|
|
Posts: 572
Location: Williamstown, WV | What is everyone's opinion on minimum size limits? What are the benefits to a bigger limit and what is the downside of having a bigger minimum limit? I'm just curious what other fisherman from other states feel about this. Thanks.
Shawn | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Asking that question is like asking about any complicated issue; there are no simple answers. Waters that can sustain good populations of big fish, which means moderate to low density, good forage, and a history of big girls, could use a high limit IF the idea is to produce trophy muskies. Ask any fisheries manager, as much hinges on what the public wants as what is 'good' for the fishery. Some waters are not suited for longer length limits, and actually can use some harvest. Others are best managed for the size restrictions short of the upper confidence limit for that water but larger than some state minimums. So much depends on the details...  | |
| | |
Posts: 572
Location: Williamstown, WV | Steve,
Yeah I guess I was kinda vague on the question. My bad. This past week I've been reading a lot about this and I've learned a lot, and actually had my eyes opened. I'm just actually wanting to know what others in other states think about this. Maybe general discussion isn't the place for this, I dunno. Just looking for opinions on the matter. Thanks.
shawn | |
| | |
| I think there is a definite connection between the 54" Minimum in Canada and the number of US anglers that visit there. It seems that a lot of people would like to see the Minnesota regulations changed to increase the Minimum length restiction, but in talking to a DNR representative, it appears that may take a while.
Enough people showed interest toward Elk Lake in Itasca State Park going to C&R only to make it a reality. Maybe we will just have to accept one lake at a time.
One question that I had regarded this issue. I used to fish almost entirely for Bass, and catch and release was huge then. We're talking early 90's. It was said that maybe it was NOT the best idea to throw every fish back, as it could stunt their growth. It was said then that it may be better to keep the smaller ones, allowing more forage for the larger ones to get even bigger. I was told that with Muskies, it wouldn't work the same, as they are completely different fish. Food for thought though......
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Check out the following link, relates to Wisconsin mostly, but lots of info that could be used anywhere. Just remember what Steve W. said every lake is different, and some probably can't handle a very high limit. But I think right now there is a lot more that could. Lake with very high population of musky are very limited, the majority of musky waters are low to moderate density and could benifit from high protective limits, if monitored by an active DNR.
Good Luck!
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.26.2006/1029/Muskie.Siz...
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Location: Athens, Ohio | Shawn, i think WVa views it's fisherie much like Ohio does, as a 'put and take' situation that depends a lot on stocking. Ohio's size restrictions and keep numbers are a bit embarassing compared to the northern states, but maybe not when you consider the heavy reliance on replenishing and the good annual growth rates. I'll send you a PM with some good contact info. m | |
| |
|
Fish Size Limits?