer than 25 inches. The regulations were designed to protect the walleye population, which was recovering from years of overharvest by commercial and sport anglers.
The slot limit appears to be helping protect several strong year classes of walleyes that are now prime harvest size. Rainy's catch rate has tripled from an average of one walleye caught per 4.5 hours of fishing the 1980s to one per 1.5 hours today. Bookings at resorts have skyrocketed, and on some weeks guides actually have to turn away customers.
In fact, so good is the fishing at Rainy that Minnesota's side is in danger of being overharvested-even with the slot limit. Kevin Peterson, DNR area fisheries manager at International Falls, says that record harvests in recent years have exceeded what biologists believe is the maximum sustainable level on the U.S. side.
In response, we recently tightened regulations further to protect the walleye population. Beginning March 1, 2001, anglers must immediately release any walleyes from 17 to 28 inches long and may keep only one longer than 28 inches. In 2002 the bag limit is scheduled to go from six to four.
The rule change has the support of the Rainy Lake Sportfishing Club, a local angling group and advocate of walleye conservation."We want to make sure this fish population stays as healthy as it is," Peterson says. "These new regulations should help do that."
| |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Mroberts, Unless I misunderstand what you posted, I don`t see that as a helper toward the slot argument ???? Also hard to see that they would have musky posted in there with redfish and snook. I guess I am still not buying!
Edited by The Handyman 12/22/2004 11:49 AM
| |
| | |
| Thanks for the info Mike. Interesting stuff. Let me know if and when you/a group is planning on bringing up a proposal to the DNR for this next years hearings. I talked to my friend Chuck schauer last night at length about the topic, and he fully supports higher limits, and would fully support a slot as well, knowing it would be protecting fish, and definately would not negatively impact the fishery. That said, lets keep plugging with the higher limits, and try to push them through again this year!!! Talk to the fisheries biologist up there(if you haven't already) and get a feel for what they want/would accept on the ballot, and lets take it from there. I'm ready to help. It is only December, but April comes quickly. | |
| | |
Posts: 132
Location: Elkhart, IN | To me it would make more sense for two different groups to be working on both a 50" limit and a slot limit. It is pretty clear that either would not be statewide and tried on only a few DNR selected lakes. So why not work both ideas at the same time. Why does it have to be one or the other? These ideas do not need to compete with each other.
If they both get put in place great. If a 50" limit ends up being the answer then let the DNR scrap the slot. But if it doesn't, than there is no time wasted on the slot idea. Maybe neither will work. Maybe both will work.
Just my thoughts.
Brian
| |
| | |
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | You guys cant get muskie fisherman to understand how the slot will work, and you cant get them to agree that its a good thing. Now all of us muskie fisherman WANT more and bigger fish....but you cant get all of us (or even 90%) to agree to your views. Now you're going to propose this to every squirrell hunting, panfish frying, wants to hunt everything and anything, man/woman/child and moron who votes in the Conservation Congress system. That is NOT a slam on those in Wisconsin, its just an illustration that this grand plan that you folks propose isnt even overwhelmingly popular with those who hold what you say this proposal is going to help, as important.
Now sell this complicated idea to Joe Fisherman/Hunter/Lodge/Resort/Restraunt owner who only thinks in terms of fish as food, or as a way to get people up to their business. You can't even get our overwhelming support.
The 50" limit didnt pass because it was TOO MUCH, TOO FAST. This is too much, too complicated, for an audience that you wont be able to convince. Whether the plan will work to help the muskie populations is moot, really. When thinking of planning for the future, its MY THOUGHT (and I may be wrong) that you want to devise plans that you can actually get put into action.
Why not try a plan a bit LESS ambitous? Say, try to get a 40" limit passed? If you can get that...and in 3-5 years, the populations are getting better, THEN it might be time to push forward with a 45" or 50" limit?
These are MY THOUGHTS on the opinion, for whatever thats worth. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I gotta say that this thread has been going on for a while now and everybody has been pretty cool about stating thier position and letting others do the same. Very little as far as personal attacks or insults.....way to go fellas. This has been one of the only "long threads" that I've actually read in its entirety. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Slamr,
I think your thoughts and opinions are worth a lot. In order for us to make this anything other than an internet discussion (by this I mean an actual proposal) it would be nice if all like minded folks could agree on it. I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that would argue against an experimental 40" limit on select lakes. Heck I would even go as far as volunteer Pelican as one of the first to try it on.
Maybe instead of arguing back and forth about slots we should find something WE can agree on and then set the wheels turning. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Jason, I can`t beleive you want to try to get this on a ballot for a spring vote! That will just cancel out the 45" on the Wisconsin River, 50" at the bay and the rest of the lakes that are already at 40", which is actally quite afew! That in my opinion is a huge step backwards, just for the sake of doing something that is not proven! Thats ashame in my opinion and I will be getting some info from a biologist after the holidays that was involved in the spot program and as far as he said a slot is way in UNCHARTED WATERS! I will try to set-up a chat at this site if at all possible!
How do we know a slot will not negativly affect the fisheree?? Chuck catches alot of fish but how would that insure a slot is the correct way to progress?? You are all guessing about a slot and endangering the 45" and 50" we already have, stepp`in backwards!
Edited by The Handyman 12/22/2004 2:08 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Slamr, the kicker here is that the slot would probably be more widely accepted at the hearings than the higher limits in some parts of WI. The little johnny argument was the overriding factor that shot down the high limits in many counties. That is why they call it spring hearings though, and resolutions are all heard no matter how absurd, and the public gets to voice their opinion and vote(even though they should not). My gut says, passing one would be easier than you think.
That said, I am trying to get in touch with local fish managers right now to see how to proceed with high limit proposals at this springs hearings. I think that should be the goal at least for the next couple years yet. if they start to pass, and the public starts to warm to them, keep going. If not, it is nice to know there is another plan that will protect muskies(slot) that we can push for in the future on certain waters up north.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2004 2:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Handy, you may want to go back and read the poll question. (I had to) It just pertains to the same lakes in the Vilas/Onieda area that were tried in the 50" proposal that was shot down. No one is talking about a statewide attempt. Just a test run. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Again Jeff, read my post in full. I am going to push for the higher limits this year and no where did I say I was going to propose a slot on any water. Actually just the opposite. I want to know which lakes are being targetted this year for higher size limits, so I can help get support, and that is what I want to discuss with Mike and co. as they were a big part of getting the 50" proposal on the ballets the past couple years up north. No where did I say anything about proposing a slot this year. We are simply talking about sound management here, and a plan to have in place if higher limits do not pass. Also, it needs to be made clear that there is no way I would ever push for a slot on waters that already have higher limits as that is what we have already pushed for and won!!! A slot on the Bay, or the river here would be absurd as you said, and that is a no brainer. I helped push for the size limit on the Bay, and cut my teeth to help get support for it. Why would I want to change something I spent countless sleepless nights working for? Please don't take my comments out of context, as I want to make it clear that I am still 100% for higher limits and will push for them. That said, I want to have sound biological defense of a slot in years to come if they are ever to be proposed on certain waters, which I think they could be if higher limits continue to be shot down on year after year. No way would I support a statewide slot, just as no way would I support a statewide 50" limit. It needs to be applied to certain waters/watersheds in order to work and be accepted. there has not even been much discussion on which lakes would benefit most from the slots, but the trophy waters are really not the ones I would target for them.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2004 2:19 PM
| |
| | |
| Wow - I was scared to look as I thought some of you would really take me to task on the LOTW stuff, thanks for not sending the guy's in white jackets to take me away.
I think we all need to support any regulation that protects large Muskies. Both High minimum size limits and slot limits. What I am firmly against (today - wind is blowing from the east) is now "mid-size" minimum size limits between 40 and 45 inches that protect only the smaller fish allowing bigger fish to be harvested.
I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes.
Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years.
I agree that there is danger in listening to every barroom biologist (like me), but what I don't see is the real Biologists explaining these growth rates to the Muskie community. I don't see Musky Hunter or Esox writing about it. Keep in mind that many of the people who suggest that my thoughts may not nbe true, are also saying silly little things that "small fish grow up to be big fish" - THIS IS NOT TRUE, and YES - I have the proof. Up till now these growth rates have been pointed at Smaller lakes with limited forage, but this is not the case. These slow growing fish exist in many populations and I believe they are capable of squeezing out the larger growing fish with the aid of man. I knpow they are here in Wisconsin (I have proof) and I believe they are on LOTW. I find no evidence of this in Many of the lakes in Minnesota with the exception of lakes that have Shoepac fish.
Thoughts on High Size Limits for Muskies. It has been implemented - Yes. has it Been studied - I don't believe so. What I see on LOTW is more small fish, not more big fish. This a concern to me. (Limited data yes, but honestly, I think It's the best data available. If there is better data from biologists, I'd love to see it. In any case I doubt they've sampled 7000 adult LOTW muskies) I don't mean to intend to bash LOTW, as it's IMO the greatest Muskie lake on earth. But it's a lake that has had higher size limits, and good data is available for it - unlike many others. No doubt Higher size limits had a positive effect on the fishing - NO DOUBT AT ALL. I'd be more encouraged if the balance of Big fish to Small fish had stayed the same.This makes me wonder if slot limits would not be a better idea. I'd love to see ages and current growth rates of the 35-40 inch fish on LOTW.
There is no doubt that 100 years of harvest on LOTW had a huge effect on the fishery. I fear that the last 20 years when only large fish were harvested due to voluntary C&R, 40 inch and 48 inch size limits had a bigger effect on the size structure than the previous years of "total harvest". One of my main points I'm trying to get across is that I believe that the ability of our lakes to support numbers of large fish is actually much greater than most of us realize. I believe we have repaired the numbers of fish on many of our waters, yet work can still be done on returning us to the size we had in the old days. Ernie Calvert used to catch Giant Fish from sabaskong bay back in the 30's. He did it in tiny boats with tiny motors and cane poles. Dawson was out on Wabigoon, catching Multiple Mid-40lb fish every year. When the fish come back, they come back based on the breeding of the SMALLER fish that were not harvested. The smaller the waters, the sooner this happens. It happens in Wisconsin and Canada. Minnesota should take notice and manage accordingly - Before it happens there too. (I'm watching Elk lake rael closely) Yes a few big ones get through in any system, but it's a smaller percentage than before. I'm not aware of any Muskie fishery EVER that came back from a slaughter with more large fish or Larger fish than ever before. More Muskies - Yes. Some Big fish, certainly. And Yes - Biologists are stating that fish population grow smaller fish when faced with harvest, and they do this relative quickly. They do so on small lakes and they do so in the OCEAN. The thread on genetics shows some of this data if you' don't believe it. (Please do - and don't disregard it blindly.)
NOT ALL MUSKIES ARE CREATED EQUAL. WE HAVE A CHOICE.
| |
| | |
| First Six Feet
You suggest I have no basis for my conclusions on LOTW. I'd suggest that 7000 Muskies provides a substantial basis for drawing conclusions. I like that Steve agrees and than provides personal observations on Wabigoon. LOL - but Hey - I do too. I've been spending a lot of time researching these things, Most of what I've stated is based on documents by biologists, of course I've also added my interpretation of what I've read and also my own "personal observations" in 30 years of Muskie fishing.
Many (not all) of the people who object to what I say have done no research on their own - but are quick to point out that I'm wrong. Biologists from all over the country are looking into these genetic issues. we must remember that Muskies are one of the least researched fish in north america. Much of what we do in Muskie management is still based on the original wrk of Art Oehmcke and Gil Hamm - God bless them both. With the advances in the popularity of our sport we need to advance more quickly. We need to look hard at what works for other fish and see if we can adapt them to our sport.
I welcome any and all Information (and Objections) that can be provided, as I believe it'll give us all (including me) a better understanding of this magnificent fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes.
Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years. "
so basically, you're proposing that we should harvest slow growing fish, so that the faster growing fish can.....take over their place in the food chain....be more accessable to being caught......actually, I know what you're saying, but I dont know what you think this is going to do for these fish that will grow faster.
regardless of that, here's a question for you: if you are right, and there is this huge percentage of fish that grow slowly, then maybe we should be harvesting them. BUT, here's the problem with this argument: how do we know which fish is older and X# of inches, versus the younger fish that is X# of inches? I am all for the propogation of a population of larger fish, but I dont see how this is going to get us there. No one here is telling us that there is a "rash" of lakes where the fish arent getting bigger because of a lack of food, so just indescriminantly eliminating fish in a certain size range doesnt necessarily mean that we're eliminating the RIGHT fish. My understanding is that a FISHERIES BIOLOGIST can determine the age of a fish by analyzing the scales (under a microscope I believe) or through a method that takes analysis of the cletherum bone. In the first case, you have to carry a microscope in the boat and know what you're looking for (this is while the fish is in the net mind you). In the second case, most muskies dont do to well after you pull their bones out of their bodies for examination. So, unless there is some way that we can learn to "age a fish" and we can figure out how to educate the public on this new method, basically we're just killing fish hoping that we're killing the RIGHT fish.
Just doesnt make sense to me. It worked on walleyes and bass, but no one can explain to me why this is going to work on muskies. | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Slamr.
I think the idea is that 90% of the muskies are released. So the tenth time the fish is caught it goes to the frying pan. The longer a fish stays in the "kill zone" (34"-40" or whatever) the more likely it is to be harvested. Slow growing fish stay in the "kill zone" longer thus eventually being weeded out. The faster growing specimens move thru the "kill zone" quicker and into the protected slot lower their chances of being caught the 10th time in the danger zone. Sure some are going to be lost along the way but sometimes that is the way the ball bounces. We (muskie fisherman) won't need to do the harvesting, incidental catches will probably take care of it.
I don't think this an across the board fix but in some places it should be attempted.
Edited by ChadG 12/22/2004 3:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3
| But you're also weeding out the fast growers. Slamr is saying you cant tell the difference, and he's right. And if the 34" limit isnt "weeding out" these fish, why is having a slot going to do this?
In the end you all need to wake up and smell the coffee, we need to find UNITED FRONTS to attack problems on. I just checked the poll, the 40" limit is winning versus the slot. You cant convince muskie fisherman, there is no chance this is going to convince the rest of the world of why a slot limit is needed.
| |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Sure you are going to lose some fast growers in the slot process but when playing the numbers game the fast growers will win out. The quick growers get to the slot quicker thus lowering the likelyhood there are caught to be kept, once in the slot they can't be kept again until they get past the topend. See, now you have a 10" or whatever range of protection for fish. Allowing them to grow and pass on their fast growing traits. Some fish won't even get to the bottom of the slot so eventually someone fries them for supper. Eventually superior genetics shine thru. Once they do you slap on a 54" minimum and all is good.
You will never get a group of muskie fisherman to agree on anything so no need to worry about that. It is not in their general nature. You just have to get a pill the rest of the general public will swallow.
Edited by ChadG 12/22/2004 4:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd disagree that one cannot get the Muskie community in Wisconsin to speak with one vioce. It CAN be done. What will it take? I suggest this:
Form a committee. That will squash the entire thing! (kidding)
I'd ask Bob, Mike, Norm, Don, FSF and ALL other interested folks get together in the Chat room next Wednesday night, December 29th, to discuss options to get the ball rolling. If we're serious about the effort, then we can begin by acting on it. I'll chair the discussion, and would ask Don, Bob, Norm, Mroberts,FSF and anyone else serious about this discussion to set an agenda by sending me suggested agenda items in order of importance to [email protected]. A simple several sentense suggested agenda will be great!
Bob, by the way, I was trying to show you just exactly what personal observations by a layman mean to a scientist or for that matter, anyone, which is jack squat. You present the data you look over as substantiated, your observations as concrete, and then get defensive when someone questions methodology or conclusion. Get used to lots of questions and challenges if you're going to try to use the items you have used to date to come to what you ask us to accept as scientific conclusions we laymen are to try to use to change the REAL scientists's minds about management on waters across the muskie range. If you truly wish to work towards a goal we all can accept and extend an effort to implement what you are suggesting is good management (slot or genetics or stocking or larger size limit or brood lakes or stripping only huge fish or.... you've suggested all as answers at one time or another)then let's stop the demands/complaints/arguments and begin a dialog. I'll take the lead temporarily to get things rolling and then get the hell out of the way.
OK, folks, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. I'm calling all bluffs, let's make this thing (speaking for the Muskie anglers for better muskie angling in Wisconsin) happen. If it takes us 5 years to get something done the Wisconsin DNR can support and we agree will be good for the fishery, so be it. If it takes a shorter amount of time, so be it. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I agree with Steve, let's get something rolling here. Wednesday night....I'm in!! | |
| | |
| What time? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 8 PM Central. Thanks, Norm! | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | sorry cannot make wend night as I am speaking to a fishing club that. Just can't up and postpone that. Love to be in it another time.
Merry xmas all......Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | In no way would I want the slots to be established on lakes that allready have higher limits . Leave them alone! I never said to change them. I would be against it 100%. Slots are for lakes with a 34 inch limit or less, yes we have a few.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| Bob - 12/22/2004 2:33 PM
First Six Feet
You suggest I have no basis for my conclusions on LOTW. I'd suggest that 7000 Muskies provides a substantial basis for drawing conclusions. I like that Steve agrees and than provides personal observations on Wabigoon. LOL - but Hey - I do too. I've been spending a lot of time researching these things, Most of what I've stated is based on documents by biologists, of course I've also added my interpretation of what I've read and also my own "personal observations" in 30 years of Muskie fishing.
Many (not all) of the people who object to what I say have done no research on their own - but are quick to point out that I'm wrong. Biologists from all over the country are looking into these genetic issues. we must remember that Muskies are one of the least researched fish in north america. Much of what we do in Muskie management is still based on the original wrk of Art Oehmcke and Gil Hamm - God bless them both. With the advances in the popularity of our sport we need to advance more quickly. We need to look hard at what works for other fish and see if we can adapt them to our sport.
I welcome any and all Information (and Objections) that can be provided, as I believe it'll give us all (including me) a better understanding of this magnificent fish.
I did not "suggest" you had no basis for reaching those conclusions, I stated it clearly, and stand by that statement. You have taken anectdotal information and drawn a set of conclusions that has no proven scientific relationship. There is no hard data correlation supporting those conclusions. There is only the Bob factor. Your ideas could possibly be right, or wrong, or partially right, or partially wrong etc. But your so called conclusions are simply speculations. I could look at the same set of facts and draw up another completely different set of "conclusions" and would have no more basis than you to make them. Your growth figures sound very suspect to me and without viewing your data, your lakes and your population(n) I am reluctant to even start a discussion with you on the fish topping out at 35 inches.
The thing that many of you miss when looking at research on other populations is the dissimilarity between habitat, populations, and sport fishing encounters of the studied groups vs. musky. Many of the differences are extremely significant, and it makes the data questionable, and as soon as this is pointed out, you guys want to throw 3 more studies into the mixer.
Luckily I have been able to use your data to come to my own conclusions! Note my post. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| "I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes.
Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years. '
CONCLUSIONS
These lakes are obviously in the midst of a forage crash! No food, no growth. This is definitely related to the two full moons in June which totally screwed up the mayfly breeding cycle and caused an early crash of forage for the forage. Easy to understand how these fish quit growing. The few fish that were still growing exactly matches the proportion of fish that feed on surface forage, including ducklings, frogs, mice and puppies. I would say this proves that the surface forage is still present and abundant but we need the DNR TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN STOCKING THIS LAKE WITH 7-9 INCH SUCKERS TO GET THESE FISH GROWING AGAIN!!!
Angler stress is obviously causing most of these fish to no longer grow once they become big enough to attack most musky baits, overutilization of the population by sports fishing is causing this growth stress on the population. I recommend we STOP fishing these lakes to protect the muskies and keep them growing safely.
Crawfish populations peaking in these lakes have caused a shift in musky foraging toward large crawfish. Unfortunately the musky stomach developed over the years to digest FISH not crawfish, and this forage shift, while understandable due to the abundance of these spiny critters, has caused some gastroenterology problems in musky digestion and the packing of crawfish shells into the intestine in a half digested state has caused a growth stoppage(along with some other stoppage). No BM in the AM means no growing in the PM.
This is clearly the result of a DNR plot and the indications are that the DNR PERSONEL ARE SEXING THESE MUSKY BEFORE STOCKING THEM AND GIVING OUR LAKES THE MALES AND SAVING ALL THE BIGGER FASTER GROWING FEMALES FOR THE PET LAKES OF THE GOVERNOR AND HIS CRONIES.
more | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| "Spent the last couple days analyzing nearly 7000 Muskie catch records from Lake of the Woods (1987-2004). THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING!!!!
(catch data taken from Red Wing Lodge website - the numbers of muskies produced on LOTW is staggering!)
Amazing facts based on the nearly 7000 catches analyzed:
Number 1: It seems that after the 54” size limit went into effect, there has not been an increase in the number of 50” fish caught. (the number of fish in the 45 - 50 inch range and 50 plus fish did increase greatly under the initial 48" size limit increase)
Number 2: There has actually been a reduction in the number of 45 –50 inch fish caught since the 54” size limit went into effect.
Number 3: There has been a Huge increase in the number of fish in the 30 – 40 inch range.
Number 4: Even with the larger size Limits, 50 Inch muskies continue to be a smaller and smaller percentage of the Muskie fishery.
What appears to be happening is that after Years of Harvesting only the larger fish on LOTW, that the genetics have piled up in favor of fish that take a long time to reach 40 inches, and possibly never reach 50 inches let alone 54 inches. As early as 1948 Robert Page Lincoln had noted the Muskies getting smaller in size on LOTW commenting: “When we first fished here 25 to 30 years ago (1918-1923) the species were very numerous and the taking of a 35 or 40 pounder was not considered unusual.” (I’ll acknowledge that there is the possibility of huge year classes coming through on LOTW – but I don’t know that to be the case as the fish are not yet progressing into the larger sizes.)
It’s pretty simple – Muskies live to be 20 years old – Some much longer . By age 10 even most quality males should be 40 inches while most females should be 40 inches by age 7 and getting close to 50 inches by age 12. (The fish I would use grow faster than I have indicated here.) Eliminating harvest of the large females, I’d expect a 50/50 balance of Male to Female fish. Utilizing growth as indicated above, a healthy population of Muskies would have 25% of the population over 50 inches, 41% between 40 and 50 inches and 33% of the population between 25 and 40 inches. I have not included fish that are ages 3 years or less in this analysis.
Before you shoot holes in this – Please note that the numbers match up well with what we see in Minnesota’s fisheries where female Muskies can and do average over 48 inches and males averaging close to 42 inches. Minnesota has done a great job we should all learn from, but even in Minnesota care must be taken – especially when it’s been noted that some Minnesota brood lakes now have 50 inch fish notably absent – due to over-harvest. It's interesting to note that in Minnesota there are no minimum size limits on any fish other than Muskies. They want you to keep the smallest fish.
This is the size structure we should aim for in Wisconsin. It’s possible if we Stock the Right fish (via Selective Breeding or some other means) and balance that with a slot limit to allow harvest of the slower growing fish that have been documented.
Not all Muskies grow to 40 inches, but we can stock Muskies that all grow to 40 inches if we want to. We need to choose wisely on the fish we stock and also choose wisely on the fish we protect.
I'm more in favor of the slot limit everyday. I'd be in favor of a 42-54 inch slot on half our lakes with a 50 inch size limit on the other half. "
Obviously these conclusions do not match my barroom biologist conclusions stated below. Explain how my conclusions have less basis in fact than yours.
#1 The 54 inch size limit did little to protect the majority of 50" fish that had not already been done by the 48" size limit. Since we are reaching the upper limits of growth for most musky there may NOT be a significant increase with the added regulation of FIFTY INCH FISH, BUT IT MIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE SURVIVAL OF 50 INCH PLUS FISH WHICH ARE PRESENT IN VERY LOW NUMBERS EVEN IN HEALTHY POPULATIONS.
OR The 48 inch size limit had a very significant and immediately positive effect on the population of big fish available in the lake. The 54 inch limit, while not significantly increasing densities of large fish, obviously has offered additional protection to "super fish" in the population.
OR Raising size limits to 48 inches probably supercedes maximum growth of a large portion of the population, but has significantly raised numbers in the upper 40" range to population levels not seen in recent years.
#2 Increasing angler density and angler mortality may be affecting numbers of 45-50 inch fish, in recent years, probably unrelated to the recent increase in the size limit.
OR A recent population peak in the upper adult size range is beginning to encounter natural mortality and current year classes reaching maximum size are smaller classes.
OR Population increases in TOTAL MUSKIES SPAWNING HAVE BEGUN TO SKEW THE PROPORTION OF MALES TO FEMALES IN THE POPULATION, RESULTING IN SLIGHTLY LOWER GROWTH STANDARD FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION DUE TO THIS INCREASED WEIGHTING OF SMALLER MALES IN THE GROUP
OR The increasing pressure on the shallow water population including both angler mortality and actual physical presence in the habitat, has caused some death loss in the upper size ranges and some habitat desertion by individuals for quieter environs.
#3 The additional size regulations have obviously benefitted overall reproductive success and anglers should mark their calendars for 2008 when the GREAT YEAR CLASSES NOW IN THE 30-40 INCH SIZE RANGE START TO REACH THEIR MAXIMUM SIZE, GOOD FISHING SHOULD LAST UNTIL 2012 WITH A LOT OF 50 INCH CLASS FISH AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
OR The increasing heavy pressure on these now too popular waters has resulted in every nook and cranny being investigated and fished for musky. The traditional haunts of big fish continue to occasionally produce big fish and the nooks and crannies now supply an abundance of smaller muskies that were previously ignored when the pressure was lighter.
OR Good fishing spots suffer from the "12th pass syndrome" of increasingly heavy pressure. Musky schools and club outings and marked maps, along with modern gps and sonar equipment, have opened the book on this fishery in recent years. The fish have become increasing bait shy and more difficult to catch because of this pressure. Small fish have not had as many encounters as big fish, and tend to be more eager biters and show the population is abundant, but the bigger fish are not as eager to bite.
OR The recent invasion and inroads of the rusty crayfish has changed the weedy environment favored by bigger fish and moved them to less easily located, subtle, secondary locations.
#4 As in any fishery with an expanding population and increasing pressure and angler mortality, the largest fish, the mature in body size adults, become a decreasing proportion of the total population. This is a natural phenomenon and will not change until all dynamic forces expansion and pressure reach a mature population status and at that time there will be a stable proportion of adults to growing fish.
OR Due to increasing angler contact with the trophy fish portion of the population, there will be a decreased proportion from prior history due to 2 effects, angler induced mortality, and desertion of the habitat. This can only be avoided by limiting fishing contact with the population.
OR Recent die offs of a mature bulge in the population have caused trophy encounters to shrink slightly lately. Great year classes should push up the proportion of big fish in about 4-6 years.
Some additional comments. Comparing fishing today to fishing in the 30's is not a realistic view. Just NO WAY YOU CAN DO THAT. It is apples and oranges. And like it or not, PRESSURE CHANGES FISHERIES, even without clubbing fish.
There has been no studies indicating 50-50 populations of males to females in populations that reach maximum holding capacity of the environment. Probably better than hatchery produced populations but no evidence that high populations of musky are in a 50/50 ratio, sorry. If you know of any please correct me.
All of these conclusions are as well supported theoretically as Bob's conclusions(not at all). Until we actually establish that a problem exists there is not much point in trying to make any kind of a general fix, unless it is one that has no downside.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Thank you for bringing the syndrome we need to take care to avoid to light, you did a great job making an excellent set of points. You in for next Wednesday night? I'd really like to have you in the room for the opening discussion.
Bob, how about you? You in?
So far it's Norm, me, and Sean. A bit skinny if you ask me, especially in light of all the posts here on the subject. We have to give Don a 'get out of the meeting' card this time, he's going to be out of town. I will see to it we retian a transcript of everything said in there for future viewing of interested parties. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Currently have no chat capability on either computer. As a non resident of WI I don't know that my addition would be of significant meaning in the future and I have already probably said more than I need to on the subject, but I will try and make it in the chat room and throw in. | |
| | |
| FSF - Please go back and look at my conclusions on the LOTW. I analyzed the numbers of fish caught. It's all the data that we have and I used it. In your post, you went on and on about things like:
"Raising size limits to 48 inches probably supercedes maximum growth of a large portion of the population"
"#2 Increasing angler density and angler mortality may be affecting numbers of 45-50 inch fish"
"A recent population peak in the upper adult size range is beginning to encounter natural mortality and current year classes reaching maximum size are smaller classes."
"Population increases in TOTAL MUSKIES SPAWNING HAVE BEGUN TO SKEW THE PROPORTION OF MALES TO FEMALES IN THE POPULATION, RESULTING IN SLIGHTLY LOWER GROWTH STANDARD FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION DUE TO THIS INCREASED WEIGHTING OF SMALLER MALES IN THE GROUP "
"The increasing pressure on the shallow water population including both angler mortality and actual physical presence in the habitat, has caused some death loss in the upper size ranges and some habitat desertion by individuals for quieter environs."
I stopped looking at that point, but as far as I can tell none of your information is based on fact. You just made all of this up without having any data to back it up.
In your post you do state some things I'd agree with and may be possible like big year classes in recent years. I was shocked at the information myself, but the NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. Since the 54 inch size limit, the catch rate of smaller Muskies has greatly increased, while the number of big fish has remained constant. This is fact, anything else including my speculation that genetics may be favoring smaller fish is just that - speculation. I'm hoping it's some fantastic year classes coming through, but we shall see.
I'd like to note that many Biologists consider Angler Catch information and Creel survey's to be important Bioloical data on fish populations. Especially those with a high number of catches and over multiple years. That is what we have on LOTW.
Steve - I'm suprised (and disappointed) that you were so quick to dismiss it.
| |
| | |
| FSF - I'm thinking I'd be better off not addressing your posts. You reject any data I provide and respond with lies and untruths. I do not create the data, I work hard digging it up and I post it to better inform the interested parties.
If I may ask - tell us about yourself. How long have you been fishing Muskies, what states, have you been successful? Have you any knowledge of the Muskies biology and history?
| |
| | |
| From Wisconsin DNR Research report 172:
"An alternative explanation for the observed growth/size structure in Mud/Callahan and LCO would implicate angler harvest. Long term harvest trends by anglers targeting larger fish may cause a natural adaptive shift toward earlier maturing (and slower growing) fish in Mud/Callahan Lake."
"Management options for slow growth populations might consider special size limits that would encourage harvest of smaller individuals while offering protection to larger fish in the population."
"The higher survival of M/C muskellunge compared to LCO Muskellunge is of interest and to suggest a reason is speculative. Possibly M/C fish are somehow behaviorly diffrent from LCO fish, making them less vulnerable to predation."
The above is what the DNR stated. I will now speculate again. If slow growing fish are indeed in all our waters due to our 105 years of stocking, those fish appear to BIOLOGISTS as better able to avoid predation. These fish are more likely to survive to adulthood according to BIOLOGISTS. Once reaching adulthood (at around 24") they are much more likely to survive as adults because they are protected their entire life by 34 inch size limits. Meanwhile the faster growing fish are more likely to be eaten as young and are more likely to be harvested as adults. I contend that every year the balance is being shifted in favor of smaller Muskies. I have seen no data that proves otherwise. Sure - every year more fish are caught. MORE SMALL FISH. Some may think this is good, I do not. I believe we have a choice.
I've pointed at a number of different factors in my posts over the last few months. Please don't accuse me of waffling - as I think there are a number of factors and we need to address them all. There is no one silver bullet.
In the past I thought we'd get more 50's just by releasing small fish. Then I thought we'd get more 50's by increasing minimum size limits. I came to these views with a very simplistic approach and History has shown these things alone have not worked. After realizing this wasn't working, I spent the last 3-4 years trying to figure out why. I now think I understand this. These are not my ideas - these are ideas that have proven effective in the field with Muskies and other fish. These are the ideas that Biologists in Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin have advocated. Biologists in other states have seen positive results with other large game fish when doing these same things.
I believe we should stock only fish taken from Large brood stock.
I believe we should Protect large, very Large and especially HUGE male and female Muskies.
I believe on waters that are proven to have "slow growing Muskies" that harvest should be allowed within a size bracket that focuses harvest on those "slow growing fish." (Slot Limits)
I believe forage does have an impact on the ultimate size of a Muskie - but it does not turn 50 inchers into 34 inchers or vice versa.
I believe we can greatly improve our fisheries if we do all of the above.
I believe we should start today.
I have seen no reasonable arguments not to do all of the above.
| |
| | |
| Steve - can't do the chat this Wednesday night. The following Wednesday looks better. | |
| | |
| ChadG - thanks for the help on expaining why a slot will kill fewer fast growers than slow growers. You said it better than I would have. | |
| | |
| Since I have no idea who I am responding to, you who signed "guest" above, I really don't feel much need to tell you anything about myself, other than I stayed at a Holiday Inn. If you feel my comments do not bear consideration, please feel free to reject them out of hand, this is after all an internet forum. I feel all my points are valid, and that I do have the knowledge and background to make them here. I would suggest you RE-read them yourself with an open mind, and remember that I am not rejecting Bob's assertions as untruths, I am simply stating that they are NOT verified by the information he presents. I would also have you remember that my many suggested cause and effect relationships, are NOT verified by Bob's or Redwing Lodge data. My point is that ANY of these assertions may, or may not be true, but without some specific experimental design and collection of data, they are ALL SPECULATION. I am illustrating SOME of the other possibilities this data could suggest. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
I didn't reject anything, I cautioned that data from one resort on a body of water like LOTW should not be used as a sole basis for the wide, sweeping assumptions being made. There are, as FSF has said so very well, simply TOO many varibles possibly effecting those numbers.
I'm quite aware of the DNR's use of creel studies; my son works for the Wisconsin DNR Creeling in the Winter. My point is that though interesting and definitely worth looking over, it takes MUCH more than observation of one data source to decide a system needs a management change. I simply stated the fisheries management folks on LOTW may not agree with you, as they have access to ALL the information they use to define management on LOTW, and we might not. I certainly won't second guess the strategy there, it appears to be working just fine.
I have always felt that each lake or river should be managed individually in Wisconsin, and my wish that the budget be there and public support and understanding be there for that to happen. I feel some systems would definitely benefit from a 50" plus limit, and others would not.
My point is, has been, and will be that our fisheries folks have a very good handle what needs to be done, but the lack of public support, money, staff, and other necessary resources binds their hands. Bob said it, muskies are understudied; there is a good reason for that. I asked that those interested meet tonight here at 8 PM in the Chat room so we can talk about a course of action. I'll be there, and we'll see who else can be. We'll schedule another night for those who can't be there this Wednesday. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Have been on vacation so didn't see the posts about the chat. Did you guys have it, if so how did it go?
Norm, Steve and anyone else, I really think we should take a page out of Jason S.'s book and take this subject to one of our favorite lakes, Pelican and see what we can get accomplished there. It may be more realistic than taking on a bunch of bodies of water. Plus it will be a good test, it has a lake association that has successfully petitioned the DNR to hault stocking, and the lake association is loaded with people that want to be able to keep anyhing they catch. If something can get done there it may be possible to do it anywhere.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mike,
How do we do it??? As you might expect I would be in. The lake has a great history of putting out big fish, I think Steve wrote half of the recent history on that pond.
Great natural reproduction, good size lake, good population, I think it would be a good case study. | |
| |
|
How would you Vote on a Slot Limit?