|
|
Posts: 127
Location: Brookfield | I am interested to see what the people on this board think about this topic. Personaly I feel ther should be a statewide increase to 50 inches, I do not plan on ever keeping a fish to mount (I would do a replica myself) but if I were to keep one for a skin mount there is no way I would consider a 34 incher a trophy.
Maybe I am wrong, would doing something like this posibly do more harm than good? I dont think so but I have been wrong once or twice before acording to my wife. What would it take to get something like this passed?
Just wanted your oppinions, John | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Would be a very bad regulation on certain waters. Some waters can flat out not support a 50 inch size limit, it would not be beneficial to the entire fishery. I think what we need to remember sometimes is that biologists need to manage the entire lake community (i dont mean the land owners, the biological community). They need to do what is best for all the fish, not what just suits the musky crowd. | |
| | |
| 40 statewide with trophy waters at 50 or 54 would be great | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| We can't forget that muskie anglers make up a small percentage of licensed anglers statewide and management of our water isn't solely focused on muskies and only muskies. If it fits in with what the potential of a body of water has and doesn't throw the entire system out of balance then I am for increasing size limits. However, there are many bodies of water in this state that a 50 inch size limit would harm more than they would help. There are others that definately could use a 50 or even a 54.
The big key is getting the respective biologist on board giving his support. They won't do that unless there is enough known about a particular body of water (i.e. population, natural reproduction, growth rates, etc.) because they'll be asked why they are supporting it. If they can't do that, or don't feel like they have enough to back it up then they won't push it through. This happened with one I was working on...a relatively young fishery that not much is known about in terms of muskie population, what natural reproduction there is, and so on. Instead the groundwork is being laid to do a comprehensive fishery management plan that will benefit all species. This way all stakeholders (muskie, bass, walleye, panfish guys, etc.) can get on board and provide even more support. Pushing it now had too much potential to burn bridges with those other groups and that's something you definately don't want. | |
| | |
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | Some waters could use a higher size limit for sure. I'd also like to see a protective slot placed on many of our lakes, say 40-48". Many fish killed in that size range every summer. This has been brought up before and recieved very little support.
Very diverse waters dotting the state, and blanket regulations don't seem to work. Education and voluntary catch and release has done wonders in WI in the last 10 years, though.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i spent 12 years in the south where the slot is king and can't for the life of me understand why it's not used to manage waters in the north whether its perch, walleye, bass, pike or muskies ... it flat out works and especially when bringing a lake back from being down.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm seeing some direct support from several fronts within the DNR for implementing slots limits on some waters in Wisconsin. We may see that in the near future.
Excellent comments, everyone. | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Slots are a good tool, but not a cure-all.
There is a certain suite of conditions that must be present for slots to be effective. When used on waters that lack the criteria, slots can actually make things worse. If harvest (or other mortality) is high, precluding populations from reaching numbers necessary for good reproduction, and growth rates are relatively high, slots can and often do work wonders. Where you have a bunch of slow growing fish stacking up at smaller sizes, slots will probably make things worse. Each water is different, and a ton of background work needs to be completed to determine if it would be a good candidate for slots. Add to that the public's general resistence to additional regulation, enforcement often becomes a problem. There is a big push in the west to simplify regulations, I'm not sure if it's occurring there, but it probably will. From what I understand, changing regulations isn't the easiest thing in the world there either; and to have to do it on individual waters, tailoring the regulation to the need, would be a daunting task. Biologically correct, but socially and politically nearly impossible. Doing it on some waters makes the most sense...the 'problem' then becomes, when it works, people begin to want it to be implemented on their favorite water, without completely understanding why it worked on the others. They are probably one of the most misunderstood regulations in fishery management.
S. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | and that must be why biology was so hard for me in school where chemistry came natural and easy. in the molecular world of chemistry it "always works" ... none of the "natural" response to shake things up. i'm learning that you biologists might be part artist? ... | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Sled, it's that clean mountain air he's breathing. Makes for clear headed thinking. 
Kevin
Two days with Norm.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If I have to be an artist I'm doomed! But you are right on sled....a lot of information, data, research goes into getting all the numbers of population size, stock biomass, age structure, sex ratios and so on that if a number or two gets estimated incorrectly and a regulation is implemented on the basis of incorrect numbers the lake population could be in for a world of hurt. That being said, Sorno touched on a very good point, as you know we the people here in Wisconsin can push the agenda on what WE want done, not what is necessarily needed in the lake, grant it the fish biologists support is crucial. So, like Sorno stated, if a slot is implemented on a given lake and it works out well, that same slot could harm a population in a lake just down the road. Thats the tough part about this field of study, there is no one end all, fix all. A lot of very good educated guessing sometimes. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was in memphis, tn. when sardis lake had a huge parasite kill off of the largemouth bass population. they re-stocked using the slot and within 5 years the place was thriving without the situation of blasting the stocking class when they matured. it was an impressive situation as were many of the other waters there ie: pickwick, toledo bend, ouatchita, sam rayburn and fork ... plenty of fish to harvest under the slot and then plent of big fish action within the slot and the opportunity to mount a single fish over the slot ... seems like something that suits the broader range of license holders and one that makes "common sense" ... i would assume even a slot and harvest situation on muskies in "some" waters would push the population in a positive way and stratify the sizes. there is a body of water i fish on that should support bigger fish, but i assume that they don't get a chance because of the volume of aggressive smaller fish just won't allow, so there are numbers and age, but limited size stratification. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | In a lake like that sled you almost need a certain level of harvest to get the stratification of age/size structure. Its that whole competition thing, competeing for a limited food, space, shelter etc. resource. An overpopulated lake can stunt growth and lower the growth rate, reduce it to an underpopulated lake you may have reduce it too far and made it tough for them to come back, get it to the right level and have a lake that can support big fish....you might just have yourself a lake full of world records! | |
| | |
Posts: 3147
| another factor when considering this is lakes close to highly populated areas should really think about 'High" size limits for game fish,,,we currently have alot of imigrants that have moved to the midwest and these people come from a culture where fish are food 'regardless" were seeing this here in the Twin Cities area | |
| | |
Posts: 8776
| What I got from talking to various DNR guys and biologists over the past few years is that each and every lake has a different "ideal management strategy".
What types of forage are present?
What types of game fish are present?
How much of each type is present?
How much fishing pressure is there?
What are the growth rates of all those species, and is there a lot of competition for food?
Are there a lot of smaller muskies?
Are there few small muskies and a lot of large muskies?
Are there any species of fish that appear to be stunted?
Way too many factors are involved that I know way too little about to say one way or the other, but I will say this:
You can't grow trophy sized muskies if they don't live long enough to become trophy sized!
In my opinion, a statewide 45" size limit would be beneficial. From there, "special" regulations could be taylored to those lakes where overpopulation is a problem -- slot limits, reduced size limits on lakes where some harvest is needed, 48" size limits on "trophy lakes"...
| |
| | |
Posts: 323
Location: In the slop! | I think the simple answer is, YES. To me it is sad that the state with the longest and most muskie fishing history has one of the shortest minimum length limits around. Here in Iowa we have a 40" minimum and we are always working on the DNR for an increase.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| Here I was reluctant to mention a protected slot for fear of getting ripped to shreads... | |
| | |
| I worte the DNR about the size limit and they jusut got back to me today on it...I will post there respnse. | |
| | |
| imho, the perception that Wisconsin is regressive on muskie size limits is incorrect. it's propagated by a vocal minority of largely out of state people who rant about how everyone from Wisconsin wants to keep the limits small so they can kill fish.
suggesting Wisconsin's limits are low because people want to kill fish is a fundamental attribution error. it emphasizes personality as the explanation without considering situational causes.
the situation in Wisconsin is that the number of muskie waters dwarfs others states, and therefore, even though a smaller percentage of Wisconsin waters have increased limits, the raw number of lakes and acres with those higher limits actually dwarfs those of surrounding states.
yes, the statewide limit in Wisconsin could/should be raised on more waters, and there are ongoing efforts to do so.
how many lakes/acres in YOUR state have muskie size limits at or above 40"???
with the possible exception of Minnesota, i bet Wisconsin has more.
the reality is that Wisconsin already has more water (numbers and acres) with the 40", 45", and 50" limits than most others states in the muskie's range. we're doing pretty good over here. we need to keep it going, but we're doing pretty good!
here they all are as of the 2007 regulations:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/regulations/2007/documents/FishingRegs%2007-...
(list is organized by county, so there may be some slight duplication)
Adams Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
Ashland Co.:
Lake Gallilee 40"
Bayfield Co.:
Bony Lake 40"
Eau Claire Lake 40"
Namekagon Lake 50"
Pike Lake 40"
Brown Co.:
Fox River 50"
Burnett Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Barron Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Calumet Co.:
Lake Winnebago 50"
Chippewa Co.:
Chippewa Falls Flowage 40"
Chippewa River 40"
Cornell Flowage 40"
Old Abe Flowage 40"
Lake Wissota 40"
Holcombe Flowage 40"
Jump River 40"
Clark Co.:
Lake Arbutus 40"
Black River 40"
Mead Lake 40"
Rock Dam Lake 40"
Columbia Co.:
Park Lake 40"
Silver Lake 40"
Spring Lake 40"
Swan Lake 40"
Dane Co.:
Lake Monona 45"
Lake Waubesa 45"
Lake Wingra 45"
Douglas Co.:
Eau Claire Lake 40"
Fond du lac Co.:
Fond du lac River 50"
Lake Winnebago 50"
Forest Co.:
Julia Lake 40"
Kentuck Lake 40"
Riley Lake 40"
Roberts Lake 40"
Wabikon Lake 40"
Green Lake Co.:
Big Green Lake 40"
Fox River 50"
Iowa Co.:
Twin Valley Lake 40"
Iron Co.:
Catherine Lake 40"
Cedar Lake 40"
Fisher Lake 40"
Gile Flowage 40"
Long Lake 40"
Mercer Lake 40"
Moose Lake 40"
Pine Lake 40"
Springstead Lake 40"
Trude Lake 40"
Turtle Flambeau Flowage 40"
Wilson Lake 40"
Jackson Co.:
Lake Arbutus 40"
Arbutus Canal 40"
Black River 40"
Black River Flowage 40"
Morrison Creek 40"
Potter Flowage 40"
Juneau Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
LaFayette Co.:
Yellowstone Lake Catch-and-Relase Only
Lincoln Co.:
Bridge Lake 40"
Deer Lake 40"
Nokomis Lake 40"
Rice River Flowage 40"
Wisconsin River 40"
Marathon Co.:
Wisconsin River 40"
Oconto Co.:
Archibald Lake 40"
Anderson Lake 40"
Oneida Co.:
Bridge Lake 40"
Buckskin Lake 40"
Clear Lake 50"
Katherine Lake 40"
Julia Lake 40"
Nokomis Lake 40"
Pelican Lake 50"
Rainbow Flowage 40"
Rice River Flowage 40"
Shishebogama Lake 40"
Stella Lake 40"
Two Sisters Lake 40"
Outagamie Co.:
Embarrass River 50"
Fox River 50"
Shioc River 50"
Wolf River 50"
Polk Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Portage Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
Price Co.:
Jump River 40"
Rusk Co.:
Chippewa River 40"
Dairyland Flowage 40"
Flambeau River 40"
Holcombe Flowage 40"
Jump River 40"
Main Creek 40"
Potato Lake 40"
Sauk Co.:
Lake Redstone 40"
Sawyer Co.:
Brunet River 40"
Chippewa Flowage 45"
Chippewa River 45"
Grindstone Lake 50"
Lac Courtes Oreilles 50"
Moose Lake 40"
Radisson Flowage 45"
Sissabagama Lake 40"
Winter Lake 40"
Shawano Co.:
Cloverleaf Lakes 40"
Embarrass River 50"
Red Lake 40"
Shawano Lake 40"
Washington Lake 40"
Wolf River 50"
Wolf River Pond 40"
St. Croix Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Taylor Co.:
Harper Lakes 40"
Vilas Co.:
All Lac du Flambeau reservation waters 40"
Allequash Lake 40"
Big Lake 40"
Big Muskellunge Lake 40"
Buckskin Lake 40"
Crab Lake 40"
Kentuck Lake 40"
Little St. Germain 45"
Little Trout Lake 40"
Papoose Lake 40"
Shishebogama Lake 40"
Sparkling Lake 40"
Trout Lake 45"
Walworth Co.:
Delavan Lake 40"
Washburn Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Waupaca Co.:
Cincoe Lake 50"
Embarrass River 50"
Little Wolf River 50"
Partridge Crop Lake 50"
Partridge Lake 50"
Waupaca River 50"
Wolf River 50"
Waushara Co.:
Fox River 50"
Lake Poygan 50"
Pine River 50"
Willow Creek 50"
Winnebago Co.:
Fox River 50"
Little Lake Butte des Morts 50"
Winnebago Lake 50"
Poygan Lake 50"
Lake Butte des Morts 50"
Lake Winneconne 50"
Wolf River 50"
Wood Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thank you lambeau, well said and well enforced with the facts. | |
| | |
| I firmly believe that the WI DNR along with the support of numerous musky clubs and people throughout the state would like to see a higher size limit on quite a few bodies of water. The problem in certain Countys throughout northern WI is tha the resort owners are against the size limit increase's because their all for their customers to be able to come up and stay w/them and catch and keep a 34 " musky or a 40,45, 50 incher!! That is what's holding so many of these northwoods lakes back. It's all tourism that runs the economy up there. It's been talked about for years! I personally think the WI size limit of 34 inches is perfect especially for a lake like Wildcat in Boulder Jct. that has produced small fish dating back into the 80's. Alot of harvest would only help this lake. Now you take a true know trophy lake like Lac Vieux Desert and put a 40" size limit on it and wow so many 42 to 46 inch fish are being harvested!!!! It is hurting this lake more then it would if there was a 34 inch size limit on it. Does anybody see this??????? This lake is in the same size and respects of Pelican and should have a size limit of 50 inches on it. And there's two others that come to mind that rightfully deserve it and have been beatin for years and thats north and south twin. 50 inches across the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Other lakes the produce nice fish should be at a 40 to 48 inch slot! Such as Kentuck,the entire eagle chain,three lakes chain, sugar camp chain, high,fishtrap, palmer,tenderfoot. Keep one under 40 or over 48........... Done deal............ My list goes on. And o ya Trout should and would go under the 50 inch size limit
Lets work together to make this happen.
Mr Musky | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not as easy as it looks, and that's a fact. One lake at a time..... | |
| | |
| Well Steve lets put two lakes into prospective maybe 4. Now that Pelican got it's 50 inch size limit your all warm and fuzzy but there' s 3 other lakes that greatly deserve it. And that being LVD for one, Trout for 2 and N and S Twin for 3. The others can do with a 40 to 48 inch slot. This needs to happen@!!! What can you guys do and what can we do down here in Appleton to make this happen?
Mr Musky | |
| | |
Posts: 80
| mr.musky I would have to respectivly disagree with you, to catagorize the resort owners as being against larger size limits is not all accurate. one of my best buds owns a resort on LVD and is active with the lake ass. I know his views on size limits so lets not point the finger just at the resort owners. The main problem resort owners on LVD are facing this year is the sportfishing limit for walleyes being one fish, courtesy of the intensive spearing season from the Mole Lake Tribe. also to state that going back to a 34 inch size limit on LVD would be better for the fishery? , It would not hurt my feelings one bit if LVD went to 48 on hybrids and 50 on silvers. just my thoughts. | |
| | |
| Ed I should've have went more into depth on the resort owners. I wasn't referring to the resort owners at all on LVD, I guess a few years back they were shooting for a higher size limit on the Twins and that got shot down by the resort owners and currently stands at 34". LVD is back to a 2 walleye limit. The one fish a day was only from May6th till 11th.
Mr Musky | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Mr Musky,
I do agree with you that those lakes could probably benefit from a higher size limit. My suggestion to you is to contact the DNR and find out what are the ways to go about getting a size limit changed. Talk to the biologists up there and get there support, get some support from the lake associations if possible, write up a good proposal and get the process in motion. If you do and ask support of people here on M1st and other musky sites I have no doubts that you would get that support. If you want it done take the initiative, dont come on here telling us that we need to do something. I have never fished any of the lakes you have mentioned, but I would definately support raising a size limit and would round up as many people as I can to vote, like I do every year. | |
| | |
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Pointer- Nice reply!
As for the base question. Yes, definitely on some waters. f.ex the WI River below the Castle Rock Dam. Above the dam it's 45", and below the dam it's 34". Does that make sense?
This whole process of setting size limits via the WCC is idiotic. The limit's, etc. need to be set by the WI DNR fisheries biologist responsible for that water. I'm personnally tired of hearing the muskies are eating all my walleyes-crappies-bluegills-bass-perch............................
Al | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr Musky,
'Warm and fuzzy' hardly describes the result, optimistic that it happened and can happen elsewhere is more like it.
Change in Wisconsin is a process, not an event. Local support and sponsorship has to happen first. Know anyone ready to step up who is influential on the lakes you listed? I'd be considered an 'outsider' on all of that water and would have a nasty uphill battle just to get something started.
The slot would only work on a few bodies of water, that's up to the biologists and THEN the general public of which we are a small minority.
LVD might be a good candidate for a change, Twin definitely is. Trout might fly, but local support may be pretty weak. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | There does seem to be a shift in public opinion on musky issues. I believe every musky issue passed state wide last year at the spring hearings. I don’t know if more musky fishermen are showing up or if the non-musky fishing public is starting to understand the importance protecting the resource for future generations. Either way the last couple of years the old guard of “fish are meant to be caught kept and eaten” have not shown up in force.
We should take advantage of that, and try for a few more lakes with increased size limits or protected slots.
MrMusky posted some good lakes that could benefit, there are others. I think the best place for increased length limits to SHOW there worth are on higher density trophy waters if that makes sense.
For example Clear Lake in Oneida County has a 50” limit, but the lake is very difficult to fish and has a very low density of musky. The benefit of the limit is still there, but is much harder to see, because it is plan hard to catch fish on a lake like that, Trout could fall in to that category. Not saying it shouldn’t have the 50” limit though. LVD would be a great lake for a 50” limit, for most of the same reasons it is good for Pelican. The Wisconsin River would be another great place for a higher limits. From Tomahawk all the way up to Eagle River. The Eagle River chain may be a good place for a protected slot. Lake Tom and Minocqua would also be good bodies of water for a change.
What needs to happen is the body of water in question needs to have a champion who will do most of the dirty work and keep the effort going though each of the steps without taking the eye off the ball. Then when the important votes come up Musky fishermen need to show up in support. This is what happened with Pelican and it worked to a T. Every time we needed support lots of musky guys showed up to help. That’s what needs to happen and make this work.
The best strategy is one lake at a time that way all the facts can be presented in a clear manor to less total people, it just seems to make things clearer and easier.
That being said the State Wide limit could easily go to 40” in fact when it was raised to 34 it was supposed to be raised two years later to 36, but because of spearing issues that all got stopped in process because there was bigger issues for people to worry about. There will still be a need for special lower limits on lakes of 28 inches, 34 inches and the higher limits.
I have an outline of the process, I did for the Pelican Lake Proposal, that I can post if people are interested in what I thought the best way to handle the procedure was.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Al, it just happened that way on the WI river. In fact, we originally were going to push for Petenwell alone, but decided to try to incorporate all local waters that our clubs stock, along with the local waters that the DNR stocks. Now, at the time of my proposals, I asked for help from others in adjoining counties that could take up the pursuit for themselves in their areas after I'd written the proposal, and add more miles to the new limit. Some people from portage Co. contacted me, and it was decided to extend the proposal to Dubay dam. One cannot argue that the river stretches we chose, were not in dire need of more protection. Now, do I feel that there are more miles of the river that need help? Of course. And the stretch you mention is one of them. And, if you wait for your local biologist to push for the change you'll be an old/er(LOLOL) man. I don't particularily love the process either, but it is what we have. We chose an area that needed protection, and even bit off a bit more than we could chew at the time and got pretty 'lucky' to get the amount of water changed, that we did.
That said, I'll be first in line to help you with your stretch of river there, with examples of the original resolution, and assistance in gaining local support. Gimme a ring when you want to get started. It should be soon.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/25/2007 10:01 AM
| |
| | |
| Now, do I feel that there are more miles of the river that need help? Of course. And the stretch you mention is one of them.
perhaps a chunk starting from the Castle Rock dam down through the Dells, Portage, Lake Wisconsin, and past the Prairie du Sac dam as far as the Hwy 12/78 bridge in Sauk City?
below the Prairie du Sac dam seems to be another of the places that some bigger fish get taken every year, especially in the spring and fall when they're concentrated in an area that's relatively easy to fish. Lake Wisconsin is known to produce fish over 50".
i'd be happy to help in any way needed - especially in Columbia and Sauk counties. the Columbia Co. DNR folks are pretty reasonable, and one of the key Conserv. Congress members is the owner of the local sporting goods store in Portage. there was general support for muskie issues at the last couple Congress meetings, and the local non-river muskie lakes already have 40" limits.
Jason, could you send me the info you talked about?
Al, perhaps you could tackle the Adams/Juneau Co. side?
i'd also like to chat with them about opening a couple more of the lakes in Columbia Co. to motor trolling.
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Amen to those of you that woke up and see slots as the way to go on some lakes. I have preached this for years now and written many letters to people about it and got input from many sources. It can be a very valuable tool in muskie management.
Statew wide 50 inch limit, no way would this ever pass. As said it could harm some lakes. On some lakes yes but a hard sell. Thats where I believe slots come in. Slot limits be a much easier sell to the general public.
Now my question is why all of a sudden are people saying slot limits is the way to go. What changed your minds or turned the light on for you?
Pfeiff
Ulbain ty for bringing it up and I to am surprised that you not get all kinds of crap about it.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 5/25/2007 11:14 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Many people are still unaquainted with the reason and whyfore to slot limits. Re read this thread and you will note that there is no widespread acclaim for slots.
I think the problems with slots are very real and the value in slots very questionable when looking at the big picture. I am not surprised to see Pfeif still cheerleading the slots as the way to go( he has been in favor of them for some time). I still feel that most really vocal proponents of slots are tourney fisherman rather than the larger set of musky fisherman, and I can understand, slots make tourneys much more viable when you can claim all the 30-39 1/2 inch fish as legal, and don't have to write off the majority of the population as non tourney eligible. I consider this a selfish but fair motivation and I believe most of us are motivated toward our own image of what we believe best for the resource, within the boundaries of how we each utilize it(selfish also, even mine). Obviously tourney fisherman have different views, and regs that would serve them specifically might not serve the resource best as a whole.
I still feel that slots require a lake with excellent natural reproduction, an actual overabundance of fish, and insufficient habitat and food resources for those fish to grow large. Yes there are some lakes like this in WI, not enough, but some. The next critical question that I would ask is, "What is wrong with this type of lake?". Personally I am very happy we have these types of lakes and view them as good places for beginners to go and experience the musky as an achievable goal, perhaps several times in a trip. These limited high NR lakes are still a resource in my opinion, not a problem to be solved. I don't feel we need every lake to produce 50" musky. I don't see it as a need nor as a viable goal in the management plan. It aint broke, don't fix it.
If you extend slots to other waters without excellent natural reproduction you find, #1 population is not a limiting factor on growth #2 a slot limit would have just eliminate females outside the slot at a young age, and these will be just as dead as those harvested at 42" to 48" and you can't grow fish that have already been harvested. #3 the fishing public is varied in the education and enlightenment of its many factions, it is difficult to disseminate information about the harvest of small musky without at least some cognitive interference with the long expressed message of catch and thrill, not catch and kill.
With the current regs there are many different allowable harvest sizes for varying fishing goals and I once again do not see the need to fix something that is not broken. There are many waters in WI that have 40" or better size limits for harvest, and some of these waters are probably stockpiling the majority of males in the population for long periods of time or potentially for ever in many cases because they are just not reaching 40" or taking extended periods to finally reach it, and in most cases they aren't being harvested even then. As a selfish musky fisherman, I don't mind this at all but realize to an occasional fisherman or a tourist fisherman visiting once a year for a week, a 34-40" musky may still be a heck of a trophy. As a onetime tourist weekly fisherman I can understand that view too, and sympathize with that particular fisherman. I don't really know that my needs and desires are any more important than theirs, but in my selfish self interest, I will try and impose my goals on them. | |
| | |
Posts: 5161
| I am glad to see the support of the slot limit,I really am shocked.I have never kept a fish, but there are lakes in Wisconsin that need some selective harvest.It is really great to see the evolution of muskie minds throughout the years.Bill Ramsey
Edited by 0723 5/28/2007 7:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Firstsixfeet as usual you are way off base. Tournament fishing never has had one thing to do with my reason for slot limits. You should also know by now that I've NOT said on every lake slots should be applied. This is a tool that could be used on some lakes and even possibly only for a matter of several years. It has been said by D.N.R biologist that it could be a valuable tool.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What happened to Mr. Musky? Asked to take some initiative and he disapears...I guess changing those limits on the lakes he mentioned only need changing if someone else will do it. The resources are there for you to get the ball rolling Mr. Musky, instead of complaing about it, why not actually DO something about it? | |
| | |
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg- Thanks for the offer. I've got to come up to WI Rapids later this week to see Mike H. Perhap's we can meet at your favorite watering hole. I'd be happy to buy you a PBR. Please call me at my home office # 608-847-6123.
The owner of Dan's Dam Bait Shop at the CR Dam is 100% behind getting the size limit below the dam boosted to 45". I'm also getting some of Brad Waldera's (Derrys on MF) "What Muskies Really Eat" flyer's printed for Dan to pass out.
Lambeau- I'm up for getting it on the table & passed. I'd personally like to see it at 50". But that's probably a hard sell- But I think 45" should be reasonable for those sections.
Al | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| 0723 - 5/26/2007 1:48 PM
I am glad to see the support of the slot limit,I really am shocked.I have never kept a fish, but there are lakes in Wisconsin that need some selective harvest.i\It is really great to see the evolution of muskie minds throughout the years.Bill Ramsey
Really? What lakes in WI NEED selective harvest by hook and line fishing for musky. Interested in your answer. I would like to know. Remember that these same lakes could be selectively managed by netting without a net loss of fish population. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Don Pfeiffer - 5/26/2007 5:52 PM
Firstsixfeet as usual you are way off base. Tournament fishing never has had one thing to do with my reason for slot limits. You should also know by now that I've NOT said on every lake slots should be applied. This is a tool that could be used on some lakes and even possibly only for a matter of several years. It has been said by D.N.R biologist that it could be a valuable tool.
Pfeiff
Don you put that shoe on. I don't see anywhere that I accuse you of being in favor of it for tournaments. Your motivation could be for guiding purposes, publicity, cookouts, or you may just feel it would benefit the resource. I would be interested in your take as to how this would benefit the resource and the major consumers of the resource, ie musky fisherman. I continue to hold that encouraging musky kill, like you want to do, is a self defeating path in the overall management of the musky resource. For years we have all made dedicated efforts to stop or slow kill, and in this one missguided(my opinion)management path we can reverse all those years of education and enlightenment. I have yet to see you explain the problems of heavy musky populations in certain lakes and WHY they would need to be reduced by killing fish, in the first place. I continue to hold that lakes like Tiger Cat, Teal and LLL, Day, Ballard and some of the few other high population, limited trophy lakes, are not problems to be solved, they are delightful pieces of the complex and widely varied waters comprising the greatest musky resource in the WORLD. I highly respect waters where I can put 8 muskies in the boat in a day and have, and I question whether I would ever want that resource tampered with in any way. Nope, wait... I don't question it, I really don't want that resource tampered with at all. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | First of I did not say or claim there was a widespread acclaim for slots!!!!!!!!
2nd I am a tounament angler and you accuse them of wanting slots so I guess thats me!!!!!!!!!!!
3rd you twist everything I say.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Spider Chain in Hayward needs some selective harvest. There is one lake, I'm sure there are more, just ask Dave N.
Selective Harvest is effective if implemented on the correct lake
Slot Limits are effective if implemented on the correct lake
Trophy Classificatioin is effective if implemented on the correct lake
I would be up for raising the statewide limit to 38 inches, after that have special regulations for various bodies of water, whether that special regulation be a slot or trophy classification would depend on the lake. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure I will have an article By Dave Neuswanger about this very subject soon. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/27/2007 6:49 PM
Spider Chain in Hayward needs some selective harvest. There is one lake, I'm sure there are more, just ask Dave N.
Selective Harvest is effective if implemented on the correct lake
Slot Limits are effective if implemented on the correct lake
Trophy Classificatioin is effective if implemented on the correct lake
I would be up for raising the statewide limit to 38 inches, after that have special regulations for various bodies of water, whether that special regulation be a slot or trophy classification would depend on the lake.
Once again, WHY does the Spider Chain NEED "selective harvest"? You state this like it is a known fact. My feeling is that the Spider chain is just another facet of the many faceted musky resource. Is there a management credo or some unspoken rule somewhere that states lakes with great populations of smaller musky need to have fish killed, and that there is something wrong with heavy populations of smaller fish? Is the abundant musky population impacting some other gamefish in the lake in a negative way? I don't think fish managers automatically come to this conclusion, or at least they shouldn't. Good numbers, of smaller musky often represent a great action resource for beginning fisherman. There should not be a knee jerk reaction among fisherman, and certainly not among managers that this is somehow a problem. I think the idea of any high population density of musky being a problem is very questionable in the first place and really requiring some well thought out discussion before there is a move to change the population structure of such water, and then if such decisions are made, there needs to be real thought put into whether killing fish is the answer or whether transfer could be used as an alternative. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Why do you think it doesnt? What are you basing your opinions on? My opinions are that remove a significant amount of the muskies in the Spider Chain and produce some bigger fish. The common theme around the vast majority of the musky world is to produce the biggest fish, in the least amount of time. How do you know that the Spider couldnt support some trophy muskies as well as a good population of smaller fish to make it a all around great fishery? Do I know that it could do this, no but I do believe that a 35" fish shouldnt be conisidered the big fish of a body of water.
As to killing vs. transfering fish, this seems all well and good but now that we have a panic of VHS it is likely that this would not be a viable option.
| |
| | |
| Firstsixfeet,
HOLY COW!!! I can't believe what you wrote about the tournament angler being in favor of the slot limits because of some sort of selfish reasons. I can remember a few years back, when the proposed 50" size limits on many lakes in Wisconsin was defeated and there was a serious discussion shortly after on another popular muskie fishing web site message board and those folks, some very well known in the muskie world, said that the slot limits would also never pass due to the opposition that slot limits would get from tournament organizers and tournament anglers. I will repeat...HOLY COW!!! Here we go again. The muskie tournament guy must be the biggest villain in the world of muskie fishing by some folks reckoning.
Firstsixfeet, I don't know who you are, your background in muskie fishing, or where you reside but it is apparent to me and to anyone who knows about the rules governing muskie tournaments here in the state of Wisconsin, that you are certainly not familar with Wisconsin rules for tournament fishing. As far as muskie tournaments go in Wisconsin, it doesn't matter if the lake has a 34" limit, or 40" limit, a 54" or 50" limit or a slot limit for that matter, all muskies of any size could be registered in a muskie tournament if the muskie is not possessed no matter the size limit or if the lake has a slot limit. You are way out of line accussing tournament anglers and tournament organizers of putting their own interest before the resource, just because they have a different idea of what is best for the muskie fishery. I can't believe that you have actualy implied that you have your finger on the pulse of the muskie fishing world and you know what most of us are thinking and what we want...A very bold statement indeed!!! I can tell you one thing...I know Don Pfeiffer and his integrity should never be in question and if he says that he feels that slot limits would benefit the muskie fishery, then that is exactly how he feels, without your implied ulterior motives. I will say that I do agree with Don that slot limits can work for all muskie waters but I don't think Don and I see eye to eye on the protected slot. I have a little different take on how the slot limits sould be implemented that would infact mimic what would happen naturally on any given lake that would be more in harmony with the ecosystem than any randomly chosen un-scientific size limits that are inflicted on the lakes today.
Thanks and I hope that you all have a great season,
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sheesh. | |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion |
BURRRRRRNNN!!!!!!! Oh I mean Sheesh, sorry
Sworrall, thats a great word . thanks
Jerome | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/27/2007 8:58 PM
Why do you think it doesnt? What are you basing your opinions on? My opinions are that remove a significant amount of the muskies in the Spider Chain and produce some bigger fish. The common theme around the vast majority of the musky world is to produce the biggest fish, in the least amount of time. How do you know that the Spider couldnt support some trophy muskies as well as a good population of smaller fish to make it a all around great fishery? Do I know that it could do this, no but I do believe that a 35" fish shouldnt be conisidered the big fish of a body of water.
As to killing vs. transfering fish, this seems all well and good but now that we have a panic of VHS it is likely that this would not be a viable option.
Once again, WHY?
Is there a biological NEED to do this? I would think that if anything, the musky population is robust. You are inferring that all musky waters need to be managed with the same end goal, large fish in the least amount of time. Not true. No need to do that, particularly in WI with the many varied waters available. I don't think there is a NEED or REQUIREMENT for all lakes and waters to produce large muskies on a regular basis. I don't think that having a multitude of smaller fish in a body of water represents a problem to be solved or some kind of management failure that needs correcting. I think it is a darn good place to fish for musky.
I would caution and remind many of our "fish managers" here(I include myself)that "doing NOTHING" is a viable course of action, and often the correct course to follow, particularly when things are going well and sustaining well.
If every fisherman was bright, easily educated, skilled in understanding the nuances involved in fisheries management, I could even see fiddling with musky kill as a management tool. However, they aren't, and I have seen the long term and sometimes difficult process of education succeed to at least a moderately high level over the years and I feel that this is also something that is NOT broke and doesn't need fixing. The message is fairly simple, and imo we do not need a group of confused anglers running around telling their friends and walleye/panfish anglers that there are too many muskies now, and that they need to kill some. Thinning muskys will be jumped on by the anti musky group in a big way. They will love the message it sends. | |
| | |
Posts: 5161
| My first choice for selective harvest is callahan/mud lake close to the Chip flowage. A bunch of fish there many never get over 30 inches that would be a great place to take fish out and put them in another lake.If you have any more questions six feet feel free to ask.0723 Bill ramsey | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| To Don P and Tom M,
I think it is fine for you to disagree with me, and I welcome your input anytime in musky discussions. I would have replied "sheesh" myself to your diatribe, however, dang that Sworall, he used it first!
I think when getting on these boards and getting into a discussion which obviously interests both of you, it would do you well to take the time to closely read other's comments, and reply to what is actually stated, rather than replying to what you think might have been stated. Both of you have gone off on tangents, starting with a reply to "your interpretation", at best, of something that I did not actually state anywhere in the posts. I am not offended particularly, but what I have actually written is much less antagonistic than your missinterpretation of it. Please take enough time to make valid responses to what is ACTUALLY posted, rather than immediately escalating things into some kind of personal back and forth based on misscomprehension or a quick and less than thorough reading of my message. If you feel some of my points are ambiguos or need further clarification, I will be happy to restate and clarify.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| 0723 - 5/28/2007 7:20 AM
My first choice for selective harvest is callahan/mud lake close to the Chip flowage. A bunch of fish there many never get over 30 inches that would be a great place to take fish out and put them in another lake.If you have any more questions six feet feel free to ask.0723 Bill ramsey
Is there a biological need to thin this population out? Are the fish stocks distressed or suffering in some way?
I still think people are jumping to an unwarranted assumption that abundant small muskies in a limited number of waters is somehow a bad thing.
Why not accept these waters as a viable portion of the overall resource?
If I want somebody to just catch a musky I am not going to be taking them to Couderay or Round lake if I have a choice.
If I want somebody to catch a 50 inch musky, I am not taking them to Mud lake if I have a choice.
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
Edited by firstsixfeet 5/28/2007 7:58 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | firstsixfeet - 5/28/2007 7:55 AM
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
:)
Because the general fishing public has no education in the field of fisheries management. If a lake is only producing fish that grow to no larger than 30 inches, biologically something is wrong. Why is there something wrong? Because muskies can reach upwards of 60 inches. Fish that only reach 30 inches are not the fittest muskies. They are weaker fish. That is what is biologiacally wrong. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Your post about addressing the issues discussed rather than an emotional tangent is REALLY relevant to the discussions here the last couple weeks. It's like folks are emotionally back in January.
I know of one lake for which a slot has been under discussion; Butternut. The DNR originally wanted to transfer fish to LCO but decided not to after genetic tests by Dr. Sloss's lab. I think local meetings, a signature of Dave Neuswanger's refreshing approach to managing waters across NW Wisconsin (which I personally believe the rest of the state could try out) and the surveys recently on that water, indicated the lake that HAD produced trophy fish and good numbers which is the desired goal, but is now overpopulated to a degree that something needs to be done to meet the management objectives the public and DNR like for that water. That's the process I think you are looking for, correct? Management based on goals set by the DNR in concert with the public.
I believe the number of adult fish that were going to be transferred was 500. Some had suggested that those fish be captured and transferred to waters that do not have any muskies right now. Imagine what needs to be done (again, nothing to do with FISH management and biology) to make THAT happen...
Fisheries management is as much an exercise in sociology/psychology/public relations/politics as actual management of the fishery. Especially here...... thanks Aldo.
One hurdle I see is the strength of the C&R ethic out there. It's obvious that the anglers fishing Butternut are not harvesting fish in sufficient numbers right now, so what would motivate them to do so later? There may be a few folks that actually catch enough fish to make the difference, but how many will be harvested? This is more than (and less than, as you eloquently pointed out) a strict management issue, it crosses over into social issues and our behavior as Muskie fishermen.
Dave is forwarding an article on the subject to me soon. I'll let everyone know when it's posted. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/28/2007 8:16 AM
firstsixfeet - 5/28/2007 7:55 AM
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
:)
Because the general fishing public has no education in the field of fisheries management. If a lake is only producing fish that grow to no larger than 30 inches, biologically something is wrong. Why is there something wrong? Because muskies can reach upwards of 60 inches. Fish that only reach 30 inches are not the fittest muskies. They are weaker fish. That is what is biologiacally wrong.
Once again, I believe you have reached a conclusion unmerritted by the facts. You are not dealing with cause and effect here(imo). They are, from everything I know about them a fit and vigorous population. They are vigorous breeders, have filled their niche to the brim, overwinter successfully year after year, strike lures and fight like any other musky of similar size. Is there logic in your claim that the fish in Tiger are not fit, or your claim that they are weak? I think it is a mistake to equate size with so called "fitness or strength". I believe that is an unfortunate plate handed out by the group trying to influence WI musky management, by pointing across the border at MN and suggesting WI muskie strains in comparison are somehow weaker, and mutts(based primarily on mature lenght). Ths Shoepac strain is not an unfit or weak strain of musky, though ultimately smaller at maturity. They evolved to fill a niche and fill it successfully.
I still don't get over excited with any definition that defines the "goodness" of muskies, by the bigness of muskies. Many populations, many enviroments, many biological inputs on those populations are naturally going to produce different population "profiles" for each body of water. I think we are shortchanging the resource by deciding that one "profile" is automatically desirable for all waters, and I think ultimately any such decision could cheat musky fisherman and particularly beginning musky fisherman.
Too many muskies. Not a problem in my boat. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Also, Butternut is an interesting situation. It will be an interesting case study as it proceeds, but imo, it is not a blueprint for WI musky mgmt of all high population, smaller sized fish.
Somewhat interesting is the fact that there is NO real hard data as to what has gone on in that lake other than a rise in the population. There are still a lot of questions as to the root of the problem imo. Was this a problem of one or two great hatches of fish causing a major shift in the size structure or something else entirely? | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | I'm surprised this horse has any recognizable features...
FSF, excellent points. I happen to agree totally. The other side of the argument may be taking an elitist turn??  Those overpopulated populations are anything thing but lacking in fitness, actually the most fit. In ecology the currency of fitness can take many forms, but it most commonly refers to reproductive output as Darwin intended. Just a little semantics. I think the armchair biologists see a problem like an over abundance of small fish, and immediately cry wolf without taking the approach as FSF describes. Sure you might be able to manipulate things enough so that the populations grows "normally", but perhaps this is the only fishery of its kind in the area. Why ruin that?
Take any given day in Vilas Co. There will ALWAYS be more rigs parked at Ballard or Wildcat than at Star which is just down the road from Ballard. Why would this be when the first two lakes are loaded up with "dinks" and Star is "normal". Oh yeah, because you can pop 3 fish in a trip and see a dozen more. There are probably more angler hours on the first two lakes every year than the top five big fish lakes in the whole county combined. Now if nobody fished these lakes because the fish were small, then I could see a need for mgt action.
Edited by tfootstalker 5/28/2007 10:21 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the age and size structure in the lake prompted the DNR to believe Butternut was 'overstocked' for a number of years. I'd have to go back through the literature, but I remember that from a couple conversations.
I don't see anyone saying they believe Muskie slot limits to be a needed widespread management tool; I think what is being said through the thick veil of all the personal infighting is some feel some waters would benefit based upon the goals the local folks, regular anglers fishing that water, and the DNR have in mind for the Muskie population there. Others are saying 'Why do you think that? From my perspective, that lake is fine as a "fill-in-this-blank-" lake.
FSF is asking for proponents of slot limits what the end gain and goals might be, and are the goals what is 'best' for that water.
Undercurrent of all of this is the idea that slot limits are a trophy management tool for Muskies. I'll let the working fisheries managers managing muskies in the field talk to that. As I have said, Dave is submitting an article soon.
What did I miss? | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | FSF,
You ask me to bring up facts of why I think that selective harvest should be implemented on Spider Chain. I dont have facts, but then again, do you have facts on why it should not be implemented? Can you say for certain that other game fish are not being affected by an overabundant population of muskies? My point is, that if the other game fish are being affected by the large population of muskies than something should be done to reduce the population of muskies.
I do agree with you that action lakes, such as Spider Chain, are great lakes for the beginner or for someone out to just put some fish in the boat, but if this comes at a cost to the other game fish in the lake, then something needs to be done. We all get sick of hearing the muskies are eating all my walleyes, perch, gills etc...but if the people who have formulated that opinion are seeing this on lakes that have an overabundance of muskies, then it will be tough for us to switch that opinion. I am not saying that I believe muskies are eating all our walleyes etc., we are eating all our walleyes.
I dont have the facts about Spider Chain, but the people that I have talked to that fish this lake would love to see some fish removed in hopes to get some bigger fish in there.
It will be interesting to read the article by Dave N. A good debate no less!
| |
| | |
Posts: 8776
| I would like to be the first to thank Dave N for continuing to partcipate in these discussions despite the bickering, misinformation, babbling, diatribes, accusations, insults, and other various "my panties are all in a bunch" responses that always come up when we discuss WI's musky management strategies.
Why did I post that?
Because having a real life biologist around to tell us what is really going on is 10 times more valuable to me than 25 unfounded opinions.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled p---ing contest... | |
| | |
| esoxaddict - 5/29/2007 10:45 AM
I would like to be the first to thank Dave N for continuing to partcipate in these discussions despite the bickering, misinformation, babbling, diatribes, accusations, insults, and other various "my panties are all in a bunch" responses that always come up when we discuss WI's musky management strategies.
Why did I post that?
Because having a real life biologist around to tell us what is really going on is 10 times more valuable to me than 25 unfounded opinions.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled p---ing contest...
None should get too attached to their opinions in these discussions, and for the most part, I don't see this as a p contest. Is every conflict of opinion doomed to such interpretation from certain posters? I guess.
Fortunate or unfortunate, I don't believe there is a biological "need" to change management on most of these waters, and I would expect Dave N to confirm that. The question will become that of opinion, and I am in favor of getting my opinion out there early. I also think both sides of the issue are important to consider.
I think there is too much investments in the "big musky good, small musky bad" school of thought and I don't think it is fair to fisherman and their many goals, nor to the resource itself. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | I think there is too much investments in the "big musky good, small musky bad" school of thought and I don't think it is fair to fisherman and their many goals, nor to the resource itself.
good point | |
| | |
| Wow sure some interesting debates going on here!! Well I have my personal opion on a talked about lake allready. We used to fish Wildcat in Boulder Jct every opening weekend since I was 17 and old enough to drive and get into into the Boulder Beer Bar this was back in 95' but we'd always go to Wildcat have a blast see a bunch of fish and catch a bunch. One of the first time's up there we walked into the Boulder Beer Bar after fishing all day and the locals said well how'd ya do? we said 12. they said 12 what? we said musky's. We got laughed right out of the BBB and back to the campground in about 2.2 now we were just being honest!! The biggest was 35 inches!! The majority were 28 to 30. Now 7 years went by and it was 2002 or something and i was reading this new book called Time on the water by Bill Gardner. A guy who quit his job to fish everyday for a whole season in Boulder Jct. Well instead of telling you about the book you should defintitely check it out but my suprise was that he was fishing that lake (Wildcat) back in 1980 and those fish were the same size and considered to be dinks back then!! How can a lake for that many years still produce dink muskys!!!!!!!! You'd think a few of them would grow up a fuzz!! I'd like to see a bunch of smaller fish harvested in the hopes that a few fish maker over 40 which I have never seen or heard of out there!!
My Two Cents
Mr Musky | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Managing Muskies, A GOAL ORIENTED SELECTIVE HARVEST APPROACH.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.30.2007/1213/Managing.M...
Thanks for the article sir!! | |
| | |
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | Excellent article. It should have its own thread. I would love to see this article in the newspapers in Vilas and Onieda Counties. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Very good article and I hope everyone at this site reads it. I won't add to it but to say Amen its time has come and slots are on the way sometime in the near future.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Bad plan, imo.
No "compelling reason" to do this.
Multiple waters and mgmt plans and mature fish sizes available to anglers.
I think this is pointed directly at the one fish one management "goal" school of fish regs, and Dave is tinkering with something that is not broken in an attempt to "fix" it by adding more 38" fish to the mix at unknown expense to the resource and the reproductive status of the fish, and basically doing it with no knowledge that the increased kill is actually going to result in a discernable increase in 38" fish. What shows in the net is not neccessarily what shows up at boatside.
WE have just supplied tremendous ammo to No More Musky groups, and Joe Blow has been assuaged of any reluctance to kill a juvenile, yet legal musky, since he will now report, "Well, I read how there were too many musky and they needed to be thinned out."
Welcome to the new era of Musky Kill.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Dave,
Great article and great plan! When do you plan on proposing the regualtion changes.
Welcome to the new era of Musky Kill on waters that need it. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it makes sense that managing the fisheries to accomodate the users (and remember the users are varied in approach, interests and results) but to do it in a way that will guide people to waters that will accomplish their goals and do it in a way that is productive makes all the sense in the world to me. folks who want to harvest should tend toward harvest lakes and take the ones that meets management goals rather than the ones needing to stay and then those c&r trophy hunters will have their waters too.
improvement takes on many hats and it all depends on the perspective you are viewing it from. i applaud Dave for looking at the whole with the interest to improve management where and when it applies.
i know i've stated this before, but i've experienced waters where slot management applied and the results are impressive. over time improvement will happen, but until then those educated with the ability to "improve" will be shot at by people who know all.
of course all fish strike in the first six feet too ... and of course i mean this in the nicest possible way ... | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Well, gee, I guess if I "knew all" I would not have to qualify my remarks with such words as "imo", and such terms as "I think".
I'm still waiting for the "compelling reason" to do this. I question it's existence. Dave hasn't put forth the compelling reason argument imo, and I find it hard to point to a healthy, vibrant musky fishery with excellent reproduction, and a lake filled with healthy fish, as needing "fixing". "Improvement" of such a population is in the eyes of the beholder, I don't see it written in stone somewhere. Some might consider that, rather than attempting to post little zingers. Is there some golden rule of musky management in terms of population, growth rate and maximum size, I am not aware of??? IF there is such a rule please direct me to it. Do we kill muskies until the bass population booms and the largemouth fingerlings do the rest of it for us? Will we reach true happiness with a skinny 46-48 inch fish and an occasional encounter with muskies out in the boat? Is there something wrong with frequent encounters with smaller fish, that will be corrected by infrequent or rare encounters with larger fish?
It is not a question whether the population dynamics on these lakes can be changed, or whether heavy musky harvest can change them. They can. I won't even argue that. The real question is whether or not this is a good thing, and whether or not it is something even worth doing as a part of the big picture of musky management. I don't think it is, and in fact think it is a bad thing, and fixes something that isn't anywhere near being broke. But that is just my opinion and I don't know that. You guys might consider Canada and their approach to the same set of variables. There are a number of lakes up there with heavy populations of small musky(of course their equilibrium point in terms of size is bigger than the lakes we are talking about in northern WI, but relative to the musky fishing in Canada, they are small fish lakes), they are not attempting to correct the population and size profile in those lakes from what I understand(unfortunately I have never got to go there and fish but maybe someday).
These lakes have reached an equilibrium point. Dave's plan will attempt to change that equilibrium, and throw the lake out of balance and hope to reach a new equilibrium that most consumers somehow feel is a better endpoint. I don't think that everybody has considered the Law Of Unforeseen Consequences. At this point in time, everyone still has time to take this into consideration, and avoid the unwelcome discoveries so often associated with that law.
I also think Dave is badly underestimating the backlash and negative education effect that this regulations and information are going to create. But I just think it, in the nicest possible way....
Edited by firstsixfeet 6/6/2007 6:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | might be time to at least consider the figure 8 though ... you might just be surprised and get ate at the boat ... metaphorically speaking of course. the fisheries biologists aren't just random people out there hoping to upset a good thing, but employed with credentials to manage fisheries to their potential based upon the value provided to the overall use of the waters which includes some people without the same attitudes of our own and until that changes i expect that they are doing enough research with enough education and experience to do things with a thoughout plan and not haphazardly. you seem to be interested in a lake with multiple male populations that are easier to catch ... that's fine and suits what you want, it just doesn't suit the agenda of the wdnr based on their goals as set by the state ... to me, i'd like to see a slot on every lake, but that's also based on my limited experience of success somewhere else ... chances are a person leading the effort with the education and experience behind him will make a better call than the one i would make with passion. your passion is not being criticized here but not unlike the lynch mob that tried and seemed to finally fail the inferior strain argument, the management of our natural resources is best left to the experts and is nothing but silly coming from passionate observers ... the point is skewed from that perspective and is self-serving at best.
there's a fish under the boat that followed you in ... and there's a good chance it will eat. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Hey Guys (firstsixfeet and jonnysled)....
It's not my wish to create tension between two good guys on this forum. Over the past couple years, you have both asked excellent, probing questions and have done so with respect for my opinion and the opinions of others. Hopefully we can find some common ground here.
I think one of the things firstsixfeet needs to know is that I am not driving the agenda for the waters where slot limits are under consideration by my staff. Local anglers with a strong stake in those fisheries are telling us during 4-hour planning sessions what they want in the way of species, numbers, and sizes. We are hearing there IS SIGNIFICANT VALUE in some of these "numbers" fisheries. Nobody is telling us they want to see density reduced on such waters from 1.5 per acre to 0.2 per acre so that average size caught can increase from 28 inches (and nothing over 40) to 38 inches (and some up to 50). That would be too great a sacrifice of numbers for size. But they ARE telling us that catching one fish after another under 30 inches long, day in and day out, is not meeting their expectations. They want somewhat fewer and somewhat larger muskies in their idealized "numbers" fishery. Now, high numbers of very small fish might meet the expectations of a few folks, including firstsixfeet; and he certainly is entitled to his preferences on such waters. I just hope that he will understand that I must listen to the preferences and desires of the MAJORITY, and then plan our management strategies in response to that majority interest provided we are not "fighting Mother Nature" by trying to create unrealistic fish community structures. I think my professional biologists are in the best position to judge the latter.
Please keep in mind, too, that it's not all about muskies (a dangerous thing to say here, I realize!). Our management must consider other species and angler interests as well. In some cases, there are SO many small, hungry, slow-growing muskellunge that we may be seeing adverse effects on other, more important, species in the fish community. The same thing can happen when ANY species is over-protected and becomes over-populated. A case in point is largemouth bass, which we have protected to the point where they may be adversely affecting both walleye AND musky recruitment in some waters.
Bottom line is that we are trying to be responsive to the majority interest and are looking at the big picture with respect to what is possible and desirable. Will appreciate everyone giving that approach a chance to work. Thanks guys.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | good points Dave and the ones i am learning to support. the view from this pc is that although we all have selfish interests based on our own enjoyment of the water ... we do share it with those that don't agree with us and have representation that your department is accountable to. the reality is that there are harvestors in the musky world and i would think that under some of the proposed management strategies .. at least the way i read them, there will be places their interests could be best suited and other waters that suit catch and release anglers, but that it might be developed in such a way that selected harvest can be targeted in a way that protects potential spawners from harvest. it has proven itself in other geographies as you and i have discussed and if applied properly should benefit the whole given the current laws and limits. i spoke with some local walleye anglers here last night and it was interesting to hear them crying for similar measures to protect certain fish and be in a better position down the road.
the cynicism is all meant tongue-in-cheek fsf and i hope it comes in jest. the other words are merely a "counterpoint" view.
i'm a bit more protective, supportive of the dnr than most .... maybe because many are my neighbors and friends with kids that play with mine ... these people are intelligent and hard-working and deserve the respect for doing a very difficult job because they love to do it.
sled ... out | |
| | |
Posts: 8776
| I think we need to take a very close look at our idea of what is and isn't "broken" so to speak...
For many of the lakes in question, we dealing with a fishery that has reached its current state by human intervention, and not any sort of natural equilibrium between species. The DNR of today is a lot different from the DNR of 10 20 or 30 years ago. They now are facing the task of FIXING some of what has been done in the past, and trying to build a healthy and balanced ecosystem for ALL fish species. To some, a lake full of 30 inchers might not be "broken" but that doesn't change the fact that there is little resemblance to "balance" OR "equilibrium". Personally, I'd never go as far as to accuse the people who actually do that stuff for a living of making poor decisions -- if anybody knows what decisions need to be made, its the DNR biologists, and not the armchair biologists with their own interests at the forefront.
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Compelling reasons you ask for! I think if you have read the post and seen that its all about making a better muskie fishery on some lakes you'd see the compelling reason.
When catch and release first started it was hard to convince anglers to do so. Here years later it has become the thing to do with a success rate I never thought possable. Anglers can and will respond to slot limits with some caution. They will become more educated and it will become more successfull.
When I first started talking slots here a long time ago I was really blasted by most of you. Now that the d.n.r has come out and is finally thinking of doing it things are in starting to change. Thanks to Dave for for his articles and response to your questions. I guess that by repeating the good points for slots over and over again some of you have begun to realize it will work. Education of anglers is such a big factor in it working. Without the efforts of the anglers it will be doomed to failure. As anglers we need to embrace new management tools and give them our support.
Years back if we did not give catch and release a chance to work where would we be today? We have to give slots a try as a management tool the same way we did that.
Bigger size limits is not the only answer and Lambeau sized it up very well. Wisconsin leads the way I feel in its management of muskies. Its unfortunate that for some people its never enough or fast enough.
Pfeiff | |
| |
|
Does wisconsin need a bigger size limit???