|
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mike's original poll brought out some very good discussion on the issues of size limits in Wisconsin. It is fairly obvious that if we are going to get any new size limits done in WI we have to have the vast majority of musky fishermen on board, and the slot limit isn't doing it.
Again let's work under the premise that the same lakes the original 50" proposal failed on are the ones in question. On second thought let's include Pelican too, its my poll I can do what I want!!! 
Let's see if we can get a mandate from our crew on this one.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | not being up on the biological end of things, i voted for the slot. it apears to me that it would do alot more to help grow a trophy fishery. lets face it even a 40" size limit would at least be a step in the right direction though!!! the point is that somthing needs to be done no matter how small it may seem i keep falling back on my statement and claim, that something no matter how small it may seem has got to be done!! i personally would like to see the size limit raised to say 40, then raised again within 5 years to another 2-4 inches and som on til we can get the thing up where it needs to be. i dont think that doing either of the two would hurt a thing but both would help in its own way!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Wasn't there a proposed statewide 40" tried already?
I voted slot too, I know the people up in NE Wis way too well to know that they'd ever vote yes on increased limits without an act of Congress or something.
I'm not a believer in quitting on the 50", but there has to be a stepping stone to it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | The increase was already approved overwhelmingly at the Spring DNR Hearings, but one member on the DNR Board veto'd it.
I would be for the slot limit if those spearing would also acknowledge the slot size limits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| I would at least go for a 45" min. I equate that to a 3 1/2 yr. old buck, when they get that size they are a different animal(fish).
The one thing that really bothers me about any slot is that it is not working as planned on some of the walleye/bass, just would hate to see it not work on musky and then have to try to change it again! Plus we have a 45" limit start in 2005 on the Wi. River, so maybe 45" is the magic number! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| I would be for the slot limit if those spearing would also acknowledge the slot size limits.
How is that going to happen? How is ANYONE going to get the NAs to change their spearing ways? And by the way, what do you think, they are going to be standing over a fish, saying "how big is this fish?". Right or wrong they spear what they want to spear right now, under set limits which are violated over and over again during their season. Saying that these people are going to "acknowledge the slot" is like saying "if I think about it hard enough, money will just pop into my wallet". Neither is going to happen, sorry.
Reality just SUCKS doesnt it?
Memune |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I would agree with the 45" on select lakes. Not so sure it would fly statewide though, and not so sure it should be pushed statewide. We pushed for 45 on the river here for several reasons, but one of the main reasons is that 45" was much easier to get the public to agree with than 50", and it is a huge step and improvement from 34". A 45 is not a 50, but has been caught a few times, and will not be as easily caught by the weekend fathead soaker that is known for keeping each legal fish. As Jeff stated, another type of animal once they reach that size. I think if another statewide vote is pushed for, that 40" be the number again. Too many lakes would not be suited for 45, but I can't think of many that would not benefit from a 40, and it is not such a breathtaking leap from 34". We could keep all special regulation lakes(28", 45", 50", possibly slot lakes in the future) what they are now, and raise the rest. Good discussion.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2004 4:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | I went with a statewide 40. I think the slot does not work on all lakes and does promote harvest on lakes where you want it little or none at all. On lakes with a big population of fish I think a lower slot like 36-45 would be better. If catch and release would remain the same for both rules, I would have chosen the slot. |
|
| |
|
| 40 inch statewide on the way to 45 inch or 50 inch in the future. Let's have the trophy waters at 54 inches like Canada, other A lakes 50 inches, B lakes 45 inches, and C lakes 40 inches or something like that!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| I think Steve has a great idea on the class of the lake vs. what the size limit would be. Its a good thought and those lakes are rated A,B,C for a reason. Maybe reefhawg is correct that the 45" statewide might be diffecult to reach, I could settle for the 40" vote. All these threads about slots and limits have been very enjoyable for me to read and discuss, very civil at best! Kudo`s to everyone! |
|
| |
|
| alot of intrest in raising the minimum size from 40 to 45 here in Minnesota,,In fact I helped with the survey at the Minnesota muskie expo and this was a question,,,it ended up at 90% in favor of raising it from 40-45,,,however in Minnesota most of the dnr muskie guys I talked to seem to think it could actually hurt the muskies,,,They think it would unbalance the sexes has males dont always grow to 45 thus mostly females would be harvested by those that do harvest fish causing the unbalance,,They were thinking 42 0r at most 44 statewide with some still saying 40 is best,,also they have said its best to have a statewide increase instead of lake by lake because if you designate a few lakes 50',,,the more talented anglers or more anglers overall will target those "trophy" lakes and you could have fish die from hook mortality,,,Dont understand how it all falls together myself higher size limits seem right to me but considering the muskie fishery the dnr has built here in Minnesota Im inclined to take their word for it so far all their calls have been the right ones |
|
| |
|
Posts: 622
Location: Seymour, WI | I think Reef Hawgs post is right on. A 40" state wide min size limit and keep the current lakes that have special designations already in place for 28", 45" and 50". That could be followed up with another push to have more trophy caliber lakes added to the special 45" and 50" inch catagory.
Grass, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 622
Location: Seymour, WI | If you look at the size range that norm posted for the slot limit, alot more big fish would be protected by the slot limit than just a straight 40" size limit. Just an observation.
Grass, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Good ideas here. I would not use musky classification as a means of deciding which limit to use though. The lower classifications like B or C are often used on lakes with low densities of fish, maybe a naturally reproducing lake that has a few and is not stocked which are quite often trophy waters. B or C is often used for a lake that is just getting started too. the WI river here is classified as C water with some stretches being B, just because of its' lower density. There could be argument for the higher limits on the lower classifications. Class A1 lakes are supposedly the trophy lakes and A2 are numbers lakes(just a rough definition). One could not manage the A1's and A2's the same. Many of the B's out there are A1's in my opinion, and many of the C's need the most protection so they can have the chance to become B's and A1's. Great discussion, keep the ideas rolling!!!!!
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/23/2004 11:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | slot al the way. It has to be on selected lakes, not all. A 40 inch limit would only protect another 12% of the fish if we say 2% per each inch up to 50. The slot I propose is 20% more and it protects the bigger fish.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
| I would go for the statewide 40 like many other people I would like more but I think 40 could be a spring board to 45 or 50. |
|
| |
Which size limit would you support