|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok, I have read through the transcript from last wed. chat. Great discussion, sorry I couldn’t make it. I will try this week but it will depend on what time I play B-Ball.
I think many important points where made and I thought it may be a good idea to start a thread devoted to Steve’s first bullet – Define the Problem with the Wisconsin Musky fishery?
So lets hear them, what is everyone’s opinion on what the problem is with the Wisconsin Musky Fishery? I think it’s important to focus on the big picture here and not define every little issue that affects the fishery, ie. spearing, single hooks, meat hunters, etc. but what is the problem we as a group want to correct?
In my opinion I see two problems, the first and this one I am convinced is a problem is LACK OF TROPHY FISH. I don’t think anyone can argue that this isn’t the case and probably the problem the majority of “musky” fishermen want addressed.
The second problem that may or may not exist, and this is where we will need help from the biologist is lack of numbers. How does the Wisconsin musky fisheries stack up to our neighboring states on a fish per acre basis. I think this is important as size of lake shouldn’t matter, fish per acre should. Now some lakes have the biomass to support a larger fish per acre number but I am talking averages here. How does our fish per acre stack up.
So what do the rest of you think, what are the major problems we want to correct.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | my opinion, and thats all it is, is my opinion!!! i dont expect anyone or everyone to agree with me at all.
1. spearing of musky
it has got to be either a. done away with (doubtful it will happen)
b. regulated somehow
c. reduced somehow
2. raise the size limits. higher size limits will equal less fish killed. a size limit is not meant to set the limit to kill a fish it is set to protect fish within it.
3. educate people on cpr. this is a broad topic it goes from junior catching his 1st musky to the old school guided keeping or letting clients keep fish.
a. nobody wants to stop the kid from killing his first musky saying its wrong. my son watched his first musky swim away with no ambitions of killing it and he felt great the rest of the day!! theres always photos and replicas.
b. the old school guides (not all of them) are a huge problem they still use single hook rigs, they will not deter people from killing a legal musky.
c. anyone wanting to keep their first musky..with the advancement of digital photos and replicas have come such a long way this makes no sense
d. get tackle shops to do away with the coolers and kept fish contests and do more to promote cpr.
e. teach people correct cpr techniques is there a book out yet???
f. single hook rigs vs. quick strikes...well thats a whole nother topic
again just my opinions
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | 1. To many people killing fish
2. To many guides don't make Catch and Release manditory
3. People still using swallow rigs
4. To many people making excuses for Little Johnny, Grandpa, Suzie, ect.... for why it is alright to keep a fish
I see WAY to many dead muskies when I am up there.
When I see people killing 47's, 48's 50+ inchers from lakes that are 500 acres and WAY LESS, that is why the trophy fishery has gone bye bye. People need to release these fish, not just 80% of them, but the BIG FISH so they can make BIG babies.
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/4/2005 9:52 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 341
| My issues.
I never see DNR on the water policing. How can you regulate rules with no presence?
Need a 50'' Size limit.
Trolling class A lakes should be permitted. It's just another tool when casting is not possible. It's also not helped WI compared to other states recoup numbers or size. Dumb rule!!!
Now that other states have better muskie fishing, maybe that will help Wisconsin recouperate it's fisheries from 40 years of fishing pressure from neighboring states and locals. It's a mix bag now with many states to choose from.
| |
| | |
Posts: 354
| Just some off the wall thoughts.
Is there a problem? How is it defined? The only problem I seem to consistently hear from
people is that it should be EASIER for me to catch a 50" fish? Why? Why should it be easier? Isn't that part of the mystery and challenge of this sport? How fun will it be if you could obtain your goal of trophy class fishery which allows a relatively easy capture of a 50" fish? Which fish or experiences do you cherish the most? This past year for instance I was fortunate to catch a 44" Wisconsin fish with a whopping 21" girth. This was a really nice fish and I worked for two months on this Wisconsin Lake to catch her. Do I regard that experience with less fondness than the two LARGER fish I caught on LOTW this summer? I do not.
Are we making an assumption that the environment can and should be maniuplated to produce these fisheries you desire? Year after year we see results which suggest that this goal is not easily obtained, if even possible at times. Lakes are individual systems with specific forage, spawing habitats, water quality, strains of fish, etc. Should those things be maniuplated so that Joe Blow can see and catch larger fish? Are any of you aware of the recent reports of the near total collapse which is occuring on Lake Michigan. Man introduced alewife, by accident, and later salmon and some trout. Now the whole system is dire straits.
On top of all of this we have numerous 50"+ fish caught every year out of the Chippewa Flowage, Wisconsin River, Pewaukee Lake, Bay of Green Bay, Fox River, Pelican, etc.
Clearly, having traveled the past three years to LOTW, Wisconsin's waters are much different and the quality of angling experience is as well. I'm just in favor of making cautious and slow changes when dealing with the environment. Evidence of the likelyhood of success needs to be present as well. I do realize that there are success stories out there, Shawano Lake is quickly becoming one, but there has been a lot of wasted money and efforts as well.
It seems that the best musky waters in the world have one thing in common. The vast majority of them are waters which have the ability to naturally reproduce fish. There appears to be plenty of evidence at times suggesting that stocking, size limits, etc. can alter and improve fisheries at times but it isn't an automatic assumption one should make. There may be a few exceptions but the habitat must be present and protected. If this is the type of suggestion your thinking of then I strongly support it.
These are just some random thoughts. It is clear that Wisconsin fishing isn't what Minnesota, Indiana, and Canada is experiencing. Each of these places are unique with their own histories, public perceptions, etc. What works for these places won't necessarily work here. Sometimes I wish it was that easy. Especially on those tough days where you
wish you were in Canada versus Caldron Falls.
I'm just thinking out loud here. Thank you for letting me share some of these ideas.
Bill C. aka the greenduck | |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | another feeling i also have is a more aggresive stocking program by the dnr. i think they are really missin the boat with musky fishing. they always seem to be one step behind everyone else where i feel they should be one step ahead. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Our main problem as I now see it is that we have far too little fish in the system that are capable of reaching trophy size. As short as a year ago I would have said that higher size limits would be the number one priority, but if we don’t have enough fish capable of growing to large sizes then higher size limits are mute.
Bob Benson’s ideas in the genetics thread make a lot of sense to me. If we are taking our eggs for rearing from a system that has trouble producing quality sized fish then that is what we should expect from their offspring. If we could however, get eggs and milt from larger males and females then we should expect that their offspring at least have the genetic capability to reach trophy sizes. It is working in Minnesota and I cannot see why it isn’t worth a try here in Wisconsin. The problem may be where are we going to find these large fish to strip eggs and milt from? Perhaps the Wisconsin River system?
| |
| | |
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Another piont to be made is that changing where we harvest eggs and milt would not have to go through the conservation congress for approval. Any of you who have been to these meetings know how fast good ideas can go sour with open public input. I have lost confidenance in the Conservation Congress system. We have paid professionals in the DNR whose hands are sometimes tied by politics. | |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | The problem is we (the citizens of Wisconsin) need to let the WDNR fisheries biologist's manage the fishery for the best interests of both the environment, and the fish. In the end we all will win. We pay these highly trained/skilled scientists to take care of our aquatic natural resources and then we handcuff them with politics and the " Wisconsin Conservation Congress meetings every spring". Come on this is ludicrous. Obviously the biologists don't like single hook swallow kill rigs. I suspect that everyone of them takes great pride in doing a good job, we just need to let them do it.
Sure some lakes need larger size limits, conversely some need smaller. It's your choice where you want to fish based on whatever are your personal goals. I've fished LCO & Grindstone & never saw a fish. But I had a great time hunting. Why, because I think they can still produce a trophy fish. Now I have a new bag of tricks for the next trip.
Sure spearing is viewed as not a good thing- but it's another method of fishing that's legal for Native American's - I think the Wisconsin Native American's care about the resources and don't deliberately set out to damage them, i.e., that would be counter to their cultural heritage of living with their environment. Historically the "white man" has really assaulted the Wisconsin environment. What happened to the northern white pine forests, forest bison, elk, etc. etc? it's time to stop using the Native Americans as an excuse. They were living in harmony with their environment long before the first whiteman set foot in this state. Pollution, political garbage and greed are the biggest offenders.
In the end the WDNR- needs to be empowered to do the right thing for the entire state...... Do they need permission from us every year as to what the right things are for the coming year? I don't think so.
If I had to work under the same restraints in my daily job, I would be miserable. Fortunately my manager's recognise my expertise and let me do the job they are paying me for, in the long run I add value to the company bottom line. I see this situation as a major obstacle for our DNR staff and sucessfull management of our natural resources.
Do we need more DNR enforcement- without a doubt yes! However, we need to fund it. To enforce the regulations you need the staff. One way is increased license fee's. Something I think is really necessary. Look what's happening to the Muskie fishery in Illinois- Politicians raiding the sources of funding. Licensing fee's are paid by sportman to utilize the resources. Those revenues should be retained for exclusive use of the DNR to manage the resources. You get what you pay for!
Just my 2 cents worth.
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 1/4/2005 11:41 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | to keep it simple....the Conservation Congress, let's let the Biologists do thier job. I believe that the idea of Joe Angler having a voice is a good idea, I just feel as though the CC has too much clout. | |
| | |
| WI musky management needs to be improved and we should figure out some way to help with strategy, direction, stocking support, and stocking funding working directly with the WDNR!
Have higher size limits, but vary them by lake class which we already have discussed
Negotiate spearing quotas or slot limits avoiding monster fish being harvested but more smaller fish being kept
Let biologists, the WDNR make all decisions regarding lake and river management
Educate the entire fishing community about muskies, what they really eat, and the benefits of catching and releasing all muskies
Promote the trophy potential of new waters just emerging as worthwhile such as Green Bay
Actively protect spawning areas from development
Stock areas aggressively where natural reproduction can occur, and more aggressively where it can't | |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | GMG- Joe angler has been heard every year in the CC, the same motivation drives these folks to participate in the CC every year, that motivation has also put us into this debate- greed. I'm tired of hearing that WI has no trophy muskie, that's crap. The folks that subscribe to that theory couldn't find a trophy fish if it was swimming in their backyard pool. Can our waters be better managed- most certainly! Right now they are being managed via the input from your average Joe Angler in the CC meetings. How many of the folks in those rooms raising their hands and voting down muskie size limit increases on specific lakes, actually fish or even fish those waters? That's the problem- Mix multiple resource issues into a meeting where the vast majority are there to guard their own special interests. Most of them were probably deer hunters. The problem with the CC is it's not working! The averge Joe Angler knows squat about management of aquatic bio-diversity. All they care about is their stringer at the end of the day.
What's a trophy? Is a 50" muskie a trophy? To my 9 year old granddaughter the 27" northern pike she got & CPR'd this summer was a real trophy. She caught that while fishing on the same spot where I've caught numerous muskies, including a 44" this year. I also lost a +50" fish in the same spot. Hopefully, this year she'll tag that +50 fish and get to release another trophy.
If all you fish for is "trophy + 50" muskies" and you can't find them, it's easy to blame the WDNR biologists and poor management. That's also crap, I think people with that problem need to focus their efforts on improving their own fishing skills.
Hah! Fish of 10,000 casts, yes on some days and under a lot of circumstances for the vast majority of anglers that may be true. Is that the WDNR biologist's fault, my fault or the individual angler's fault? I submit it's the angler's fault. I agree with Steve Worrall and a lot of others on this forum that education is the best tool, for both improving your skills as a fisherman and protecting the resources.
If you have an illness, do you go to the doctor and tell him how to treat it? That's what's happening here in Wisconsin. Ok, perhap's as a collective group we would like to see more & bigger muskies. I'm sure there a lot of other specie's anglers who would say nay to those goals. Those same idiots abuse the resources they are using and blame the poor walleye fishing or pan fishing on the muskies eating all the walleye's, etc. Why are all the walleye's they catch dinks under the legal size. I've talked to guys that catch 50 - 100 walleyes a day without catching a keeper. They keep every keeper over 15" and they fish everyday, 7 days a week.......... I know I've seen it! Where are all the keepers? In their freezers. Jeez, they think those muskies must be just gobbling down those 5 - 10 lb walleyes versus those 10- 15 inch walleyes.... . The same is true of the pan fisherman- catch a limit in the morning, come back in the afternoon get another. Then comment to me how the muskies are eating all the bluegills & crappies. These same as$hloes are also sitting in the CC meetings voting against improvements in muskie management. In my mind the CC is a waste of the taxpayers money and a disservice to the State.
Ok- Now I've vented my frustrations with this whole issue - Not enough enforcement out there? A warning to the resource abuser's - "The WDNR TIPS hot line is programmed into my cell phone.
Doe's anyone have information or contacts for volunteering or assisting WDNR staff with projects like spring egg collection, surveys, whatever?
"We must be the change we want to see in the world" Mahatma Ghandi
Al
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | I think what we're trying to say here is that we need to come up with a well defined plan to manage WI musky fishery to its fullest potential.
I think this can be done as it has with other fisheries in the state. Look at the stream trout fishery in WI. They have a comprehensive plan to manage each section of stream to maximise the growth potential in that individual watershed. The plan even includes detailed goals for stocking and maintaining the water quality of the stream. I don't think this would be as difficult to do with the musky fishery as it was for trout, but I would like to see the DNR come up with a comprehensive plan to manage the musky resource using some of our input. The watersheds will need to be evaluated and put into different classes simiar to the trout stream catagories based on their potential to either provide an "action fishery" or a "trophy class fishery". This has already been done to some extent with the designations of Class A, B & C waters. Then there needs to be size restrictions or slot limits put in place for these different catagories so that the muskies in each class of water can begin reach their potential. I would like to see the plan include goals such as, stocking goals, quality and strain of the broodstock, watershed protection, monitoring of the progress of the fishery, public relations and education.
I read in another post where the logic behind the 34" size limit was to have the limit set to where a female musky could be expected to spawn one time before being harvested. That is no longer acceptable. The size limits need to be set to allow the fisheries to reach their full potential. There are a few different classes of lakes througout the state with different size limits already in place. Lakes where muskies are overly abundant have 28" size limit (Tiger Cat), Some counties have a county wide 40" size limit (Forest), 45" in The Chip and Wi river, 50" in 3 Hayward lakes and GB. These four classes would be a good place to start and I think the slot limit idea should be tried as well.
Goals like this will give us a real chance to improve the musky fishery here.
I think this is an excellent post to gather ideas for fishery improvement.
Grass, | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I want to make sure that my opinion is clear, I don’t believe that there are no trophy fish in Wisconsin, there are. I believe given the history and the quality of our lakes there could and should be more. Because of poor fishing practices our lakes are not living up to their potential. As Grass has stated lets get it closer to this potential.
Do I think it should be easier to catch a trophy fish in Wisconsin, yes I do. (the Wisconsin DNR defines a trophy musky as being over 50”) I still enjoy every fish I catch, but why should it be easier to catch a trophy fish in Mn, or Ontario when our lakes have the potential and it is poor fishing practices that are keeping them down.
For example in the last 6 years my five best fish ranged from 46 to 51 inches. All but one, a nice thick 48 ½ incher, came from LOTW. In that 6 years I spent a total of 1160 hours fishing Wisconsin waters and 340 hours fishing LOTW. I spend a lot of time every year on Wisconsin trophy water, it shouldn’t be that hard to get one here.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
P.S. I use the term Fishing Practices a number of time, I choose that over management practices as many people tie management to the DNR when the DNR does not make the rules, the CC does. The poor fishing practices in my opinion, are the spearing, gut hooking, keeping of small fish, and other things bad for the population that have been mentioned.
| |
| | |
Posts: 663
| I'm packing today to head on the road for the musky shows tomorrow. I'll try to keep an eye on this discussion as much as possible and would appreciate the opportunity to talk to any of you who are at the shows. I think overall we have a common goal of an improved musky fishery in Wisconsin however you define that. We just need to narrow down some realistic goals and a plan of action. I'm all for it and will help any way I can. If you are at any of the upcoming shows, stop and see me at the Guide's Choice Pro Shop Booth. I've already been in contact with a couple of you and want to be involved in further action on this. Thanks to all for your contributions and thoughtful comments. | |
| | |
| My simple answer to the question.."Define the problem with the Wisconsin Musky Fishery?
There is too many people that actually think its good....lets face it the glory days are gone and it only has a spark every once in a while.
If folks thought it was bad the 50" size limit on Vilas county lakes would have passed, but it did not even come close to passing.
Wisconsin needs to wake up out of the History of Hayward and understand our musky fishery is getting worse every year. MN woke up..  | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I'd have to say that the number 1 thing for me is the "guaranteed mortality" that happens every spring. You can't release a fish that's had a piece of steel rammed through it's skull. Then there's the winter "harvest". I've seen it personally back when it first began. My Lake X, and spearers out every night for a week, even though they had their walleye quotas already. Big, fat fish over 45" and up past that. Loaded with eggs that would have hatched and died of old age by now, and no body at the landing to check them.
I know we can't change it, but we have to keep trying.
I'll spend a few weekends in Wisconsin, but when it comes to vacations, I'll be in MN......and not just for the muskies. I think that their DNR has their $hit together when it comes to fish management.
I have an easy answer.....stop killing the fish. It's as easy as that. But until that becomes law, you won't see any strides being made. This isn't an overnight thing. I just hope that my kid has it better.
Beaver | |
| | |
| I would have to say my biggest complaint is lack of BIG fish. I have fished a TON the past
5 years and have yet to even catch a 40 incher. I have only seen 2 fish bigger than 40" also.
There is a few lakes\rivers I fish that has an unfishable population of muskies in them and the DNR told me they
will not stock them because it would upset the pan fisherman. You have got to be kidding me!
They can't put in a few hundred fingerlings every 5 years cause the pan fisherman will get pissed?
Give me a break!
My | |
| | |
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | Please don't compare The fisheries of Minnesota and Wisconsin and the biological principles, and management practices and all of the other mumbo jumbo! You could stick every #*^@ lake in Oneida county and probably toss in a few from Vilas and you will not come up with the water footage of Mille Lacs alone. Why do I go to LOTW over 20 years or visit Minnesota now?? To better my odds at a BIG fish, simple answer!! If you really really think that slapping a 50 inch size limit on many lakes in WI is the answer, I just have to shake my head and disagree. Stock more fish, preserve more habitat, these are WAY more important than slapping a goofy high size limit, why not 54 instead of 50. Just a few thoughts......... | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Is there a problem with the WI muskie fishery? Well that depends on what your expectations are. I expect to be able to put more 50” fish in my boat than I can now so for me the answer is obviously yes there is a problem. I dug up some info that may be of interest to some people and will hopefully get more people questioning whether or not WI could do a better job of managing our muskies, especially for trophy fish.
Most of this info relates to the Hayward area and NW WI where I have spent nearly all of my 20+ years of musky fishing. Most of the following info is based on Muskies Inc. records.
A total of only 4 50” fish have been reported to M.I. in the last 5 years from 3 lakes in the Hayward area which have had a 50" size limit on them for more than 5 years now.
Grindstone - 0. Namekagon - 2. Lac Court Oreilles - 2
There were 5 fish over 45” reported from Grindstone lake in the 9 year period from 1986 - 1994 (pre 50” size limit). In the following 10 year period from 1995 - 2004, which includes the 50” size limit that was implemented there, there has only been 4 fish over 45“ reported there. No 50” fish ever reported.
There were 4 50” fish reported from Lake Namekagon in the 6 year period from 1984 - 1990 (pre 50" size limit). In the following 14 year period from 1991 - 2004, which includes the 50" size limit that was implemented there, there has only been 2 50” fish reported there.
There were only 2 50” fish reported from Lac Court Oreilles in the 6 year period from 1992 - 1997. In the following 7 year period from 1998 - 2004, which includes the 50” size limit that was implemented there, again there has been only 2 50” fish reported there.
So is the 50” size limit working? Does not look like it to me. High size limits make no sense and will make no difference if the fish we are stocking can’t grow that big to begin with.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Round Lake (Sawyer Co.) in the last 11 years. Last 50” fish reported was 12 years ago.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Whitefish lake in the last 16 years. No 50” fish ever reported.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Sissabagama in the last 12 years. Last 50” fish reported was 14 years ago.
There has only been 6 fish over 45” reported from Lost Land / Teal Lakes in the last 12 years. Last 50” fish reported was 13 years ago.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Spider Lake in the last 18 years. Last 50” fish reported was 25 years ago.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Lake Winter in the last 8 years. No 50” fish ever reported.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Lake Hayward in the last 9 years. Last 50” fish reported was 9 years ago.
The only fish over 45” ever reported from Moose Lake was 18 years ago. No 50” fish ever reported.
66% of all waters in Sawyer Co. have never had a fish over 45” reported.
The only fish over 45” ever reported from Butternut Lake was 31 years ago which is also the only 50” fish ever reported from there.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Shell Lake in the last 14 years. No 50” fish ever reported.
There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from the Eau Claire Chain of lakes (Bayfield Co) in the last 18 years. Last 50” fish reported was 18 years ago.
In the last 10 years the number of fish over 45" reported from all waters in Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn counties has declined by 11% when compared to the previous 10 year period.
In the last 10 years the number of 50" fish reported from all waters in Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn counties has declined by 12.5% when compared to the previous 10 year period.
There has been a total of only 36 50” fish reported from all waters within Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas, Sawyer, and Washburn counties over the last 20 years combined, compared to a total of 41 50” fish reported from Lake Vermilion, MN in 2004 alone, and 37 50” fish reported from Lake Mille Lacs, MN in 2004 alone.
In 2004 there was a total of 15 50" fish reported from the entire state of WI.
In 2004 there were 3 lakes in MN that each had more 50” fish reported from them than all waters in WI combined.
In 2003 there were 120 50" fish reported from MN.
In 2003 there were only 5 50" fish reported from WI.
In the 10 year period from 1986 - 1995 WI reported more 50" fish than MN…….WI - 51. MN - 37,…….but then in the following 5 year period from 1996 - 2003 MN reported more 50" fish than WI…….MN - 438. WI - 65. Why such a change? The MN DNR made some changes in the mid 80’s and it took about 10 years before the results started showing up.
I believe M.I. data provides a very good representation of the status of our fisheries. I believe M.I. records are just as reliable or even more so than the surveys done by the DNR for determining the status of our fisheries. M.I. records usually provide a much larger sample size of data on actual catches from WI lakes than what the DNR uses. M.I. records are of actual fish being caught from that lake. No stories at the boat launch by pan fish and walleye fishermen about the big musky they encountered that must have went over 50” and 50lbs.
In 2004 I finally decided to go to MN and see first hand what I knew was going on there for years now. In 2004 I spent most of my time musky fishing in MN, however the amount of time I did spend fishing in MN in 2004 was considerably less time than I normally have spent in a season fishing the Chippewa Flowage. In 2004 I put more fish in my boat while fishing in MN than I have ever put in my boat in any 1 season fishing the Chippewa Flowage. In 2004 the average size fish in my boat from MN waters was 43.4”. The best average size in my boat from WI in any one season was 39.8” which is also my best average size for any one season in more than 20 years of fishing on the Chippewa Flowage. I had only 2 fewer fish over 45" in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 than I have had in more than 20 years of fishing the Chippewa Flowage combined. I had 1 50" fish in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 compared to no 50" fish in my boat in over 20 years of fishing the Chippewa Flowage combined. I had only 2 fish under 40" in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 compared to no fish over 40" in my boat while fishing in WI in 2004.
I hope more people soon come to the same conclusion that a few of us have. If I am ever in my lifetime going to get to enjoy the same type of quality fishing in WI that MN has to offer, WI needs to make the right types of changes right now to improve our trophy fishing and get it up to its full potential. I don’t care who’s responsible for WI’s trophy muskie fishing not meeting my expectations. What matters most to me is if, when, and how WI is planning on improving its trophy fishing so I won’t have to keep traveling out of state to find waters that do meet my expectations.
We can learn from what worked for MN to produce a lot more trophy fish. What did MN do to produce such staggering results? In the mid 80’s the MN DNR decided concentrate their efforts on collecting all eggs and milt that are used for stocking from only large fish that have the genetics to grow large and grow fast. They did studies to see what fish grows big and fast. They created brood stock lakes with protective size limits to protect those genetics and these large fish they would strip eggs and milt from to use for stocking. And now 20 years later, look at what they have. Arguably the finest trophy musky fishery anywhere on the planet. Definitely the most improved trophy musky fishery anywhere. And its not just good numbers of 50” fish either because there are tons of fish of all sizes in most of these lakes in MN. They have both great action and numbers of trophy fish all within the same lakes. What they have done has shown no evidence of any negative effects of any kind. High size limits are not even needed for MN to produce the huge number of 50” fish its producing. Only the brood stock lakes have size limits over 40”, yet nearly every lake in MN with fish that were stocked from eggs and milt taken from these large fish in these brood stock lakes, pumps out numbers of 50” fish every year regardless of the lake size, depth, forage type, location etc…..where ever they plant them they get big fast.
WI could be doing the same thing and have a lot more trophy fish within 10 years if we start today. Thats what I would really like to see happen so I can enjoy the results in my lifetime. But we have to demand the necessary changes needed or the WI trophy musky fishery will either continue to decline or at best remain where it is at now. In my opinion WI’s trophy musky fishery is on the decline and has been for quite some time. The lakes we have with the designated 50” size limits are not producing more 50” fish than they historically have produced in the past. If we want 50" fish we must stock fish with the genetics capable of growing to 50”. Increasing size limits to 50” won't help if the fish being stocked are not genetically capable of growing that big to begin with. I believe this is main reason our lakes with 50” size limits are not producing more 50“ fish. I believe we would see a lot more 50” fish in WI even without these high size limits, just like MN, if we would only use fish with the genetics to grow to 50” when collecting eggs and milt for stocking.
Increasing size limits and changing regulations is a tough sell and has shown little or no improvement in WI where it has happened. If we focus on the genetics of the fish being used for stocking we may not have to change any regulations to greatly improve WI‘s trophy fishing opportunities. Some people here believe its unfair to compare Lake Vermilion or Mille Lacs to WI waters because “you could stick every #*^@ lake in Oneida county and probably toss in a few from Vilas and you will not come up with the water footage of Mille Lacs alone.” OK fair enough. Then please try to explain to me why Lake Miltona MN at 5,800 acres produced more 50” fish in 2004 than the entire state of WI? Good luck! Some people here believe that If I can’t catch a 50” fish on the “quality” WI waters that I’ve spent 20 years fishing then I must be a poor fishermen. Well then John Detloff as well as some other guides must be as crappy as me and a lot of others because he has never caught a 50" fish from the Chippewa Flowage or any place in WI either. But why in 1 year on MN water that I am unfamiliar with was I able to put more fish in the boat than I could in any year from the Chippewa Flowage? Why did I catch a 50” fish in 1 year in MN but never in 20 years in WI? Why did I see more fish over 50” in 1 season in MN than I have in 20 years in WI? Why do I have only 2 fewer fish over 45” in my boat after 1 year in MN than I have in 20 years on the Chippewa Flowage? I must have just gotten lucky I guess. I can’t wait to see how lucky this crappy fishermen is next year in MN. The explanation is simple. Its genetics. Ask the MN DNR.
Is there a problem with WI’s muskie management program? Well that depends on what each individual wants and desires. I want and desire WI to produce more trophy fish, more trophy fishing waters, and trophy opportunities in WI than we have today. More 50” fish, period! I do not want or desire WI to keep creating more opportunities for more dinks. If your happy catching dinks with no real good chance at a 50“ fish that’s a shame but its your choice.
Here is my thinking on this.
What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing without making any regulation changes or the least amount of regulation changes if they are needed?
What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing with the least amount of opposition by the general public at the conservation congress hearings?
What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing that would not require a vote by the general public at the conservation congress meetings?
What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing that is least likely to be perceived as a negative by the anti musky and non musky fishing folks?
What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing other than changing or raising size limits?
Ok...I'm out of breath now. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| Lockjaw, I would not put as much faith in the Muskies Inc. stats as far as Wisconsin is concerned. There are a lot of fish of all sizes that go unreported. Up until the recent reporting changes there were also an awful lot of fish that were not identified by location or only vaguely by county. I have a tough time using MI numbers as anything but annecdotal. | |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| Tradition leads to thick skulls.Thanks Todd. Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Pete
If I am not suppose to put much faith in the M.I. stats as far as Wisconsin is concerned does that apply only to WI? Should I apply this same reasoning and not put much faith in the M.I. stats for MN? If I do then the picture remains the same. What information should I put faith in? We and the DNR need something to go on to determine the status of our fisheries. Should I put more faith in stories that we and end up hearing 2nd and 3rd hand at the bar? Should I put more faith in the DNR creel and netting surveys that usually have only a fraction of the sample size of data from individual lakes? My own records and experience on the water over the last 20 years suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. The Hayward lakes M.I. tournament stats suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. The stats from the musky hunt tournaments held on the Chippewa Flowage suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. There are definitely fish that go unreported from WI. There are definitely fish that go unreported from MN too. The percentage of fish caught that go unreported from these two states most likely is consistant. This would tell me that there are more large fish going unreported in MN than in WI. The end result is the same result we already came to. How many 50" fish do you think went unreprted in 2003 from WI? I doubt if 115 or 96% of the 50" fish went unreported in WI in 2003 which is what you would need to put WI at the same level for 50" fish as MN in 2003. Of course thats assuming that no 50" fish went unreported in MN in 2003. Not too likely. I put a lot of faith in my 20 years on the water and the results I have had which unfortunately tells the exact same story the M.I. stats tell me. M.I. stats still provides the largest sample size of data found anywhere for muskies. If I should not put any faith in the M.I. stats to determine the status of our musky fisheries then what info should I be using instead? | |
| | |
| In the mid-eighties I fished an M.I. Chapter Challunge on the Chip. I did not prefish and had never fished the lake before. I caught 11 Muskies during the event. Impressed? Well of the 11, 4 were 28", 5 were 29", 1 was 30" and 1 was 31". Since the size limit was 30" at the time, it was pretty obvious to me what was going on there. Never have returned. | |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | esox maniac made this quote, and im sorry to have to bring this up again, but too many people are shying away from the fact that the spearing is a major contributor to the poor fishing, i guess since theres nothing that can be done about it because its a legal issue people are trying to block it out. esox you stated.......
"Sure spearing is viewed as not a good thing- but it's another method of fishing that's legal for Native American's - I think the Wisconsin Native American's care about the resources and don't deliberately set out to damage them, i.e., that would be counter to their cultural heritage of living with their environment. Historically the "white man" has really assaulted the Wisconsin environment. What happened to the northern white pine forests, forest bison, elk, etc. etc? it's time to stop using the Native Americans as an excuse. They were living in harmony with their environment long before the first whiteman set foot in this state. Pollution, political garbage and greed are the biggest offenders."
i have a question for you....have you ever been at one of the boat ramps, or on a particular lake they are spearing at nite and actually seen what they have done??have you seen a dozen nice sized musky laying on the shore dead?? the outragous number of walleye taken? ive sen a good musky lake destroyed from spearing over the years. so much that the dnr had to do a new study to show the # of fish was greatly reduced so they would lay off the lake. im sorry for bringing up "another spearing post." but this is about wisconsin fishing and this is a problem there. i spent years on a particular body of water that they have definetly hurt.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5171
| Wisconsins stocking program is pretty bad.Now on the southern lakes like Pewaukee,an Madsison chain where they stock consistantly, great fisheries.Harsh winters cold springs usually make for poor spawning years,stocking for musky is a must on some waters ever year.Does wisconsin dnr milk the eggs and bring them to a hatchery?Also too many trophy fish kept,alot of meat men in Wisconsin,cpr education is the key.0723
Edited by 0723 1/5/2005 8:05 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 723
| Right on handyman! There aren't any trophies left in wisconsin.
everyone should go to canada and leave the little guys to me and handyman.  | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I am very cautious about getting involved in this because it is getting slightly volatile, but....
Wisconsin does have big fish in it......period. Does if have as many big fish in it as it could.....no! Are enough of the waters being managed for trophies......no! Is there a problem with catch and keep and spearing......yes.
Wisconsin's fisheries are not dead, I catch a bunch of nice fish out of Wisconsin every year, do I think it could be better, absolutely. Call me greedy, call me selfish, but I think this is the biggest problem in Wisconsin. We are not optimizing our waters potential. I am not asking for a statewide push for nothing but trophy waters, but it would be nice to designate a couple of our ponds with that in mind.
Here is my proposal. Instead of arguing genetics and all that other stuff, lets find some waters that are sustained through natural reproduction and see what the native strains can do. Pelican is one of those lakes. It is currently on the DO NOT stock list, and to be honest with you I am quite happy with that. The native strain fish in that lake has shown it can grow to fairly large proportions, as is evident by Steve's pet he keeps leashed to the island. Back to my point, if the DNR is not going to stock it (which by the way was supported by the Property Assoc.), let's do a better job of protecting these natural fish. Let's make sure they get a chance to successfully spawn a couple of times before they are in the harvestable (boy that hurt to type) size range. Let's guarantee that the lake can sustain itself, it will save the DNR money, hopefully increase the occurence of big fish, and genuinely make Norm happy.
I use Pelican as an example just because I am very intimate with the lake. There is a wealth of lakes in WI that this example could work for. Just an idea.
Edited by nwild 1/5/2005 10:06 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | ya know all people are trying to do is throw out ideas and opinions, thats what the board is about. why individuals have to make stupid remarks, on a good winter topic of discussion is beyond me. this thread i thought was going quite well now i see it going sour. thanks guys!!! were all here for one purpose to make the musky world a better place. i dont think the propblem lies with anyone who posts on these boards. its the other people out there that we as a group need to get through too!! my email is
[email protected] in case anyone wants to argue or is offended by anything i have said they can take it up personally with me instead of ruining a good thread.
thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | LockJaw’s post was excellent and Norm I think you nailed it WISCONSIN MUSKY WATERS ARE NOT BEING MANAGED TO OPTIMIZE THERE POTENTIAL.
Are there any arguments that can be made that make that statement false?
What proof do we have that this is the case?
In my opinion the MI data, though it may be anecdotal, is relevant. As there is no reason to believe that MI members in Mn will report fish differently than people in Wi.
Also my personal observations have shown the same thing. Is there anyone reading this who’s personal observations differ from the MI data?
Another possible proof is history, why is it that with far greater numbers of people fishing Wisconsin waters far fewer trophy fish are being caught. If the lakes are just as good as they where in the past shouldn’t the number of trophy fish only rise with more people fishing?
For the ones who think people who fish Wisconsin just need to fish better, and shut up. I will offer one more personal observation. In the last 6 years I have averaged approximately 1 musky for every 20 hours fishing Wisconsin. When I fish WI/MI border waters, MI waters and Ontario waters, I average 1 fish every 12 hours. That’s any musky any size. Again I’ll ask is there anyone reading this who has personal observations that are opposite of this, relating time on WI waters to other waters?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | muskihntr- I think we need to put this subject into context. I would like to see the DNR statistics for spearing. Yes- spearing has hurt specific lakes. What I said about native culture is absolutely true. However, there are always individuals in any culture who will abuse the resources. In that case I would point to those individual's, and ask them why they are doing this, this is not what your ancestors did or your cultural heritage permits. I know this for a fact, I have studied native north american cultures. My mother was 3/4 native north american. No, I'm not a member of any Nation (tribe) or clan. But nether the less, I am not ashamed of my cultural hertitage or my ancestors. I have nephews and a grandson who are members of the Ho Chunk Nation (Bear Clan).
A hunter always shared his sucsess with his extended family. This could be a pretty large group depending on the size of the clan. By doing so, it insured that all had a chance for survival. I would hope that these individuals are following their ancestors practice's and sharing with their clan member family's. Today in doing so, they are also sharing excersizing their ancestoral heritage with everyone in the clan.
We need the help of the clan elders/leaders/chief's to stop those who are abusing the resource and yes, dishonoring their ancestors. Attacking the Native American spearing as the root cause is plain wrong. Besides, it's something neither you or I can fundamentally change. However, what we can change are some of the practices that are happening during the legal excersize of their cultural heritage. This includes over harvest of our lakes.
Let's not let this one issue devour this entire thread. Yes, it's an issue. However, it's an issue that can be dealt with. Not through violent verbal confrontations, but through intelligent discussion.
********************************************************************************
I personnaly don't fish for muskies with suckers or live bait (single hook kill rigs or quickstrikes). Is that something we can put a stop too? I seriously doubt it. It's another one of those cultural issues. "Why do you fish that way? Answer: Because it's the way my father, my grandfather and family have always fished for them......."
So we outlaw single hook fishing and he/she doesn't use a single hook, instead they use a quick strike with multiple hooks and let the fish swallow. The outcome is predictable and it's legal. Are we any further ahead?
Do we outlaw all live bait for muskie? How about, any muskie caught on live or dead bait must be immediately released? Hah! That certainly will get some reactions from both the folks who enjoy fishing that way and the bait shops selling them bait and rigs. These folks will be out in force at the CC meetings fighting any change that would limit their rights to do fish muskies the way they want.
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress is a joke! It's not a good fishery management tool. I agree the Joe anglers need to be heard, but should they set the rules and regulations? I don't think so. Greed is now managing our natural resources. I think the Wisconsin Conservation Congress could be a good tool for the WDNR to obtain feedback. However, it should only be feedback, not rule/regulation stetting. That feedback also has to be tempered with knowledge, i.e., the knowledge of the WDNR staff forestry, wildlife and fishery biologists. In the end we need to let these experts do their job's for the best interests of the environment and the citizens of Wisconsin.
Genetic selection, stocking, slot limits & other things that the WDNR should be able to more easily accomplish or manage. Even here we are faced with major opposition from lake owners, resort owners, other specie fisherman and yes plain ole tree huggers.
My personal message to any muskie fisherman reading this is that, I think we need a task force coalition of Wisconsin muskie fisherman to work with the WDNR to effectively help our muskie fisherie reach it's potential. As muskie fisherman we need to put our personal fishing bias's in our hip pocket and work on the bigger issues of how we can realistically effect changes that will let our waters reach the potential that the majority of us desire.
We all know that the WDNR needs our support both as a group and financially. Any new DNR project gets evaluated on the scope & cost. What benifits the most citizens get's priority access to funds. Maybe we can come up with some creative idea's to raise additional funds to be donated to the WDNR specifically for management of the muskie fishery. Maybe a Muskie Stamp is a good idea! Duck stamps, trout stamps and salmon stamps generate a good bit of revenue. Preimer artists' in the state compete to have there work on these stamps and yes that artwork & those stamps generate a lot of cash. How about a Wisconsin Muskie Coalition boat decal with some original artwork? Would you put in $20? I would.
By all means, we need to look at all the sucssesful and not so sucsessful management practices. Minnesota has done an excellent job of creating a first class muskie fishery. Obviously the WDNR has done some good things with help of the local muskie club's, i.e., Green Bay and Fox River and the C&R Muskie Club.
What about Ontario, the Ontario MNR must be doing something right. They don't even stock muskies. Take Lac Seul as an example- It was one of the hottest big muskie destinations. Guy's were killing a lot of triophy's and hurting the resource. The MNR's response with support of the resorts was to shut it off- no keep! Catch & Release Only! Are there guy's still fishing Lac Seul - heck yes. But the abuser's who were coming to Lac Seul and keeping multiple big fish to line their den walls got shut out. That took balls on both the MNR and resort owners part.
We need to put our differences aside and come together to help solve these issues, I think the Wisconsin Muskie Coalition is an idea way past due. We have some great folks in Wisconsin that could really lead this effort. However, I see very few of them posting in this forum. Maybe because they are tired of personal attacks in the internet forum's. A few that come to mind as a board of directors would be, Larry Ramsell, Joe Bucher, Pete Mania, Rick Kueger, Todd Forcer, Steve Worrall, etc, etc.
"We must be the change we want to see in the world" Mahatma Ghandi
Al
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I see Wisconsin as having issues, not problems. The Muskie fishery here is in great shape as far as being healthy. We have a tremendous number of fishable muskie lakes, rivers, and impoundments here. Many do support some pretty big fish.
Issue 1) Too many fish are harvested. Not just small fish, big fish reaching or beyond trophy size.
Issue2) Treaty Spearing. This is a reality. It isn't going to stop, is beyond our State's DNR's control. Spearing is tough to monitor because of Winter muskie spearing. This is an issue we as sportsmen can whine about or accept, anything else is not going to be productive. There IS an attitude here though which I'd paraphrase as, " Why should I release a 49" Muskie or a 26" Walleye when it will just get speared eventually anyway?"
Issue 3) The fact our fisheries management people are not able to change regulations and keep them changed for the good of the fishery. We have the Conservation Congress.
Issue 3) Funding. Politics.
There have been some pretty direct feelings expressed here, that's a good thing. Now the question begs:
What can we, as sportsmen and women DO about the issues we have raised? Which of you have the time and are willing to 'step up' and try to address the issues with the necessary groups to begin a process for change? I have played Devil's Advocate throughout this entire conversation, from genetics to stocking to slot and size limits, all to make what I feel is the most important point; NONE of the issues will be 'corrected' to our liking unless we get together, form an organized front, and work toward our goals. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| muskihuntr, are you one of the whiners? My opinion is a very valid one, just as yours is!
Mroberts, my 2004 catch in Wisconsin was 59 muskys and over 2 months of the season I could not fish as I had a major back surgery, so what does that do on my catch ratio? Makes it way better then most(and yours) and I will never say that I am a better fisherman then you, more determined to catch Wisconsin fish, maybe? But goes to my valid point that there are alot of whiners, that in my opinion are not very good fisherman so they can cry all winter about how bad fishing is in Wisconsin and all the fish they DON~T CATCH! I won`t even go to my friends numbers from Wisconsin over the past couple seasons as nobody would even beleive me!
You have to admit, most of these post are negative to Wisconsin, for all you people there are other choices out there, maybe that would be the way for you????
Edited by The Handyman 1/5/2005 11:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | SW brings up excellent points.......there's issues, but no organized body to do anything about it. I think people believe that an organization like MI is going to step up and answer for us....not gonna happen. There has to be voices from the Musky community to let people, lawmakers, the DNR and the CC know that there's concerns that need to be addressed.
I'm going to use an example of a community of concerned anglers who've stepped up....Walleyes for Tomorrow. Banquettes for stocking, clean up efforts, but although they may do some of the things MI does, they also are a group who lobbies hard for what they're concerns are..as a TEAM. The only real issue I have with MI is that it's membership seems to get so divided on issues, that nothing gets done them...that's just my opinion based on my very limited exposure to them.
Steve's right, we need an organized body in order for us to move ahead. It does'nt even need to be a group looking to stock, but just a group to look into problems that need to be addressed. Pick an issue and work through it to completion...call it CAMM...Concerned Anglers for Musky Management. One thing this group cannot be is just Wisconsin residents.....we need the support of everybody who comes here to fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I just thought of something, comparing WI to other states and provinces isn’t really proof that Wisconsin musky waters are not being managed to optimize there potential, it is proof that other places have better fishing but it doesn’t prove the stated problem really exists.
I believe that the history argument does and here is one other I forgot to mention.
I spend a lot of time looking for unpressured waters in my area of Wisconsin. It may mean I have to drive 1 to 2 hours, (tuff hah), but it is amazing the results that can be had in Wisconsin on lakes that don’t get fished regularly or speared. My largest Wisconsin fish came from a lake under 200 acres that sees almost no pressure. This lake has numbers and big fish and the average catch is over 40”. How is this possible in this state, if our lakes don’t have the stuff to compete with Mn. Another very similar lake also under 200 acres treated us very similarly, then about 3 years ago it was discovered by many other people. Now it is hard to even see a fish out there. This lake is still responsible for showing me 1 of the top three sized fish I have ever seen. It would hold number one, if on the last day of my 2004 LOTW trip I didn’t see two 55” class fish. Luckily we happened to discover another one of these jewels this year, it will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Luckily I live where I can explore these waters and I strike out on many, but it doesn’t need to be that hard. Many of the more popular lakes are built very similarly to these little lakes and have better forage bases. I feel better management can make them just as good even with the extra pressure.
By the way I don’t think any of these lakes have been stocked in the last 15+ years.
Wisconsin lakes can and do produce trophy fish, if the fish are allowed to grow big.
Steve I beleive that if any of the issues you brought up can be addressed we move in the right direction. But it really comes down to time doesn't it. As I stated in the email I sent you, there is never enough. I'll be honest, I can spend some time every day writing emails and posting, even making some phone calls. But I don't have the time to orginize a grass roots movement from the ground up, as I am sure many people on this board don't. And that's really the biggest issue we face as a group. It's easy to spend 5 to 10 minutes a number of times a day to read and reply to this topic. But that's all many of us have and it's going to make it tuff.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Handyman, of course this thread is going to bring up negative points about the Wisconsin musky fishery, the point of it was to identify problems (and issues) that negatively impact our Wisconsin waters. I would ask you do you feel nothing can be done to improve our states musky fishing, it’s as good as it’s going to get? Lets say it’s good, does it have the potential to be great? I think it does?
You obviously caught some great fish, do you believe that if you spent the same time and effort on Mn or Ontario waters you wouldn’t have done better? More fish? Higher average size? Lets assume you know the waters just as well as you local water. That was what I was trying to suggest maybe I am wrong.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| My main point is I have only been fishing Wisconsin, and I never implied that the fishing can`t get better, and never will. I think that this problem should be addressed by Wisconsin people only, as we live here. All this arm-chair crap from out-of state people that fish here means a hill of beans to me! Does Mn. OT.,MI., let out-of state people dictate their policies, I think not! We need to unite on a Wisconsin front to make this state its full potential as we as Wisconsinites see fit. Can this be done??? Yes, I beleive it can! We have to start by listening to ourselves and not everyone who has an opinion! I will keep doing my best to improve our fishery by raising, stocking, and fishing my home state, and will back the people "in the know" when new policy does come about, be it slot(not my favorite) higher limits, or whatever. As long as it starts here and stays here! Its like backing the packers, win or lose, you gott`a love`em! | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | As far as I can tell, the only problem with Wisconsin's muskie fisheries is that they are too far east! 
I have watched this for a while and as an outsider (yeah, waaaay outsider), I think you're all spoiled (tongue-in-cheek).
You (not all of you - the term is used generically) have the most and some of the best muskie fisheries in the WORLD, and just because some of them don't meet your individual expectations as trophy fisheries, you have type-casted them all as deficient for some reason. Any of you want to trade addresses for a couple of years, I'd be all for it. Perspective I guess. Your grass looks pretty green from here.
Muskie anglers make up an infitismally small percentage of total license buyers out there (albiet maybe not so much in Wisconsin). Many DNRs are charged w/ managing for the majority (not sure if Wisconsin's is). That leaves us out in the cold a bit. sworral brings up some great points w/ regard to how much an agency can do. MRoberts brings up some good ones w/ regard to what may be out there, yet undiscovered. Lockjaw has artfully documented a 'decline' in quality (I have to take his word on the validity of the statistics), but what is quality to some is a miserable failure to others. You see what I mean - and what has been previously aluded to - even you (we) cannot agree with what 'needs to be done'. I truly wish you all the best in you quest; but how many times on these boards have we heard that the good ol days of muskie fishing is now? So if that's the 'problem with Wisconsin's Musky Fishery' - you can throw me headfirst into that briar patch. Seems a bit greedy to want more than that (devil's advocate).
K.
(whoa, bad timing, eh?)
Edited by sorenson 1/5/2005 12:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MRoberts,
You have extended more effort in what you've done here than most would admit time for, so I think you're input would be very valuable to a group dedicated to improving our Muskie fishery here. 5 minutes a day is quite a bit when one is focused! Imagine what could be done if 500 anglers had 5 minutes a day to help. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Guys, I'm all for helping and organizing as I have been in the past. Really not for any more message board rehashing of the same problems that exist. I wish I could find my old thread about MN Mississippi strain fish(leech lake as some know them). Genes are the one and only reason that type of fish is being stocked there. They experimented with different types, and came back to the fast growing beasts that they have(thank goodness). Most of their fisheries are just peaking as well. The muskies have not been in many of them for a long time, and the fish have had a chance to get big without alot of competition. Those are a couple reasons MN fish are getting large. LOTW has never had amusky stocked in it. The genetics are there and room to grow, now with time to grow due to regs. Genetics is the first step I beleive and Norm brings some great points to the table on it. Look at some of the WI fisheries that have only had muskies in them for lets say 10-20 years. Those are the gems that I choose to fish in WI and are the only ones that I can compare my size and number data to MN on. I feel those waters have not been abused and the fish that are in there are: not competing and have had the best of both worlds as far as no pressure, room to grow, and no spearing. We need to do something to make repairs on many waters, but certainly the right thing. The right thing should be advised by local fisheries managers, many of whom agree with the musky anglers about the state of affairs. they need to be allowed to manage, period.
Edited by Reef Hawg 1/7/2005 9:12 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Hi Guy's - A heck of a lot of good idea's & discussion. I personally think the Muskie Stamp is an excellent idea. Why not? You need a trout stamp or great lakes salmon stamp to fish for and keep any of those species. How is this different? I personally don't find either trout or salmon particularly difficult to catch. Yet, I buy the stamps so I can legally fish for them and catch one. If the revenues are exclusively retained and targeted to manage the muskie fishery it's a win-win. If you don't have a stamp it's gotta go back into the water.
The Native American spearing issue is as Mr Worrall points out is not only abuse by the spearer's but also backlash from non-native anglers. Clearly we have a long way to go in resolving these issues. Attacking the Native American community as a whole is not going to win us anything.
Managing our resources is not an exacting science, sometimes it takes trial and error. Hopefully more success than error. However, as I said previously we need to let the experts/biologists within the WDNR do their job's. Sure they need to listen to rational feedback from the anglers utilizing the resource. They should also be able to provide feedback to us why this or that idea will not be work or be a productive expenditure of the WDNR resources or funds.
Saying the WDNR has failed is an easy answer for a lot of folks. However, I haven''t seen any fact's that support that hypothisis.
I'd really like to see a active taskforce/coalition (call it whatever you want) to address all these issues. I threw some names out there because they are recognized within the State. I don't care if they aren't up for it, that's their perogative. I'll help anyway I can. Obviously this type of activity isn't cheap, people may need to be reimbursed for their expenses.
Throwing idea's around on this forum is cheap and easy, we all have access & 5-10 minutes a day to put your thoughts down is not to bad. But if we are ever going to see any changes there has to be some active grunt work to get it going. This means we probably should consider a non-profit org with membership dues, etc. to cover the management costs etc. Are we competing with MI - I don't think so, nor would I think we would be competing with the local muskie clubs.
So how the hell are we going to get this organized?
Al
| |
| | |
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | ESOX, the Musky Stamp was proposed and passed in 4 out of 7 Countys this past April. It was worded so that it did not replace general funding but enhanced funds for stocking,habitat and research. It would also reduce harvest and help the DNR track harvest. But as long as we have members on the Conservation Congress that blame trophy management for reduced license sales, its going to be a hard sell. Still not out of the picture, but they have a bigger agenda raising funds to put more Wardens in the field and raising the general fund back up. Cant say I blame them when you look at the big picture. Mike Staggs supports the concept, but it seems the DNR have bigger fish to fry right now..maybe next year It would be nice if more Musky people showed up at the spring hearings...we need all the help we can get. Thats why I still believe that education is more important than regulation..not that we dont need it..just more feasible. H.K. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I feel we all know that spearing is here to stay so thats a point nothing can be done about.
The post on selective breeding and slots answer most of your questions. Go back and read them and keep an open mind about it.
Your answer is there,get behind it.
I do agree that habitat is also a big concern and the size limits and mortality have nothing to do with that.
Don Pfeiffer................Mike H you have a private message | |
| | |
Posts: 155
Location: Watertown MN | Wisconsin does not manage for "Trophy Fish", they have placed 50" size limits on lakes and have done very little to optimizing these lake potential:
1-LCO/Grindstone, look at fish per acre, DNR strips muskies then stock them in other lakes, this lake could use steady stocking of fish. Plenty bait and water. 50" is meaningless when there is less that 1000 muskies in the lake.
2-Spearing on these lakes does not help low density population lakes.
3-Genetics is probably a legit question, also not all lake have all the ingredients to produce trophy fish, bait, acreage and depth, and fishing pressure
4-LOW, no stockings, massive body of water, that does not see the pressure/acre of WI fish, has excellent forage to support the fisheries
5-Do not know if this is valid and idea=WI water have seen more pressure for longer period of time than MN and Ontario's waters????
6-WI need to indentify water that have 2000+ acres, baitfish(cisco,sucker), and potential to grow legit trophies, and develop these lakes with stocking and size limits.
I have fish LCO for the last 4 summer, have seen some 50+ fish, but there can be 3 time the amount of fish in this lake, and I believe it would be great fishery. But expecting it to develop on it own, when they stripping muskies for eggs and spearing the lake, is like a farmer going to field and throwing his seed in the field and coming back in the fall and expecting to see bumper crops. What will he see?????????????????????
Winter is Here
Troyz | |
| | |
| Interesting post that Mike brought up. Before give with my $.02, I would have to say it all lies with perception. You ask 100 people and you are going to get 100 different answers. Some might come close to saying the same thing, but there will inevitably be variations. I would also expect that many will would respond that there is nothing wrong and that fishing for muskie in Wisconsin has never been better. It is all in the eye of the beholder and what seems as a negative to one person is a positive to another.
Let me state what I think is good about the Wisconsin Muskie Fishery and what I think is bad!
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE WISCONSIN MUSKIE FISHERY?
1. There are more muskie in Wisconsin (more muskie per acre) then ever before. This has been due to the advent of catch and release and stocking.
2. More lake and rivers in Wisconsin have fishable muskie populations than ever before. Due to the efforts of organizations such as Muskies Inc., Wisconsin Muskie alliance, independant muskie clubs, and others.
3. 98% of all muskie caught in Wisconsin are released to be caught again. Every year the WDNR surveys aproximately 20 lakes( some years a great deal more when there is a chain of lakes included) through the federally mandated creel survey in the ceded territory, both in the winter and summer in a rotation of about 6 years. More than 100 lakes then are in the study. A good reprsentation of the lakes in "muskie country". I know this to be a fact when I was working with the WDNR at the tail end of '99 and in to 2000. I was fortunate work with the person from the Woodruff office who entered the data collected and thats the rate of release for that year and for several years before. Also, I was privileged to run into a creel clerck in 2003 from the Spooner office and she was also the the person who entered the data for them and she also stated that the rate of release was 98% of all muskies caught. So apparently in Wisconsin, the "meet" hunters in Wisconsin are almost non-existent and are quickly fading away and most of the muskie that are havested in Wisconsin are from folks who catch their first legal muskie and or their personal best, or the muskie that will not release alive due to hooking mortality.
WHAT'S BAD ABOUT THE WISCONSIN MUSKIE FISHERY?
1. Too many smaller muskie, and not as many " TROPHY " fish. First of all I would like to say that I enjoy every muskie I have the privilege to catch, so every muskie is a trophy to me. Also, Wisconsin still has some very big muskie swimming in the waters. But can it be better? Yes it can. And that is evident in the years that I have spent in a muskie boat in the '60's, '70's, and '80's when there were fewer muskie overall, but most of the muskie that was caught were 25# plus and 30# and 40# class fish were not uncommon. That was back when all or most of the muskie caught were harvested. We have certainly come along way since those days, but have some of our regulations, or practices been titling the ballance? Creating a fishery that produces an abundance of smaller muskie and promoting an environment that can't produce, support, or help the majority of Wisconsin muskie reach their full genetic potential and obtain 50 inches or better with more frequency.
2. Too many anglers per acre of available fishing waters. First of all, there are far too many lakes in Wisconsin that have muskie in them that only have private boat landings and no public landings and even more lakes with inadequate facilities to put in your boat. And even though I don't mind having company on any lake ( actually I like the opportunity to say hey and to see how they are doing) I know there are many folks out there that are very frustrated seeing their lake(s) getting over-crouded with other muskie anglers and other water users. It is for this reason we have to embrace the non-muskie angling croud to work with them to expand the muskie population into even more waters. But unfortunately, there seems to be a growing trend of " us against them" mentality and what is getting started here is a sort of a range war. As a group of muskie anglers, we need to realize that we are going to need the walleye, bass, pike, trout, pan fish, ect. anglers on our side to get some of our agendas adopted.
3. Water usage and loss of habitat. This is a broad subject but it is perhaps the most critical for all of our waters in Wisconsin and the entire ecosystem. It ranges from pollution from farms, indutry, and lawn furtilizers to inadequate septic systems and gray water from homes. All of these and more human influences are speeding up the natural process of eutrophication in our lakes and yes it is at the CRISIS stage. Also, some loss of habitat that has occored in the past has been reversed, but there is now other areas of greater exploitation of the natural resourse that should be of major concern to any muskie angler or outdoors enthusiast.
Is there a problem with the muskie fishery in Wisconsin, I don't think so. The muskie fishery in Wisconsin is always in constant flux, it's just that perceptions change. It was't too long ago that no one cared how long the muskie was, but how much did it weigh. Now with the advent of catch and release, folks began to measure their catch and now there is the emphasis on producing longer fish instead of heavier muskie. I still believe Wisconsin is your best bet in the world to produce a 70# muskie. A lot of people bad mouth the genetics of the Wisconsin muskie, compared to the Leech Lake strain that grows to be 40" by 7 years and it takes Wisconsin muskies 10 or more years to reach the 40" mark, the Wisconsin strain expends its energy in growing fater instead of the Leech Lake strain that expends its energies in growing longer. This is not a put down on Wisconsin muskie or Leech Lake muskie and if you are skeptical in my comparison of the two strains, then I would like to refer you to the WDNR Researsh Report #175 " Performance of Leech Lake Muskellunge in a Wisconsin Lake". And even though I am not aggressivly pursuing a world record muskie, I am sure glad that here in Wisconsin we have the genetics to produce them.
Now the question: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO ENHANCE THE MUSKIE FISHERY IN WISCONSIN? (again, ask 100 people and you are going to get 100 differnt replies but here are my sugestion in the order of importance)
1. STOCKING: Stop all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes or rivers, and after implementation, a close observation of lakes and rivers, where water levels have been altered due to dams and other man-made obstuctions, is critical.
2. WATER USAGE: This is a broad subject that includes but is not limited to: industrial,farming and residential pollution, limitations of inappropriate watercraft for the body of water they are being used on, shoreline erosion, aquatic plant protection, ect.
3. SLOT LIMIT: A modified slot limit should be set in place for all waters in Wisconsin. Without 15 to 20 years of researching a slot for muskie that would best accomplish the goals of a healthy ecosystem, picking a protective slot limit "out of the blue" is biologically unsound. The minumum size limit on muskie in all Wisconsin waters should be a constant 34",( note, there is scientific evidence that having no minumum size limit can actually be more beneficial to the species and bag limits are better) allowing the population not to bottleneck at the early stages of the muskie developement and avoid stunting. And every angler who declairs at the time of purchasing a fishing license that they are a musky angler, will receive for free, a permit that will alow the angler to only harvest one muskie per year of 45 inches or greater, thus protecting the very muskies in the Wisconsin waters that we all want to successfully spawn.
4. TROLLING: Unlike other states and provinces, Wisconsin has a live bait tradition because on most muskie waters, trolling is not allowed. Hundreds of fish annually, and usually the largest muskie in the system, are gut hooked with the use of live bait and are dying. Legalizing trolling will, in time, replace the present day reliance of live bait and eliminate the unitentional waste of the natural resource.
5. NO CULLING: The culling rule is another outdated rule that was enacted before the advent of viable livewells. When it was put into law, it actually helped preserve the fishery, now it is causing untold deaths of all species of fish.
6. POSSESSION: The rule of what constitutes possession must be changed to reflect the intentions of the anglers. When an angler pulls his/her boat out of the water, or is on shore with a bucket, then the fish are in his/her possession. If an angler has, for example, a sublegal muskie in his/her livewell to help revive a fish that is difficult to release, he/she should not be pinched for possessing a sublegal. Countless numbers of fish of all species are being sacrificed due to the present rule.
In addition to changing present rules and procedures, the WDNR should set up CATCH AND RELEASE ONLY LAKES for all species of fish to establish a sort of measuring stick for size limits based on eutrophication of lakes, their size and their biodiversity. These would be great lakes for all anglers who want to pursue their favorite fish with a chance at catching a real trophy fish.
Thats my .02 cents worth thanks and have a great new year,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Lots of good ideas here.
Reef Hawg, when you worked with the DNR to get the size limit raised on the WI river, what process did you go throught to accomplish that? Could the same process be done on other WI waters?
Grass, | |
| | |
| I got my start Musky fishing in Wisconsin and I still like to go there in the summer when it is to hot to fish here on Kinkaid. I go north of Boulder Junction and camp at Big Lake. It has a 45 inch limit and I catch big fish there, the same with Trout. I don't catch many big fish around the weeds, but in open water. I think one of the problems is conditioned fish. Another problem is the number of lakes in Wisconsin. It is a costly operation to raise and stock that many lakes.We all know the answere to more and bigger fish is higher length limits. Those lakes with potential to produce these fish should have the length increased and I also would like to see some lakes managed as trophy waters. Big Lake has some very good Small Mouth in it, yet is catch and release only. One thing that seems to always get attention is money. When people start going elsewhere, then the resort owners and merchants will take notice. It isn't just Muskies, but all species that I see in decline in Wisconsin. This isn't just a thing for Wisconsin residents. Those of us that come from other states have a right to be heard. We buy a license and spend our money when we come there. I have posted on another site asking people to call the Illinois head of Musky stocking and the area fish biologist in Southern Illinois to put pressure on them for another major Musky lake. Anyone who comes down here fishing should have the right to speak on this. We are all in this together and if we can improve Musky fishing, then other species will follow. Someone has got to get things going and get the numbers infront of the right people. I like the idea of a Musky Stamp if it will go toward the stocking program. I would spend thirty bucks on one, I have more than that stuck on the bottom of Kinkaid Lake this fall! If the part time Musky fishermen don't want to buy one, they can catch crappie. Later, I got to go fry up some Musky! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | definately can be done elswhere. It took a few years, but it paid off. The process is that of what has been discussed here, the Conservation Congress. One needs to write a resolution and bring it to the table the night of the spring meetings. Better yet, if you get the support of local fisheries managers they can save you some time by getting it on the ballet as a rule change. Same process, just takes a couple years out of the process and if voted in, will be put into law quicker. Been trying to contact Mroberts to see what his thoughts are for this year up north, and what others may already be doing regarding proposals. Grass, feel free to email me and I will send a copy of our original resolution for the size limit here. Really nothing to it, just needs to be done and supported. | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Jason, since you have some experience with this, If the size limits were able to be raised on the WI river, the Chip and Clear Lake, why do you think the resolution was voted down so strongly on the other Vilas and Oneida Co lakes?
Grass, | |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | I've lived in Wisconsin for three years now and have enjoyed fishing for muskies, especially in Southeast Wisconsin. One thing that many people here don't realize is the tremendous resource that we have here. The number of lakes/rivers with fishable musky populations is simply astounding. In spite of that, it seems that people sure do like to complain about it a lot.I can't claim to have all the answers, but I do think that there are several things limiting the potential of the Wisconsin Musky fishery.
While growing up in Western PA I learned to fish for inland stream trout. Trout fishing is a big deal in PA where millions of dollars are spent on stocking catchable trout in lakes and streams that would not otherwise support a trout fishery. Over the years I went from baitfishing to spinfishine and eventually I learned to flyfish . Later I became a Trout Unlimited member and began to learn about wild trout and how to manage for a quality wild trout fishery. A couple of things that I learned with the management of trout is that habitat is everything and stocking hatchery trout in waters that support wild trout has been shown conclusively to negatively impact the overall trout biomass. What does this have to do with musky managment in WI?
1) In many waters, particulary, in Northern WI, the DNR has been stocking hatchery muskies (of indeterminate or questionable strain) into waters supporting naturally reproducing muskies creating an artificially high population. The Eagle River and Three Lakes chains immediately come to mind, but there must be dozens of examples where this has caused a negative impact. Less muskies, and particularly less hatchery reared muskies in many of these waters would improve the ability of the native muskies to reach potential trophy size. Stocking is not a panacea to improve every musky fishery.
2) The increasing development within the watersheds of our muskie waters, especially but not limited too shoreline development has had a huge impact that cannot be overestimated on the reproductive capability of our native muskies. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago in a reputable musky publication stating that the DNR had determined that due to excessive nutrient load from cranberry operations impacting the primary spawning habitat in Lac Court Oreilles (or maybe Grindstone) it is believed that muskies are no longer spawning successfully in these waters. It is important to remember that muskies are not a highly adaptable species such as Largemouth Bass.
3) I'd love to see the power to manage the resource in the hands of the professionals at the DNR. I can't say that I understand the logic of the Conservation Congress or how management decisions are ultimately made here. It is far too political and the guides and resort owners have far too much power. The PA Fish Commission's motto is "Resource First". That is certainly a good thing to shoot for even if they don't always hit the mark. In WI, the motto seems to be "Which ever way the political wind blows". If the DNR was allowed to follow some of the same practices for musky that have worked so well here for inland stream trout, i.e. focusing on habitat first and managing for wild trout, many of our native musky fisheries would benefit. Note: WI has one of the best managed inland trout fisheries in the nation due not in small part to the efforts of WI Trout Unlimited along with the DNR.
4) I am not against stocking. Lakes such as Pewaukee, Okauchee and Oconomowoc or the Madison Chain would not have viable fisheries if not for consistent stocking by the DNR and local musky clubs. There are other fisheries that can and should benefit from stocking. The attempt to restore the Great Lakes Musky in Green Bay and the Winnebago chain is one example. I think without, question, however, that too many lakes receive stocking or too much stocking. I'd like the DNR to consider removing a number of lakes from the stocking list altogether. Stocking should primarily be for maintaining stocked fisheries such as those mentioned or for re-habilitation or re-establishment of viable natural musky populations. Stocking fish to supplement a wild resource can often do more harm than good.
5) As far as size limits go I think that this issue has received far too much attention. Sure there are a number of waters that could benefit from higher size limits and we should work toward that. The fact is that mortality from harvest, even incidental harvest, is at historic lows. Mortality from spearing or from improper handling are serious issues that will require long term education and discussion with all involved to build concensus for putting the resource first.
I will continue to work with my Muskies Inc chapter to improve our local fishery and fight for the improvement of WI's overall fishery. Good fishing everyone. Keep releasing those fish and keep teaching our young people about the importance of conservation, habitat preservation, and respect for the resource. If someone needs to keep a fish don't yell and scream at them. That only reinforces the stereotype that some have of elitist musky fishers. We need to persuade and convince rather than preach.
TomR
Germantown, WI | |
| |
|
Define the Problem with the Wisconsin Musky fishery?