|
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | With all the talk recently of recent musky catches, there has been additional talk that certain states are known for catch and keep philosophies while others are known for catch and release. Without getting into that debate or offering my own opinion, I want to supply some data.
I did some research in the Muskies, Inc. Lunge Log database. I am pulling this information from all fish that have been entered since 2000. So in nearly 7 years there have been a total of just over 104,000 fish entered and exactly 100 have been kept. Not a bad release ratio. Compare that to the 1970s when there were just over 5,000 fish entered and 962 of these were kept. Safe to say that we’ve come a long way in that time!
So which states/provinces currently have the most fish being kept? And residents from which states are keeping these fish? I’m just going to present the data. You can interpret it however you want. But keep in mind there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. Total fish caught, Muskies, Inc. members in each state, total angling pressure, resident to non-resident angling pressure, size of fish caught, regulations in that state, etc. Lots of things to consider, many more than just the ones I've mentioned.
At any rate, here’s the data. Of the 100 fish kept since 2000, where have they come from?
25 - Minnesota
18 - Wisconsin
18 - Ontario
16 - Ohio
3 - Michigan
3 - Kentucky
3 - Pennsylvania
3 - West Virginia
2 - Missouri
2 - New York
2 - Virginia
1 - Colorado
1 - Illinois
1 - Indiana
1 - Iowa
1 - New Jersey
Of the anglers that have kept these 100 fish, they are residents of which states?
20 - Wisconsin
18 - Minnesota
17 - Ohio
9 - Illinois
9 - West Virginia
5 - Pennsylvania
4 - Michigan
4 - North Dakota
3 - Kentucky
2 - Indiana
2 - Missouri
2 - New Jersey
2 - New York
1 - Colorado
1 - Iowa
1 - Virginia
Some interesting information. But it can be taken out of context too, if all the variables aren’t taken into consideration.
Aaron
Edited by AWH 12/5/2006 5:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
| That is very interesting. Muskies Inc. members no longer account for many kept fish, but Muskies Inc. members make up about 7000 of 100,000 Muskie fishermen. How many fish are being kept by those 93,000 fishermen? I know of one non-Muskies Inc. member in my area who is said to keep EVERY Muskie he catches. As long as they're over 40 inches and he has no more than one in his possession, he's got every right to do so. That's why I'm looking forward to some of the changes the MN DNR has in store. Right now they're proposing a 48 inch minimum length restriction on 30 Minnesota lakes. That could help a great deal.
Good post, Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | How many muskie anglers are in each state?? North Dakota with 4 fish kept probably has a higher % kept per angler than either Wisconsin or Minnesota.
Edited by Bytor 12/5/2006 7:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If one takes a percentage of the number of state residents who fish VS those who do not, I think North Dakota would be a release leader by that stat.
Education coupled with increased size limits on trophy water is the only hope in any state. Fishermen have tow vehicles, and will drive to the hot spots.
Does anyone have a decent handle on kept fish from Mille Lacs this year? Vermilion? Just curious to see if there is harvest of some of those big girls going on as would be suspected. |
|
| |
|
| Not one person from Ontario kept a muskie? Yet it is known as one of the top trophy-producing regions. Interesting. What's going on up there in Canada? |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Not trying to rip on North Dakota, just trying to point out that you can juggle statistics around. I spent most of my childhood in the great state of North Dakota. Great people out there. I just don't miss the cold. Williston is a very cold place. One year we had over 30 straight days where the temperature did not get above zero....real temps not this phony windchill factor.
Edited by Bytor 12/5/2006 8:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| There were 5 fish 54-55" kept from Vermilion this summer.
Kept fish make up a small percentage compared to the ones that die after there released.
Some people think they can let the fish flop around on the bottom of the boat then take pictures for 5 minutes and toss them back, they actually think everything is fine & dandy because the fish swam away.
Don't beat up the muskie angler that kept a fish, abuse the ones that abuse the fishery by releasing soon to be dead fish. |
|
| |
|
| I know of several (5 confirmed) big fish caught on Mille Lacs in the 45lb - 50lb range, none of which were killed |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | guest - 12/5/2006 8:38 AM
Not one person from Ontario kept a muskie? Yet it is known as one of the top trophy-producing regions. Interesting. What's going on up there in Canada?
Muskies, Inc. is a U.S. based organization. There are no chapters in Canada. So although we can register fish which were caught in Canada, you won't see citizens of Canada in the above referenced data. So again, lots of variables to consider when looking at the numbers. I believe there is a Muskies, Inc. in Canada. But it will have it's own separate database as it's a separate organization.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | guest - 12/5/2006 8:38 AM
Not one person from Ontario kept a muskie? Yet it is known as one of the top trophy-producing regions. Interesting. What's going on up there in Canada?
54" size limit in a lot of waters, Lac Suel C&R only.....these might be some factors. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I know of one really big girl kept on Mille Lacs, I saw the fish. It was 54". I know of another that was 50" and another that was 48. The 48 was an attempted release, but the fish died in spite of good handling. Just wondering what others ran across.
Bytor, that's what I was indicating, stats can be interpreted in many ways. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I see fish kept all the time...almost weekly here in Indiana.
We have huge issues here, but like most people who keep fish, or who think it is alright to keep them, they simply won't listen to any other way.
It is the way of life here in the Mid-West. If you catch it, you kill it. Some kill it for food, some keep them to show off at the ramp, some keep them just because that is what you do.
We have huge issues of keeping muskies, especially on Webster....why do you think the avg. size fish in that lake has gone down every year, for the past 4 years.....(DNR Studies) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| I think the most important thing to consider is the source. Muskies Inc promotes C&R angling pretty heavily. I would say those that join are more likely to be conservation minded, more likely to understand the importance of handling fish carefully and putting them back, and far less likely to keep a fish than the general musky angling population.
Not saying the data isn't valid, just that its a very small sample taken from members of an organization that promotes C&R pretty heavily.
I don't think the catch and keep philosophy is regional, I think the fish being kept are kept for the following reasons:
1. "It's one fish, what difference does one make?"
2. "This is the biggest fish I've ever SEEN It's almost THREE FEET LONG!"
3. "Let's eat it"
|
|
| |
|
| It looks like my message was edited,
WHY?
What's wrong with posting Larry Ramsell kills fish, he's been doing it for many years, it's the way it was, and he still has that mentality. |
|
| |
|
| I would agree the Muskies inc data is not the best data to use...I would think as a group we are more prone to C&R. And like someone noted as a % of the musky fishing population Muskies Inc. is a small percentage. Here is who I think keeps muskies...right or wrong this is what I think.
*Non musky anglers..you know the guys that are targeting wallys and they hook a 38" and decide to keep it, to eat it or just to get it out of the lake because most walleye anglers think muskies eat their walleyes ...
*Musky anglers relatively new to the sport...like the guys up on the fox who go out and troll around because they heard their buddy at work saying it was easy to catch a big fish in there...they do it, luck into one and thump it.
*some "old timers" all over the musky land who were brought up that way, keeping what they caught if it was legal..and they do it, cuz they can!
* my buddies dad likes to keep one a year out of his lake to smoke...that doesn't even bother me as the lake is loaded with them and there is no shortage of muskies in there...I'm sure there are alot more people that do the same... does it hurt some lakes, no, does it hurt some...maybe
MN would be smart to get a higher size limit on their trophy waters...soon.
|
|
| |
|
| I don't think that who is keeping them is as important as why. My friends and I do not always do everything right when releasing a fish, however we try the best we can and do release every fish that we catch. I have a growing concern about the release of large fish. I have in the last couple of years seen and heard of alot of 50 inch fish being kept in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. I understand that it is the right of the angler to keep a leagal fish. I just don't understand why anyone would want to do so in this day and age. I know of 6 fish over 50 inches that were killed the last 2 weeks of the Wisconsin season in a new and up and coming fishery. Why? It is a new fishery guys. Give it a chance to grow and reproduce some real giants. These fish were not at the end of there life cycle in this fishery, not even close. What is wrong with a replica? I have several. They look great and last forever as opposed to a skin mount. People ask me all the time, wouldn't you keep a state or world record fish? The answer is always the same, NO!!!!! Not if I can help it. I would try to get the fish to a certified scale in my live well, but try to keep it alive to release after verifiction if possible. Come on people, learn from history and your past mistakes, look at the fisheries that were nearly wiped out from over harvest of large fish. Wabigoon, Lac Seul, etc. Look at the perch fishery in the Great Lakes in your own back yard for heaven sakes. If you pull the largest fish out of the system you will wind up with a bunch of smaller fish reproducing more small fish. Man is the only living creature that kills the largest and the strongest of every other living creature for food and sport. Don't we look like the smartest? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Lots of great points being made here. And many of the variables that are being brought up are reasons why I really don’t take a lot from this data, even though I’m the one that brought it up. It shows that statistics can be taken and interpreted many ways if you don’t consider all of the variables. A lot of misinformation can be taken. The above statistics indicate that 0.1% of muskies caught are kept. I don’t think there are many people that believe that this is even close to accurate. Of serious musky fishermen, it’s a closer estimate, but still not accurate. But the overall catch/keep ratio of all muskies caught is far greater than this.
I wanted to bring up the above data to get people thinking. As Mike brought up, lots of fish are killed in Indiana. This isn’t a secret. Yet if you look at the above data, it doesn’t look like it’s an issue at all. So even though this is a relatively large database of documented catches, there’s only so much you can take from it.
The people that join Muskies, Inc. are generally much more concerned about the health of our fisheries than your average anglers. As a general rule, these aren’t the people that we have to worry about in protecting our resources. Therefore, the above data shouldn’t hold a lot of weight with what harvest levels are and where the issues are at. We need to dig deeper and we need to act proactively.
The population in the world is increasing, this isn’t going to stop. Along with this, the popularity of musky fishing is growing. More people fishing muskies equals more muskies that will not make it to next year even with stronger catch and release practices. We need to take the steps to protect our fisheries.
Minnesota is pushing for higher size limits. This needs to happen and it needs to happen asap. Not only on the limited number of lakes that they’re talking about, but statewide.
Ohio needs a size limit, period. The fact that they don’t have one shows how far behind the times we are in certain parts of the country.
Many other examples across the country…..
Not only are more strict regulations needed, but education is needed in a big way. Our fisheries are healthy, perhaps as healthy as they’ve ever been. But if we take them for granted it’s not going to be that way for long.
Aaron
Edited by AWH 12/6/2006 8:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Rick
You're preaching to the choir, man.
People don't even THINK about it. It's automatic to them, you keep it. Why would you put it back? I have people all the time who are just amazed that we put the fish back that we catch.
"why?"
"you mean you don't eat them?"
"man if I caught a fish that big it would be hanging on the wall!"
The reason people are keeping fish like that in most cases is they just don't know any different.
A few are old time guides, and in that case? You earned it. Go ahead and keep it. You're 60 some odd years old and you been chasing these fish since before I was born, who am I to tell you you can't keep a 50 pounder? Like Mr Gelb's fish -- sure, I'd rather have heard that he released it, but come on man -- I think if anybody is entitled to keep a fish it's a guy like that!
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | MikeHulbert - 12/5/2006 9:32 AM
We have huge issues of keeping muskies, especially on Webster....why do you think the avg. size fish in that lake has gone down every year, for the past 4 years.....(DNR Studies)
It is possible that the average size is going down because there are to many fish in that lake....over 3000 adult fish in that little lake. The more fish that you put in an aquarium the less they grow. Fish need room to grow. It is possible that those people that keep some fish in Webster are helping the fishery. I believe that the ideal ratio to get large muskies is .2 fish per acre.
Edited by Bytor 12/5/2006 12:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What about the guy who guides out on Mille Lacs out of a pontoon with the mast system and all the lines. A reliable source told me he whacks every fish and has pictures of all the dead fish on the wall of the resort he guides out of. If this is true, that's a lot of dead fish for one person.
He may still be within his legal right, but it would be nice if they made a season limit of one or two fish total and require a tag to be used like sturgeon and deer. Still allows for some harvest, but doens't allow one individual to keep 20, 30, 40 fish. |
|
| |
|
| I do not know all of the details behind Mr. Gelbs fish, but I heard that it was kept because it froze. I do not know if this is true, but I am sure that Tom has his reasons for keeping a fish of that size. It doesn't really concern me. Experienced musky fishermen harvesting large females from a system that is just developing into a trophy fishery does. I just hate to see fisheries like the new ones in Minnesota and Wisconsin get trashed from overharvest before they even have a chance to totally develope. Most of these fisheries have world record potential. I just wish that musky fishermen were as passionate about preserving the resource as they are about catching them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Never seen .2 of fish myself...
One fish for 5 acres of water, Troy? If that's correct, than a 1000 acre lake would produce the best fish with only 200 muskies in the entire lake. Stocking data from Webster shows what, 5 fish per acre? That means that there are 25 times as many muskies in there as the ecosystem can support unless we account for the fact that a lot of fish are taken and that they don't live very long that far South. And then there's the matter of forage.
Man, I'm glad someone smarter than me figures all that out... |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | EA, I believe Bytor meant .2, not .02 as that would be crazy few fish....the last data provided to our club at one of the meetings by a DNR guy was that Waubesa and Monona were right around .25 fish per acre..yes, that is one adult 30+ fish for every 4 acres...and I believe they did not want to get it much higher at all, but to keep it there...
Most lakes in northern WI are right around the same per acre and many alot less with I bet none except maybe a few over .5 adult fish per acre....
as for the fish getting smaller in Webster...not sure if that is overpopulation thing or too much harvest or maybe both...they seem to have plenty to eat though....
Edited by MSKY HNR 12/5/2006 11:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Minnesota generally stocks their lakes at the rate of 1 fish per littoral acre. A littoral acre I believe is water less than 15 feet deep. On average, this amounts to about 1 fish for every 5 acres of water on most MN musky lakes. Most would agree that Minnesota’s fisheries are managed pretty well. These figures would back up Bytor’s statements accurately.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 105
| guest - 12/5/2006 8:45 AM
There were 5 fish 54-55" kept from Vermilion this summer.
Kept fish make up a small percentage compared to the ones that die after there released.
Some people think they can let the fish flop around on the bottom of the boat then take pictures for 5 minutes and toss them back, they actually think everything is fine & dandy because the fish swam away.
Don't beat up the muskie angler that kept a fish, abuse the ones that abuse the fishery by releasing soon to be dead fish.
hey guest, all this tells me is that there are now 5 less fish from 54-55 for us all to catch, how on earth can you prove that little theory of yours??? |
|
| |
|
| Go out and WATCH
Look at the way fish are handled on any Friday or Saturday during the summer months, then come back on here and tell us that they all lived.
Don't forget to count all the floaters of all sizes that you see during the summer also.
The number of kept fish by MUSKY anglers (that know what there doing) doesn't compare. |
|
| |
|
| There isn't much one can say when the law states you can keep a fish. In my humble opinion though a fish that was released has a much better chance of survival and recapture than one clubed on the head and hauled ashore, even if it wasn't handled well. I don't say much to people (except that I let all mine go) but in Iowa when panfisherman and such see I'm musky fishing I usually get a big story on one of theres or someone elses hauled into the fish cleaning station and made into a meal. Usually one just over the 40" legal limit or below, and in a state with so many panfisherman in relation to musky fisherman I think a larger length limit would be a good solution as education isn't really getting out to these groups outside of musky circles in regard to cpr. Just my opinion. Good Fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm out nearly every weekend all summer, and do not see much of what 'guest' mentions. Education is the key when one sees that sort of thing, congratulations and some assistance with a bit of friendly advice on handling muskies goes a long way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| I can't imagine anyone would eat more than one...
Don't they taste pretty nasty? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I think it depends on what lake they come out of. I have eaten one out of Pelican (maybe thats why I'm cursed!) and that one wasnt too good...tasted muddy. But I have heard that others have eaten them and say they are real good. Then again some people say smoked carp tastes good. I would tend to disagree.
Mike |
|
| |
|
| The number of kept fish by musky anglers that know what they are doing? What kind of a statment is that? I would like to believe that an educated musky fisherman that knows what they are doing would first try and release a fish then get a replica made. Hopefully, he knows that a replica is just as good if not better than a skin mount of the fish. Isn't a skin mount just the artists rendition of the fish painted on a dead animal as opposed to fiberglass after looking at a photograph? Plus you get the satisfaction of letting it swim free and the possible chance at catching it again when it is even larger. I understand that it is the right of an angler to keep a legal fish. Does that mean it's OK to kill a big female just because you can? Sworrall I agree with you. Education is the key. As a lack of education is a serious problem that can harm fisheries! But what do I know? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Rick
you still preachin to the choir
|
|
| |
|
| I know essoxaddict! I just get so frustrated when I hear of people trying to justify the harvesting of large fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Rick Mikel - 12/5/2006 3:41 PM
I know essoxaddict! I just get so frustrated when I hear of people trying to justify the harvesting of large fish.
Harvest is a necessity, Musky aren't the only species in lakes. I think we need to look past the almighty musky and at what's good for the overall ecosystem.
I've had deep fried Musky, it isn't that bad with tarter sauce or shrimp sauce. Would I keep one to eat? No. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I dont support the harvest of large fish But I will give a reason why I think it could be feasable:
A fish of that size can out compete many of the smaller fish. Which can in turn slow the rate of growth of those fish as well as minimize the potential size of the smaller fish. The harvest of large fish ( 52+ inchers) I dont think would have a substantial effect on any natural reproduction if it exists in the lake. The fish would have had several years of mature spawning and after a too many years I dont think the eggs would even be viable. By removing that large fish from the system turns the system and responds by producing another large fish if there is a substantial musky poplulation.
The reason I do not support the harvest of large fish is purely out of respect and an ethic to the fish. That fish has survived and grown to a great lenght and an old age. How do I have the right to just take it right out of its home and end its long life. I believe that the fish should be able to die in its home. It is out of respect to the fish that I would release it. If I caught a fish it means that I have tricked it into thinking it was a prey forage and I enticed it to eat. I tricked the fish, how would you like it if someone tricked you into something, and then killed you for you lapse of judgement. Am I saying fish are on the mental level as humans.....nope, I am simply putting myself in the fishes' position and thinking about how I would feel. I get great satisfaction out of catching a musky, big or small. But I respect the fish and the life that it has lived, so I dont need to kill it.
Wow....If that doesnt make me out to be a tree hugger! Stupid Environmental Ethics class!!! Dont worry I'm no tree hugger, I'm not anti-hunting or anti killing or pro PETA or any of that jazz. I simply view the musky as a mysterious creature of the water and want to preserve the fishery for many generations.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Some lakes actually are managed for harvest, in fact quite a few are. The DNRs of many states encourage some muskie harvest, and on waters where there is sometimes a predator/prey imbalance, harvest can be key to the health of the specie. Cave Run is an example.
No one HAS to 'justify' harvesting a true trophy. I'm not talking a 35# fish out of Green Bay, I mean a TRUE trophy, like a 50# plus behemoth from say....Lake George in Rhinelander. It's a personal decision to keep or CPR a monster, in most cases does zero harm to the fishery, and is none of anyone else's business, period. As far as I am aware, there are no Muskie Police, and I don't remember anyone nominating anyone to that position.
The entire idea of CPR is to let the fish GET to the upper confidence level of any one body of water, and then as I said, it becomes personal. Some waters can produce HUGE fish, and need to be protected, like many of the Ontario waters now are. Mille Lacs is obviously special, and it's probably only going to be protected to 48".
A world record potential water might need to be protected to 60", I don't know, but setting it at 54" or CPR only seems to be the real deal.
Balance. That's the key. Biology supports a balance that doesn't always match what our elitist core wants, and social norms at times force a 'balance' not acceptable to either. We can rail against the thunder, howl into the wind, and get all uppity, or we can accept what reality is, change what we can to make reality match our special version as much as possible, and use (not abuse) good science in the process. Social change is a process, not an event. It took over 30 years to get where we are now, and I submit that's a pretty good place.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I'm sorry but if its not going to make it its a kept fish. This does not happen often to me but I'll be darned if If I let one go that I'm fairly sure is just going to die. To me thats a waste. To say well if you keep them they have no chance is a crock. If your anything of a fishermen you can pretty much tell if a fish of any kind is going to make it. Why on earth would anyone let a musky go that they doubt would make it. This fish is found floating and then we get beat up for mishandling of fish. If its not going to make it keep it.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
| You can't keep 39 inch fish that are sure to die, when the lake has a 40 inch minimum length restriction. Fish are going to die even if we all quit fishing for them. Don't forget disease, or even high water temperatures. Fish die, period. I've never kept a Muskie, and I do all I can to preserve the resource now, and for a later time when my kids are going to be able to fish for Muskies. With that being said, I wouldn't lose a second's sleep over a Muskie dying. They all will eventually. |
|
| |
|
| The Indiana DNR doesn't overstock Webster. I don't think they can given the amount of shad in that lake. The biologist say anglers are causing the size decline by harvest and poor handling. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | AWH - 12/5/2006 10:37 AM
The above statistics indicate that 0.1% of muskies caught are released. I don’t think there are many people that believe that this is even close to accurate.
----------------------
0.1% released? I would say that is just a little bit off. You meant 0.1% kept maybe? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Good catch on my typo Lockjaw!
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I have said this before but I am going to repeat it.
Why do we practice Catch and Release. Is it because we are fanatical animal rights activists who only care about protecting our favorite animal at all costs?
I THINK NOT! We are sportsmen who enjoy the thrill of the hunt, and our quest for bigger and better fishing has lead us down the road of CONSERVATION! Hunters and fishermen are the best conservationists on the planet. NOT the idiots at PETA or other groups like them. They really have no stake in the outcome, WE DO.
I am not going to kid myself I practice CPR for mostly selfish reasons. I want my kids, my friends and myself to have higher quality fishing opportunities. I fought for a 50” size limit on Pelican Lake for the same reasons. I have seen the potential for huge fish out there, as well as the potential for serious problems. I plan to spend a lot of time on that water in the near and long term future so I decided to try and do something to protect it. There was no higher calling, it was selfish, my parents have a house on the lake and some day it will belong to my sister and me. I want the musky fishing to be all it can be out there; it’s as simple as that. If someone catches a 50 pound fish from Pelican and decides to keep it, I am man enough to admit that the only reason it would up set me is because it wasn’t me who caught it. I would still be happy for the angler and it would prove that Pelican has the stuff to make fish like that. If it happens 10 years from now I would be even happier as it may be a result of the hard work we put in getting the 50” limit on the lake. To me that is something to be proud of not something to get upset about.
The same can be said about Tom Gelb’s fish all the anglers who practice C&R should be proud, for years everyone has been saying to get a 30 pound fish we need to release the 20 pounders, to get a 40 we need to release the 30s, to get a 50 we need to release the 40s and so on. Well guess what IT WORKS, every once and a while someone will make the decision to keep a fish, or the decision will be made for them by extenuating circumstances, it’s not the end of the world, the ideas still works.
Catch and Release is sporting philosophy to prevent over exploitation of a limited number of fish by an ever increasing population of fishermen. IT IS NOT A RELIGION! You can practice C&R 99% of the time and make the decision to keep a fish. You will not be struck down from above.
Some one on another board said blame the DNR, for kept fish, I say blame the masses. It took a strong get out the vote campaign, and a strong showing of musky fishermen to get the 50” limit passed on Pelican. It can be done again on other lakes, it’s forced C&R, at least to 50” but I feel it is sometimes needed in a State with what? 6 million fishermen and a tourist mentality.
There are many worried that some of the Mn lakes are being over exploited even with all the big releases, also many are saying the same about Green Bay. Well if that worry is there maybe something should be done. It doesn’t pay to go on the internet and rip on every fisherman for keeping a legal fish, or for not liking the way someone releases a fish. If you really want to do something start an effort to do what Canada did and create lakes that specifically are designed to grow world record class fish. Get a 54, 55 or even higher limit on those lakes and see what the potential is.
Sorry for the soap boxing but the cultist attitude, that has come out with the last couple of huge fish really makes us all look bad. HA, and this coming from a guy who lobbied hard for a 50” limit.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8831
| Mike
I agree with everything except the selfish part. Is it selfish to want your kids or your friends to be able to catch a 50 pounder? Is it selfish to want a trophy fishery? I guess it is if you don't want anyone fishing there but you, but to me I see these big fish pictures, and sure there's a part of me that's a little jealous, especially if its somewhere I fish. But I'm happy for them, especially when it's someone I know. I want musky fishing to be the best it can be, just like you and everyone else who enjoys it. But it's not just for ME, it's for all of us, for our kids, for the guys who will be fishing out there when I can't anymore. That ain't selfish, that's just wanting to see a good thing get better so people can continue to enjoy it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Great post Mike!
DIDO!!!
COry |
|
| |
|
| Exellent post Mike! I agree with you! It is pretty simple. If you want to catch more and bigger fish (yourself, your friends, future generations, etc.), let them go. Period! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Selfish or not, keep up the good work. That kinda thing helps me out all the same and I don't even fish Pelican. I like to see musky nuts stick together and get things done. I love catching muskies and have to admit that I am a bit crazy about the fish. Seeing all the big fish caught lately says to me that catch and release, as well as stocking (in some waters) is doing wonders for the fishery, and though I'd like to catch one like those, its good just knowing fish that big swim where I'm fishing. Many are released as well which is even better. I (like many musky anglers) have never kept a musky (kudos to me) and have been fortunate not to of had to as so far all have been good releases. My day is probably comming and I am slow to dawg on beginners. The first three muskies I caught flopped out of my hands and landed in the boat, I didn't know the correct way to grab them, but I learned. I'd like to think those fish survived to get BIG. If a fish is dead then you can't release it, although I really haven't much reason to keep one as it would hurt me inside to eat one and I much prefer replicas over skin mounts, but its best to try and choke it down over wasting it I suppose. If a fish will swim off though I'll give it that much of a chance (considering its not obviously finished, rolling over and such). As education being the key, along with size limits and management, I feel it a responsibility of mine to show the correct way to land, handle, and release muskies in front of an adiance of other fisherman. If they see me, a musky fisherman, keeping fish or handling them poorly, then that seems like the way to do it to them. Trophy fish will always be the clincher though as few of us can wrong a guy for keeping a fish of a lifetime, but keep in mind while one persons trophy may be a 40 pounder, anothers may be a 40 incher. So speculations aside I think we need to stick with the system, manage lakes as individuals on size limits, and continue to practice catch and release of all fish. Most of all take a person musky fishing who hasn't been before, show them the correct way to it, and have a good time. This is the future and the more musky anglers we have, the more new lakes will be stocked, and information will spread, and political pressure can be applied to lakes that are in need of new regulations. Well I have to go off now and take a breath, and think of open water to soak my baits in. Good fishing  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
| The practice I try to apply - for ANY gamefish species - is to keep one trophy for a mount, and let everything else go. If I did catch a larger species of a particular fish I had already previously mounted, AND I really wanted the mount, then I'd go for fiberglass. But in general, I'm lukewarm on fiberglass reproductions. The more I read about them - the less I liked - there's only a handful of mounts - and you choose the closest size match. If I'm going to the trouble and expense of a mount, I want it to look as much as possible as the fish I caught.
Edited by Cleve 12/7/2006 2:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
| There aren't many fish kept in Eastern Ontario, but even a few is too many!
They just aren't reported to Muskies Inc I suppose... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32930
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Rick,
To keep perspective and Mike's intent, he didn't say 'let them go, period.' What he did say was well said, indeed. |
|
| |
Who Keeps Muskies?