|
|
| There has been some discussion on WI musky size limits and the recent vote to increase it on a statewide basis. Counter to this is the feeling of some that evidently musky size limits need to be variable, I guess to allow the harvest of fish at smaller sizes(less than 40"). I am not sure why they feel this harvest is neccessary but they are welcome to their opinion. I am somewhat confused by the push by these and others for slot limits, allowing smaller fish to be killed and hoping to protect the survivors to trophy status.
I have some basic questions for the slot limit supporters.
#1 Is there any fish management study or any fish managers that see this as a useful tool for musky management? I can't remember any fish managers endorsing any idea like this for musky but I may have missed some studies.
#2 If this would be used as a tool to manage populations on waters with heavy natural reproduction what is the science that makes you think the thinning of muskies in the smaller sizes would cause the others to grow bigger? The lakes that have excellent natural reproduction may have other barriers to large growth such as excessive weeds, poor water quality, foraging difficulties for larger fish.
#3 How many lakes actually have the large numbers through natural reproduction that would lend themselves even to a study of slot limits(not that I think it is worthwhile but what are the numbers?)
#4 If numbers are a problem in some lakes why not use the benefit of the excess population by netting and transplanting musky from these waters to other waters?
#5 The lakes with large numbers of smaller fish and good reproductive rates(too few in number) are probably in a balanced dynamic. They have stayed that way historically and that has been the lure to fish those certain lakes. If you start harvesting a lot of fish in thes lakes would you be willing to lose the large population which is evidently in a state of equilibrium to have fewer but larger fish?
#6 Do you feel that having a different limit on every lake becomes somewhat confusing and lends itself both to interpretation and enforcement problems? I am of the opinion that big bigger and biggest should be the three musky size limits and 40" should be the base they start from and the only designation above that should be for "trophy" lakes.
#7 Is there a need to be able to kill musky in any lake they exist to justify fishing them? It is my understanding that there are some brood stock lakes where musky are protected even though fishing is allowed and incidental catches will occur, so there is already a precedent for populations that are totally protected. Is there an ethical argument against totally protecting fish?
#8 How many of you have had the experience of leaving a lake in disgust because there were too many musky and you caught a lot but they weren't trophies? Do you feel like the population dynamics of these waters need to be adjusted or should they be kept intact for those who have not had the opportunity to catch a bunch of fish yet?
My opinion on the size limit thing is that a statewide limit of 40" will be just fine except for the exceptional lakes which historically have turned out some very large fish. I realize some lakes will very rarely turn out a legal fish but that doesn't bother me. They will still provide excellent sport to those that fish, even though they can't register the fish as "legal" or take the fish home or may not be able to catch many legals in a tournament in their pet lake anymore.
| |
| | |
| The answer to all the questions is really a single statement..
Slot limits work well for populations of prolific species like Walleye, Bass, and some panfish.
Muskies do not fit the necessary model for slot limits to work well, if at all. Chuck had a comment or two from one od our area managers that basically summed it up! | |
| | |
| If I ever run for polictical office or a debating team (not lol) I want F.S.F. to be my campain manager, that was one of the best posts about asking questions or for gathering facts that I've ever read. I've talked to three different fishery bioligests that have said, a slot limit, while improving the management of some spieces (walleye & bass) would NOT do much if anything for muskies due to the lower population that they have anywhere there present. Muskies are not a an abundent fish like other spieces, I to wondered about a slot for muskies until I did some research with people in the know. At this time, I stand by my statement that a 40in state-wide limit with certain regulations in place for eco-systems that will not support a 40in limit is the way to start, and the DNR has assured me if a limit like this takes hold it WILL be designated by a lake by lake process with some eco-systems being evaluated for even a higher size limit. | |
| | |
| Yes, I would probably make a good politico, and give me a couple of beers and I will probably argue the other side of the coin. There is still this nagging bug bite that I am not satisfied with, even in your reply Chuck, and that is the "ecosystems which will not support a 40" size limit". All ecosystems can support a 40" size limit. It is just that some of them will have few fish that ever reach it. So what? I can think of only two lakes that a 40" fish would be exceeding rare to the point it was mentionable and those two would be Callahan and Tigercat, two dark water flowages east of hayward. There are some others in that area that don't put out a lot of 40" fish, but often enough so that I would not consider that size to be exceeding rare. I am not familiar with all the fisheries in WI but from what I have read, Irving and Ballard are also fairly dense, populations with many fish in the mid thirty range but I don't know about 40" fish in those. From a size standpoint it would probably be best to put a higher dam on Callahan lake with some kind of electrical fish killer at the outflow, to avoid further downstream pollution with the runt strain native to that water but that won't happen. Ethically it would also be extremely bad behaviour to poison out the basin, but it would probably do some good for the size of the fish in the Chippewa basin it drains into. Every fish does not have to reach a harvestable size. We do not need to lower the standard so that fish can be taken from lakes where the sizes run smaller. There are I believe some native brookie streams in the state that have trout populations that make it rare to capture a "legal" fish, but they are still fun to fish, and get fished and making the smaller ones legal in those streams will not make the fishing experience better nor will it change the nature of those populations, they will still feature small fish.
I would hate to see a lot of energy expended on ideas that are marginal science to start with. I would much rather see those efforts put forth to expand the fishable waters in the state.
By the way thanks for the input on the fish managers current thinking. | |
| | |
| On slot size limits the D.N.R. cannot give you an answer because it has never tried. What I am saying is to protect that size fish from harvest. What could it hurt? We do have seveveral lakes that have very slow gowth rate and I think there protecting these would also help as on out trophy lakes. We have about 700 muskie lakes in wisconson with many of them being under 500 acres. There are I believe only about 80 over 1000 acres. The D.N.R. he has made it known that stocking in wiscnsin will be cut back. Because of this I feel management of the lakes has to be broken down more into groups of lakes. Many of these smaller are known to very seldom produce a big fish and a bigger limit on them I do not believe will help. When you have that muskie lakes its hard to put them in one group and say this will work on the majority when you know it won't. Guys if you have a 48 inch size limit on a lake your protecting the fish between 40 and 48. So if its a slot in that size your protecting them also. I do not understand why so many of you are reluctant to saying yes maybe it should be tried on 10 lakes. It can't hurt anything. On the lakes that that truely have the ability to produce bigger fish increase the limit on them. On those that it will make no difference leave alone. My entire point in this is the lakes have to managed a more selective way. It would be nice if we had a cureall for all our lakes but fact is there are so many with so many different factors affecting the growth on them and how big they will get.Maybe every county should have a group to study its lakes and then make reccomendations for the counties they live in. This is a uge task but can be done right if we as anglers put the time into it.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
| Don, It's not that I'm against a slot limit if it would work, but the people who have the most say and the most influence and the degree and knowledge all are of the same opinion. I've heard of a slot limit was tried before in another state ( I'll have to do some homework to find out) and it failed or they didn't get the results they were looking for, maybe because of different senarios,(natural reproduction vs stocking etc) your argument that they don't know because it's not been tried look's good on the surface, but giving the bioligists some credit and if it came down to one or the other (slot vs higher statewide limit) I'm voting for the increase, you might say lets try both, that's great, but you know as well as I do, to get the DNR to get ONE major rule changed or inhanced is tough enough, I think there are two guy's in hell that will get ice water before both could happen. Basicly it's like saying I need to repair the loose board on my house, I can use duct tape (it might work, I don't know if I don't try) or use what the carpenter (expert) said to use, a hamer and nails, See what I mean.[;)]
Respectfully,
Chuck Altamore | |
| | |
| Don, I think you have become somehow attached to the slot limit idea. I frankly see no reason that it would work. I see no study or research that indicate any hope for it to work. I have already suggested several reasons I don't think it will work and may in fact cause new problems, and I don't think you even have any answer for those. I don't have any particular issue with how the state wants to regulate musky harvest in lakes with slow growth rates or smaller maximum size but I do believe and support a 40" statewide musky size limit and larger limits on lakes that historically have produced large fish. I am against size limits under 40" for ANY LAKE. I see no reason to decrease that limit for lakes with slower growth. I think that the only management tool the DNR needs to use on most water is stocking rate, and habitat preservation. I think trying to set many size limits is a waste of time, and still have not heard your justification for lowering size limits on certain lakes, but I am interested in what you have to say.
Alot of fisheries science is at best conjecture. They have a lot of things and do a lot of things that really don't strike me as firm scientific method, but in many cases it is the best basis they have for planning so who's to say. Some science is usually preferrable to NO science though.
The WI residents need to lobby to get the musky reallocated that are currently stocked, rather than have the DNR decrease stocking.
Many waters could be beneficially stocked at higher rates but aren't at this time due to the allocation rules currently in effect. Somehow the Madison Chain and Pewaukee always seem to get their fish however
I think a discussion of this is beneficial, however I believe that my selfish musky fishing purposes are best served by the 40" size limit base, and since I have no interest in numbers for contests or killing fish, that is what I support and endorse. I do believe that we would be better off going in one direction at this time rather than having a bunch of offshoot factions supporting this and supporting that, and that's how I view slot limits and special lower size limits on certain lakes(this and that). | |
| |
|
slot limits, wrong direction and waste of time and