|
|
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | Just curious why the spearing thread was frozen. This is a huge topic here in MN. I also am dealing with this issue with Muskiefool and none of us are against spearing. We are against spearing on designated musky lakes. If you read the posts you would see that. There are 27 designated musky lakes where spearing is not allowed. Wait a minute..... as of June 2007 there will be 26. French lake, the ony musky lake in southern MN, will be open to spearing. From 27 to 26 in a blink of the eye. See where this is going?? If people want to carry on the tradition of spearing more power to them. But why out of the land of 10,000 lakes do they have to spear on the few musky lakes we have?? I know it's easy to say "as long as it's not in my back yard" but there sure seems to be a parade of people coming in to MN to fish Mille Lacs and Vermillion, it would just be nice to have some support from the crowds. How much whining to you think you would see if Mille Lacs was the lake that took that number down to 25 next year? Spearing on musky lakes is going to kill muskies. PERIOD!! More muskies killed by anglers than would from spearing?? Show me the proof. Not saying you are wrong, but if you want facts, so do I. And I doubt you can come up with any numbers.
When I first started reading the posts on the frozen thread I had to look and make sure I wasn' t on a spearing site. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pretty simple. You and your associates certainly have the right to your opinion, but when you abuse, attack, or misrepresent what is posted in a debate here, you violate our posting permissions. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is here.
The original thread was intentionally mislabeled. I'm not sure what the motivation was. I moved it to a board where it would remain up front and could be responsibly debated and discussed and relabeled it as to content and intent, and the author ignored that edit and edited the title back to what was represented as 'funny', then proceeded to get personal. That will get a thread locked every time.
Then the author accused me in a private message of 'defending my moderator'. Not even close, what I'm doing is indicating that what lambeau said was misrepresented, as is his position.
His point is clear to me; darkhouse spearing CAN be practiced responsibly on the waters it's currently allowed, and not all who practice darkhouse spearing for Pike disagee with your viewpoint or want to spear designated Muskie water. I believe you just said the same thing, but you just couldn't resist a parting, very poorly thought out jab that was completely baseless.
He said clearly, '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.'
What part of that is so hard to understand? Lambeau is taking a position that defends the traditional pike spearing sport, AND supports limiting the waters on which that sport is practiced. In NO way did he at any time support spearing on the lakes that Muskie Trouble supporters are after as accused.
Lambeau's last post is really good advice if you want to gain ground against the folks after the designated Muskie lakes. Be careful how broad a brush you use to paint a negative picture; you may alienate those who WERE on YOUR side.
| |
| | |
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | The point is not to allow spearing on the DESIGNATED MUSKY LAKES. No one is trying to put an end to spearing. Like I said one of the lakes has already had the ban lifted. I believe that is perfectly easy to understand. If Lambeau and his relatives want to spear pike go for it!! I also know people who spear. And no I don't think all spear fishermen are bad not even close. But when you have a Lawyer (Mr. Shnitker) heading up the No More Muskies group and a voice for the Dark House Assoc. us Musky fishermen need to cover our backs. If one lake can be removed from the spearing ban they all can.
I apollagize for the jab. Un called for | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My point, and lambeau's, exactly. | |
| | |
| More muskies killed by anglers than would from spearing?? Show me the proof. Not saying you are wrong, but if you want facts, so do I. And I doubt you can come up with any numbers.
here's some thoughts and numbers just to chew the gristle on this.
Rod Ramsell, a fisheries specialist with the MN DNR Section of Fisheries stated the following things in an article titled, "Handling Techniques and Survival of Released Muskellunge" (Esox Angler, Vol 5, Issue 4, Fall '04):
"...one thing that has become painfully obvious to me is that the survival rate of angler caught and released muskellunge is not as high as we all would like to think."
"...I have personally recovered and autopsied hundreds of dead muskellunge...shown the effects of poor handling of fish that have been caught and subsequently released by anglers. In many cases it was easy to determine exactly where the fish had been held firmly and how the angler's hands were oriented by the bruising of tissue...and the damage to skeletal structures of the body and gills."
"...we must also accept the fact that not every released fish survives."
"Smaller muskellunge tend to be more resilient to handling than larger ones."
"As a group, muskie anglers have room for significant improvement in their fish handling techniques."
in the Muskies Inc Lunge Log for 2006 on Mille Lacs Lake in Aitkin and Morrison counties, there were 144 muskies registered 45" and larger.
Muskies Inc numbers represent only a fraction of the muskies caught each year.
the majority of these muskies are caught during the summer months, the time of the year that Mr. Ramsell says is hardest on the fish and results in the highest rate of delayed mortality.
so...if we're extremely generous and say that 1/4 of muskies over 45" are registered in the Muskies Inc log, that would put us at around 575 muskies over 45" caught on Mille Lacs last summer. (i believe the real number is likely WAY higher than this because MInc is not really all that big.)
if only 10% of those muskies die from the experience, that means 57 dead muskies over 45" on just that one lake alone in one year. (from Mr. Ramsell's discussion i think it likely that much more than 10% of caught big fish are either kept or die after release.)
if you add in 10% of the caught large muskies on the other 25 designated trophy muskie lakes, you could quickly have a couple hundred muskies over 45" dying every year post-release. (and if the expiry rate is 20% it's double that many.)
also, creel surveys done by the MN DNR show a huge decline in the popularity of pike spearing between 1989 and 2004. the current number of spearing hours is only 1/3 of what it was 15 years ago.
so yes, i do believe poor handling by muskie anglers likely kills more muskies than spearers who are targeting a different (though similar) species.
again, i'm not saying i think spearers should be given the carte blanche that some of the organized groups are lobbying for, and i do think the limitations keeping them off of trophy muskie lakes make good sense. i simply believe that working for sensible regulation of both sports is more effective than railing against the way someone else chooses to enjoy our shared natural resources.
when the bass or walleye advocates try to stop the stocking of muskies into new lakes "we" (muskie fans) decry them for being irrational.
what does it mean if "we" behave in equally irrational ways about something that is _perceived_ to be a threat to muskies???
if we want "them" to work with "us" we need to hold ourselves to the same standard of good sense based on the reality of the situation and not emotional closed-mindedness.
Edited by lambeau 2/2/2007 9:51 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I have watched this thread grow through the days and to be honest, I personally feel that people are going way overboard on the whole issue. I grew up spearing pike on a lake that is connected to a designated Muskie water. Knowing the law I had no desire to try the lake since I knew it protected a different resource.
Funny thing on this, though, is that I really don't have any solid opinion on whether or not spearing should, or should not be allowed on the designated lakes. Over the past 33 years on our chain of lakes, the spearing community has dwindled to such an extent that we see maybe 1 or two spear houses out on the lake for just a couple days...then they are gone and that is it for the season. The other lake that is connected gets nothing for spearing, but it has quite a few pike in it that are perfect for spearing.
I have not speared for about 10 years on the lake, and it is not because I don't enjoy it...I enjoy chasing tip-ups. I also don't like having to pay the extra fee to spear for only a couple of days through the winter...to me....not worth it. I will admit, though that if I was in an area where someone did spear a muskie whether by accident or intentional, I would definitely follow up and would be pretty upset. So..do I support protecting the Designated lakes...yes since I love to fish muskies first and foremost, but I also feel that with the dwindling number of people spearing for pike in MN that it will sometime within my lifetime be eliminated. To me, it is a dying sport.
I can understand the point, though, of the Darkhouse spearing association with their argument that we would lose some muskies, but not a huge amount...and that by being able to spear a designated lake will not hurt the fishery overall. With our designated fisheries basically getting pounded day in and day out by countless muskie fanatics, there is definitely going to be some deaths (post release or unable to be released, kept, etc)...probably more on one individual lake (designated or not) through the summer than it would ever see in winter from spearing. With a dwindling number of people spearing and only 60 or so lakes closed to it, I can see their argument that having them open will not impact the fishery that much, so why close it...
Do I feel that if Designated muskie lakes were allowed to be speared be a bad idea? Not really...because I don't feel that EVERY person who spears is going to stop spearing where they are at and move to the designated lakes just because they are open to spearing. There are THOUSANDS of lakes to get good northern pike action on that the extra 60 lakes or so would not really change anything. I know that I would not go to the Designated lake close by to spear since I can do so on the lake I am located on and probably get better action anyway.
But..I also see the argument by those in favor of keeping the designated lakes closed is because there are those THOUSANDS of lakes one can spear on...so why change it. Keep it closed since the choices are abundant for spearing.
6 of one...half dozen of the other.. Which way would I vote if it ever came up? Well...I'd probably vote to keep it closed to spearing, even though I feel the impact of spearing would be so minimal that it would not affect the fisheries at all. For me, I can go get pike in so many other lakes, I have no reason to go to a designated lake.
I can also see on here because we are so passionate about our fish that we can sometimes get things WAY OUT OF PERSPECTIVE relative to the whole. We see things MUSKIE only many times and any threat to that is the end of the world to some. It's just not realistic, and does not look at the BIG PICTURE.
O.k...I'm hopping down off the soapbox now.. Let the choir begin... 
Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Steve,
Excellent post examining several different perspectives. | |
| | |
| Facts and perspective
11,000 lakes(rivers) in Mn., over 8,600 fishable, 87 Muskie lakes(rivers) in Mn.(a little over 1%), 26 designated no spearing(0.32%). (61 Muskie lakes spearable- that is over 71% of the Muskie lakes in Mn. that spearing is allowed on.)
Muskies and Pike are Esox-same shape- same silhouette
Recent spring netting on a No. Mn. Muskie lake open to spearing per the MNDNR. 14% of Muskies had spear marks. (and those are just the ones that survived the ordeal)
Spearers in a recent MNDNR creel survey on a No. Mn. lake represented 2% of the angling effort directed at Pike
that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Could you please list source documents so I don't have to spend a bunch of time contacting the MN DNR and track them down? | |
| | |
| email? | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | [email protected], and thanks! | |
| | |
| that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
this makes sense...one of the management issues with spearing is the ability to select larger fish. on lakes with slot limits the MN DNR puts out all these rigamarole guidelines for spearers on how to estimate fish size by estimating the length of the head. "head longer than 'x' but not longer than 'y'..." ridiculously confusing.
notably, the same impact has been seen on waters managed for trophies (any species) with high size limits...the only fish being kept are the big ones.
| |
| | |
| What is so hard to understand. ?
Creel survey. Spearers speared for 2% of the total man hours targeted for Pike on this particular lake. ( 2 hours out of every 100 hours. )
That 2% of the man hours (spearing) produced 1 out of 4 of the Pike that were harvested during the survey. (Spearers speared a quarter of the Pike caught in only 2% of the time)
After the total weight of Pike harvested was added up, the fish that were speared (1 out of 4) weighed a little over 1/2 of the total weight of all the Pike harvested. (they got bigger fish)
One case draw your own conclusions. | |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I am curious about the information GUEST writes about....but....I will reserve judgment on this one until there is further information supplied....questions as, "When did this creel survey take place? What lake? How long was the creel survey, how many fish were caught and released, how many fish were not reported (unknown variable in this case I suspect) etc.
Statistics are a very different animal as compared to normal everyday mathematics... Any statistic given can be twisted to mean what you want it to which puts out a very twisted and not so accurate picture in the whole scheme of things. Without a context, all the numbers are just numbers and anyone can play them in the way they want. With any statistic, there are so many variables that need to be considered, that just throwing out a few numbers can skew one's outlook...many times put into a context to sway thinking. A very easy example to understand with this is in the political spotlight. Watch and listen to all the statistics that get thrown around and somewhere in between the two arguments lies the truth. After teaching this type of stuff for well over 10 years, it amazes me how much stats get twisted, charts get manipulated, and percentages calculated in such odd ways that they are not even close to matching the situation.
I am sure hoping that you will be kind enough to answer the questions I listed above and you have supplied Mr. Worrall with the information. No doubt this is a hot topic for many, but in all due respect, the whole picture must be painted first...and not to discredit your information, but I just have this gut feeling that the whole story is yet to be told...
Steve
Edited by VMS 2/3/2007 9:43 PM
| |
| | |
| What is so hard to understand. ?...they got bigger fish
if you read my tone as sarcastic, it wasn't.
i was saying exactly what i said: that it makes perfect sense, just as you explained it: spearers can be more selective on size, taking a higher harvest toll on larger pike than smaller. and i think the DNR guidelines to help spearers stay within the limits shows the ridiculousness of that aspect of the situation.
however, it does not speak to the numbers of muskies being killed by pike spearers.
what are the actual hard numbers on the 14% spear-scarred muskies that you referred to?
a number like 14% sounds impressive, but that could be 14 out of 100 or it could be only 1 out of 7.
in the latter case there's obvious sample size margin of error.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2007 10:23 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And that, gentlemen...is why I asked for the source documents! | |
| | |
| .
Edited by Muskiefool 2/3/2007 11:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't keep those, sir, and wouldn't post them if I did. I figure a private message is just that.
Thanks for the link.
Oooops, he deleted his post and the link to an abstract on this issue....for whatever reason. Here it is:
http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.157...(2000)020%3C0239%3ARDSFNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2 | |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Not sure who "guest" is above. But the statistics referenced were posted on another site by a very well respected individual, Rob Kimm. I'm sure he could supply more detailed information on those figures.
Aaron | |
| | |
| Spearers in a recent MNDNR creel survey on a No. Mn. lake represented 2% of the angling effort directed at Pike
that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
i'll assume the stats listed above are accurate, but would still like the primary source citation.
notably one year on one lake creates a huge sample bias and it's poor science (too many variables) to generalize from something as small as that.
the AFS article abstract linked above contradicts those numbers when using a much more representative sample. it includes almost 20 years of creel data from 1980-2000 and shows only a 15% take by number and actually a similar harvest rate to angling, though it does note the larger impact on trophy fish than angling.
again, i'm not suggesting spearing shouldn't be regulated in ways that protect both trophy pike and muskellunge populations.
it should be.
i think spearing gets a very bad image because (as Mr. Webster points out) it kills the fish. so if a muskie gets speared (by accident or on purpose) it's a dead muskie. but is this a real crisis for muskie populations? we don't feel as bad about delayed mortality of released muskies because we don't see it and can delude ourselves that those fish aren't dying. but some do, and Mr. Ramsell (a DNR fisheries expert) is saying that it's many more than we like to think...and i'll bet dimes to dollars it's way way more than the number of muskies lost to incidental spearing.
has muskie fishing in MN improved or declined for numbers and size over the past 10 years?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 10:56 AM
| |
| | |
| Obviously it is going to take dated filming of a Muskie being speared to convince you that Muskies are getting speared. Of course then it could be said it was an "isolated incident". As current enforcement numbers are near 1930 levels in Mn. I don't think this will happen. It is impossible to document the killing the Muskies by spearers. The fish are either filleted immediately and the head and skin are placed else where or the Muskie is just shoved back under the ice so there would be no way to make a case againist any particular house. What else could they do with it? Turn themselves in? Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best. Everyone seems so concerned about bashing the spearers, continue to make that ridiculous comparision and see how many Muskie anglers it alienates. The fact that only two states in the U.S., 0 in Canada and 0 in Europe allow dark-house spearing of Pike should say volumns. But obviously it doesn't to some. Do you have any idea how much potential damage a couple of unemployed yahoos could do to a fishery (all species)over a winter with 9 tine spears? Hopefully they wouldn't camp on your favorite lake. Would you really feel good about legalizing spearing for Pike on Pelican? Right now Leech Lake (the home of our strain) is being speared. Vermilion also and 59 other Muskie lakes. But the tradition of a few is important, more important than all the risks combined. What a sorry lot for Mn. anglers to have drawn. Spearers will continue to cull the largest of each year class of Pike at first ice when they are most vulnerable and Mn. fishing license holders will continue to be without the opportunity for a chance at a trophy class Pike all in the name of tradition. Seems like other traditions have also been a problem in Wisconsin but that's a whole different issue.
Steve Voigt | |
| | |
| thanks for your reply, Steve.
Obviously it is going to take dated filming of a Muskie being speared to convince you that Muskies are getting speared.
nope. i think you might be misreading me: i already believe it's happening, and it's a bad thing.
i'm just waiting to see any info that says it's a crisis for muskie populations and if it's not, than it's a form of acceptable/manageable loss - just like delayed mortality of angling caught muskies.
As current enforcement numbers are near 1930 levels in Mn. I don't think this will happen. It is impossible to document the killing the Muskies by spearers.
this is a fair point to explain the lack of researched evidence about the impact.
this forces the reliance on more anecdotal evidence.
how's the muskie fishing in MN? any big fish around? good numbers of fish?
spearing is documented to be a declining sport with less participation every year.
Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best.
i think it's a fair comparison because we're talking about things that potentially kill muskies. if people are so up in arms about the perceived impact on muskies of spearing for pike that they think it should be banned, then why not be equally up in arms about post-release mortality from poor handling? if this kills more big muskies than spearing (and i believe the numbers suggest that it does), what's next? ban muskie fishing? require a "test" of good handling skills to get a fishing license? the bottom line is angling kills more muskies than spearing but no one is suggesting that angling be banned.
Do you have any idea how much potential damage a couple of unemployed yahoos could do to a fishery (all species) over a winter with 9 tine spears? Hopefully they wouldn't camp on your favorite lake.
a lot. so would a couple unemployed yahoos who are ice-fishing or fishing in the summer and have a willingness to break the law. the summarized creel data from 1980-2000 referenced above indicates that spearers have the same success rate per hour as anglers.
people who illegally practice anything should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including exceeding possession or bag limits.
however, making guns illegal means only criminals have guns...
is there evidence of declining muskie fisheries that points to spearing?
if there was, what would the MN DNR do about it?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 12:48 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt,
I don't recall posting my personal opinion on this issue. Why select Pelican?
To answer a couple of your comments;
Comment:'Would you really feel good about legalizing spearing for Pike on Pelican?'
Response: No. I personally don't like the practice of spearing any fish, except those considered rough fish like carp. HOWEVER, an emotionally based 'loaded question' like that one was as misdirected as it possibly could have been in this case. We HAVE darkhouse spearing on Pelican, and the targets are not Pike, they are Muskies. There are no regulations on the number OR size of muskies speared in this manner. That practice has been 'traditional' for centuries, and despite strong efforts from an awful lot of people, was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
Comment:'Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best'
Response: No one did. The comments and questions so far have been in a manner of debate intended as a challenge to back away from the 'attack mode' that will only lose the question in emotional rhetoric and ruin any chance of getting the actual facts in front of the Muskie Anglers out there interested in this issue. The question was asked as to the actual biological impact on the Muskie populations in the lakes that ARE being speared for Pike, and how that impact might play out compared to known levels of Muskie mortality caused by other sportsmen on the same specie. That's a reasonable question, and in no way supports intentional, illegal, or even misdirected or misinformed spearing of Muskies. Answers hopefully can be posted in reasonable and as untainted by angry emotion fashion as can be possible, allowing all anglers following this thread to direct their personal efforts (or elect to do nothing) based upon the facts. That is why this topic was moved to the Research forum.
Comment: 'But the tradition of a few is important, more important than all the risks combined.'
Response: You have unintentionally scored a direct HIT on the core of this issue. It's currently legal to spear Pike on the waters you mention. Your DNR obviously feels the impact isn't high enough to change the law in your favor and in fact might even consider opening up waters NOW protected as managed muskie waters due to pressure applied by your opposition. This is how democracy works, sir. Its your responsibility (or not, that's your personal choice to become actively involved in the process, also a hallmark of democracy)as someone obviously concerned with the impact on Muskie by Pike spearing by providing solid, defensible, factually based arguments against Pike spearing on Muskie waters that will hold up under examination by those who have the power to make the changes you desire. Then you need to gain the support of the general population, including the darkhouse spearers who may NOT wish to spear muskie waters in order to protect muskie populations. Political activism at work, sir.
Comment: 'Everyone seems so concerned about bashing the spearers, continue to make that ridiculous comparision and see how many Muskie anglers it alienates.'
Response: Everyone? That's a completely emotional response that isn't based in anything but anger over someone questioning your position or others positions agreeing with your stance. That's an example of how to marginalize your argument in the real world of getting any changes made with your legislators or DNR. Facts and honest debate shouldn't alienate anyone, from either side. If one becomes so worked up as to become irrationally angry when an opposing, well spoken position is taken, one should not join the debate until that emotional spike can be controlled. I speak from experience here; muskie and walleye anglers here 'protesting' Native American treaty rights looked like rednecked reactionaries, and they were not given more than contemptuous passing attention ( the anti treaty spearing 'movement' was completely marginalized) by those who HAVE the power to make the changes desired.
Comment: 'Spearers will continue to cull the largest of each year class of Pike at first ice when they are most vulnerable and Mn. fishing license holders will continue to be without the opportunity for a chance at a trophy class Pike all in the name of tradition. Seems like other traditions have also been a problem in Wisconsin but that's a whole different issue.'
Response: A separate issue, and one that needs to be addressed separately. If indeed spearing is decimating the big pike population in a manner that clearly exceeds that of ice anglers and open water anglers, then change needs to take place. Prove that out, gain enough support for the platform, and get changes made.
Wisconsin has many traditions, some of which I have been involved in attempting to change; sometimes with some success, sometimes not. Effecting changes is not easy, and is a process, not an event.
| |
| | |
| The point that you are forgetting in the comparision of release mortality to illegal spearing is a very important one. It is the fact that a successful Muskie angling catch may indeed kill one out of ten fish thru delayed release mortality, but the other 9 fish are ALIVE even though caught. An illegal killing of a Muskie by spear is a dead fish 100% percent of the time. No survivers. Which if my math is correct is 10 times as lethal per catch. Also let's talk about delayed mortality from spearing Muskies then. What percentage of Muskies wounded by a spear die later? Believe me the spearers don't want you think to hard about that one. But the real point is that by the comparision of the two you are slapping those of us who fought for years promoting C&R and those who now practice it in Mn.. There is NO room in spearing for C&R. It is TOTALLY lethal be it a Pike or an illegal Muskie. You are truly playing with fire on this one lambeau.
As far as the health of the Mn. Muskie fishery, yes it is truly spectacular and also currently peaking as you well know . As Worrall has said many times on this site, Mn. had better protect that fishery. (I salute you for that statement Worrall) Again don't take the hard work of numerous people for years to develop this fishery and twist it into a justification to continue to spear. By your rationale since there are a lot of big fish around maybe we should making spearing for Muskie legal like Michigan. It's unfair for just the Muskie anglers to enjoy the wealth.
I can't call up your post which I'm posting this so I forget what else you had to say | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt,
'But the real point is that by the comparision of the two you are slapping those of us who fought for years promoting C&R and those who now practice it in Mn.. There is NO room in spearing for C&R. It is TOTALLY lethal be it a Pike or an illegal Muskie. You are truly playing with fire on this one lambeau.'
Playing with fire? Answer the questions with facts and stay in the debate reasonably, please. | |
| | |
| If you honestly believe that a Muskie death caused by unintentional release mortality is equal to a Muskie death caused by a spearer who swears they can tell the difference between a Pike and Muskie under any conditions and then choses to spear a Muskie lake when they have over 8,500 other choices, then we do not have a common thread to even begin a serious and logical debate. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Again, you are not reading what was posted. No one SAID it was 'equal'. You are talking emotional issues, lambeau is talking actual biological impact. Changes will not be implemented just because you say so no matter how 'right' you might be, sir. If you have no desire to debate this issue based in reason and fact, then perhaps you are correct. | |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'm just posting my questions again so they are not getting lost in this debate. I really would like to know more information. At this point, I cannot call the numbers credible until the sources are supplied.
"I am curious about the information GUEST writes about....but....I will reserve judgment on this one until there is further information supplied....questions as, "When did this creel survey take place? What lake? How long was the creel survey, how many fish were caught and released, how many fish were not reported (unknown variable in this case I suspect) etc. "
Help us out here...We're not being unreasonable in this request...Where are the numbers coming from?
Steve
| |
| | |
| The point that you are forgetting in the comparision of release mortality to illegal spearing is a very important one. It is the fact that a successful Muskie angling catch may indeed kill one out of ten fish thru delayed release mortality, but the other 9 fish are ALIVE even though caught. An illegal killing of a Muskie by spear is a dead fish 100% percent of the time. No survivers. Which if my math is correct is 10 times as lethal per catch.
absolutely. speared fish die at a higher rate than fish caught and released on hook and line. but in spite of the % being higher, the actual numbers of dead fish is much smaller because of the scale. for example, 10% of 10000 = 1000, but 20% of 1000 only = 200. the % alone doesn't explain the actual impact on the number of fish swimming around in the water. there's way way way more fish contacted by hook and line than ever are even spotted through the ice.
choses to spear a Muskie lake when they have over 8,500 other choices, then we do not have a common thread to even begin a serious and logical debate.
so someone who chooses to spear fish on a lake where they are legally allowed to do so is doing something wrong? that's the part that doesn't seem "serious and logical" to me. what's next? signs saying "muskie fishermen only" at certain lake landings? "bass fishermen not allowed" or "crappie fishermen must go to the next lake"? the DNR attempts to manage the resource so that it can be enjoyed in more than just one way. being myopic about muskie fishing actually hurts our own interests in expanding our particular way to enjoy nature. see the big picture and there's room for everyone, something the DNR is very aware of.
if there's a biological (or social, a key consideration in MN's management strategies) reason to protect that lake i suggest you take it up with the DNR and try to add it to the protected list, rather than castigating those who practice a sport within the limits of the law.
If you honestly believe that a Muskie death caused by unintentional release mortality is equal to a Muskie death caused by a spearer
dead is dead no matter what the source: spearing, angling stress, pollution, whatever. it's a fish that can't contribute to future generations and it will never be enjoyed by another sportfisherman. are you suggesting that pike spearers are seeking out muskie lakes because they want to kill muskies? that seems like a pretty sweeping stereotype to me; i suppose that could be happening, but really, to what degree? most people are going down to the lake nearest their home and setting up a darkhouse because they want to get some pike.
interestingly enough, in the 2003 MN DNR report IR498 "An Examination of Minnesota's Muskellunge Waters", Mr. Younk and Mr. Pereira make a number of observations that i believe are relevant to this discussion; and at least one very notable omission:
they observed that from 1986-1998:
- effort (hours per catch) has remained constant, an apparent balance between increased angling pressure and increased fishing opportunities created by stocking of muskellunge in new waters
- size of caught muskellunge has increased over time (avg. of 33.8" in late 80s up to 36.2" in late 90s)
- there is a need to get more/better centralized information about angling effort, [natural] mortality rates, sustainable catch rates, and evaluating hooking mortality.
it struck me that the impact of hooking mortality is a management concern that they believe requires more investigation, but the impact on muskellunge by pike spearing was not mentioned a single time in their assessment. what does that suggest?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 4:22 PM
| |
| | |
| Well, since my name got hauled into this, I may as well chime in.
Some of the statistics 'Guest' cited were from a conversation I had with a DNR biologist some time ago. The creel data was from a periodic creel survey that was done off an on over the course of the winter on one lake. The muskie spearing data was from a Northern MN stocked lake, but the biologist didn't disclose which one, and I didn't ask.
The sample size wasn't large. I think it was in the high 20s. Consider that the 14% that showed spear wounds were the ones that lived... But the sample size and any inherent skewing (one fish either way can change the percentage a lot obviously) isn't the point in this case. It's not the point because of what those statistics refute, which is a claim by many in the darkhouse assoc that muskies 'never get speared.' I sat in a meeting with one of their presidents where he looked me in the eye and said he'd never even heard of it happening. I sat there listening to him say these were stories invented by muskie fishermen to smear the spearers. However, I knew he'd just met with a couple of concerned muskie fishermen, a conservation officer, and a DNR biologist to discuss the issue about one lake in particular where speared muskies were showing up with pretty frightening regularity. The meeting included him seeing photos of muskies with pretty obvious spear wounds. I knew he was there because I got reports on the meeting from the biologist and the muskie angler. And yet he still claimed it 'never happens.' The DNR KNOWS otherwise. So do I. I've caught fish with spear marks, and seen one being carried to a truck on a muskie lake near my house. (The TIP line is a great thing) I had one come in to get weighed at the bait store I worked at in High School by a guy who knew #*^@ well it wasn't a pike and didn't care. Unfortunately for him, he called ahead to see if we had a scale, and I answered the phone, so the game warden 'happened' to show up about that time.
I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence), that we shouldn't worry about spearing mortality on muskies lakes because muskie anglers cause more mortality than spearers. It's likely true, but it's trivially true. One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.
The other issue with spearing in MN is the effect its advocates have had on efforts to implement better pike regulations on many lakes in MN. Special regs have been extremely successful on many bodies of water in developing better pike populations (bigger fish, a smaller percentage of sub-20 inch pike). Better pike population dynamics have a ripple effect through the whole fishery from perch to walleyes. Yet in many areas, the spearing assoc has vigorously opposed these regulations. Some of their members want all of them removed. One of the said to me, without a hint of irony, that they'd like to spear on those lakes because they have some of the biggest pike around. (This same fellow also told me the idea that big pike help control small pike numbers through cannibalism was nonsense because pike slime was poisonous...) They don't see special regs as anything but a de facto spearing ban. Their attitude is way out of step with the majority of MN anglers, who, a couple years ago when the DNR did state-wide surveying as part of their study of bag limits, expressed strong support for tighter regs on pike. It's part of what led to the state-wide 1 over 30 rule. For those of you from places where spearing isn't allowed, I think it's hard to grasp the full implications it can have. I've seen several lakes in my home area have their pike populations' heads lopped off because they were speared intensely for just a couple of years. Combine intense harvest of big fish with general angler (both spearing and hook and line) of mid-size fish (anglers are extremely size-selective with pike), and you have a pike population in trouble, and eventually, lakes where 75% of the pike population is under 22 inches. On lakes with the potential to produce quality pike, special regs are the ONLY mechanism the DNR has for making that happen, and the spearers fight them every time. They'll say they're for bigger pike, but only if they can spear them. When slot limits and maximum sizes come into the picture, they're dead set against it much of the time.
Scott Webster brought up the biggest issue I have with the DHA, which was the French Lake spearing ban, and how it was lifted. After the DNR shot them down on lifting it, they went to the legislature and slipped a provision into a completely unrelated omnibus bill which got by a couple legislators who'd been watching for it and had struck it out of amendments to a couple other bills. To me, that's the scariest thing I've seen for fisheries management in MN in a long time. Managing individual fisheries by legislation is a doomsday scenario for fisheries management, and one I've been screaming warnings about on a variety of issues from walleye stocking to muskie lakes for several years...and the MDHA opened Pandora's box because they didn't have the public support to change it the right way, and they had to use the back door.
Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex. Many of them have serious implications for muskies in Minnesota (such as opponents of muskie stocking on Gull aligning themselves with at least some in the Darkhouse Assoc. ) I grew up in a darkhouse with a rope around my ankle in case I took a header down the hole. It's very much part of my angling heritage. I get the history. I get the appeal. But when groups like the MDHA resort to political sleight of hand and vacuous logic to defend an activity that can have a pretty negative impact on muskie fisheries, and on top of that deny ANY impact at all, despite being confronted with facts to the contrary, it bothers me.
What I can say for sure is that if there is an attempt to lift the spearing ban, it'll be a rather ugly fight.
Rob Kimm
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.'
'Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex.'
'I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence'
WHAT????????????????????????? Where do you see that? If you want to enter the debate, PLEASE read what actually has been said and don't post accusations of out of context or completely fabricated comments.
Why is it I am able to see exactly what lambeau is getting at, and anti-spearing advocates AND pro spearing advocates cannot? No one 'rose to the defense of' anyone, lambeau and others only made observations based on reality and asked why those observations were incorrect or flawed looking at the big picture. Opposing viewpoints have been voiced, but the threats of 'you had better' and 'playing with fire' are coming from one side, and very ineffectively. Give us real data and supporting commentary so we may take a stand one way or the other, without demonizing one side or both.
No one has said that a Muskie speared by a Pike angler is legal OR acceptable, just that it undoubtedly happens. IF that is true, and we all agree it must be, WHAT is the real biological impact, HOW MANY are lost, HOW does that compare to loss from other sources, and can the data be proven to be damaging enough to take that to those who can effect change.
Here's what lambeau actually said:
'again, i'm not suggesting spearing shouldn't be regulated in ways that protect both trophy pike and muskellunge populations.
it should be.
i think spearing gets a very bad image because (as Mr. Webster points out) it kills the fish. so if a muskie gets speared (by accident or on purpose) it's a dead muskie. but is this a real crisis for muskie populations? we don't feel as bad about delayed mortality of released muskies because we don't see it and can delude ourselves that those fish aren't dying. but some do, and Mr. Ramsell (a DNR fisheries expert) is saying that it's many more than we like to think...and i'll bet dimes to dollars it's way way more than the number of muskies lost to incidental spearing.'
That's HARDLY an endorsement of the Anti Muskie group, or any one Dark House activist on the extreme opposite of your position. Addressing the Pike issues Mr. Kimm mentions is no less important, but you will need all the data, the full backing of your fisheries management people, and a united front to beat the Dark House folks at the political end of things; they have quite a bit of practice. I might also point out that muskie anglers have traditionally not been the most advanced advocacy group for the management/development of Northern Pike. That may need to be addressed too.
If indeed the DHA group outmaneuvered their opposition and had the law changed by the legislature, there needs to be an equal but opposite campaign to get that reversed. Lawmakers have no business regulating fisheries management, IMHO just as fisheries biologists have no truck legislating. | |
| | |
| I'm sorry you got dragged into this against your wishes Rob. I did not post your name only directed Mr. Worrall to a another website where you made an excellent post. If he contacted you because of that, that was not my intent.
The reason the comparsion between release mortality and illegally spearing is such a hot button issue with Muskie anglers is because it is totally intellectually dishonest. When every Muskie mag, Muskie organization, website and TV show worth their salt is trying to educate for more successful release techniques, spearers leadership is denying the problem even exists, which does nothing to inform their membership of the risks. This denial may also be giving their membership an overconfidence that adds risks to the Muskie fishery. Add to that the dishonesty of the muskytrobles website and our belief that they are working to undermine the remaining designated lakes and you are surely hitting a hot button with that comparison. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The reason the comparsion between release mortality and illegally spearing is such a hot button issue with Muskie anglers is because it is totally intellectually dishonest.'
Again, that's emotion talking. What's intellectually dishonest about attempting to determine the ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL impact of illegal/accidental muskie spearing?
How, EXACTLTY, do you, or Mr. Kimm, or anyone interested in reversing the current trend expect to debate this with the Dark House group, DNR and perhaps the Legislature without that information nailed down and properly put in the perspective you require for your platform? Do you honestly think a DNR fisheries manager will listen to what you've had to say so far and change ANYTHING based on your comments? You HAVE to know the opposing side will point out exactly what lambeau indicated they will and apparently have already. If they are organized and prepared and you are not, you will lose.
Great point about the denial that accidental muskie/illegal spearing is happening by the Dark House Leadership is not encouraging adequate concern within the Pike spearing community. That has good merit.
Mr. Kimm didn't contact me, nor did I contact him.
I've been active trying to expose the weakness and inaccuracy of some of the Musky Troubles claims, so you are preaching to the choir there. | |
| | |
| Luckily the DNR considers LOGIC in their assesments when biological data is impossible to prove. I have already pointed out why this is impossible to prove. If their prepartion is as dishonest as has been shown thus far, they instead of us will have to prove their case. They are the ones that want change anyway.
BTW that was rude to demand an apology when Rob criticized the logic in lambeau parroting the muskytroubles stance that release mortality is comparable to illegal spearing. An apology would be called for if it had been a personal attack but it wasn't .I know I was very offended by that comparison whether an emotional reaction or not. Do I deserve an apology. ?
| |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I think I do since my questions have yet to be answered...
Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 181
| VMS, I think that this is some of the statistics that where being used by swarroll, correct me if I'm wrong guys.
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0239:RDSFNP>2.0.CO;2
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2000;20:239–244
Recreational Darkhouse Spearing for Northern Pike in Minnesota: Historical Changes in Effort and Harvest and Comparisons with Angling
Rodney B. Pierce
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744, USA
Mark F. Cook
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2114 Bemidji Avenue, Bemidji, Minnesota 56601, USA
Abstract.—A traditional form of harvest for northern pike Esox lucius during winter is darkhouse spearing through the ice. Using a comprehensive evaluation of creel surveys and license sales in Minnesota, we document a long-term decline in this unique sport fishery. The decline in recreational spear fishing effort cannot be blamed on catch rates because spearing catch rates have not changed perceptibly with time. Catch rates for spearing (mean = 0.175 fish/h) are similar to harvest rates by anglers that are targeting northern pike. Conflicts between spearers and anglers have led to questions about relative harvests by each group and their effects on northern pike populations. Creel survey data since 1980 show that summer and winter angling account for most of the northern pike harvest. Spearing accounted for 15% of the average yield of northern pike by number, but spearing is selective for the larger fish. In comparison with population estimates, spearing removes a small proportion of the total population and biomass of northern pike but an increasing proportion of fish with increasing size. Recreational angling, by comparison, removes an even greater proportion of all fish sizes in a population. Management designed to improve the size structure of northern pike populations will need to be directed at reducing harvest by all methods.
Received: April 29, 1999; Accepted: July 19, 1999
top
Edited by jnelson 2/4/2007 9:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt,
No. You are again misquoting lambeau and totally misinterpreting what he said, despite the fact both he and I have repeatedly pointed that out. You seem incapable of keeping emotion out of the debate. Rob was out of line, and so are you; neither of you are representing what was said in context. You may not understand this(that's obvious), but you are wasting your time and energy attacking an ALLY, sir.
I'll try one more time to get you to look at the facts and intent of what's been said. If it doesn't work this time, I'll leave it to your opposition to shoot your arguments full of holes.
The Darkhouse folks point out incidental angler caused mortality in Muskies in Minnesota is probably much higher than any mortality caused by accidental spearing of Muskies; this argument sure sounds like a valid argument socially AND from a biological standpoint when presented to a group that is NOT heavily Pro Muskie. Especially if no opposing data or clear viewpoint can be presented. Tell me it doesn't, and tell me why, show me the data, show me something. That's exactly whats been asked by THREE separate people here. If indeed responsible practice of the Sport cannot be reasonably practiced then we need to find out WHY the MNDNR has not stopped the practice. If they wish to but need social pressure applied, then that is a possible end goal for you.
I don't know the guy who is the DHA leader, have no idea whether he actually believes his line of obvious 'stuff' that no muskies are ever speared. Lambeau insinuated repeatedly that if that is an issue, and the DNR is willing to lend you support to effect change, then the only thing left to do is get those wheels in motion. We (MuskieFIRST) support protecting the Muskie population if it can be proven that protection is warranted, and will even help you get the point across to anyone necessary. So show us, please! What we will NOT support is unfounded, he said/she said rhetoric applied blindly to anyone who even slightly questions one stance or the other.
I'm all over protecting the rest of the designated lakes, I've already tossed my hat in that ring. I don't see anything from lambeau that would even suggest he would not also support protecting those waters.
Lambeau points this out, and asks for data to refute this DHA claim. There isn't any, apparently. So the answer is to attack anyone who asks a question already in play, including me? I helped publish and get into the hands of the Muskie troubles opposition a statement( thanks again, Dave) that shot them right through the center of their bull roar claims, so why go after me? Because you can't or won't defend your claims with facts/data/? How does that tactic further your agenda? HMMM, it doesn't, it simply alienates those who may be on the fence. What in the world would make you think this issue would play out any differently from others here? We search for facts, and apply them as correctly as possible to the story at hand.
If indeed the DNR is going to support the Muskie advocates, then why the concern? If the DHA makes a claim and it stands with the legislature( back door claim notwithstanding, they got that done), the DNR, or ANYONE making the decisions, then it was just plain not properly addressed by Muskie advocates. They shouldn't have been able to get that done, no way. We, as muskie anglers LOST this round, that lake is open to spearing now, right? That, IMHO, is a bad thing. This isn't all that complex, it's a social issue that features strong political activism from one side and up until recently poorly organized and splintered activism from the other. Tell me again I am wrong. Better yet, tell us what can be done to correct this 'trend'. And, do so without attacking those who would exercise their legal right to spear Pike with NO intent, and reasonable care, NOT to spear muskies, or your argument is moot out of the gate.
If indeed the MNDNR agrees the impact of spearing pike and muskies commands action, why have they not acted to further protect muskie waters and eliminate spearing on those 80 some lakes? Is there a proposal/study/paper/ANYTHING in process that would move the Muskie advocacy forward, and the extremists from the DHA's agenda backward? How did the DHA get the legislature to pass a law that allowed spearing on a PROTECTED lake? Why didn't the Muskie community scream bloody murder and make this a front line political hot button issue?
There's your agenda, correct?
VMS,
I'm sorry, was I supposed to do something for you or was that post directed elsewhere? I'm on the data collection tomorrow, and will see what I can find on the subject. | |
| | |
| Luckily the DNR considers LOGIC in their assesments when biological data is impossible to prove.
YES! and what is the DNR currently doing based on their logic?
Rob criticized the logic in lambeau parroting the muskytroubles stance that release mortality is comparable to illegal spearing.
well, i don't view myself as a parrot...and i think it is comparable, just not in the way that either anti-spearing or muskytroubles wants to present it.
my guess is that Mr. Kimm misunderstood me and made some wrong assumptions.
this happens when people pre-judge what someone is saying without carefully reading it. just because i raise my hand and say "i think differently" makes me the bad guy? i'm on the side of finding out what's real, not being locked into blindly thinking "muskies good" or "spearing bad." even if thinking that way makes things easier to understand, the issues are just not as simple as that. this is not Packers vs Vikings where things come in bold easy-to-recognize colors.
here's what Mr. Kimm said:
I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence), that we shouldn't worry about spearing mortality on muskies lakes because muskie anglers cause more mortality than spearers...To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.
i don't believe illegally spearing muskies is "acceptable". i'm not suggesting that there's no problems with spearing nor have i ever said that muskies don't get killed by spears (as some DHA advocates claim).
what i've been saying is that i don't think it's something that's having quite the dire consequences for the muskie fishery that anti-spearing propagandists want us to believe. it's simply not big enough. the issues are not nearly so black and white as either side presents them. i live in the gray area in between and attempt to be thoughtful about it.
dead muskies are dead muskies no matter how it happens. because we don't try to kill the muskies that we release somehow makes us less culpable if they die? i don't buy that line of reasoning because the result is the same (dead muskies caused by us) no matter how good you feel about yourself in the morning. i never said that spearing muskies becomes acceptable on the basis that angling kills muskies too! what i've been saying is that both are problems that kill muskies, and that if we're to be consistent we need to take a look at both. and guess what? delayed mortality is killing more muskies than spearing and therefore having a bigger impact on the population of fish swimming in the lakes. where's the moral outrage over that? doesn't it make sense to focus our energy on the issue (delayed mortality) that is having the larger impact? or is it just that painting someone else as the bad guys is easier to do than looking at ourselves critically and actually acting on the ethics we claim to hold??? when Mr. Ramsell published his article advocating water releases, no "ego shots", etc. he was widely criticized as an elitist. hmmm, he's a fisheries expert saying that delayed mortality is a significant problem, but one that requires us to change what we're doing. the fact is that it's a bigger problem for muskies than pike spearing but one that muskie anglers don't want to talk about. shouldn't we address the bigger problem with more vigor?
if there's no evidence to support pike spearing as a biological disaster for muskie populations, and in fact some evidence to support improving muskie populations (per IR498) in spite of spearing on most lakes that contain muskies, how do you propose to gain ground on that issue? you're tilting at windmills...
i think Mr. Kimm makes an incredibly good point about the impact of spearing on the potential for growth of trophy pike. however, it's an issue that's related to pike regulations and not specifically related to whether or not spearing is hurting muskie populations to a significant degree.
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 9:57 PM
| |
| | |
| Steve...settle...
My point in saying I utterly disagree with the logic Kirk Schnitker presents in using muskie mortality from angling as a red herring for spearing mortality is that it obscures the real issue. It doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not we take delayed angling mortality seriously or not, and accepting it as a part of the discussion is to accept that logic. It doesn't have anything to do with muskie angling at all. But to be clear, I don't think that the leap of logic I described is happening here in this discussion to any great degree... I'm pointing out the tactics SRMM and some in the darkhouse assoc are using to attack the spearing ban in MN. True, as Lambeu said "dead is dead no matter what the source: spearing, angling stress, pollution, whatever." But once again, are we willing to accept spearing mortality as inevitable? I'm not. Why not? Because spearing muskies isn't legal in Minnesota. Period. (For the record, I don't think we do take hooking mortality seriously enough. If you doubt that, look at where the Rod Ramsell article that's being quoted was published...)
As far as the 'biological impact' and data on spearing mortality in muskies...other than biologists seeing fish that have survived spearing in spring test nets, anglers catching muskies with spear wounds, or anecdotal evidence, there is no measure of muskie mortality from spearing. How could there be? Spearing muskies is an illegal activity. It doesn't show up in creel surveys, harvest info from tackle shops, or anywhere else. Speared muskies are thrown in the trunk or shoved under the ice. (And yes, that's an enforcement issue too - MN has a drastically underfunded Enforcement division, with many unfilled CO stations state-wide). It's all inference.
As to whether or not it's 'significant,' it was significant enough for the DNR to support the initial ban, significant enough for them to support it AGAIN on many of the same waters (the exceptions being lakes which were no longer in the muskie program like Howard, Big Sand and Spider) when it came up for renewal a couple of years ago, and significant enough for them to not want it lifted now. That's why the DHA had to go through the legislature to get the ban on French lifted. To say that's not a valid position because there's no 'hard data,' especially given that the kind of data is unattainable, really isn't much more than a Burden of Proof fallacy on the part of SRMM and some in the DHA. It just doesn't wash.
Now, Lambeau is exactly right on one score. Most spearers aren't out to spear muskies. But, when spearing is allowed on muskie lakes, muskies get speared by some spearers. It's especially an issue on lakes where they've been stocked and some locals use them as a scapegoat for what they see is their effect on the fishery. It's where I've seen the worst instances of it, and others have as well. Alexander, Miltona (an especially bad one for this), Pelican, Bemidji, Big... Is that acceptable? That's the crux of the issue. To me it's not. That's why I don't want to see the spearing ban lifted on the 26 lakes that still have it. Whether not having a spearing ban on new waters will happen or not remains to be seen - but I suspect we won't, and that's unfortunate.
Steve, you claim to be the only one who sees what's going on here, but I'm not sure you do. Here's what it boils down to: A.) The argument is being put forward (though not, to be clear, by anyone here) that since muskies die from delayed angling mortality, we should accept spearing mortality in the same light. Is that a valid argument? I don't think so, and I've explained why. B.) Part of the motivation behind that argument is to push forward an effort to lift the spearing ban on the 26 lakes that still have it. C.) On top of that, this same group has bypassed the management process - and the decision of the fisheries managers - in Minnesota and gone to the political sausage-maker to get what they want. I'll say again - that's the most disturbing thing of all.
I don't have an issue with spearing in and of itself. Like I said, I grew up sitting in a darkhouse with my grandfather - he called the spear hole a 'Norwegian TV set.' What I DO have issues with are denial of spearing's effect on muskies (the 'muskies never get speared' argument), opposition to efforts at developing better pike fisheries here in Minnesota, and the tactics that some in the spearing community have employed to get what the want. I've made no bones about that, here, or in print. I have the hate mail (and a smashed mailbox) to prove it. I make no apologies for it either. If you took my statements as an attack on anyone here, that isn't my intent. Notice too that I've been very careful to say some in the DHA hold these positions. Some don't. It's not a homogeneous community any more than muskie fishing is. But some rather influential members are pushing this agenda very hard.
I've spent way more time on this than I meant to or have. I'm behind on about 722 other things, so this is likely my last comments on this... No offense intended, and I hope nobody took any.
Rob Kimm
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Rob, point taken and explanation accepted. You said what you said:
'One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.'
'Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex.'
'I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence'
The 'some of you' is what commanded the question.
I didn't say I'm the only one who sees what's going on. I said I seem to be the only one to see what lambeau was very legitimately trying to point out. There's a hell of a difference there.
Settle? I don't think so, commentary that is potentially misunderstood and as a result may be damaging to the issues we all are interested in forwarding needs to be addressed and clarified.
I think everyone here really is on the same side, but in order for any positive movement to work we have to at least appear to have a handle on the associated issues; and appearance of a reasonable and educated, united front opposing Muskie Troubles and all others intent on doing harm to our sport.
Confrontational and somewhat abusive posts that ignore the tone, facts, and line of the debate serve to confuse and harm the desired outcome, nothing else. Let's try to avoid them while we engage this issue.
We'll be delighted to report on progress the folks attending the roundtable meetings wish to forward, and assist any way we can.
| |
| | |
| Just a couple of things:
Kirk Schnitker did not compare INCIDENTAL angling mortality of Muskies with illegal spearing of Muskies. He compared CAUGHT & RELEASED angling mortality of Muskies with illegal spearing of Muskies. A big difference and maybe part of the reason we are at a each other's throats over this Check it out it is the last sentence of the second post lambeau made on the other really frozen thread.
If your actually in favor of no spearing in trophy class muskie lakes in Mn. lambeau, then you would have to add some to the 26 current desgnated ones. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Leech, Vermilion and Bemidji are being speared? I don't think they, among many others of the 61 Muskie lakes being speared, could be consider any less than having trophy potential. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe Incedental/Angler Caused mortality are considered the same issues in the context of this discussion.
lambeau has said a BUNCH of times he supports protecting muskies if the need is there, and supports whatever the MNDNR does toward that end. SO do I. SO does most anyone on MuskieFIRST, Id guess. | |
| | |
| MN Has very very few trophy pike waters, some not all but some of the 26 lakes hold these fish, those are the specific lakes I feel they are after, they do not seek to spear any of the Brood lakes, Why?? admission that their activity is detrimental to not only Pike but Muskie also is my thought, the fact is there are thousands of opportunity's for them to spear and less than a handful lakes out of 7000 that hold pike considered trophy class, it's not all about Muskies is it, I've seen the pictures of Muskies with holes from these lakes that Rob mentioned were there is some negativity between groups and not all are spear fishermen, I see the 26 I hope back to 27 lakes as a sort of game refuge for Pike and with the level of care and C&R given to Muskie for them to, can you appreciate a Game Refuge, is that a concept you can deal with, that is in essence what the 26 lakes are and how for the most part they are treated, angler mortality is a problem, the point is we try and do make every attempt to release fish with as little after effects as possible, when you get a 42 inch pike you probably will let her swim, if a Spear fisherman sees her 9 out of 10 times she's a mangled mess on the ice, so don't try to compare C&R mortality with incidental harvest of Muskie or spear and release that Ive also heard talk of in the past, WE TRY. | |
| | |
| We all try to have as successful release no one is arguing that. The point here it the DHA and Muskie troubles have already brought muskie/pike angler mortality to the public in major newspapers and other media in some cases pretty much portraying muskie anglers as over-reactionary. The subject has to be dealt with from both perspectives to get the facts of the matter out there. Otherwise, they win.... again.
Mebbe an editorial in the magazines and newspapers that are carrying this story might be possible. Mebbe even call the writer if the story has a byline and see if they are interested in the 'rest of the story' stealing a Paul Harvey line. | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| I think we need to address how big of a problem spearing represents. No doubt that a speared muskie is a dead musky, no doubt that it's difficult to determine a muskie from a pike in the circumstances under which legal spearing takes place. I believe we all agree that spearing muskies is a bad thing all around.
What we seem to be trying to get to the bottom of is pretty clear:
1. HOW MANY MUSKIES are actually being speared?
2. How does that number compare to angling related mortality?
Never mind that one is intentional and one is not. Never mind one is legal and one is not.
If we are to preserve the muskie populations in MN (and elsewhere) we need to know what causes the most significant amount of mortality. If 10 guys each spear 2 muskies in a season, that's 20 dead fish. If 1000 anglers each catch 20 muskies, and 5% of them die, that's 1000 dead fish.
Never mind how they got dead, 1000 is a lot more than 20, and THAT is where we need to focus our energy. Solve the biggest problems first.
Can any of you provide any un-biased research, some actual data, something that is primary source material that justifies your position, whatever that position is? I wanna see FACTS that aren't clouded by emotion, agendas, anger, misinformation, and baseless speculation.
Going into battle armed with undeniable, fact based information will up your cahnces of actually getting somewhere.
Going into battle with a lot of emotion, opinion, and a mouth will probably only get you ignored, and undermine the efforts of the people who actually support your cause. | |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | esoxaddict - 2/5/2007 11:08 AM
Never mind how they got dead, 1000 is a lot more than 20, and THAT is where we need to focus our energy. Solve the biggest problems first.
Your point that post release mortality has a bigger effect on musky populatons than spearing, I don't think can be questioned. With the amount of musky fishermen on our waters, it definitely has an effect. The pressure is a huge reason why we need to continue to make strides to improve our fisheries. The increase in size limits is a huge win. Additional waters would be another huge wn.
But getting back to the point of the quoted portion above..."solve the biggest problem first". What is a reasonable solution here? Post release mortality is going to happen. No matter what species you're considering, it happens. So what's the solution? Education which helps promote better handling is about the only thing that can be done. I think the musky community is already doing an outstanding job of this. Could more be done? Absolutely.
Say your above figure of 5% is accurate. No matter how careful you are and how much you educate, there will be post release mortality. I don't know that it's reasonable to expect that you could improve much on 5%, if in fact that's where we're at. So solve the biggest problem first? What more can be done there to have a significant impact? The only thing that would eliminate post release mortality is closing the fishing season, which obviously isn't going to happen. We can improve, yes. But enough to make a significant impact? In most cases, I'm not sure that we can.
My opinion is that we can continue to focus on proper handling and successful releases while at the same time addressing other issues. Handling is and will continue to be an ongoing process for the rest of our lives with new anglers entering the sport. There's no reason to let that get in the way with focusing on other issues as well.
Aaron | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| Aaron,
I made those numbers up as an example to illustrate a point. I have no idea if they are accurate or not.
Your points about education etc are well taken -- I don't know how much more can be done in that arena -- some fish are going to be killed unintentionally, and as long as we work to minimize that, I think we have to accept it as a risk, the "cost of doing business" so to speak.
Now, as for the spearing issue:
It's easy to get worked up over the thought of someone killing the fish we work so hard to protect. Jeez, we talk to them, we make replicas out of them, we spend thousands of dollars on stuff so we can put them back in the water healthy, we have dreams about them, talk about them like they were our friends...
What I'm basically getting at is "is this REALLY a problem?" Are enough muskies being killed with the end of a spear that we should rally together and try to do something about it, or are there OTHER things we could focus on that have a much more significant impact on the musky population?
If its really a detriment to the future of musky fishing, than by all means, we should address it. As we move forward, we should do everything in our power to try to get legislation passed...
But if the impact is trivial, in my opinion we need to "let it go" and work on the other things instead, whether its education pollution, closed seasons, size limits, increased stocking, or something else.
| |
| | |
| Spearers don't turn themselves in when they spear a Muskie by accident or otherwise. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain. Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Are they in denial? I don't think so. I think they are playing off the image we as muskie anglers unintentionally create of ourselves.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | EA,
Point taken. I don't think anyone will ever know what percent we're at when it comes to post release mortality. Although my "guess" is that your estimate probably isn't too far off.
As far as does spearing play a significant effect on muskellunge populations? Personal opinion, as I don't have enough facts to back this up....on many waters, no. But there are some waters that are definitely adversely effected by spearers. Rob mentioned a few of the lakes in one of his posts. I'm very familiar with one of them and it is definitely an issue on that particular lake. It happens to be a lake where all species are thriving. Yet you have your people that are convinced that muskies are hurting the lake and will kill every musky they come across. This is whether it's caught by hook and line or in a spear house. From what I've seen, it tends to be the "newer" musky waters that are hurt the most by spearers.
A number of years ago I had someone that worked for me that told me that her husband would spear any musky that swam through his spear hole because all they did was scare his northern away. He knew it was illegal, but he didn't care. Unfortunately, he's not the only one that thinks this way on this particular lake.
So how do you go about fixing problems like this when it appears to be only certain waters that are more significantly effected?
Do we simply accept that things like this are going on and take action where we can? And manage the lakes accordingly, knowing that this is happening? That's what we're doing now and our musky fishery in MN is very healthy. But is that the best solution? Simply put more enforcement on lakes that are seen as "problem" lakes? I don't see this happening either, as funding really isn't available for something like that.
Aaron | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| Guest - 2/5/2007 12:19 PM
Spearers don't turn themselves in when they spear a Muskie by accident or otherwise. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain. Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode.
So with no hard facts and no way to obtain them, how do we make the jump to claiming that musky mortality due to spearing is actually detrimental to the fisheries?
"Intent" doesn't matter one bit in the overall outcome. An accidentally speared musky is just as dead is one speared intentionally. Those who choose to willingly break the law will continue to do no matter what we do.
If we're going to stand up and say "this needs to be stopped" or "this is a problem" then, we HAVE TO be able to provide something other than "because we say it is" for a reason. | |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | esoxaddict - 2/5/2007 12:41 PM
If we're going to stand up and say "this needs to be stopped" or "this is a problem" then, we HAVE TO be able to provide something other than "because we say it is" for a reason.
Absolutely. And that's where the problem is. Although most of us know it's an issue on some waters, how do you present a case against it when you can't present any hard facts?
My only answer is to allow the DNR to do what they're paid to do. Although public input is great. Sometimes they have to ignore what the public says (whether that's us or other groups) and do what they feel is best for the fisheries. Isn't that what we pay them to do? Whether we always agree with them or not, they have more education and knowledge on these subjects than the public.
Aaron | |
| | |
Posts: 8775
| Aaron,
If spearing of muskies is caused largely by people with little regard for the law, which I suspect is is, than there isn't a lot we can do -- legislation only goes so far, and unless the DNR actually catches them in the act, enforcing those laws is difficult. In that case the only way to effectively put a stop to it is to outlaw the posession of spears all together, and then what happens to the people who spear frogs or carp legally?
Not arguing for the sake of starting arguments here, I just would like to see us all come up with some answers, a plan, an idea... | |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | EA,
I agree and those are questions that need to be addressed which I don't have answers for. I know what I would do, personally. But I can't say that it's best for our fisheries across the board.
Aaron
Edited by AWH 2/5/2007 12:52 PM
| |
| | |
| by total denial mode I meant currently they say they have no impact at all on Muskies.
EA- We didn't start this. We are in a defensive mode to protect the remaining designated lakes. They put out a handout that states all stocking of Muskies and new introductions should stop until more research is done. They are attacking we are defending. Would I like to see a push to include Leech, Vermilion, Bemidji and others in designation.? Absolutely, but right now we have to defend what little we have left. | |
| | |
| There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain.
i think this is actually a very good point, especially when combined with Aaron and Mr. Kimm's points that spearing is differentially impacting certain lakes more than others.
this is a good counterpoint to my earlier summarized data from the IR498 report that showed increasing numbers and size of muskies throughout their range in Minnesota in spite of spearing on many muskie lakes.
i don't think spearing is a real threat to the muskie population collectively, but i can see how it could very well be a threat to certain lakes - particularly to smaller, shallower waters with a smaller muskie population. notably, in MN these are likely native muskie lakes dependent on natural reproduction since stocking has generally focused on larger, deeper waters.
this suggests a strategy that muskie groups might advocate when speaking to decision-makers: one which would rely on logic ("everyone knows it's happening, including the DNR) to set sensible regulations in place specific to those lakes. from what i've seen, the MN DNR is pretty good at taking this sort of common sense approach where necessary.
as far as being on the defensive? take the offense instead - move to get more lakes protected from spearing where you can "prove" (through facts or obvious common sense) that it's having a significant impact on that lake. but on lakes where netting and creel survey results show growing numbers and size structure of muskies? good luck.
Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode.
i disagree with this, based on the fact that i've never heard a fisheries expert say that intent matters from their perspective. they're looking at the population numbers in the lake from a biological/ecological perspective and from that perspective dead is dead regardless of intent. people impact the fish by what they DO, not why they do it. if you approach biologists and try to say our point of view is better because of "intent", they'll likely look at you cross-eyed. talk ecology and they'll nod at you and understand.
Edited by lambeau 2/5/2007 1:04 PM
| |
| | |
| well I totally disagree with you. I think intent, responsibilty & personal choice is a very important part of this dipute. To ignore them is not in our favor. This may be a poor analogy but it's the only one I can think of offhand, if I go out today and hit a patch of ice and roll my car and am killed, it is a shame. It was unfortunate. Part of the risk we take every time we drive, right? But if instead I am in a head-on with drunk driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and am killed, I am just as dead right? I may be just as dead but the personal choice made by the drunken driver to drive drunk ADDED to the risk factors that i was already subjected to while driving. They are responsible because they could have prevented my death by making a better choice. Make sense? | |
| | |
| well I totally disagree with you. I think intent, responsibilty & personal choice is a very important part of this dipute. To ignore them is not in our favor. This may be a poor analogy but it's the only one I can think of offhand, if I go out today and hit a patch of ice and roll my car and am killed, it is a shame. It was unfortunate. Part of the risk we take every time we drive, right? But if instead I am in a head-on with drunk driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and am killed, I am just as dead right? I may be just as dead but the personal choice made by the drunken driver to drive drunk ADDED to the risk factors that i was already subjected to while driving. They are responsible because they could have prevented my death by making a better choice. Make sense?
we can disagree, that's ok.
and your analogy makes perfect sense, but it's a bit of a non-sequitur.
i'm not saying ethics don't matter, they're just not the right tool for the job you want to do, imho.
in this case, the goal you describe is to convince decision-makers that muskies in certain lakes are in need of protection from spearing.
the decision-makers are generally trained in science: biologists, ecologists, etc.
the thing that will resonate _most_ with biologists is biology, not ethics.
imho, the issue of intent is important in an ethical sense, but it's not something that will help achieve the goal of protecting muskies in a place where they might need protection.
use a hammer to drive a nail, use a screwdriver to run a screw, use a wrench to turn a bolt.
and apply it specifically by identifying the nail that needs driving, not saying "all the nails need driving" when they don't. (ie., muskies in all the lakes open to spearing do not need protection - as demonstrated by population surveys.)
make sense?
Edited by lambeau 2/5/2007 1:45 PM
| |
| | |
| They are in complete denial, totally and unequivocally saying Muskie do not get speared, that is a fallacy they tell themselves, once again this is about 26 lakes not all lakes, once again this is also about the decimation of the big pike also, once again they want to kill the big fish this is there M.O., fact, we will always have some level of spearing in the state, does it have negative effects, according to some studies it does in the fact that it removes the largest fish from the system, that being said some of those fish would be harvested by other forms of fishing, on Leech the big pike are almost no existent, yes there is a few but for the most part they are rare over 5#, is this due to the spear?, heck I don't know, but the fact that the smallest group removes less fish but as large a biomass from the system as other forms does it cause damage?, and with a whole system of stunted pike breeding you will eventually have a hammer handle syndrome according to a survey I found at Blackwell Synergy the abstract is free but enlightenment will cost you 40 bucks http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.0...
.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28maladaptive+changes+in+multiple+traits+caused+by+fishing%29
if C&R is your bag here is one to keep you busy for awhile, yep 1% with artificial baits, look at the key mortality factors
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html
if you have questions do what I do, ask those who know, those who have been around working with these issues, and then Google is a very effective tool for things | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
Who really cares what state of mind 'they' are in, or not 'in'? You, I, lambeau,VMS< Addict, Mr. Voigt...no one can MAKE them stop saying or doing whatever they decide to say or do. Facts and reality based information supporting our goals, properly presented, marginalizes that sort of tripe, right? What matters is the front we/you and your co-activists as muskie anglers present pro actively. Lambeau probably posted the clearest summary of this entire discussion just a bit ago, it is nearly perfect in describing what needs be done to get what you want. You are at the round tables, you see and hear what's said. How can we assist you in marginalizing the obviously misleading material that is sometimes presented by 'Musky Troubles' and their allies? | |
| | |
|
a good article, encouraging responsible fishing and handling techniques.
everything i've read is that esocids are more vulnernable to delayed mortality than many other fresh water fishes. ie., more akin to freshwater trout than to the saltwater tautog.
largemouth bass are known to be resilient but performed the worst of any fish in the study you listed.
it'd be interesting to have a study like this done with muskellunge. we know most fish survive release, but how many actually don't? curious.
| |
| | |
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | For some reason I can't open the thread that you posted. any way delayed mortality I would think would be next to impossible to track. To say 10% or what ever would be a guess at best. Speared muskies also. But if you open a small lake to spearing (French Lake that has been mentioned is only 816 acres) 10% would be huge. Heck 1% would be huge.The problem I have with lakes like French (which is a stocked lake that LOTS of people disagree with) will have some revenge type speared Muskies.There are people out there licking there chops to get a chance to spear a musky. Yes I know that, but no I can't prove it. And like Mr. Kimm said in one of his posts, the sad part is how the spearing ban was lifted on French. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. If the delayed mortality rate for any body of water from angling was 10% ( which nobody really knows) why allow spearing and bounce that up to 20-30% or whatever the number would be.
Is it a coincidence that the best trophy PIKE lakes in the state are also the same lakes that have the spearing ban? I don't know, but have my opinions. You decide. | |
| | |
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | One more thing. I am not very good at analogies, but this would best describe my views on lifting the ban as it pertains to the 27 designated musky lakes. You and the wife are going out for the evening and leaving the 16 year old at home alone. Would you leave him/her the keys to the liquor cabinet? I wouldn't!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | O.K... Everyone has made their argument about this issue. Now...where do we go from here with it? (My type A personality is making it's presence here) As bluntly as we can make it, what steps do we need to take as a UNIFIED GROUP to either stop the back door legislation and/or work toward protection of all lakes with populations of muskie in them? I am still not convinced that the problem is as big as some may make it out to be, but if I can step up and make an argument with SOLID, UNMANIPULATED Data that there is indeed a substantial spearing problem I will do so.
I do think Lambeau, Sworrall and others have pointed out that emotions MUST stay in check with the issue, and we cannot ASSUME intent from the other side, unless that intent can somehow be documented and stated as FACT.
Thoughts?
Steve | |
| | |
| The DNR Roundtable discussions are in progress now. Rob, Shawn Kellet(TC Chapterof MI) and John Underhill(Southern Mn. Chapter of MI)are there. Others too but they are the ones I know of. The Minnesota MI Chapters organization is also working on protecting designation. It is slowly getting organizied hopefully. We'll just have to stay tuned | |
| | |
| I'm compiling a list of names and e-mail addys I'll post for you to send in support of muskie stocking with the approval of the DNR, and to protect the Designated Lakes, if you support anti stocking anti Muskie sentiments don't bother they already have enough political support, I'll get up the info asap.
Thank You
| |
| | |
| Muskiefool - 2/6/2007 4:18 PM
I'm compiling a list of names and e-mail addys I'll post for you to send in support of muskie stocking with the approval of the DNR, and to protect the Designated Lakes, if you support anti stocking anti Muskie sentiments don't bother they already have enough political support, I'll get up the info asap.
Thank You
Meaning Steve Woral and Lambeau need not apply! Safe in your small internet world you are!! | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I followed this and the other thread with interest, learning things as I went. I find it interesting that some posters are willing to take their shots at those willing to participate in discussions on this board, considering that the same article about spearing and the DHA was posted by Muskyfool on the Fix and 101 boards and received a total of two replies.
Apparently no expressed interest and no discussion at all is better than a rational 86 post discussion that gets information and varying viewpoints in front of a great number of musky anglers.
Kevin
Edited by MuskyHopeful 2/6/2007 9:53 PM
| |
| | |
| Meaning Steve Worall and Lambeau need not apply! Safe in your small internet world you are!!
wow. outstanding contribution, "guest".
as shown below all my posts, my name is Michael Winther and you're welcome to write me privately by email at [email protected] if you're too afraid to list your name in public on posts like that.
or i could just look up your IP address. whichever.
luckily, more reasonable people who understand the reality of the situation like Shawn Kellett are leading the muskie side of things (along with Rob Kimm and Muskiefool) at the esox round tables in MN.
quoting from Shawn's posts on a different website discussion of this issue:
We're not asking "permission" from the spearers when we're looking
at expanding the range. We're not picking fights with them either. They've got
more political connections and WAY more time on their hands then we do so why
should be go around hitting wasps nest with sticks? Do some muskies get
harpooned? Probably, but if we can't get muskies in the lake to get harpooned in
the first place where are we? interesting...give a little to get a lot?
We also had a couple hours of discussion with the spearers and Pike Inc after
they presented it. They're starting to figure out that Kirk is full of B.S. work _with_ some of the other stakeholders??? hmmm.
quoting John Underhill (Muskiefool) in one of his less "fiery" moments from the same discussion:
having met all of these guys I can say this they are very intelligent and very
likable guys with a passion for their sport and a drive to do what they feel is right, the
problem I have is their deceit, all the guys on the Esox fishing side of these discussions
are very truthful and forthright with all their intentions reasonable discourse with reasonable people? great idea.
unlike Mr. Guest, i'm glad that the people participating in shaping the future of resource uses are able to look for the positive traits in those whom we all have to work _with_ and make use of it to further the muskie side of the involved issues.
Edited by lambeau 2/6/2007 10:04 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lambeau,
Guest is from Minnesota, so his motivation for a comment like that is questionable at best. Hopeful said it well, we are trying to keep the discussion OFF vitriol an ON target addressing the actual issues, not a bunch of angry noise. That's my job here, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can always post to where there IS no discussion.
I have personally done all I can to support Treats and his allies in their efforts to date, and will continue in the future. I'm currently collecting data and information, and will be writing a piece that will cover the entire spectrum of this issue. I'll also offer a couple MuskieFIRST radio interviews, and will be offering the opportunity to interview to both sides of the issue and the MNDNR. I also intend to find out who ran the bill through the Legislature, and interview that person as well. Any bets on me getting that one?
Not sure why some folks have decided to take me to task, but off the cuff meaningless taunts are a dime a dozen.
Why is it anonymous internet snipers can't seem to EVER spell my name correctly? | |
| | |
| Here they are this is the Majority and Minority Leadership of both house and senate defiantly do the leaders and theire asst: both Majority and Minority we'll do the Governor next week if we can pick 2 or 3 a day for the next week or two and just tell them we support the DNR and their decisions on stocking Muskie and the protection of the designated lakes.
I know it's a pile of names and you have to cut and paste the emails but this is very important this is the future of muskiefishing in MN like it or not we need to be heard even if your from out of stste and fish here your licence fees give you a voice in my opinion
SENATE
59 DFL Pogemiller, Lawrence J. 235 Capitol LINK http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_emailform.php?mem_...
(651) 296-7809 Use Mail Form
Assistant Majority Leader
15 DFL Clark, Tarryl L. 208 Capitol
LINK http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_emailform.php?mem_...
(651) 296-6455 Use Mail Form
Majority Whip
44 DFL Latz, Ron 306 Capitol
(651) 297-8065 [email protected]
56 DFL Saltzman, Kathy L. 306 Capitol
(651) 296-4166 [email protected]
03 DFL Saxhaug, Tom 124 Capitol
(651) 296-4136 [email protected]
23 DFL Sheran, Kathy G-24 Capitol
(651) 296-6153 [email protected]
10 DFL Skogen, Dan 303 Capitol
(651) 296-5655 [email protected]
62 DFL Torres Ray, Patricia 124 Capitol
(651) 296-4274 [email protected]
President of the Senate
39 DFL Metzen, James P. 322 Capitol
(651) 296-4370 [email protected]
President Pro Tem
21 R Frederickson, Dennis R. 139 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-8138 [email protected]
Minority Leader
29 R Senjem, David H. 147 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-3903 [email protected]
Deputy Minority Leader
16 R Wergin, Betsy L. 145 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-8075 [email protected]
Assistant Minority Leader
14 R Fischbach, Michelle L. 153 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-2084 [email protected]
42 R Hann, David W. 127 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-1749 LINK http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_emailform.php?mem_...
41 R Michel, Geoff 133 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-6238 [email protected]
34 R Ortman, Julianne E. 125 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-4837 [email protected]
24 R Rosen, Julie A. 109 State Office Bldg.
(651) 296-5713 [email protected]
HOUSE
Speaker of the House
Margaret Anderson Kelliher from district 60A
463
296-0171
[email protected]
Majority Leader
Anthony "Tony" Sertich from district 05B
459
296-0172
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Melissa Hortman from district 47B
377
296-4280
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Tina Liebling from district 30A
393
296-0573
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Frank Moe from district 04A
369
296-5516
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Michael V. Nelson from district 46A
569
296-3751
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Aaron Peterson from district 20A
451
296-4228
[email protected]
Assistant Majority Leader
Steve Simon from district 44A
375
296-9889
[email protected]
Minority Leader
Marty Seifert from district 21A
267
296-5374
[email protected]
Deputy Minority Leader
Tom Emmer from district 19B
261
296-4336
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Leader
Laura Brod from district 25A
321
296-4229
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Leader
Brad Finstad from district 21B
251
296-9303
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Leader
Dean Simpson from district 10B
295
296-4293
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Leader
Kurt Zellers from district 32B
315
296-5502
[email protected]
Minority Whip
Denny McNamara from district 57B
271
296-3135
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Whip
Michael Beard from district 35A
207
296-8872
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Whip
Tony Cornish from district 24B
281
296-4240
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Whip
Matt Dean from district 52B
327
296-3018
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Whip
Joyce Peppin from district 32A
331
296-7806
[email protected]
Assistant Minority Whip
Neil W. Peterson from district 41B
213
296-7803
[email protected]
| |
| | |
| You don't need to look Steve this is the one that ran it through and I'm sure she will be the tool of choice next time too
Assistant Minority Leader
Laura Brod from district 25A
321
296-4229
[email protected] | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks, sir! | |
| | |
| That above "Guest" shot wasn't me.
Steve Voigt
Editors Note:
Steve,
Yes, we know that. We can see the IP addresses of every post. That one WAS from MN, but certainly wasn't you, your IP has been the same every time you post. No worries. | |
| | |
Location: Minnesota | sworrall - 2/6/2007 10:54 PM
Guest is from Minnesota, so his motivation for a comment like that is questionable at best.
Now that is just ridiculous. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Is it? We are trying to get information out to the public about this issue by providing a good discussion, and this fellow chooses to attack the folks digging for the facts with a rude statement. Why? He/She is obviously from Minnesota. He/She posted this to a Muskie research board. What's the motivation?? I'd say it's questionable, at best.
Any problems with that?
| |
| | |
| Although we have clashed heads numerous times on certain topics, and will probably again, I personally appreciate any help in this situtaion greatly. As I pointed out on a previous post, I also appreciate your repeated warnings about protecting the peaking Muskie fishery in Mn. on this site. Why do I mention this? I mention this because individuals who have been at this sport for a number of years like you and I have a perspective that many now do not have. We have seen newly discovered waters and peaking waters literally overrun and overwhelmed not just once but repeatedly. It is a perspective that many that now fish for Muskie don''t have. I don't know how many times I have read on boards that Mn. is producing huge fish, why raise the minimums, whatever the DNR is doing is working fine. That lack of perspective is very dangerous and you have pointed that out a number of times. Thank you
Personally I didn't think it was good timing to begin a push for new waters in Mn. I thought getting the minimums raised at this time would accomplish more for Mn. Muskies with the limited time people continually say they have to donate to the effort. As it has turned out the minimums have been raised at least to 48" in many important waters and even total C&R on the Mississippi (something I didn't think I'd see in my lifetime) but the push for new waters has created some strange bedfellows in Northerns Inc. and the MDAA. Pushing for new waters now may well cost us future designation and the fight for current designation might well have already begun. I just wish I was a little younger and more healthy to help in this fight. Again your help is appreciated by any clear thinking person.
BTW You may not know it but at least among my partners and I here in Mn.,and more I'm sure, raised our glasses when the minimums were raised on Pelican. A huge accomplishment. Wisc. Muskie anglers should be very proud of that achievement.
Steve Voigt | |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I can't believe I've stayed out of this for this long.
One VERY positive thing that's come out of this is that the DNR has been forced to 1. get their act together and be better organized when adding additional bodies of water and 2. create a short-term and long-term muskie management strategy. In the past it's been just a hodge podge approach when it came to adding new waters with local area managers holding all the cards. Now we're going to have a long-term vision of what we want to see in the future. It's going to take more work up front. At the same time, maybe we can fight the battles up front instead of each time we want to add a new lake. Time will tell.
| |
| |
|
Frozen Thread