|
|
| The assault on designated Muskie Lakes Starts
http://www.startribune.com/533/story/962920.html | |
| | |
| "assault" might be a bit of an exaggeration?
i've got friends and relatives who enjoy the sport, and i myself intend to spear for pike in minnesota at some point. it sounds interesting and from what i've heard is something that can be practiced responsibly.
the following is from the article you linked to...
----
Also weighing against spearing is the stigma sometimes attached to it.
"There's a lot of anti-spearing sentiment out there," Schnitker said. "I'm not saying everyone who is pro-muskie is anti-spearing. But that's where most of the opposition to spearing comes from, the muskie fishermen."
Never was spearing more reviled in Minnesota than in the 1980s, when the late Jim Peterson, founder and longtime owner of the weekly "Jim Peterson's Outdoor News" (now simply "Outdoor News"), railed mercilessly against the ravages allegedly waged upon Minnesota by "harpooners."
Peterson said he believed Mille Lacs' sportfishing success was undercut by spearing.
Thanks in part to Peterson's rants, spearing no longer is allowed on Mille Lacs, as well as nearly 30 other Minnesota lakes, most managed as trophy muskie waters by the DNR.
Indeed, as muskies have been planted in more and more Minnesota waters, spearing opportunities have been lost.
The DNR's intent in restricting spearing is to protect muskies -- which resemble northern pike in size and shape, but not in coloring or markings -- from spearers. The intent also is to protect big northerns, which are few in number in Minnesota and which spearing critics say can be uniquely targeted by spearers.
But Schnitker and other members of the Minnesota Dark House Anglers Association -- a group that is well represented in St. Paul when the Legisalture convenes -- disagree.
"Spearers are no threat to muskies," Schnitker said. "In Minnesota we can only spear on 40 or 50 lakes and rivers that have muskies. Even if I concede 100 muskies are accidentally or intentionally killed by spearers each year -- and there's no way the number is anywhere near that high -- it's still only a fraction of muskies in Minnesota that die after being caught and released by anglers."
| |
| | |
| The exaggeration so far in this thread is the fact that you are actually buying into the comparison of release mortality to illegally speared Muskies. Unbelieveable. That bit of spearing propoganda is akin to comparing apples to oranges at best. As the MNDR has put out an estimate that the harvest of a 50 inch Muskie from a stocked lake has the monetary value of nearly $3000 in stocking funds and in excess of 10 years to replace, this "tradition activity" may not be allowed in Muskie lakes for a very sane reason. | |
| | |
Posts: 194
| If practiced "Responsibly" I would have to agree that it could be a fun and challenging sport. But, how does one insure that repsponsible spearing will occur? Seems awefully impossible. I'm not trying to imply that Hook and Line anglers are all reponsible or even good at releasing a fish, but at least the ones that die from post release mortality were released. Hard to release a fish that was speared and have it live. I fully support the ban of said spearing on trophy Muskie Lakes in Minnesota, but I don't get to have much say. I live in Wisconsin. Can't be much worse then a lake full of tip-ups, though. At least the spearer gets a look at the fish, first. Lots of angles on this one. | |
| | |
| You really need to get informed before using your influence on this site to misinform your membership. The "muskietrouble" website that has been discussed here on this site and the Mn. Dark House Assoc. want the remaining 27 designated Muskie lakes in Mn. (out of 8,000 fishable lakes in Mn. by the way, all of which they can already spear) to be undesignated and for spearing to be allowed in them. Even though spearers are already allowed to spear in almost 60 Muskie lakes in Mn. If Muskie leadership in Mn. doesn't agree to this outrage, these organization will protest against any new water being stocked with Muskies in Mn even if the new waters are undesignated. It's a power play period. Reread the muskytroubles website and tell me they are the best solution to the way the MnDNR should run our muskie program
When Gil Hamm (founder of Muskies Inc.) designed a stocking program for Mn. one of the very important parts was designated Muskie Lakes that did not allow spearing. With all emotion for the issue aside, it was not considered worth the time, effort, and money to stock a lake if spearing was to be allow. It is impossible to tell the difference between a Northern and a Muskie except under the best of condidtions. The Dark House Assoc. has been on a campaign to eliminate designated Muskie lakes because they want to spear every single lake in Mn. regardless of the consequence. Among the lakes under consideration for undesignation are Cass and Mille Lacs. Do you really feel comfortable TRUSTING some spearer to not stab a trophy class Muskie. I don't. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wait a minute, guest, lambeau isn't 'influencing' anyone. He's simply posting his opinion, and has every right to do so. Don't come in here stomping around trying to start a fight, that is counter productive! I'd assume you desire the opposite, correct?
We will do whatever is possible to get the facts out to the public on the spearing issues and the Muskie trouble debate. I'm not at all sure any of us will actually LIKE the facts in some cases, but we will present them and encourage debate none the less. | |
| | |
| You really need to get informed before using your influence on this site to misinform your membership. The "muskietrouble" website that has been discussed here on this site and the Mn. Dark House Assoc. want the remaining 27 designated Muskie lakes in Mn. (out of 8,000 fishable lakes in Mn. by the way, all of which they can already spear) to be undesignated and for spearing to be allowed in them.
why don't you log in and support your posts with your name? it's not like we can't see your IP and figure it out already... you won't be attacked, you'll be engaged in informative discussion.
i never said i support the goals you listed of either of those organizations. i assume that just like most muskie anglers do not belong to Muskies Inc or support some of it's goals, most pike spearers do not belong to the Dark House Assoc. nor support all of it's goals and practices. i know that my in-laws and their friends who enjoy pike spearing do not belong to that organization or even pay attention to it. most people go about their business and enjoy their sport responsibly and to the degree they're allowed to do so by the law.
i absolutely think that the professional fisheries folks at the DNR should be allowed to make the decisions about "best use" for certain waters: all of which is subject to public input as practiced in MN (a vastly superior system to the one in WI, imho).
i do believe it's possible for MN to maintain trophy muskie fisheries, increase muskie angling opportunities on more waters, AND provide for northern pike spearing opportunities. it doesn't have to be either/or, and as long as people on both sides of the issue continue to view things in those terms there will be little possibility for compromise. sometimes when you give a little, you get a lot back in return.
why is that impossible to consider?
Edited by lambeau 1/31/2007 10:50 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| It's just like anything else in my opinion -- the guys doing it responsibly, obeying the laws, and only spearing what is allowed and when are not hurting the fisheries.
The problem that I see is that allowing spearing opens the door to a lot of practices that can't be monitored, are difficult to enforce, and do pose a serious threat to musky fishing.
I also see the possiblity of collusion between the two organizations, both of which have motives that run counter to our own.
I am certain there are spearers that make a serious effort to obey all the regulations, avoid spearing muskies, and are as concerned about the resource as any of us are.
But there are those who will inevitably use this as an opportunity to "accidentally" spear as many muskies as they can, as often as possible. THAT is what is detrimental. | |
| | |
| I don't see your name signed on your posts. What exactly is the difference between 'guest' and 'Shep' or 'Msky Hntr' or whatever. Are you requiring me to sign my posts with my real name if I disagree with you? I will rather do that than get deleted if that's what you want to debate this very important issue in Mn. and I do believe many of your membership is from Mn. or at least fish Mn. | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| The difference is we all know who Shep, Musky Hntr, Lambeau, and everyone else are. And when I post here, everybody knows who I am. Those that don't can click on my profile and figure it out. Since we know each other we all treat each other with respect, whether we agree or not. Many times we don't agree. Knowing each other keeps us from being ignorant to each other over our disagreements, even if its someone we may not particularly like. If I post something like "lambeau is a moron" I'm accountable for that, because Mike knows who I am, and I'll probably run into him at a show or an outing or on the water...
One thing is for sure though -- attacking someone else over their opinions is a sure way to get people to not take you seriously, and you are hurting your cause by doing so.
I read the article, I know what its about, and I am familiar with the "no more muskies" website, and what they stand for. I think they do a pretty good job of misrepresenting even thier own studies, and I doubt many people take them seriously. Those that do are probably not the people out there getting things done anyway. The people getting things done are the ones with the knowledge skill and tact to get their point across in a positive way, who have legitimate verifiable ways to back what they have to say. As for "no more muskies", I don't agree with their stance because I've read what I consider to be sound research that proves them wrong, and because I tend not to trust anyone with an ax to grind.
But I'm certainly not going to convice anyone that I am right and they are wrong by attacking them.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/31/2007 11:40 AM
| |
| | |
| you didn't answer my question: DHA and anti-muskie groups aside, is it possible for muskie angling and pike spearing to both occur within reasonable regulations?
why? or why not?
Edited by lambeau 1/31/2007 11:43 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| As long as the regulations are followed, I don't see why not. Muskies and pike compete for food, I would think that fewer pike in systems where there are muskies would be a positive thing.
But I don't trust the anti-muskie crowd not to spear muskies just to try to get rid of them. | |
| | |
| I have a question on this one. Besides being muskie waters many larger MN bodies of water are being managed for trophy pike as well. That means slot limits. How can a spearer determine the length of a pike by looking through the hole? Any guess on length would be purely speculative. Unlike angling, once the spear connects the fish is either dead or permanently damaged. Besides my belief that in the heat of the moment it is difficult to distinguish the difference between a pike and a muskie, I also am concerned about slot pike being illegally and unnecessarily harpooned. | |
| | |
| As far as spearing in Muskie lakes, I grew up in my Grandfathers spear house every Dec. He speared for sustenance. As he owned a resort on the lake he speared, he only took enough for pickling and extra food during the winter. I'm pretty sure this wasn't ethics driven more him realizing his resort also depended on the fish in the lake.
Muskie and Pike offer the exact same silhouette from above. Coloration is a way to tell the difference although to be sure the DNR website recommends counting the pores in the lower jaw. (obviously not an option in a spearhouse). Unless the day is bright, the water clear, not a lot of snow on the ice and the ice itself isn't cloudy all you can see is this silhouette. Even under ideal conditions, a spearer would be dependent on the fish coming in slowly which isn't always the case.
Spearers know this but hope you don't. Any spearer that spears on a Muskie lake IMO is risking not only killing a Muskie by mistake but risking also breaking the law. I sincerely have to question these individuals true motivation for spearing considering the risks mentioned above. | |
| | |
| Any spearer that spears on a Muskie lake IMO is risking not only killing a Muskie by mistake but risking also breaking the law. I sincerely have to question these individuals true motivation for spearing considering the risks mentioned above.
i assume that is why MN doesn't allow pike spearing on designated trophy muskie lakes?
how many people are actually out there spearing for pike? does the MN DNR have license numbers?
are there any known or estimated numbers of the amount of pike harvested by spearing and the amount of muskies accidently/purposefully killed by spearing? ie., is this a realistic danger to muskie fisheries or just a lot of smoke and no fire?
anyone have any facts???
| |
| | |
| I would like to know why you changed the title of my post, and this article, the whole thing is a Joke, Lambeau you have no clue as to the issues or concerns in or about any Muskie and Pike issues in MN regardless your connection, and seeing you support the thoughts of Mr Schnitker(aka Muskie Troubles contributing author) is very disturbing at the bare minimum, I didn't see your defense of these ideals in the previous Muskie Troubles Post.
Edited by Muskiefool 1/31/2007 11:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Because the title was misleading. This isn't a 'joke' website. For that look to Forumspile or the like. I think Lambeau's questions and comments are well placed, as are other viewpoints here.
Here's what he actually said:
'I just don't buy into the anti-spearing propaganda that pike spearers are decimating the trophy muskie population. there's no reason to believe it can't be practiced _responsibly_. i think it's beyond doubt that more 50"/$3000 muskies are killed by muskie fisherman using hook-and-line than ever get touched by a spear through the ice. if you want to preserve those fisheries, target muskie fishermen and their harvest or poor fish handling habits. the state of MN has acted wisely to limit spearing only to lakes that are not designated for muskie management, thereby allowing for both species and techniques to be practiced and enjoyed.'
Read the part about the state of Minnesota acting wisely...and next time read before you accuse.
| |
| | |
| Lambeau you have no clue as to the issues or concerns in or about any Muskie and Pike issues in MN regardless your connection, and seeing you support the thoughts of Mr Schnitker(aka Muskie Troubles contributing author) is very disturbing at the bare minimum
i'm just as capable about being informed about the issue as anyone. i've got a vested interest in the issue because i spend a lot of time on lakes that are designated/protected muskie waters and on lakes that are open to pike spearing. and i know people who participate in both. i try to get my information from beyond just the closed circle of the pro-muskie world.
i never said that i support the beliefs of Mr. Schnitker, the Darkhouse Assoc., or Muskie Troubles, nor do i think spearing should be allowed on lakes managed for trophy muskie production.
what i did say, and do believe, was that there's room for both sports to be practiced responsibly.
here is what the information that they are putting out in the article in a major newspaper, and the information their political supporters are providing to the legislature and DNR:
"Spearers are no threat to muskies," Schnitker said. "In Minnesota we can only spear on 40 or 50 lakes and rivers that have muskies. Even if I concede 100 muskies are accidentally or intentionally killed by spearers each year -- and there's no way the number is anywhere near that high -- it's still only a fraction of muskies in Minnesota that die after being caught and released by anglers."
if you want to oppose this viewpoint, provide some facts that support your position. are there any facts anywhere that suggest spearing (as practiced in MN) is devastating trophy muskie populations? if it's purely an issue of making sure muskies don't die, hook-and-line anglers are in trouble because the facts on delayed mortality do exist and there are an awful lot of people fishing for muskies.
simply waving one's arms and shouting "fire" is inadequate. support the claims with facts. i'm not saying that the latest iteration of "No More Muskies" is a good thing.
but saying "No More Spearing" is equally irrational and not supported by the facts. there's room for both sports to be enjoyed and if organized muskie fishermen allow for that possibility, then cooperation and more success for everyone would be possible.
Edited by lambeau 2/1/2007 8:57 AM
| |
| |
|
Darkhouse Spearing Issues