|
|
Posts: 5874
| Seriously. I was accused of being a Muskie Elitist by somone on WalleyeFirst, Yesterday. All because I mentioned the guy that killed 6 BIG muskies this past fall, and that because of it, I would not fish his bar walleye tourney.
While I acknowledged his right to kill the fish, and stated that I did not begrudge him keeping the 58" fish he caught, I did question why he had to kill the other 5. Especially because we are in the age of graphite reproductions that are cheaper, and look much better than the skin mounts.
The answer I got from a potential future member of the C&R Musky(That is Catch & RELEASE Musky Club, in case he didn't know what he is wanting to be part of) was that I am a Musky Elitist, and that it is the guys right to kill legal fish.
Then when I defended why I brought this up, I was accused of having a me attitude, and that I was jealous. When somebody defended my support for the fishery and increased size limits, the post got dusted.
So, Am I a Muskie Elitist? I say not by a long shot! | |
| | |
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | Shep: See I told you so , You are just a Trouble Maker, How Dare you question someone keeping 6 Muskie's in a season we all know that Muskie's eat all the Walleye's, Crappies, and Bluegills in a lake and that's why Joe Fisherman can no longer go out and catch 50 Crappies a day, or limit out on Walleye's everyday, so keeping those 6 Muskies is actually helping the Lake(s).
So Yes you are an ELITIST you actually care about our rescources, just treat some of these guys like Teeth" Ignore them and they will go away"
Have a great season, Hope to see ya on the water
| |
| | |
Posts: 154
Location: Appleton, WI | The good news Shep is we are full, so hopefully we stay elitist!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 224
Location: Madison | Shep - 5/22/2007 7:56 AM
Especially because we are in the age of graphite reproductions
That's the part I don't understand with guys who keep fish. Why kill a fish when you can get a replica for no extra cost? It makes zero sense.
I imagine some of the guys who keep fish think the repros might be more expensive so it's an education issue with some people. But there are certainly people who know better who still elect to keep fish for whatever reason. Why? | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| The guy is a taxidermist. Go figure. | |
| | |
Posts: 29
| First of all, I have never kept a muskie that I have caught (I was always going to keep my first 30 pounder but have caught a couple and released them all). Maybe there will be a size fish I would keep someday.
Anyway, I keep reading that reproductions cost the same as skin mounts. I don't believe that at all. I am holding a brochure from the taxidermist that is doing my deer head from bowhunting last fall and it says that he does muskies for $6.50/inch. I am also logged into the Ron Lax site at this time and a 1-sided mount of a muskie is $12.00/in. On a 50 inch fish the difference in cost is $275.00 at these rates ($600-$325). The only point of my post is that I just don't see how so many people can say the cost is the same. Sorry for getting off the topic of the original post. | |
| | |
|
I've never met a taxidermist the does any fish for $6.50 and inch, so I think you are not being fair in your comparison.
The last fish I had skin mounted was a Brown Trout, and 10 years ago it was $8 an inch.
I would think if you check around, you would find that costs are very comparable.
As far as the term "muskie elitist", it's been thrown around so many times, and many times on this website, that it really has no meaning whatsoever.
It's what people nail you with whenever you don't agree with them.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 618
Location: Bloomington, MN | Ron Lax and Joe Fittante are artists. I'm sure Mr. $6.50/inch's work is not even in the same ball park.
Edited by Clark A 5/22/2007 10:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| Shep
If I had to choose between being called a "muskie elitist" by someone whose profession and my ideals didn't necessarily agree, or being called "that $^%& who kills every muskie he catches" by the people I respect and whom I choose to associate myself with?
Guess which one would allow me to sleep better at night? 
It's been my observation that a lot of people throw around a lot of negative labels at people they don't understand, be it calling someone a musy elitist, a cheesehead, FIB (that's me!) or any one of a hundred different things...
In the end nobody is any better or worse than anyone else... | |
| | |
Posts: 412
Location: Waukesha, WI |
Seriously. I was accused of being a Muskie Elitist by somone on WalleyeFirst, Yesterday. All because I mentioned the guy that killed 6 BIG muskies this past fall, and that because of it, I would not fish his bar walleye tourney.
A choice.
While I acknowledged his right to kill the fish, and stated that I did not begrudge him keeping the 58" fish he caught, I did question why he had to kill the other 5. Especially because we are in the age of graphite reproductions that are cheaper, and look much better than the skin mounts.
C&R Advocate
Advocate versus elitist. You can be a C&R advocate without being an elitist.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | That's what you get for hanging out with those walleye guys. heh heh heh | |
| | |
Posts: 3147
| Im TOO good to be a conceded elitist
Edited by happy hooker 5/22/2007 12:24 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep,
I missed this whole thing! Elitist you are not. | |
| | |
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Personally, I C&R everything. From panfish to piggies, it goes back. It's just my choice. I have always fished that way. I don't look at it as being elitist or as anything at all except letting someone else have the fun I just had while landing a fish.
What bothers me more than someone keeping a hawg of a musky is someone keeping one that is barely legal. I would never question them or bring it up to them as long as what they did was within the rules. I did see someone keep a 34" musky last year that was legal, however I don't know the circumstance as to why it was kept. He was fishing for Walleye at the time. Maybe he gut hooked it and killed it, maybe he had never caught a musky and wanted to show it off. Perhaps he just wanted it out of the water thinking it was possibly eating all his Walleye, I don't know, nor would I ever call him on it. It's his choice not mine. I don't agree with it, but it's still his choice. I wouldn't get all over someone while jumping to conclusions. Unless I know the facts, I just move along.
Edited by gtp888 5/22/2007 1:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| I would be a fraid to see what you get for $6.50 an inch! I have two 32" walleyes ath the taxidermist right now that are running $11.50 an inch, you might be able to find a cheaper mount but you won't find one any better and will have to look VERY hard to find one as good as this guy does fish.
Just out of curiosity would you still consider Lax or Fitante taxidermists? They are artists for sure but since they are not actually mounting any part of the fish are they still taxidermists? | |
| | |
Posts: 224
Location: Madison | I was under the impression that anyone could order a repro and paint it if they so choose. Is that right? So, what's to stop a guy who's been doing skin mounts for years to order one and paint it? As far as painting it goes, isn't it pretty much the same thing?
| |
| | |
|
Good painters are good at both.
My graphite was the 1st muskie repro that my taxidermist ever did. It looks great.
He's an award winning taxidermist, and has done dozens of muskie skin mounts.
He claims graphites are actually easier to paint, you just have to be a good painter period.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | "It's what people nail you with whenever you don't agree with them. "
Its not so much that John as its what people nail you with when they dont have an intelligent argument to make.
| |
| | |
Posts: 29
| I googled up a few taxidermists (in WI where the other were that I saw) and it does look like the price runs around $10.00 or so for a skin mount and 12.00 to 13.00 for repro. I guess I stand corrected. Again, I wasn't saying anything except for the fact that this one guy was so much cheaper.
One quetion though, do the guys that do repro's really have every size available to the quarter inch to get it to match a measurement like if it was a skin mount? I agree that the repros look awesome but some that I've seen next to tha picture of the real fish look so different. I'm not starting anything, just curious. I caught a fifty incher last year that was all scarred up (probably from spawning), and with the real skin mount, I'm assuming those scars would be very visable. Would they also with the repro? I'm assuming they would be but the repro's I see all look so clean and perfect. Do any of you have one with some "character" marks on them? | |
| | |
| I think we spend too much time looking into other people's yards these days... | |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Shep, you got guts and speek your opinion. I love ya for that. I guess I fall into your catagory. Proud to be here with you pal.
As for the repo's. The price is getting very close to the same. A skin mount is not perfect and will not stay exactly the way it looks when you bring it home after a few years. A repo will never shrink or change because it is not skin and bones. I believe a great artist can now get a mount so close to the real thing that it's just better to go with a replaca. Every year they are getting better and better.
Why is it that everyone keeps talking about it's the anglers choice? I agree it is. But is it fair to all the other fishermen who work so hard to catch their trophy to not have the cance to catch the fish you killed. Now days you don't have to kill a fish to preserve the memory. I have 4 replacas on my walls from 3 different artists. People can't believe they are fake. Rick Lax did my last repo and it is just awsome.
My point is; If a guy kills a fish or two or 6 he/she is being selfish and greedy. We don't own the fish, everyone does. Bcause you catch them, you can kill them? Thats just crap in my mind. Years ago it was different, you could not get the repo's in all sizes and colors. Now you can, for ABOUT the same price and you let SOMEONE ELSE catch that dream fish. SHARE THE DREAMS............
Am I now an Elitist? | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| Koepp...
Not disagreeing but what do you say to the "it's a legal fish its my right to keep it" crowd?
(other than "yeah, well, there's a lot of people out there working very hard for increased size limits for that very reason, don't be surprised when a 48" muskie isn't legal anymore because too may people were keeping them") | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Mikes Extreme - 5/22/2007 3:48 PM
My point is; If a guy kills a fish or two or 6 he/she is being selfish and greedy. We don't own the fish, everyone does. Bcause you catch them, you can kill them? Thats just crap in my mind.
I don't know where I stand on this. Keeping one or two trophies a lifetime greedy? No, get real. 6+ yes, getting greedy. Because you catch them you CAN kill them. Big walleyes get mounted all the time. A 10lb walleye may get to be 12 lbs. You just took that chance away from some other walleye fisherman. 12lb eyes can arguably be just as rare as a 50 ski in most systems. Greedy? how about 10lb bass, 40+" pike, 15" brookie? Just playing devils advocate.
Wood Tick brings up a good point, realism. Do they have all sizes, I still say no. In 2003 there were no replicas 52.25" X 22.5" available. Remember, I'm pretty sure replica molds must first be made from a real fish of that dimensions (I could be wrong). In my opinion, some of the replicas I've seen posted on here don't look anything like the real fish. I'm sticking my neck out here, but particularly those by Fittante. Heck there was even an advertisement in Musky Hunter showing the real fish and replica from a Green Bay fish I believe and they didn't even look close. As a person who has a replica hanging on his wall, I still struggle with this question. I still look at that fish hanging and wonder if that is what it really looked like. Fish also carry girth differently. Two 40 fish can be "built" very differently. Unless you take numerous measurements along the fish you'll never get an exact fit. You have to put your trust in the taxidermist that he did the best job he could. If I'm ever graced with a 40lb fish and I'm easily accessible to a taxidermist I will have a heavy decision. I also think the lake comes into question. Will a 40lb fish still live and continue to grow in Mille lacs or GB, most likely. But a ~500 acre lake in Vilas co., I don't know.
Nobody black listed Gelb for his fish, nor should he have been. It was a real trophy and he's released numerous "trophy" fish. Had that fish been his second muskie ever, and not built his reputation of releasing numerous trophies yet, would he be persecuted? I bet he would.
The answer is yes, this point of view and accordingly most die-hard muskie fisherman are elitists. So are those strictly dry fly fat-liners that scoff at those that dunk crawlers. There is nothing wrong with being called an elitist. It's a point of view and these are the folks that push for better regulations that make fisheries great.
Edited by tfootstalker 5/22/2007 4:46 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I know who you are speaking about, Shep. And no, you are not an Elitist. You, as well as the rest of us on this board are conservationists, who want to perpetuate, not eliminate, the resource. Bravo to you! There is a licensed USCG Captain who guides out of Green Bay (lives in Green Bay, not Radloff) who also Killed 6 last season. | |
| | |
|
Having a replica that I know isn't exactly like the fish I caught, I don't care.
Not one bit, nada, don't even think about it.
It's not exactly the same size, shape or color.
Neither is a skin mount, they are stretched, often to a size bigger than it was, and painted, just like a graphite.
Big deal.
In a day and age where we know that C&R is what has made some of best fisheries what they are today, to know that and kill trophies is selfish.
What else would you call it?
Lot's of things in this world are selfish, everybody is guilty of it.
Calling someone else an elitist because they choose not to be selfish is just denying that you are being selfish by killing that fish.
JS | |
| | |
| Not elitist but many of us are becoming alarmist... | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember the MuskieFIRST Posting permissions? No personal attacks, etc? Still apply, and on all OutdoorsFIRST sites.
I wouldn't fish the guy's event, either. | |
| | |
Posts: 20218
Location: oswego, il | I am not an elitist but people who don't like muskies and kill them when they catch them are. I see people in indiana trolling with a big coolers in the boat. I know of several boats who target muskies exclusively for the express purpose of killing them. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi all,
I'm with BenR. Now a days there are to many people who are sticking their nose into other people's buisness. I agree with you Shep keeping 6 fish is greedy and selfish. However, it was within his right to do so. So you don't agree who cares certainly not the dedicated walleye angler that frequents that board. They already think we are all a bunch tools so you going on that board and dump some gas on their fire. If you did'nt want to fish the tournament then don't. We are small group compared too the walleye gang and like it or not we need those guys when it comes to dealing with the state and federal goverments on certain natural resourse issues. So for me I don't think your elitist, I just think getting into a pissing match with a skunk does'nt do our cause any good. Not judging your opinion on the subject of keeping all those fish Shep. I just think jabbing these guys does'nt help anyone. Then to come on here and getting these folks all wired up by trying to validate your position. I don't just understand that. If your secure in your position on these matters what difference does it make what those guys say or think.
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 5/22/2007 9:52 PM
| |
| | |
| Words of reason...thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | I would have to say yes,you need to see his point of view! | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, let's ask the question. If the walleye folks, who are a friendly and hard working group of anglers for the most part, had worked in concert with the DNR for years encouraging a reintroduction of Great Lakes Walleyes in that water in an attempt to create a trophy fishery, and one guy killed a bunch over 10 pounds, there would be some very critical comments there too. In a comparative ratio, killing 6 true trophy class muskies is akin to killing DOZENS (if not more) of trophy Walleyes.
The only reason to harvest fish of that size from the Bay is to mount them. Yes, he has the legal right, and we certainly don't need to be the Muskie Cops. I just feel, as so many others do, that this is a case of excess and should be pointed out as such
What will you say when he harvests another 6 this year? Now Wisconsin won't be able to acquire the necessary fish to restock until the VHS issues are figured out or something changes with the brood lake. One angler literally can be removing a considerable number of the upper confidence limit fish out there pretty much single handedly. Yes, it's legal, but if this fellow is a a business owner and promotional fisherman, it's in my opinion also unwise. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi all,
I don't know if a post was removed or I'm missing something here. I simply think that we as a group are lousy at communication. Instead of going after a person or group on an internet message board why not talk to this person face to face or through a phone call. All coming on here and firing everyone up does is makes a person defensive and closed minded. Who cares wheather or not Shep, myself or anyone else for that matter is not going to fish this walleye tournament. Typing out your frustrations on a message board is not going to bring those 6 fish back. But a civil thoughtful conversation may start something that could be great for both speicies.
Steve- I would like to address your last paragraph. I whole heartly agree with your take on the damage a single fisherman could do to a fishery. I would also like to add that this VHS issue effects everyone not just us musky fisherman. This could be a problem that could get all of us on the same page. By dealing with this situation together we could find out how the other one ticks. There by bringing us closer as a group of fisherman. I see great potential in coversation. But addressing a personal issue with someone on something that is totally legal and within this guys right to do on a The finest musky web-site is not how this should be done. Sorry
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 5/23/2007 9:28 AM
| |
| | |
|
When you look at this situation, it comes down to two very different schools of thought.
On the one hand, you have the fishermen,(muskie, walleye, pike etc.) who feel it's their right to kill as many fish as the law will allow.
On the other hand, you have people who think you have that right, but excercising that right can and does have a negative impact on the resource we all enjoy.
We all have the right to voice our opinion either way, and I don't think it's sticking you nose into others business by saying you don't have to kill all these fish.
If Trout Unlimited (the original "elitists") would have backed down to criticism from other trout anglers, where would trout fishing be today? Probably in the toilet, just like it was before they spoke up.
People might not want to hear it, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, or people should be afraid to say it.
Now how you say it, and how you go about spreading your message is another thing.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| OK, let me back in here for a moment. I didn't go to WF to poke a stick. I frequent that site as much as I do this one. I probably walleye fish more than I do for muskies. I have kept exactly one walleye over 4 pounds in my life. I cannot count the number of fish over 10 pounds that I have released. Why do I release all these walleyes? Fish over 19 or 20 inches are the prime spawners. And I don't think fish over that size taste as good as a 15" fish.
As for muskies, I have always said, that I will support an angler's right to keep any legally caught fish. There is no wavering here, never has been. And for this, I have been attacked and accused of being a supporter of killing fish, and it's because of people like me, that there are no big muskies in WI. Let me make this perfectly clear. I do support an indivdual's right to keep a fish that is leagal. However, I also will speak out against blatant abuse of that very right. I truly believe hat is what we have here.
Several months ago, I said I did not have an issue with this guy keeping his 58" monster fish. But I did, and still do, question why he had to kill the other 5. I was attcked here on this board for not being against killing any fish, period. And that is all I have done, along with sayng I would not fish his event, because of these other 5 fish.
As for trying to talk to him? He was talked to at the Fleet Farm event at Lambeau field in Green Bay this spring. When asked why he killed all those fish, his response was simply,"Because I can". Well, he didn't lie. So my response is I will publicly state that I will not fish his tournament. Because I can.
Anyone who knows me, also knows I don't pull any punches. I call it as I see it, and I'm not afraid to say it out loud, either. I'm proud of the fact that I helped Dennis Radloff in Outagamie County on the 54" proposal for Green Bay. I also said that I don't think 54" is going to be enough. Not with guys killing the numbers of fish they are up there.
As for why he wouldn't do graphite's? My guess is that for him it costs more, because he would have to pay for the blanks, as opposed to skinning a fish. Or maybe it is just an ego booster for him. Only he knows. I know I will not fish his tourney, and I will try to enlighten anyone who will listen to do the same. | |
| | |
| It is all a bit silly...If a person has a DUI or DWI nobody would think of skipping his tourney even though that is truly reckless at the highest level and illegal...However if a person keeps six legal fish...let the witch hunt begin...Do you guys ever get tired:) | |
| | |
| Explain to me why 54" wouldn't be enough if a high number of fish in that caliber are getting kept? Apparently this was the only cat catching 50+" muskies over there last fall ehh? It still holds true that the vast majority of big fish are being released. If, in fact, over 30 50" fish(as claimed by some) were kept, couldn't one assume that several times that many were released? Now, I fished the Bay nearly half the days of november and was a witness to a few over 50" caught, and saw one kept. I heard of a few others on days I was there, all released. I think the 50" size limit is obviously working, and that if it needs 54", it would protect alot more fish. But, because fish are attaining the size of the limit, we need to push it higher, or unattainably so? PHOOEY!
Now, I don't want to come accross as a naysayer here, and I adhore the fact that one dude kept 5 or 6 50+"ers in a season, but there are bigger battles to fight in my opinion. there are lakes with 34" limits all over WI that need far more protection than Green Bay does. Lets work on them, and get some regs changed on those bodies. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Skarie, that is a dead on bullseye.
Hunter4, I disagree. I think OutdoorsFIRST has made the point that issues like this one can and SHOULD be discussed, but without personal attacks, etc. Shep isn't addressing a 'personal issue', he's addressing what to him(and he isn't alone) is an important CONSERVATION issue. 6 fish of this quality by 6 different anglers would not be as big a deal, but 6 to one angler in one year...that's excessive IMHO. And, this fellow will do that again this, and next year. Can or SHOULD we as a 'group' be critical of this practice? Maybe, maybe not. There's nothing out of line with talking about this one.
I'm talking.
Kill them all or a large percentage of the big fish in the Bay, and the Trophy fishery is gone. This water should be protected, and 54" is a fair place for that to be.
The guy who kept those fish needs to be looking toward the future. He obviously isn't, or doesn't appreciate the fragility of the upper confidence limit muskie population out there. Maybe folks like Shep and others commenting publicly will get that appreciation a chance for consideration. I hope so. I happen to agree with Shep, I'll defend an angler's right to harvest a trophy, but this could be a clear argument of abuse. 'Because I can' is the explanation of most all excesses, and though legal, is a poor justification. Ethics, many times, are NOT enforceable laws or rules, so I see a reasonable argument.
Ben,
A DUI has nothing to do with a sports ethics paradigm shift. This conversation, IMHO, does, and for all the right reasons. Conservation ethics begin or are strengthened with awareness, education, and public commentary. As long as the commentary is reasonable and stays to the facts, it's welcome. And the answer is....no.
If some of us had that attitude, Pelican would still be at 34".
There were quite a few people who claimed our efforts to protect the fragile trophy Muskie fishery in Pelican were 'elitist', and some called the effort much worse. The problem on Pelican? Excessive harvest and the fact system will not be stocked in the near future, and NR is poor. Sound familiar?
It's interesting to me that one of the motivators for the 54" limit on a TRULY amazing potential super trophy water is considered by some to be off limits for discussion. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Steve,
I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this.
Dave VanDoorn | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Money talks... I would venture to guess that the potential gain, as he saw it, of these fish meant much more to this fellow than any conservationist feelings he might have. I have seen it too many times. Then there's also the "I am going to keep my fair share, because others do" mentality. It's total BS, in my humble opinion, but we all reward it when we go into an establishment like this. But how do you win? It's impossible.
As to the size limit issue--why even have a size limit? By this I mean, why do we even allow people to catch fish of a "trophy" species such as musky and keep them? It goes to 50", then to 54", then to...??? The real question is why do we allow people to harvest fish like the musky at all? Why not make the species catch & release only? Isn't that where we are headed as the size limits inch upwards?
I don't ask these questions to agree or disagree with anyone--but only to stimulate thought. In our society, money is the driving force behind the VAST majority of peoples' activities. It sounds to me as though this particular angler (who I know nothing about BTW; other than what I have read in this thread) was looking for a bit of advertising for his establishment. Either people will go in to look at the fish, or they will go in to see what all the controversy is about. But the point is that most WILL go in! Threads like this one, although interesting, are essentially of little value in swaying the opinions of anglers that harvest six 50+ inch fish. Don't get me wrong; I like threads like this, because it's important to voice support for others with the same values and beliefs (and to hear from those with differing points of view). But the guys who frequent these musky sites are already singing in the CPR choir, for the most part, so we are sort of just wasting our (cyberspace) breath, in a way.
What it boils down to is that the original poster has just as much right to protest the catch & kill of these fish, as the angler did to harvest them. Both are simply exercising their rights as currently allowed by law. But wasn't it only about a year ago that there were threads going on all the major musky forums on how Wisconsin no longer has any big fish? If the fish continue to be harvested and the numbers go down, what impact does that have on the tourism industry of places like Hayward & Eagle River (and Green Bay for that matter)? It seems to me that things will get more serious only when the lack of tourism dollars becomes enough of an issue for the powerful lobbyists to start nipping at the heels of the state legislators. Money talks, I've heard.
It is my personal opinion that it's only a matter of time before all size limits do indeed go up throughout most of the state, but until that happens it's an angler's right to thump one pig per day...like it or not. I don't. I personally feel that whoever suggested a "tag" system for keeping one trophy fish per year was dead-on right--why is a trophy musky of any less value than a trophy whitetail? Yet you can only kill one of them per year, for the most part. And it takes one heck of a lot longer to grow a 50" musky than it does to grow a 200 pound whitetail with a huge rack.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/23/2007 10:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Those who act upon their beliefs are not 'wasting their breath'. Mike Roberts, Norm Wild, Reef Hawg, and all those involved in creating protected trophy waters in Wisconsin, Minnesota, or anywhere will debate the issue where that debate is encouraged, and act on what they learn from that debate and information exchange. Progress works exactly that way, and one doesn't have to be discussing the issues with an even pro/con audience, IMHO. That rarely occurs.
No, I don't think the future is C&R only in Wisconsin and that isn't something I'd personally support. There may be a few true trophy waters that end up there, but only if there is a TREMENDOUS effort, and that supported by the DNR fisheries folks managing that water. A tough road, for sure. | |
| | |
|
One thing that is so misleading by the "elitist" tag given to people who oppose the killing of these fish, is that they are doing it for themselves.
I've never understood how someone is an elitist when they are trying to ensure the health of the fishery for everyone, for the present and the future of the resource.
How many people keeping just one trophy a year will it take to deplete a resource in which it can take 10-15 years to grow those trophies?
Not many.
As a taxidermist, guide, outdoor writer, TV personality, bait manufacture etc. What does your livlihood depend on? It depends on a healthy fishery. Without that you are nothing and looking for a new job.
As with many things in life, our resources need to be protected from those that don't care about the effects of over-harvest, misuse or abuse. Be it environmental (delelopment, pollution), or just killling to many or the wrong ones (slots, size limts etc.).
I certainly is not sticking your nose into others business by preventing them from ruining something that belongs to the public and to our future citizens (my daughter and your kids).
This is not the day and age of fishing for food, where it can mean the difference of feeding your family meat or eating potato soup.
This is the day and age where we all share our fisheries responsibly or we lose them in the future.
JS
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Steve.
Of course we cannot make the entire musky fishery "catch & release only." I was attempting rhetoric. The fact is that we rely on the removal of fish at the top of the food chain as an important management tool. But I guess I was trying to make the point that at some point, it has to be OK to harvest a large musky--but where is that point? Although aquatic biology school was a long time ago for me, I realize that the issue is far more complicated than simply implementing a global size limit.
I suppose that the main point I was trying to make is that it's a tremendously complicated issue. And we have to assume that if there *are* size limits on musky, then the people who are imposing those limits need anglers to harvest fish from the legal side of those limits. I have always believed that should let fish managers manage and help them however we can. But then we have all this sentiment from those who think that ALL muskies should be released. So there's an internal conflict within the musky community, and some of the sentiment goes against sound (and well-established) fish management practices.
In the end I guess all that we have is our opinions, but we should never forget the fact that we don't always know what we don't know. If the issue seems very complicated--it probably is. Suffice it to say that there are no easy answers...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/24/2007 6:31 AM
| |
| | |
|
Allowing taking muskies over a certain size isn't a fisheries management tool in the case of muskies.
It's there to appease those that want to kill one.
Case in point, Lac Suel, C&R only for the sole purpose of keeping the population healthy.
Biology doesn't dictate that you need to weed out the top of the food chain, in fact the main reason so many lakes in MN and WI have a lack of trophy pike is because they are all taken out before they get there.
If man had no effect on fisheries populations, i.e. no fishing, nature would have a natural food pyramid without needing to cull the top of the food chain to do so.
The MN biologists that I know of and have worked with would have no qualm making muskie C&R only from a biological standpoint, it's a social issue that let's muskies be killed by those that choose to do so.
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Steve and John,
Both great comments and insight.
What started out as an attempt at humor, has evolved to a pretty decent discussion.
I think Ben's comment directed at me is funny. Do I ever give up? Just 4 months ago, I was accused as being one of the reasons WI has no big fish, because I supported this guys right to keep a big fish. So which is it? Elitist, or supporter of killing muskies? And your analogy to DUI is way off base. Not related in anyway. A person with a DUI has done something illegal, has paid a fine, done jail time perhaps. How is this connected to killing several big fish?
Reef Hawg, I don't get your arguement, saying that because fish are reaching a limit, that that limit shouldn't be higher? Why did you work to get the limit on the Pete raised? Were that many fish being killed there? How many anglers were keeping multiple fish a year over the old limit? And no, I know that guy wasn't the only one catching fish over 50" I got one on my only day out, and I know of many more that were caught. Most were released, sure. But there were at least 2 dozen fish killed there last fall. Not to mention those that died from delayed mortality due to poor handling. Many of those in the spring. And yes, one angler could have a great affect on the health of a fishery if they take out fish every year.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | John,
I am not so sure about this issue of harvesting top predators as a management tool--I think that you might find many fish managers that would debate this with you. However (as I said above), it's been so long since I was at all active in the field of aquatic biology that I really am not the authority on this matter. Maybe Dave Neuswanger will see this thread and comment.
I have gone on record in this thread of favoring a "tag" system, whereby an angler is allowed to harvest one fish over a certain size per year. While many anglers would choose to not harvest any fish at all, the ones that did want to harvest multiple trophy fish would be significantly curtailed in that respect. While this may not be the perfect solution, or one that you agree with personally, it most likely would have saved several large last year...even if we are just talking about one angler.
(I enjoy your posts, by the way.)
TB
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Yes, alot of fish were being killed on the river in the 34-43" range. We saw enough and heard of more. We pushed for a couple reasons and I am sure the same ones that most do. We wanted to allow for a few spawns(we feel there is some successful repro.) from the females, and a chance for people to catch any musky. We decided on 45" because it is not known that muskies get much bigger on pete, and wanted to keep it attainable. Yes there are enough 45-48" fish, andf an occasional freak over 50 but they seem to top out in that mid to high 40" range in this area. Bottom line, wanted to make it palatable to locals, while still putting alot of protection on.
We don't plan to make another push now that the we see fish a bit bigger than 45" kept. There are other more important battles around here and in WI that we are/going to be taking part in. When the push for 50" on the bay started, I was right on it. Best thing that ever happened there. But, I knew then that the fish would attain 50" and that some would be kept. Didn't you see it coming man?
Again, don't take this as an argument against the 54" limit, as much as a push for help where more needed. that said, if, at 54", we start to see, say, a half dozen 54" clubbed in a fall, will it be pushed higher? Why? The limit is working, correct? Move on. Work on fixing another broken part in WI.
Again, as a dedicated fisherman of the Bay(I'll be there starting Saturday), I am not against a 54" limit, but also have a right to ask if it is both biologically needed, and if it is the battle that should be at the forefront of our agenda in 2007. All of the people pushing for this, could be working on reg changes on lakes that need far more help than the Bay does, far more. I don't want to see this push make us look just like the person that you started this thread about(elitist), as there are enough situations where our own(musky asnglers) make me want to vomit while listening to their so called 'ideals' are and even more sickening, telling me what mine 'should' be without even knowing who I am. While I'll stand behind any fight for limits that have sound reasoning, I'd also like to ask that people not forget the bigger, more important battles that need to be won in northern WI. Lets resurect some of the old pig producers, protect some current ones, and create some more.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/24/2007 6:16 PM
| |
| | |
| I am not against a 54" limit, but also have a right to ask if it is both biologically needed, and if it is the battle that should be at the forefront of our agenda in 2007...
While I'll stand behind any fight for limits that have sound reasoning, I'd also like to ask that people not forget the bigger, more important battles that need to be won in northern WI. Lets resurrect some of the old pig producers, protect some current ones, and create some more.
hail! hail! hail!
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember who 'we' are. The anglers interested in protecting the tremendous potential on the Bay and the Fox focus there. Reef Hawg focused on 'his' water, as did Norm, Mike, and I. That's how things get done, most times, with the support of all attending the CC Hearings in Wisconsin.
YOU may not think an issue is all that important, but the next angler may find the issue a primary focus. Your primary battle may be totally back burner to another 'activist'; proving neither goal less attainable or laudable. And I might point out an agenda doesn't have to contain only one or two issues.
It was considered ridiculous not that long ago to even suggest a 48" limit. | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | ok, two more cents here.
If the guy needed a mold of a 58", maybe. Does he need 6 molds?
Not that Shep needs me to speak in his behalf, but Shep is one of the greatest guys on this board. I put him right up there with muskymaj and K-bob, sworral, gotesox, chuck nelson, saint, ulbian, pointer, Norm Wild, Shane West, Gerry Caroll, Howie Meyer, and more. His opinion counts, as far as i'm concerned, and if you hate him, you hate me.
We (or most of us on this board) take more pride in watching the fish swim away than we do of the pics of the fish. We feel like we watch a best friend die when we cant get her to get going (if it aint happened, it will). When I see her swim away, I look at the camcorder and say "I live for this $&!t"
Do not trample on those who uphold our resource, and dont be a hog. Lori asked me when we are going out after walleyes again. I told her "as soon as there are no more fillets in our freezer".
Love me, hate me, i do not care.
Shep and others who voice their opinions for what they believe in are the folks that make history. No followers are in history books.
| |
| | |
| The DUI analogy is very appropriate...A person who acquires one whether they have done their time or not has little regard for the lives of others or is willing to gamble on it. A person who has no time or debt to pay, because they did not brake the law...his character was put for debate. I thought perhaps this would bright to light to pettyness of the arguement.
Steve, you mention that if it was 6 dif. anglers you have no issue with it...So you are concerned with the individual and not the fishery...because at the end of the day there is no difference...statistically that is:)
Shep, if you don't like the size limit...protest it...but don't mention I don't keep walleye of 10lbs so why should he keep muskie...not impressed. Most of us do release the majority of what we catch.
A single guy caught 6 very large muskie...more than most do in a season...Perhaps we just wish we would have caught them as well:)
Elitist..no perhaps complainist/alarmist...perhaps...Ben
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | BenR - 5/25/2007 3:57 AM
The DUI analogy is very appropriate...A person who acquires one whether they have done their time or not has little regard for the lives of others or is willing to gamble on it. A person who has no time or debt to pay, because they did not brake the law...his character was put for debate. I thought perhaps this would bright to light to pettyness of the arguement.
Steve, you mention that if it was 6 dif. anglers you have no issue with it...So you are concerned with the individual and not the fishery...because at the end of the day there is no difference...statistically that is:)
Shep, if you don't like the size limit...protest it...but don't mention I don't keep walleye of 10lbs so why should he keep muskie...not impressed. Most of us do release the majority of what we catch.
A single guy caught 6 very large muskie...more than most do in a season...Perhaps we just wish we would have caught them as well:)
Elitist..no perhaps complainist/alarmist...perhaps...Ben
Wait, Ben, I know several folks who have a DUI who simply made a mistake, are not abusive drinkers or social misfits, had no intention at the time of taking a risk or putting someone else at risk....they were just momentarily stupid.... and are fine people. I know several who have DUI arrests who are not well. You are attempting to compare a law designed to protect PEOPLE VS a law designed to protect the MUSKIES, and are passing judgment on folks who have a DUI with no prior knowledge of the event's details.... That's a poor analogy no matter how you present it.
Why would you tell Shep what he can or cannot say about his personal conservation ethics?
This discussion was originally brought up on the walleye board, and many from there are following it. His commentary has context you may not understand, but that doesn't give you personal critical license.
Most of us HERE do release most of what we catch.
The point being made is that some folks feel ONE person is clearly abusing the upper confidence limit of fragile trophy population by over harvest of really big fish, that this person is clearly motivated by 'business' issues, and that this person has publicly stated he has little regard for the debatable conservation issues surrounding that harvest. His 'character' is not being called into question, his conservation ethics in the arena MUSKIE are. I'm sure he's a nice guy to fish with, and a nice guy in general. I'm sure he runs an entertaining and enjoyable Walleye tournament.
That is exactly how change is acquired...those who over harvest albeit legally are educated and socially corrected, or that debate is a portion of the motivation to change the law correcting the behavior in a different manner. Trying to separate the issues in this case doesn't work. In any case, none of this is 'petty' to my mind. Look up the structure of conflict resolution, and what needs to happen to either effect change or accept the status quo, everything that has occurred here fits. This is EXACTLY how a 50" limit was acquired on Pelican. The debate was at times contentious, that's inevitable when emotion enters debate. Corrections were made when that occurred, but not all the time were those social. The final result was hailed by many and #*^@ed by a few. that, sir, is democracy. it's now law, and those who wouldn't have conformed in the past have to now, to the betterment of a fragile and heavily pressured potentially trophy class muskie population.
If indeed the 6 big fish had been added to the numbers caught and ratio released/harvested by all the anglers fishing the area last year, there statistically would be 5 still swimming. The facts are that the majority who fished that water released fish over 50", but an alarmingly large minority did not, and this fellow was the apex predator. I know of no others who took more than one, but there may have been others. The total kill is still alarming, which is why there was a push for an increase in the size limit; obviously there are some of us VERY concerned about the resource and that group includes Shep. The logic and facts stream very nicely here.
You state that anyone objecting to this fellow's behavior is a complainist/alarmist, that's YOUR opinion. Note I refrained from calling you a single name, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Ben,
If you think the arguement is petty, then why are you in it?
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| tcbetka - 5/24/2007 1:24 PM
John,
I am not so sure about this issue of harvesting top predators as a management tool--I think that you might find many fish managers that would debate this with you. However (as I said above), it's been so long since I was at all active in the field of aquatic biology that I really am not the authority on this matter. Maybe Dave Neuswanger will see this thread and comment.
I have gone on record in this thread of favoring a "tag" system, whereby an angler is allowed to harvest one fish over a certain size per year. While many anglers would choose to not harvest any fish at all, the ones that did want to harvest multiple trophy fish would be significantly curtailed in that respect. While this may not be the perfect solution, or one that you agree with personally, it most likely would have saved several large last year...even if we are just talking about one angler.
(I enjoy your posts, by the way.)
TB
Tom, I saw this post after our phone conversation and have this to offer...
First, as rare as 50-inch-and-larger muskellunge are in ANY system, there is no "need" to harvest them. Fish that big will always be so rare that they will be incapable of impacting the rest of the food pyramid beneath them in a biologically significant manner. So it would be incorrect for anyone to claim it was "good" to harvest lots of fish at the very top of the food chain (50-inch-plus muskies) in Green Bay so the rest of the fish community could thrive. And frankly, I think it was piggish of one person to kill six of them in one year (or one lifetime for that matter). And I'm definitely NOT an elitist. I'm a proponent of slot limits and selective harvest of muskellunge in appropriate situations. This isn't one of them.
Second, I hope one angler's ego and gluttony does not cause us to create an entirely new bureaucratic system for registering fish that would occupy professional resource managers' time when there are so many more significant issues to address. I believe (though I admit I don't KNOW) that VERY few serious and capable musky anglers are keeping even ONE trophy fish annually, let alone six. Let's not panic and create new laws and red tape because of the selfish acts of one person. Just my opinion, but there you have it.
It was good talking to you, Tom. Keep in touch.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 354
| I believe BenR was attempting to say that folks are getting thier undies in a bundle over a fish. Some of these very same people complain and yet say or do nothing about those who have done offensive, ILLEGAL, unethical things to PEOPLE. This guy did nothing illegal. We may find it offensive but what is done is done. So maybe you don't like the analogy or are uncomfortable with it but I see his point exactly. Maybe there are folks on MF, I won't mention any specific names, where the DUI thing hits to close to home? I'm sure they are good people too. Granted they may have endangered the lives of innocent PEOPLE but I don't have the details or the reasons behind it. So I should excuse their momentary lapse of judgement. I will instead focus my attention on a guy who followed the law and kept a fish. I guess that is a sound argument? | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| Were this Peoplefirst.com, or Soberdriving.com, MADD.com or some other site I could see the reference, but this is Muskiefirst.com. The focus here is muskie fishing. Some feel it is their responsibility to speak out against a practice (the harvesting of 6 large muskies) that they feel goes aganst what the owners and visitors of this site strive to protect. Unkowingly supporting a tournament run by someone who apparently does not shere the conservationist mentality is something I suspect most of us would want to aviod. It seems like an appropriate discussion to have on a muskie fishing website, doesn't it?
I'm not saying I (or anyone else) don't care that he or she may have engaged in dangerous and or illegal acts, but that's not what the discussion is about. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| I don't know anybody who dismisses the DUI issue, but this is a Muskie Fishing board. There are lot's of social issues that do not get brought up here, for that very reason. For every issue related to muskie fishing, I'm sure there are many social issues that could be brought up to try to justify not talking about it. Guns, war, drugs, etc. You want me to go on?
The discussion is about muskies. Keep it there. You want to talk about other stuff, start another thread, perhaps on Oprah.com. | |
| | |
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | The DUI was an analogy, not something to be taken as a separate point. He was simply trying to give an example of a selfish, reckless, unacceptable act, regardless of how great a person is. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| A bad analogy. | |
| | |
Posts: 128
Location: ontario canada - Well Anderson Indiana now | So...it's some weather we're having huh fellas? | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| How can anyone justify harvesting 6 trophy muskies? Legality aside, knowing the relative rarity of Muskies of that size, how can anyone say that its an acceptable practice? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So far, Addict, I see only one justification. Because he can. I see one real counterpoint. Well, OK, 'we' will get the law changed so he can't.
The side argument is over Shep telling the guy he thinks his practices are abusive to the fishery, the fellow's answer was that it's legal so he will do what he wishes.
Shep's answer was because of that attitude, which strikes Shep (and me, for that matter) as decidedly lacking in the concern for the fishery arena, Shep will choose not to fish a promotional event this fellow runs there.
It's legal, so why beat the guy up?
This isn't ABOUT the guy or beating him up, its ABOUT the over harvest and how to get that reduced through public discussion and perhaps a change in the law.
Did I miss anything relevant?
| |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| BENR: "I question using a message board to judge an individuals behavior and that is what this is all about..."
Overharvest is a detriment to Muskie fishing, and this is a musky fishing website. Where better to discuss it?
"Nobody is going to debate if one guy keeping 6 fish is going overboard...But debating his character..."
I don't see people debating his character. What'd being discussed are his actions as they relate to a resource that someone in his position would presumably want to preserve. He could be an axe murderer or dismember little doggies, neither of those have any bearing on muskie fishing.
As for the other 6 fish one guy stuff? If an angler harvests a trophy fish, presumably it is for the purpose of a trophy. One could reasonably expect that that angler won't harvest another, much less 6. But when one angler harvests 6 fish, I believe it is cause for concern.
Why?:
It's excessive, and its unnecessary. There's not a person alive whom I would blame for harvesting a single trophy fish. Two I would question. Three? SIX? Six is incredibly selfish, and it undermines the efforts of everyone with a vested interest in muskie conservation.
Edited by esoxaddict 5/25/2007 3:26 PM
| |
| | |
|
Ben, look at it this way.
If a person gets one DUI, I'm not going to judge them, everybody makes mistakes, I've got one, many people do.
If a person get 6 DUI, than that signals a problem, unusual behavior that has a better chance or hurting others, IMHO.
Now a guys kills one trophy, it's legal, it's his right, it's one fish he's very proud of, not a problem or unusual behavior, IMHO.
He kills 6 trophies, and now I can see him being a single, very harmfull threat to a resource for years to come.
The guy who has 6 DUI's and the guy who kills 6 muskies would probably not see my business, and have me concerned about thier behavior, and how it can affect ohters.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but I think it puts into perspective why the concern is there.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Keeping fish is not exactly right, whether legal or not. If you cant get the big girl to go, then mount it instead of it being turtle food. Laws were not written so that some could get away with it or exploit it.
If you do not respect the musky resource, take up pike fishing. Plenty to go aroung in WI, anyways.
Keep the fish of a lifetime? if you want, do it. you are able if it is legal. Keep 6 of a lifetime? you are a greedy dog.
Nuff said. Shep is right in his feelings, in my opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | If Shep is a Muskie Elitist, would the guy that kept the six fish be a Muskie Nihilist? Or maybe a Muskie Anarchist?
Kevin
Just try it Hodag. I'm ready. | |
| | |
|
No getting 6 DUIS is not the same as killing 6 muskies.
But understanding why one person killing 6 muskies in one year is more offensive to some than on person killing one ever is kind of analagous.
Interesting comments, I don't know this fellow, he might be the kindest, most geniune person you'd ever meet.
Not knocking him as person, dad, citizen whatever.
I have a completely different set of beliefs and values when it comes to resources that we all share however.
I think that it's important to seperate the person from the actions in cases like this.
Hey Steve, you can call me John, I'm younger than you are!
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Some think this post if getting out of hand. I believe it's doing some good with opinions from both sides. Even after reading all the posts I still can't see where anyone can take this guys side on keeping 6 large muskies.
That is just greed and a huge lack of respect for the fishory. Anyway you look at it.
Because a guy can catch these huge fish it make him a very good stick and he would be very respected if he chose to release most or all of them. I don't have a problem with a guy keeping his trophy fish, thats his rite and legal rite. Killing more for personal greed or to keep others from getting them is a Lake Raper.
It's a good thing Green Bay is huge. Just think if these fish were all taken out of your lake................Maybe some views would be changed then.
I run a 100% catch and release guide service. I can only think of one client that I lost because he wanted to hire me to get him a fish for the wall. In this day and age I believe the replicas are getting to the point where we can release our fish and get them mounted too. So why would anyone want to over harvest trophy fish?
Some say they would release all the fish they catch, even the monsters. Well, I can tell you that once you get your monster fish your thoughts will be questioned while you hold that fish. I had upper 40lb fish that gave me a reason to think it over, she was released and I was very proud to do it. Two days later I got a fish over 50lb's and released her also. I have talked the talk and walked the walk. It's hard to do for some. Impossible to do for others, even six times in one season.
I know a handfull of guys who kept muskies and most of them told me they second guessed their decision after they killed that fish. I have seen a few of the mounts and they are not anything I would recomend. If they get another fish and release it I bet they will see what a good repo looks like next to a skin mount. Repo's have come a long way and they are still getting better each year. Rick is my man and he is always working on molds, fins, eyes, and painting to get better.
I don't know if I am a Elitist or just an guide who cares about the resource and hopes everyone will have the chance to catch a trophy. The more trophys swimming around the better everyones chances to catch one.
Catch and release works for everyone, killing one works for only one............. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John, be happy to.
This is a great discussion. Let's try really hard to discuss this within OutdoorsFIRST posting permissions.
Mike, I agree.
I get it. Some think no one should mention this on the web. SOme don't agree with the guy killing 6 trophy fish, but feel discussing it in public is a bad idea and is unfair, and some think he's in the center of the bullseye for doing something perfectly legal. Did I miss anything?
Imagine the uproar if this had been a well known Muskie Guide?
Does fact this guy is a Ranked Professional angler up the ante? He extracts part of his living from the sport. Does he have a responsibility that is both PUBLIC and higher than the average guy who might not know what the impact of his actions might be? And, this fishery could very well be in the first stages of serious trouble; and action to reduce over harvest has to happen, or we might just kiss 'er bye bye, does a sense of urgency perhaps justify actions that otherwise might be seen as excessive to some work under those circumstances? Bay of Green Bay ain't Lake St Clair. I wish it was....and VHS mortality may change that water too and very well could hit it HARD. Watch for the awareness over there that killing too many top tier predators may reduce the fishery to a 'no big fish in (blank)' area, and the charters over harvesting big fish will come under some serious pressure. | |
| |
|
I am a Muskie Elitist!