|
|
| For everyones information every vote on the muskie size limit increases in Vilas Co passed by a land-slide. FINALLY we're starting to make progress, some of you don't realize how tough it's been over the years to get this done, now if we can only get a 40in passed state wide on the rest of are muskie waters.
The Chip-45ins Passed 118 to 2
Moose Lk- 40ins passed 111 to 1
Clear Lk- 50ins passed 113 to 2
Lake Michigan-Green Bay- 50ins passed 115 to 4[:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| We had the same results in Eau Claire Co. Don't know the specific numbers but they were all voted on and passed. COOL!!! |
|
| |
|
| Voting was done on computer ballots in Sauk County so we won't have totals until at least tomorrow. But, there was no oppositions to the reccomendations and afterwards comments were positive. Looks like we did good here too.
|
|
| |
|
| AS I said earlier on a post we have to be careful what we ask for. By increasing the size limit the D.N.R. will have to stock less and thats not a good thing. With catch and release working so well across the state. I feel that a bigger size limit will hurt if it is a 40 inch limit statewide. I will be sending sginatures and letters to the D.N.R. from me and others naming lakes that seldom produce a 40 inch muskie. Why would we want a 40 inch limit on lakes like that. I say again that the muskie is not an endangered fish and does not need the protection of a bigger size limit statewide. Next thing you know will behave trophy regulations on everything. The fish are there for all to enjoy and I just have to thnk the bigger size limits statewide are to please a few. I do not think it has ben really thought out. Please don't get me wrong I believe some lakes can handle a bigger size limit but not a 40 in statewide limit. This alone could make muskie tournaments a thing of the past. I have fished many tournaments on certain water where a 40 incher is seldom caught. NO one would win!!!!! These waters just do not have the strain or food source to produce big muskies and never will. If youmake the limit 60 inches your still going to catch mostly 32 to 38 inch fish. Take alook at the tournaments fished in wisconsin and you will see I am right. Be careful what you ask and wish for it might jump up and bite you in the butt.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| Totals for Eau Claire County as follows:
Green Bay 50" min. size limit, 142 yes----3 no
Clear Lake, Oneida County 50" 70 yes----7 no
Moose Lake, Sawyer County 40" 93 yes-----11 no
Chippewa Flowage Sawyer Co. 45" 110 yes---7 no
We also presented a resolution asking the state to increase the minimum size limits on 34" waters to 40" statewide.
It also passed 80 yes---12 no
we all left pumped up and smiling,
Fred J[:)] [;)] |
|
| |
|
| Guys I agree with Don. There's lakes out there that just don't have the ability to support a 40" minimum. I thought of introducing a resolution for giving the DNR the ability to raise the limit as they see appropriate on the lakes that would support larger limits. I couldn't figure out a way to word it properly though.
It would have to be worded giving the DNR the ability to dedcide which waters were capable of supporting larger fish and the ability to raise limits accordingly. I would also like to see it done without having to be brought up and voted on each spring too.
|
|
| |
|
| Seems to me that most of the people that fish the tourny trail(some talked to in person)are kinda opposed to the state wide 40" limit.Yes,it would make some outings almost impossible BUT seems to me that 40" statewide would be betterment of the whole state and if we start asking the D.N.R to pick and choose lakes its going to put a damper on what alot of people are trying for!Many things after last night are heading in the right direction and I for one will not be sending any rebuttal letters to change any resolutions!One step forward,two steps back is whats been happening in the past,I hope its all forward from here!One mans opinion! Jeff |
|
| |
|
| For the guys who do not agree with a statewide 40" limit. I have a question, what is the average % harvest of fish over 34"? It seems to me that C&R is done by the majority of fisherman and I don't hear of to many people doing C&K. So if you assume that 10% of fish caught are kept (and I would think this is a high percentage) how does a 40" limit hurt the fishery if the majority of people are releasing anyway?
The implication of your comments is that if everybody practiced C&R that this would be detrimental to the fishery? Am I understanding you comments correctly?
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Don, as a respected fisherman you have a very valid point, one that I some-what agree with and at one time I was with total agreement. You are correct when you say there are some eco-systems that won't support a 40in size limit with our current status quo, I have a few right in my own back-yard but there are many many that will and I would be willing to bet that all the systems in which tounaments are conducted would support a 40in (maybe not instantly but within a SHORT period of time) That brings us to the ones that would take some management so that they have a very good chance at reaching and sustaining a healthy 40in size limit. In talking with different fishiers bioligests and hearing bioligest Steve Gilbert give different senarios on what it would take to accomplish this, such as dealing with the lakes that have a over abundance of fish for the size of the eco-system or lack of forage in the same,(believe it or not, there are some lakes that have too many muskies in them to support a healthy fishery) they believe it could be managed or controlled by fike netting and moving some of the population to assure the growth of the remaining fish and or the stocking of a genetic fish that does have the capabilitys of attaining this size and keeping a heathy forage base. Granted, I to believe that no matter what is done there are some fish that will NEVER reach 35ins and probably a few lakes that this plan would fail with, but I also believe that there is no perfect plan (wouldn't it be nice though)and you have to be able to accept the good with the bad. There are some that would like to see an even higher state-wide size limit, I am NOT one of these, That in my opinion would damage or destroy more than a few eco-systems, on the flip side of that I think there are some lakes that need at least a 45in limit to produce and sustain a trophy fishery. Again Don, I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions, mine just differs on this. |
|
| |
|
| Don,
I enjoy fishing tournaments as much as anybody. The current Class system that WI uses could be changed to Class A waters receive a higher limit. Class B & C receive lower...But where is the staff and money coming from?
Overall if it means tournaments get canceled for awhile while the fish catch up to the laws.....In my opinion we'll all be better off. And so will our kids. |
|
| |
|
| Tournaments can still happen, you just can't put them in the livewell and drive them around if you have a sub 40".
Our chapter's tournament starts scoring at 34" and we have waters with 40" limits included in the tournament waters. To my knowledge, we have not had a problem with this.
Tournaments won't go away because of this. Some tournament formats might.
Jono
|
|
| |
|
| Don, Laura and I initiated the state wide 40 inch proposal in an effort to get Wisconsin back on it's feet. Before you get upset with this proposal, I think you should know that we researched this topick of a statewide 40 inch for WI for some time now. As a Wisconsin resident, I am tired of watching our own residents travel out of this state to pursue bigger fish in lakes with higher size limits in other states. With roughly 700 lakes the Wisconsin DNR does not have the fascilities or the manpower to stock to the levels that Indiana,Minnesota, and Illinois have. If you add the number of lakes in all three states you don't have even half the number of muskie lakes that Wisconsin has. This is where the problem lies. Wisconsin has the highest harvest in muskies inc. records by far. Wouldn't it be better to protect the fish until they reach 40 inches so they at least get a few spawning seasons in? This would at least make up for the fact that the WI DNR can not stock to the levels that the other states are doing now.
As far as tournament go, I thought you fished the PMTT on the Fox Chain in Illinois. Maybe you didn't. The limit on the fox chain is 48 inches but for tourneys they can register fish 34 inches and up by DNR approval. So there's no need to worry about tournament fishing and size limit changes. Everything will stay the same when it comes to tourneys in WI as long as they are run like the PMTT. That should be easy enough as you have fished the PMTT before and know that it is one of the best run tourney as far as protecting the fishery.
The last and probably most important aspect of changing the size limit to 40 inches in WI is that it has litterally made our surrounding states and Canada twice the fisheries that Wisconsin is now. If you know Doug Johnson ask him what higher size limits in canada have done. The fishing wasn't always great there. We are losing tourism dollar to other states and thats a shame. Even if a 40 inch change does nothing for the WI fishery, it gives people the percieved notion that there are bigger fish in the lakes and that's a start. It keeps the spending right where it should be; in WI. Right now the majority of the die hard muskie fisherman are going to Minnesota(statewide 40" with numerous 48" lakes), Canada(50"limit with 54" and C&R lakes), and Illinois(almost all lakes at 48"s). Would you as an outsider go to Wisconsin where the size limit is 34 inches? NO WAY!! And that is the reality of what is happening to Wisconsin.
Wanting to better the fishery is why Laura and I(with the help of many), proposed the 40" statewide in a bunch of counties last night. I would think you would want to better the fishery as well.
Ty Sennett
|
|
| |
|
| Well said Ty.
One thing on a personal level Ty & Don.
Not very many guys in this business stick up for what they beleive in. They prefer to not comment because it may affect what ever they are selling (lures, themselves, sponsors) You both are as packaged. we can take it or leave it. You also open yourselves up for a bunch of attacks by cowards who hide behind computers. I hope that you both don't go fish for bait or change your outspoken ways. It only helps this funny thing called muskie fishing. |
|
| |
|
| 2nd that Ty![:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Ty, yes I was at Fox Lake and I am aware there have been considerations made for tournaments. What I am saying is that on many of our lakes a 40 inch size is almost a joke. Even with the tremendous success of catch and release on most waters theses same waters seldom yield a 40 inch fish. I Yes I am in favore of a bigger size limit on many of great muskie waters that can produce trophy fish. What I do not understand is why some insist its is statewide. I think we have to also take into consideration the thought of an average fishermen and not just us musky diehards. Many think we are already a selfish group of anglers and and only think about trophies, I hate to think that is what we are all becoming. Fishing is a sport, meant to be fun and meant to create memories. The musky population in wisconsin is not in any danger from over harvest. If catch and release is working then let it work and let the person that wants to keep one once in awhile keep it. Like myself you are in a position to help educate about catch and release and we both do with many other guides. I just keep thinking back to the bone lake study and do not see a success stoey with the bigger size limits. I say befor we go statewide pick 25 or 30 lakes and try it, see what happens, and some of those should be our smaller lakes that we womder if it would help or not. I think we have the cart befor horse here and we need more data befor passing a statewide bill. Please DON'T MISS UNDERSTAND ME!!!!!!!! i AM FOR BIGGER SIZE LIMITS BUT ON CERTAIN LAKES AND I SEE THIS AS GETTING TO BE MORE THEN THAT. Chuck thank you and I hope everyone understands my stance on this.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| The Douglas County meeting supported ALL the musky size limit increases by a 90%/for and 10%/against ratio. Wish we could have voted on the state wide 40" limit, we would have had the numbers to get it passed........next year.
Thanks to all for thier efforts. I agree with most here, we just have to keep putting one foot infront of the other and we will get to an improved fishery in this state. I believe the DNR is getting the picture and will not be surprised to see some proposals of thier own soon. We just have to keep throwing rocks till someone opens the door. [;)]
|
|
| |
|
| Right on Ty!!!!!
It was great to hear that Wisconsin is consitering a 40 inch size limit state wide last night.
Don,
It sounds like one of the reasons that you would like a small size limit is so you can catch a "legal" fish in the tournements. Let's worry about the state's fishery first. The fox chain PMTT ran great (exept for the boat traffic).
If a small lake can't produce a 40 inch fish than that lake could be considered to have the size limit reduced back down. I see no rerason for lake's that recieve exesive fishing pressure or that have trophy potential to be raised to 40 or more! |
|
| |
|
| Like Theedz... Waukesha Co was done on computer ballets so results are not knowen yet. But I believe we had good response on the issue.
Best thing was we voted out conservation congress member that liked nature more then fishing and hunting..LOL[;)] [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| In St Croix county it was a landslide of the four proposals and the one we submitted about a 40 inch minimum state wide the total vote was
yes-316
no-2
"two nay votes all night long"
It Was Nice to have Bob Mesikhomer show up and he delivered some very powerful words that I think really influenced the crowd
Very proud of what everybody who showed up last night did!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Great job Happy! I was so frustrated getting stucking working last night but it sounds like St. Croix county rocked! Great job! Nice to see bob m getting involved. |
|
| |
|
| Mrs.Fishpoop and I joined the wagon train from Minnesota and went to the St.Croix county meeting last night. We were expecting a big fight over the proposels due to all that we had heard about them in the past. We were very surprised at how well everything went.
I want to say Congrats to the State of Wisconsin for voting to improve their fishing. In a few years after the regs have had a chance to work, we'll hook up the boat and head to the Big Chip. Tell the resorts to have a cabin ready.
|
|
| |
|
| I certainly am not opposed to a higher statewide limit or even designating trophy waters with 45" or 50" limits. But, for now I still stand behind my original comments that there are some fisheries that will not support a 40" limit. Whether the reason for that be water acreage, habitat limitations or the forage base being inadequate. Maybe the suggestion of raising the statewide limit up to 40" then lower lower the limit on those fisheries that aren't responding is the answer. I don't know.
I can see where others are coming from on this issue though. Thanks for brining out a healthy discussion. I will keep an open mind and look at what transpires in the coming years dealing with this issue.
Hopefully, whatever happens in the end will turn out to be best for OUR fishery.
Thanks guys. |
|
| |
|
| Hi,
Great job everyone! Thank you Ty & Laura for your hard work! I understand both points of view on the statewide thing. But,I'm all for 40" statewide limits.
I attended the Dane county meeting Monday night, not sure what the results were, it was a computerized ballot. We did elect two pro fishing/hunting people to the conservation congress by like 590-60-8 .
Thanks,
Don |
|
| |
|
| oops, posted again |
|
| |
|
| oops |
|
| |
|
| I was at Wood Co. last night, and read the resolution for the size limit increase on the WI river in central WI. It passed 107/7. It also passed in Portage Co. overwhelmingly. Thanks to all those who helped with this resolution, and spreading the word(Don Kempen, Chuck Schauers, Jeff Walczak(handyman) Local businesses, Mike Lazer, Erik Hansen, local clubs, Ty and Laura, and other I haven't mentioned). All musky size limit questions were voted on in Wood and passed overwhelmingly!!!!!!
Jason |
|
| |
|
| Don,
I personally think it would be foolish to put a slot size on muskie. It works great on bass and walleye, but are a totally different species of fish and should not be managed the same way.
You are right about that the muskie fisherman are practicing catch and release and they are not the one's that can hurt the lake. It's the guy who catch's a muskie by accident and then keeps it, this is what need's to be addressed. By placing a 40 inch size limit on all bodies of water in Wisconsin it would force them to put the fish back. |
|
| |
|
| At Portage County last nite the higher limit for the Wi. river resolution passed 61 to 11. Thanks Jason for all the hard work. Unfortunately the vote for a higher Green Bay limit was soundly defeated. A spokesman for the Muskie Alliance spoke, stating that they were against the higher limits even though a board member gave some very sound reasons for raising them. Hopefully the rest of the state had better foresight! |
|
| |
|
| I am the president of the C&R Musky Club a member of the Musky Alliance. I would like to know who it was who "represented" the Alliance as standing against the Green Bay size limit change. At the last Alliance meeting the only decision made was to keep it's previously decided stance for a 36" state wide size limit. No decision was made to stand against or for any size limit change for Green Bay.
As a matter of fact, another Alliance Club, Dave's Musky Club in Kaukauna raises around $9,000 yearly for the Green Bay Spotted Musky Stocking Program.
I have issues with this and will do something about it. |
|
| |
|
| Don,
Even if you are right and some lakes can't produce 40 inchers, there are many more lakes that would benefit from higher limits. I would rather see the majority of lakes be improved at the expense of a few. I think the 34" limit hurts most of the waters out there right now. |
|
| |
|
| I have never fished a Muskie tourny but I have fished some local walleye tournys and what has always puzzeled me is that since tournys are always catch, keep alive and then released, why they don't allow all fish to be keeped up to the required bag limit. It is my understanding that size limits are put in place to protect the fishery. I do think exceptions should be made for tournys since it is the intention to release the fish anyways.
Just my thoughts on the subjected.
Cory
|
|
| |
|
| I would like to say I could have not put my name on my post but I chose to as I stand up for what I think and hope that those of you whom know me may start to think that I am not thinking backwards but rather wanting to explore all options carefully, I feel we are all jumping into this because its what some want so bad. I to would like bigger fish but I am willing to wait and do the research and do whats right. Ther is no need to rush into this. I just keep thinking about the turtle beating the hare. We need more options explored and more research gathered, I have seen none except the Bone lake study and that was not impressive.
I will be happy to discuss in this chat or on msn with any of you, add me, [email protected]
I know my stance is not popular with some of you but feel if you step back and think about it you may start to agree with me
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| I don't exactly understand where you are coming from on this Don. Granted that a 40"
statewide limit would make some waters catch and release waters, the general facts are that most waters in the state will raise fish to and beyond 40". I realize some have put forth that PETA would have a foothold if muskies were stocked on a catch, thrill, and release basis, but even those lakes with a history of rare 40" fish, almost all put out 40" fish occasionally. I think even non muskie fisherman understand that musky are the top of the food chain in most lakes and the thrill that goes with them. I don't think that it is elitist to protect your largest, most exciting, and proven to be long lived and slow maturity game fish until in what most cases is only middle age for them.
There are some concerns that the musky not stocked in certain waters would be "lost" however there are many waters that are understocked now that could use the additional numbers, efforts should be made to expand the musky stocking to new waters and perhaps limit it in the heavily stocked waters. I mean, heck, how many more fish can you put in Bone anyway? Do many fear that the change in stocking could affect their pet water's population? Is that part of the resistance on the part of the alliance and some of the group here?
|
|
| |
|
| I don't feel going to a 40 inch size limit would be "jumping into anything"
We have been at 34" for years and 32" before that and a 6" jump would only help the fishery.
All of the surounding states have larger size limit's and no one is complaining about a 40, 42 or 48 inch size limit over there. |
|
| |
|
| GUYS READ MY POST OK!!! I am not against bigger size limits. AGAIN I am not against bigger size limits!!!!!!!!!!!! I just don't think this is is totally the right answer. On the smaller lakes it is not going to work I believe and will end up doing more harm then good. I also think if your real agenda is to give the fish a chance to spawn more, you would think about slot size limit. Why protect am immature female when a slot would protect 40 to 48 inch mature females, to me that makes sense.
Agian all your doing is forceing those who keep muskies to keep bigger ones ( the ones we want there for spawning) The people that keep them will always keep them so let them have the smaller ones. Guys this is not rocket science. Open your minds up to exploring other options on a trial basis and lets see what happens. Guys it won't hurt anything to try the slot limit.
If we want to make a better fishery we have to be open to new things and try them. If we do not we will never advance to a better fishery. I am just want to open up your minds to the facts and to realize that just making a bigger size limit is not the only answer. Maybe the bigger size limits on some lakes and maybe a slot on others. I believe each lake has to be dealt with on its own. Not all lakes are equal in there makeup and there what works on one will not on the next. This is so frustrating, just think about it, bigger spawners mean more eggs!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully biiger spawners mean better genes to pass on!!!!!!! What is there not to like about a slot limit (on some lakes for a trial period?
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| Don, you say you aren't against bigger statewide size limits but then you turn around and argue against it. What is your main fear that you think larger size limits will do more harm than good on smaller lakes?
I don't see your point here and don't think you have one that is valid scientifically. If you do please state it.
The ideal thing with slot limits would be for the female to reach 40" and proceed to 48" in from 2-7 years and then once again be available to be killed by whomever. However the problem with this as I view it is that Joe Kill will look at this as a tactical decision, hey I can kill this 36" musky and drag it around, cook it, whatever-or I can release it and hope to get one over 48", hmmm, now what should I do? Bird in the hand or bird in the theoretical bush? So then the females that don't get picked off early have a chance to grow through the slot provided that angling pressure or spearing doesn't get them on the way through. However, the males that make it into the slot will now be stockpiled probably for the rest of their lives(good idea?).
Consider also while you ponder this, that most of WI waters are stocked anyway, with many having minimal or no natural reproduction. So what if they spawn in these lakes, they have little to add to the population. Couderay, once a great natural fishery, no or very minimal natural reproduction, the Chip, also once a musky factory, but now another so so lake that has been severely impacted by northern pike, neither will benefit heavily from a slot limit. Tell us the lakes or type of lakes where you feel this will be beneficial and where the problem of early angler kill will not occur and will not increase with a slot limit? My guess is that anglers will actually increase their take under slot limit regulations, and hey I might be wrong, but that's my thinking.
Most slot limit regs have been successful in large population, less desirable game fish that have a wide base population. I don't think that we are comparing apples and apples when we think of bass or walleye slots and hoping to see similar results or even positive results with a musky slot. I am not closed minded, I just don't feel there is any science there that makes me excited about the idea. If you are aware of something please let us know about it. |
|
| |
|
| Don....I understand the point you are trying to make although don't necessarily agree with it. Most agree the majority of musky harvest are from those who aren't musky fisherman but catch them incidentally or on a "once in a blue moon" guided trip. These people will generally keep any musky they catch--providing it is legal size. If the limit is 34" then that's what they keep. If it is 40" then that is what they keep. But there are far fewer 40" for them to catch and keep...the fish under 40" they catch will be released. Someone in this category is not very likely to catch a 36" and release it (if the limit stays as is) thinking they might catch a larger one. So overall musky harvest is decreased in this category of nonmusky fisherman if you raise the minimum. Yes, if they happen to catch a 45" fish they will probably kill it but they would do exactly the same thing if the limit was 34"....it's just that now a larger segment of the musky population is off limits to them.
Slot limits might be interesting to try but I don't believe they work very well on low density fish like musky. Most of the slots limits are with fish farther down the predatory scale, much more numerous and smaller.
Just Another Opinion,
BrianW
[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Just want to say that a lot of valid points have been brought up.Thanks to everybody who got out there and let their voices be heard,special thanks to our neighbors to the west that came over and let their views on higher limits be known.The fact of the matter is we have stood up to make the great state of Wisconsin as a whole a better fishery. Pat yourself on the back[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| One way to manage the lakes that have a very large population of Muskies 35 inch and under is to have a Slot Limit.Protect fish from 40 to 45 inches with a manditory total release of that Slot Size.Then there will still be a little thining of fish under 40 inches,but the ones that do get to 40" will be protected to 45".Then after a few years of creel and tagging studies one can determine if the mean size is increaseing or not.If the size indeed does increase,then you can raise the Slot Limit to 42" to 47".I'm not suggesting that this will work on all of the small Musky fisheries,because some are just so over populated with small fish and don't have the forage base to support bigger fish.But again a Slot Limit may change the balance between small and large fish if managed right. Capt. Larry |
|
| |
|
| I almost forgot,congrads on the Size Limit changes that were past,just goes to show its a long road but if you stand together on an issue,you can get some results.The changes don't happen over night,here on the Niagara River the Niagara Musky Assoc. Inc. its members,members of Muskies Canada,Tagging Studies,Diary Studies and DEC Creel Studies,have all played a part in each size increase.We went from a 31"size limit,to 37" size limit,to 44" size limit,to the new 48" size limit for the Upper Niagara River and 54" size limit for Lake Erie that will change on October 1st of this year.Each increase took countless hours of collecting data and presenting it in a manner that it was hard for them not to side in our favor.So don't give up the pursuit,each little step will get you closer to that goal.
Capt. Larry |
|
| |
|
| Let me put it this way. The reason increasing the size limit over the years by 2 inches at a time has worked because the fish have still a growth rate to about 40 inches. At 40 inches it slows and as it gets bigger we find even fewer 44's or bigger. As I stated we have to protect the big adult female spawners. Sure I am open yo slots on only lakes where natural reproduction. It only makes sense to. I agree on the fact that we have to use other means on lakes where there is not. My point is I am against a statewide size of 40. It covers way too much water. What I am saying is it has to be on a lake to lake basis. This means some lakes will have a 40 inch limit, some a 36, some a 45 and others a slot. I am and I repeat not against bigger size limits just a statewide saying this is how it is. Every lake is different and it has to be dealt with that way. God I hope I am making myself clear on this. I will work on that list of lakes but it will take me some time so don't expect it tomorrow ok. If you give me your e_mail I will send to you, mine is [email protected]
I really think many of you read my intentions here the wrong way.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
Thank you, well put. I feel very strongly that the slot size thing can and would work. I just have to get others to pen their eyes to give it a try.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
Success at the Spring Hearings