|
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Lately my business has been keeping me really busy. When I'm busy I go through a lot of houses. In just the last two weeks, I have seen three musky mounts, and each homeowner has told me they were incidental catches. All were skin mounts. That's obviously a shame, and it made me wonder.
Considering that musky fisherman are greatly outnumbered by those targeting other species, are more muskies caught each year incidentally by said fishermen, or are more muskies caught each year by those fishermen specifically targeting them?
I always ask about a musky when I see one on a wall, and it surprises me how many times I've been told that it was caught jigging for walleyes, bass fishing, etc. That would be a very interesting statistic in my opinion.
Kevin
Details to follow.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | I'm pretty sure more muskies are caught by musky fishermen. Wait... I am GUESSING that more are caught by musky fishermen. I do realize that there are a lot more people fishing that aren't targeting muskies, but I don't think that they catch THAT many fish. I have fished pretty hard for the last several years for other fish. I caught one musky maybe every other year on average on accident. Probably less than one every other year. Last year was my first year fishing for them, and I caught 9. Part of this is due to fishing water that have more muskies in them as well. I still think musky guys have the edge on sheer numbers.
Now, as far as fish kept, I'm sure a lot more get kept by people that don't specifically fish for them.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3864
| It would be an interesting statistic. I think that on the one-of-a-few local muskie lakes here in south western MI, almost all legal size or bigger (42") are kept by Chicago folks who get them by accident. Heard of a fat 46" caught and kept by a kid on a dock who was initially reeling in a bluegill. I'm on the water a couple times per week, know some of the lake people who live there, and usually chat with folks muskie fishing. I have not heard of a single 42" or bigger kelpt by a muskie guy in the last 5 years. I have talked with muskie guys who have caught and released fish, almost all of them were around 42"-45". I've boated maybe 5 over 42" over the past few years, none of those were over 44".
|
|
| |
|
| Muskies are mostly caught by us musky crazies. The incidental catches happen, and with some anglers fishing trophy waters their number of muskies caught each year is impressive not specifically targeting them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | I would bet that most killed muskies for skin mounts are by people who have not caught a big fish. Accidental muskie catches by walleye, bass, pan fishermen will be blown away by the size of an average muskie by our standards. THIS IS WHY we need larger size limits on lakes.
Muskie anglers are now getting to the point of "afraid to kill a fish". I release everything that comes into my boat. 100% catch and release guide service also. This might cost me some jobs but it will not put me in a situation after a large fish come in the boat for pictures and they are thinking about killing it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | That non-musky guys are somewhat more likely to keep a fish is a given I guess. I'm wondering about the total numbers though. The JournalSentinel had the front page walleye story the other day which said there are 1.5 million fishermen in WI.
Out of say 100,000 fishermen every weekend, how many are muskies guys? A small percentage I would think. So if 95-98% of all fishermen on the water are not muskies guys, there has to be more than a few incidental catches every weekend. I wonder if the number of incidentals is far, far greater than anyone thinks?
Kevin
Stay tuned for more details. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Kevin,
I'm not sure that the incidental catch would actually be that large. You have to consider how many musky waters are being fished each weekend. There are alot of other lakes that don't have 'skis in them, and alot of them will get fished. Down in SE Wisco, there are only a handfull of lakes with muskies, so if you take a large group of fisherman, how many are even fishing in waters with muskies in them.
That being said, those that do encounter a musky while walleye fishing, or bass fishing may not be able to land the 'ski since they typically use lighter tackle. I would imagine that there are quite a few lost, but not as many caught.
It does stink though that many of them end up as a skin mount. That's where education comes in. Bigger size limits I think can help to an extent, but education will help alot more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | Wouldn't a stamp for harvesting Musky help this problem? Just seems to me like most anglers wouldn't buy the stamp and therefore wouldn't harvest a musky. Worst cast they do harvest a musky at least their stamp money would go to re-stocking that musky. Just a thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| This is why I often wonder why muskie clubs don't push for a harvest tag like a deer tag. You keep the accidental fish in the water that way. If you have a tag and plan on harvest, you have paid extra for that fish. Limit one per year per angler. I personaly would not ever harvest a fish, but if the money could be directed to the advancement of the states musky fishery, I for one would have a tag every year... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
Location: Verona, WI | As much as I and probably most others hate the idea of another fee, I would be more than happy to pay for a musky stamp. I probably will never keep one or intentionally kill one myself, but to prevent others from accidently catching and killing one, it is worth the price of a stamp. Look at all of the money, time and effort that goes into trying to make and then preserve a trophy size fish. We as musky anglers can understand this. Joe Blow or his 10 year old kid have not got a clue or a care about it, all they know is that they just caught the biggest thing that they have ever seen come out of the water and how cool it will be to be able to show it off. Sadly, alot of times that fish might not even be over 40 inches. It is still a monster to them. That is why we not only need a stamp or some sort of new fee but also a higher size limit. The difference in getting a 40 inch fish in the boat or net or onto shore and doing the same thing with a fish of 50+ is night and day. 6 pound test and a bluegill net have their limitations. It might seem like overkill to some to put more regulations and more fees on musky fishing, but until everyone that is out wetting a line with the chance of catching or snagging or somehow landing a musky, understands how fragile the resource is, the more regulations that are needed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Size limits are the key. I'm fairly sure we would never get a stamp passed by the Conservation Congress.
We do have the Great Lakes Trout stamps, so at least there is a precedent for the idea. Believe it or not, I'm betting the strongest opposition will be from Muskie anglers. |
|
| |
|
| Pick up the yellow pages and look under taxidermist, give them a call and ask them how much to mount a musky? then ask them how many musky mounts they do, you'll be shocked at the number of 40-45 inch fish that get mounted.
This isn't a slam against taxidermists, they have to make a living to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8777
| Kevin,
I think what you are asking is who catches more muskies -- us or the guys fishing for other species. I would guess that more muskies are caught my incidental means than intentionally. But that's only because such a small percentage of the angling public targets muskies specifically. |
|
| |
A Few Questions