|
|
| With the comments on some other threads about lakes that rarely put out 40"+ fish, I've got some questions.
Muskies are introduced as a trophy/sport fish, not as a meat fish. I don't know how WI spends their money to maintain their current musky lakes. But with as many musky lakes as WI has, wouldn't it make sense to discontinue stocking on the lakes that have proven to not have trophy potential? These lakes that rarely produce 40" fish?
They could then put the money that is saved there into the higher quality lakes. The issue was also brought up about WI not having the money to spend on musky management like its neighboring states, due to the sheer number of musky lakes in the state. To me, to discontinue any stocking on lakes without trophy potential would only be logical. Concentrate the musky management on the hundreds of other lakes that the state still has.
Like I said, I don't know how WI spends their money when it comes to muskies. Maybe these non trophy waters are self sustaining fisheries that the DNR spends no money maintaining. But if not, what's the reason for coninuing to manage these lakes?
I live in MN, so I don't really hear much about how the WI DNR operates, other than what I read on these boards. A little insight would be great.
AWH | |
| | |
| 1st - Muskies are the top of the food chain in fresh water lakes. Some lakes need a top predator to keep other fish from over populating. Ever seen stunted sunfish or perch. Not pretty.
2nd - Why must all waters have Trophy potential? Tell me, are there not days that you just want to go to a numbers lake and catch fish 3, 4 or 5 fish in a day. Without suuport, those lakes may disappear for ever.
3rd - With the 1000+ muskie lakes in the state, weed out say 800 that don't have the trophy potential. Maybe these lakes do not have natural or very little natural reproduction and so those lakes cease to be fishable Muskie fisheries. Now your down to 200+. Everybody say it with me. FISHING PRESSURE. Wisconsin has the most pressured muskie waters in the US (maybe the world) and that pressure is growing everyday. Take those 800 (admittingly a high number) out and now put all those fisherman on the 200+ lakes that are left. No trophy fishery could take that pounding and come out alive. So by having a diverse Muskie fishery, pressure on trophy waters is less allowing them to maintain there trophy potential.
4th and final - We (Muskie Fisherman) have image problems with the other types of fisherman. We are seen as elitist. To say we only want Trophy lakes is truly being an elitist.
I know this might come off as being kind of harsh but we need to fight to keep what we have and if we want more, we have to fight even harder. Cutting off lakes because they don't have trophy potential is cutting down the oppurtunities available to enjoy this sport. Thems fightin' words to me.
| |
| | |
| SharpHooks,
You bring up some good points, and I agree with most of what you said. Maybe "non-trophy" lakes wasn't the right term to use. Because I don't think a lake necessarily needs to have good or even average trophy potential. But these lakes that rarely produce even a 40" fish or even smaller, I don't see the point in stocking lakes like this. To me, these are lakes that shouldn't have been stocked in the first place.
I'm all for more musky lakes. I live in MN and we definitely need a lot more musky lakes to disperse the fishing pressure on the 80+ musky lakes that we have. But we need to be careful about which lakes we stock. They should have a good supply of the appropriate forage to support a quality musky fishery.
My family has a cabin in NW WI, and a few years back, the DNR was contemplating adding muskies to our lake due to the stunted panfish population that you referred to. As much as I would have loved to be on musky water, rather than having to trailer up and travel to a musky lake, I'm glad they decided against this. Our lake has a good supply of pike, bass and sunfish, a fair supply of crappies, and a few bullheads. That's it for what's in the lake. It's a little over 200 acres and only 16 feet deep. This is the type of lake that should never have muskies, because it simply couldn't support them.
No, not all lakes need to have trophy potential. But they should be able to support a quality musky fishery. Not all lakes can do it. What is the DNR's purpose for managing musky waters? I'm assuming that it's to provide a quality sport fish in lakes that can support some bigger fish.
Yes, some lakes need a top predator to help keep other fish populations in check to avoid stunting, I couldn't agree more. But this can be done without muskies as well. One way would be to manage the northern pike in these lakes better. MN is doing this in a few lakes for just this purpose. They are putting slots on pike in some waters to help get the fisheries back to what they once were, with better quality pike fishing. Lakes that once supported numbers of pike over 30" now have very few pike of that size. Pike of about 20" can easily overtake a lake, causing stunted pike. If lakes are managed correctly (easier said than done), from its panfish to the top predator, stunting can be avoided in most cases. However, anglers need to do their part here too, regulations can't do it alone.
We as anglers need to be smart, selective harvest. And this includes panfish. Panfish are basically seen as a catch and keep fish, there is very little selective harvest. This is the biggest reason for stunted panifsh populations that are now more common than not. If the public can be educated better about these kinds of things, and learn that even panfish aren't above selective harvest, it will help out all fisheries.
My point in all of this is that I just think the DNR could be a little smarter about how and where they spend their money when it comes to managing its musky waters. Would they not be better off on spending their funds on lakes that are capable of producing a quality musky fishery, versus one that simply can not?
With the recent results at the WI spring hearings, with the overwhelming support for higher size limits, I think it's obvious that anglers want lakes that will support larger fish. I don't think this is an elitist view. I think it's just anglers that want to see their waters support a better quality of larger fish. Something that muskies were meant to do for their fisheries in the first place.
I think numbers lakes are great, especially for people that are just starting out. (Lakes like Tiger Cat, Day, etc.) It's a great way to learn. But if these aren't self sustaining fisheries, I think the DNR's efforts would be much better spent on other waters.
AWH
| |
| |
|
WI - Non Trophy Lakes