|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have just gotten news that at least 8 fish of 50" or more have been harvested this fall from southern Green Bay. This is very concerning, to put it mildly.
In another thread I stated that I thought the system could sustain this pressure, but now must change my statement to a NO--if these large fish continue to be harvested. I understand the letter of the law states that this is perfectly legal, and until that changes there may not be anything we can do. But it's a shame to see all of these big fish removed from the system--we simply do not have enough data to understand the true size potential of these fish.
So I would like some *non-hostile* and civil discussion with opinions on how we can reach the folks who aren't reading these muskie boards. I think it was someone in the "Sustainability" thread who mentioned that the folks that might harvest these fish probably aren't the ones reading the forums. It's the same for CPR, I suppose. Is it hopeless or naive to suggest steps that we can take towards educating anglers to NOT harvest these fish? So I would like to call upon the folks reading this thread to help us reach the anglers that might potentially harvest one of these fish. If we can reach just one of these anglers, it just might make a difference.
Again...I understand that there is a legal right to harvest a 50+" fish at this point. We are working on that, but it will take time. But I have to wonder how long this can go on? If we know of at least 8, how many more were taken?
Sorry for the soapbox guys, but today was a very poignant day for me. My uncle (father's brother) came over to fish with me, as he never fished muskies before. My father was hard-core muskie angler but died of a heart attack several years ago while in the field on a pheasant hunt. His largest fish ever was about 51-52" and just under 40 pounds. But today I put my uncle on a 53 x 26.5" beauty that was the new record for my boat. Thanks to the fellow anglers on the bay that helped with a successful release--you all know who you are. It really is true...you can never have too many release tools. But the look on my uncle's face when the fish was finally in the Kahuna was priceless... However, after hearing about the number of large fish that have been harvested this year, I can't help but wonder how many anglers might get deprived of that same thrill in the years to come?
Talk about mixed emotions...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 341
| Put up signs like I'm doing on my favorite lakes. Reelwise designed one, pm him. It's a start if anything, it might even save one or two who knows.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the tip--I will PM him tonight. Hopefully he can provide me with a picture of the sign, and our MI chapter can get several made and erected. We will likely have to get permission from the City to do so, but I can ask the local DNR biologist to help with that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 6:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I agree with you Tom that the potential has not been scraped over at the bay. been fishing over there about 12 of the last 20 days myself(with the remainder spent here on local waters between work schedules) and am amazed at how good a place can be when conditions are good. While I agree with you that too many fish have been kept by certain individuals, I have a slightly different take. What bothers me is the ridicule and hostility I've seen towards a couple people that have kept fish over there this fall. I saw a couple people get their personal best fish, fish of many lifetimes, or the 'one' that they were after, only to be berated at the landing by so called 'experts' and the ethic concious Musky anglers police. Now, I am all for more protection over there, and having caught and netted a number personal bests from there over the years and this fall myself, know that the potential is there for greatness. What I don't want to see is a continuation of the chastising that occurs when someone does keep a fish. I say, keep it to yourself. I'll speak up for catch and release till I am blue in the face, but will also shake a gentlemans hand that harvested thier lifetime trophy. Now, there are people keeping multiple fish and I know who some of them are. Do I agree with that? No way. But, I disagree just as much with the do gooders waiting at the landing to see who they can give a good scolding for keeping one of 'their' fish. Educate, promote, create awareness. Don't ridicule.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/16/2007 6:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1636
| That sign I did was just a quickie. Hopefully we can put something together soon!
The law is the law...but some laws suck! | |
| | |
| now that we got it moved up to 50 maybe it will be easier to get it to 54. Or even use the VHS for a reason to keep no fish just to see what the effects are going to be, because we truly don't know | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| Reef Hawg - 11/16/2007 6:29 PM
I agree with you Tom that the potential has not been scraped over at the bay. been fishing over there about 12 of the last 20 days myself(with the remainder spent here on local waters between work schedules) and am amazed at how good a place can be when conditions are good. While I agree with you that too many fish have been kept by certain individuals, I have a slightly different take. What bothers me is the ridicule and hostility I've seen towards a couple people that have kept fish over there this fall. I saw a couple people get their personal best fish, fish of many lifetimes, or the 'one' that they were after, only to be berated at the landing by so called 'experts' and the ethic concious Musky anglers police. Now, I am all for more protection over there, and having caught and netted a number personal bests from there over the years and this fall myself, know that the potential is there for greatness. What I don't want to see is a continuation of the chastising that occurs when someone does keep a fish. I say, keep it to yourself. I'll speak up for catch and release till I am blue in the face, but will also shake a gentlemans hand that harvested thier lifetime trophy. Now, there are people keeping multiple fish and I know who some of them are. Do I agree with that? No way. But, I disagree just as much with the do gooders waiting at the landing to see who they can give a good scolding for keeping one of 'their' fish. Educate, promote, create awareness. Don't ridicule.
I don't think that any single post has been more well written on the subject. I commend you for your attitude. It really is people like you that make this sport what it is. | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | 54" size limit will not happen. The NRB committee will not allow the increase the size limit from 50 to 54 even though it won (almost statewide) vote by 2/3 vote.
I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I am not sure about the 54" regulation--whether or not is still a reasonable possibility. I spoke with our biologist on Wednesday for nearly 30 minutes, and he re-affirmed that indeed his concern is that someone that catches the fish of a lifetime won't be able to keep it. (I don't know why they couldn't/wouldn't get a replica, but I didn't want to antagonize him on the phone when we need to work with him...not against him.) Without going into a long diatribe about the hurdles of getting a 54" limit passed, there are some problems to be addressed before it would get done. But you'll have to trust me when I say that the DNR biologists are VERY tuned-in to what is being said on these forums with regards to this issue. They are hearing us. They are extremely aware of the sociological ramifications of this issue--and it may get passed on that aspect alone. Our biologist stressed that it doesn't have to be solely about the biology of the size limit; and when I spoke with Tim Simonson (head of the state's musky program) on Tuesday, he affirmed that as well.
There is another option that has been tossed around a bit--a tag system where you could only keep one fish per year over 50". While this may have some merit (and may be easier to implement, as there is already a Sturgeon tagging system in place that could serve as a model), the obvious problem I see with this is that if a certain individual wants to harvest several muskies, all he would need to do is "guide" others that can simply use their tags to continue to keep fish. No, I really don't see how a one-tag system would help much, speaking personally. But I haven't studied it, so there may be other factors that I am overlooking. However, it's pretty tough to spear a sturgeon and then keep going out for the heck of it. In other words, it would be "one & done" as far as harvesting the fish; while you could potentially continue to fish for 4-5 months if you harvested your musky on opening day of the season... Think of all the fish a skilled angler could expose to harvest, just by fishing with someone with an open tag after they fill their own tag. And I don't think it will fly if it's "one & done" as far as musky fishing goes, but maybe I am wrong?
The other option is a pure catch & release fishery on Green Bay--but that's extremely unlikely, as far as I can tell. The biologists simply don't have enough data to know how long these fish can live. Remember, before 1989 there really wasn't much stocking in the lower bay--so the 50-54" fish being harvested now are coming from the first few year classes, and thus we won't really know how big they'll get until they get that big! And I can assure you that the last thing the biologists want is to be too restrictive on the fishery; what with the socioeconomical pressure applied to them on the matter.
So in my humble opinion, the best option just might be the 54" limit indeed. But whether or not this winter's Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team meeting gets this issue resolved or not, remains to be seen. I have no problem with a person keeping the "fish of a lifetime," but what is that on Green Bay? If we release the 53x26.5" fish, what will these fish be next year...or the year after that...or the year after that? How many "fish of a lifetime" does a person need to keep? The big fish we got today was the biggest fish I have ever had on a line. Sure, I let my uncle (who never fished muskies before) reel it in the last half-way, while I cleared the other lines. But it was truly a team effort, as he didn't know the first thing about setting up rods, choosing lures, setting lines or netting a large fish. He surely wouldn't haven't done well during the release, lol. I can tell you that watching that huge fish literally SPRINT away from the boat after all we went through during the release was every bit as exciting as the actual catch! Nothing beats it, IMO. So I guess that *was* my fish of a lifetime? (Until next year anyway...)
Well anyway, thanks for all of the civil (and helpful) posts thus far in this thread guys. It's clear that there are people here that truly care about the future of the fishery. I agree with the previous poster that warned against potential harassment of anglers who harvest fish--and I would never condone that. But I would point out that there is a WORLD of difference between someone who keeps one fish per year, and the others who do it to simply put notches in their pistol grips. This is not an unlimited resource we're talking about here, and with the quality of the reproductions out there, I just cannot see the benefit of killing a fish like that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 9:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | Hey,Just a thought if the fish are growing so fast and burning out at a early age and theres no natural reproduction then how can keeping a fish over 50 hurt the system if it doesnt reproduce???Just a thought not to start an arguement but my buddy brought it up. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | ...And that's exactly what they are afraid of, and what I meant when I said (in an earlier post) that they were worried about being "too restrictive." It's an excellent point. However I will point to several fish that have been caught, and measured well into the 53-57" range. Just freaks? Who knows... But they simply might be the first ones to reach their potential!
And to that end, I guess I would also add...that if we harvest all of the legal fish when they hit 50", then how will we ever know just how big they might have gotten. We simply don't know what we don't know, in this case. I would hate to be the responsible party when it comes out that all the 50" fish that got harvest over the past few years had the potential to make it to 60".
I vote we err on the side of caution in this case. There's always time to ease size restrictions in the future, if it turns out that there are just too many darned 50" muskies swimming around out there...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | “…And I can assure you that the last thing the biologists want is to be too restrictive on the fishery; what with the socioeconomical pressure applied to them on the matter.”
TB I know you are paraphraseing what you have heard with the quote above, so I want to make it clear this is not directed at you, but WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I so sick of that excuse, it has played itself OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at LOTW, Eagle Lake, Georgeon Bay and many other Canadian waters with the 54” limit. The people that are flocking to those destinations are doing it for one reason, TO CATCH BIG MUSKIES!!!!! People are not flocking to these waters so they can keep their first 50” fish. If a large year class of fish is removed from Green Bay people will stop flocking there and people will stop shooting TV shows and videos there. These fish need to be protected or there will be NO socioeconomical pressure.
There will be NO LOSS of people coming to the area if a 54” limit is passed on these waters and that is where education needs to start.
If the NRB stops this proposal then WE need to bring it up again at the spring hearings in another resolution this year and do exactly what we did last year and keep doing it every year until they get it.
The Fox River Valley has what for a population 500,000 probably more, there is a lot of potential there for people who have never read a musky board or magazine in there life to go in search of there first musky for the wall or grill, just because they saw it in a local newspaper or on the local TV station that they are living right next door to a world class musky fishery.
Sorry for the rant.
TB keep up the good work and let us know how we can help.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I'll admit I was the one talking to Eric about the natural reproduction on GB. This fishery is pretty much a "Put and Take" fishery. Let me 1st say that I'm not in favor of keeping any of the fish on GB and would personally never do so but all that taking these big fish out of the system does is make 1 less 50" fish for the rest of us to catch. Also it appears that these fish stay within a home range and generally return to where they were stocked. So it would be nice if the DNR wouldn't stock fish in the river anymore. I know they have branched out to other areas but if they wouldn't put fish in the river it might help the problem. I believe it takes skill and knowledge to catch a 50" fish trolling but it appers it's slightly easier to do in Green Bay. The fish are congregated in a smaller area and making contact with a large fish is a bit easier. This is the appeal to many of the people that fish Green Bay. Just the fact that the odds are higher of catching a "trophy" draws the type of angler who is more likely to keep a fish. Most everyone who fishes there knows that a good number of the anglers aren't regular muskie anglers. Most just jump in for a chance at a trophy without having to cast all day or summer to attain that goal. I was really hoping the 54" limit would have went into effect because it really is a dissapointment what is taking place up there. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | All of those are excellent points, Jeff...
Not to minimize it at all, but I agree (to a point) that catching a 50" trolling the southem bay it is probably not the same accomplishment as doing battle with a 40 pound green fish at boatside on a figure 8. But that's what so great about it--as has been pointed out quite nicely in this thread; it gives opportunities to hook up with a monster fish to folks who might otherwise not get those chances. In my case, my casting days are all but over, thanks to severe arthritis in both knees. So I truly appreciate this opportunity.
But I disagree about the put & take nature of the bay. The DNR truly wants sustainable natural reproduction in the Green Bay system, and hopefully (through their stocking efforts) they will cause the musky population to reach a 'critical mass' of sorts--and they won't need to continue stocking to the degree they do now.
Also, I think your idea about NOT stocking the southern bay is very interesting! I know that they have stocked several other areas in the bay system--and hope that continues. And while I do not believe that the population that resides in the southern bay is all that's out there (I think it's quite the contrary, actually), I think that those fish have a real good shot at some significant level of natural reproduction because of the habitat in the southern end--and maybe that's reason enough to protect the 50-54" fish? I mean, how certain are we that the 45" fish are better spawners with more viable egg masses, than the 50" fish?
While the biology of the issue is difficult in-and-of-itself, it seems that in this case the sociology might be even more difficult.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 10:50 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I agree that not all the fish out in the lower bay are resident lower bay fish but I would bet the majority there don't travel from great distances to get there. Take the fish by PP that I believe was caught in your boat. Only 1 mile from the original stocking point. In your reply you said the DNR wants a sustainable natural reproduction but that isn't currently what they have. The currently have a "put and take" fishery. Kevin K. himself will admit that. I do know they are trying alternative stocking sites in hopes of developing a naturally reproducing bunch of muskies so it doesn't need all the stocking. Don't get me wrong I'm on your side of this. I very much want to see better protection of these fish. I also want to see better care taken of these fish once caught. I also don't want to diminish the accomplishment of catching muskies on GB. It's not as easy as dragging a few lures and catching big muskies. I think many get that in there head and are discouraged by their results. I spent far more time there last season and saw way more fish being caught. I've been there 2 times this year and caught fish both times but I haven't seen any others caught. I must say I usually fish off peak times there to avoid the circus. I also have concerns not only about the fish right now but I know there is a solid year class of mostly 40" fish there right now, and in the future is going to be in big trouble as even more people float a boat in the Bay. The one major positive about this fishery is the economic impact in the Fox Valley area. I'm not saying it's Green Bay Packers huge but it is attracting many from IL and MN as I've talked to a few at the launches. I also know the local tackle stores sell many more baits in the fall the last few years then they did in the past. I just don't think there are any easy solutions but it does need attention and soon. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jeff,
Amen to all of that.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Without natural recruitment, and every body and there brother acting like the movie "Jaws", This resource is getting pimped to the point of extinction. I caught my first musky ever, from shore, while walleye fishing. I was bit by this affliction called Musky.
Now, I hear guys come into the shop and say "yeah, last weekend sucked. Our biggest was a 48". I should have spent more time out there."
I ask these guys what their biggest casting fish is, and they say they have never casted.
Anyone that sneezes at a 48" fish on any body of water is insane. Casting or trolling. The resource spoiled alot of folks, newbies and seasoned alike. Without this fishery, alot of died in the wool musky heads would be up north instead, dragging meat.
The Green Bay fishery has not brought more brothers to our sport, it has brought meat (or Skin) hogs, as well as those who are uneducated in the handleing of fish.
With this in mind, I have decided NOT to go for my CPT's License this year. A resource as precious as this is like a daughter that has been sold into slavery.
Don't get me wrong, there are alot of ethical fisherman that do well up there, but for every one of those, there is at least one who intentionally or not, damage it.
Go nuts. I'm out of it. If you see my rig up there, I'm after walleyes. You have the muskys all to yourselves.
Goodnight, because I'm after the buck of my dreams tomorrow. | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I've been fishing Green Bay hard in the fall for 5 years now and the longest in my boat from there in the fall is a 48.5" last weekend.
Catching a 50"+ is not easy anywhere, just so many people fish it that you hear of the 50's frequently.
Maybe today is my day?
Spreading the word about proper CPR and awesome replicas is how we can change things. I really think it is just a few not CPRing. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the posts Rob & Jo...I think there is a lot of truth to what both of you said. I didn't mean to minimize the catching of ANY size musky via trolling--because for every day that we put one in the boat, there may be 1, 2 or 3 more days it seems, where a rod never goes off at all! And a 50" musky is a 50" musky...casting or trolling. But the truth is that a lot can go wrong when the leader 12 inches from the rod tip, and the big girl decides to hit on the F8. The advantage definitely seems to be with the fish, lol. Another thing is that the colder water temps in the fall tend to result in the fish fighting not nearly as hard as they might when the water is 20 degree warmer. So the two forms of fishing are different, to say the least.
Sorry to hear that Rob won't be musky fishing up there, because another guy who is passionate about the health & future of the fishery can only help out there . I believe I met Rob during the MI tournament--and if indeed it was Rob that I met, I can say that I was impressed by his passion regarding the welfare of the fishery.
Good luck to all of you guys out in the field today. Be safe, and keep your heads low!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/17/2007 6:29 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | If you go to Green Bay, please remove everything from your boat or the thieves will. I had heard on of our Cap City members had his entire contents of his rig stolen, like eight rods and reels, over 250 baits, a 10.4" GPS/sonar, a smaller GPS, a camera, a weather radio, tackle boxes, winter clothing and a bunch of misc. tools, and equipment from a hotel parking lot. It was covered, but the crooks knew whar they were looking for.
This sucks. I would hope that the police could nab these guys. Please beware. | |
| | |
| one of the thing I noticed 2 weeks a go I was out there i saw atleast 15 fish chaught in 2 days not one in my boat but out of the 15 fish less then half were handled proplerly as far as im consered most of the fisherman dont even slow down there were several fish that battled for 10 min plus thats crazy right there Im not saying im great but I have never fought a fish for more then a few min and the other was once the fish were in the net to the bottom of the boat thay went thats uncalled for so even if the size limit was larger it will still have no effect on these fools I think a better start would be some type of cpr education Im not sure how but im sure these fish are hurting after being handled like that I have only been fishing the bay for 2 years now my biggest fish was 47 there is no doubt in my mind this is hands down the best wisco fishery and I would love for my kids to have the chance to fish this some day so what every we can do I will support you guys last year I drove an hour each way after a 10 hour day to vote for the 50 inch size limit and I will do the same if there is a nother vote for 54 Nick Cammarata | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Tb,
no, sorry, it was not me.
Jo,
I meant to say that alot of guys fishing up there think a 48 is small.
I was not implying that it was. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | maybe you restrict the bay to casting only with no trolling : ) .... i'm belly laughing at the irony of all of this ... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I bet that you'd see more fish caught than you might think...especially if suckers were allowed as bait.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done.
Priceless 
Edited by Andy 11/17/2007 8:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | So let me get this straight...the 50" limit isn't good enough now? So they raise it to 54" and people keep 55's...are you going to be upset then too?
People..Its a #*^@ fish.
The 50" limit was to protect a potential trophy fishery..its happening as planned. So let somebody keep a trophy if its their right to do so. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Ah...wouldn't the 54" limit simply put GB in line with other (similar) trophy waters? Doesn't Canada do this? Why do you think they went to the higher size limit? And are you trying to tell me that certain individuals whacking multiple 50-54" fish PER YEAR...is "as planned"? If these actions are placing the fishery at risk, then something needs to be done. And if we don't know that it is at risk because of these actions, then we should err on the side of caution and act...now. Are you saying that you know how many 50" plus fish are in the lower bay system? If so, then I would love to see that data--and so would the DNR I suspect, because they don't seem to have a clue as to the number of large fish there are out there in the bay system. I would imagine recaptures are pretty low in an area about 190 square miles in size, wouldn't you agree?
But in the interest of compromise, I will vote to keep the 50" limit as it currently is--with one or two caveats:
1) We have a tag system in place. One fish per year, per angler. One and done. No fishing for muskies any longer. After all--once you kill your sturgeon, you are done. Can you guarantee the survival of any & all muskies these anglers catch *after* their tag is full?
2) We are able to ensure that one angler cannot be responsible for multiple 50 inch fish being harvested per year--using clients' or friends' tags. What's the difference if a skilled angler trolls alone, or with 1-2 other guys in his boat? If he drives the boat, determines the lures and sets the rods...what difference does it make WHO catches the fish? Once that angler fills his tag, he shouldn't be allowed to risk further fish via the immediate (and delayed) mortality risks inherent to catching a musky.
And one other thing...I find it very hard to believe that the fishery managers who (back in the 1980s) envisioned how great the GB musky fishery could be, intended for certain individuals to essentially prey upon multiple large fish at a time when they are more vulnerable. It is my opinion that, while "legal" under the current regulations, it is extremely arrogant and short-sighted in terms of using the resource wisely. What possible purpose could killing 5, 6, 10 or more 50 inch muskies per year serve? How many "fish of a lifetime" can one person have? These are not perch we are talking about here--you cannot grow a 50" fish in much under 12-13 years, even in Green Bay! Eventually we *will* run out of them, whether you want to admit it or not...
For someone to keep a "fish of a lifetime" because it's their first 50" fish is one thing; but for a skilled angler to repeatedly harvest 50 after 50 after 50, just because the law allows it...is WRONG. You are entitled to your opinions on the matter, and I respect that. But I do not share them, and I suspect that there might be one or two others that take issue with them as well.
Sound fisheries management principles dictate that certain management tools be fluid--what once might have been appropriate for a fishery may no longer be so. I will be the first to admit that we need to study the problem and make changes if necessary. However if we cannot (or will not) act because we don't know what we don't know...then we have only ourselves to blame when and if things work out poorly in the long run.
I vote for an increase in the size limit to 54", and then further study. If it appears as though the larger limit is not necessary after a few years, then we can always reduce it back to 50" again. No harm, no foul...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/18/2007 8:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | I can't remember if the limit on Eagle was changed to 54 or 55 a few years back, but I'm sure in the next couple years a lot of fish will be taken from there...I don't know though...good or bad? I think it's good. Replicas sure came a long ways, especially if you find someone who can do it and make it look identical to a skin mount.
Edited by Andy 11/18/2007 8:07 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think you have to look at population estimates and maximum potential size estimates, and their confidence intervals. Check this out:
http://www.fishontario.com/fishing/muskie/article.jsp;jsessionid=GO...
Check out page 2. Larry Ramsell kindly pointed this out to me. Note that Dr. Casselman (widely regarded as perhaps the preeminent musky researcher in the world today) seems to think that the Great Lakes strain can top-out at around 58-60 inches in length! While we don't know the true size potential of the Green Bay fish at this time, who's to say that they cannot reach these enormous proportions? After all...they are basically from the same lineage.
Now check this out:
http://www.titletownmuskiesinc.org/index.htm
That's a 59 inch fish, caught (and released) in Sturgeon Bay only 2-3 years ago! (Incidentally, I am told that the blood on the fish was the anglers...not the fish's.)
Then check this out:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/printer-friendly.asp?t...
That's a 56" musky caught in the Fox River less than three years ago!
Given all of this information, wouldn't it seem likely that these fish just might be able to grow larger than we first thought? Their cousins do. Some of their older sisters already have.
Act now to protect this fishery--then plan additional study and carry it out. Involve the academic world; fund a graduate student. That's the way much of the world's research gets done. It isn't rocket science we are talking about here. We have a tremendous opportunity here and every 50" fish that gets bonked is one less that could make it to 55 or 60 inches. Why is that important? Just ask Canada...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/18/2007 9:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Blame canada! Nah I totally agree TB...we all have cameras...what else do ya need? | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Gander Mt Guide - 11/18/2007 6:54 PM
So let me get this straight...the 50" limit isn't good enough now? So they raise it to 54" and people keep 55's...are you going to be upset then too?
People..Its a #*^@ fish.
The 50" limit was to protect a potential trophy fishery..its happening as planned. So let somebody keep a trophy if its their right to do so.
When the fishery has so much more potential, no it isnt good enough. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | It does have potential...potential for somebody to mount one. These are just fish, think outside the box. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Gander Mt Guide - 11/18/2007 11:51 PM
It does have potential...potential for somebody to mount one. These are just fish, think outside the box.
Why mount one when you can get a replica done? Please explain that. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Cost for one....not everybody does skin mounts and replicas for the same amount to persuade anglers to toss them back. A college kid like you knows #*^@ well that a skin mount at $9.00 an inch is alot more appealing than 12-13.00 an inch.
Secondly, what if a fish isn't going to make it after release? Want them to toss back a dead fish just for the sake of replica?
Third, because it's legal to keep one. If somebody wants to keep THAT fish to mount or eat, that's their right.
| |
| | |
Posts: 716
| Yep, and then we'll be able to talk about the good ole days some more.............
I don't even fish there and it makes me ill to think about it.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | First of all, I want to say thank you to Gander Mt. Guide for posting in this thread--I realized that I had not done that last night. You all might think this is strange, but we need to have opposing points of view expressed to have any sort of meaningful discussion. And I can assure you that for every person who expresses these viewpoints, there are many others who share them...but do not speak up. We need to involve as many of these people as possible, and thus I don't want to suppress anyone's opinion on the matter. As long as that person will take ownership of what they say--they can say whatever they want. Anonymous posters are another story however, but that isn't the case here. As far as I am concerned, Gander can continue to speak his mind at will--as he is only saying what others want to say. And by the way, I respect him for taking ownership of his comments. Now to address his last post...
I will admit, the cost differential is an issue. That's why we have started working on some potential countermeasures against that hurdle--but it's going to take a concerted effort between the anglers, the taxidermists and third parties that may want to help subsidize these efforts. Obviously no one is going to pay for an angler's mount...just because they said they released a fish. These are OUR resources, and we can all benefit from their conservation. If an angler catches a magnificent fish and wants to mount it, then they have made the decision to spend a certain amount of money to pay for that mount. So we are really only talking about the cost *differential* between the skin mount and the reproduction, correct? While it is too early to detail some of the early measures being considered, there are things that can be done to make this less of a burden.
Secondly, Gander raises an EXCELLENT point about the angler-induced (and delayed) mortality associated with the catch of a musky. That's why MuskieFIRST has started a project to educate anglers on the proper C&R techniques--and in general about the physiology of angled muskellunge, as well as the pathophysiology of delayed mortality. Anyone that knows me knows that I am extremely interested in the physiology of the fish in response to angling--and the pathophysiology of delayed mortality. In fact I have written an article about it, and this will be published in the January issue of "Muskie," the MI monthly publication.
But I would ask you John--how would an angler know which fish weren't going to make it? If that were the case, there really wouldn't be much of an issue--but when the delayed mortality is anywhere from 5-30% (depending upon time of the year, health of the fish, and a myriad of other factors), how does the angler know which fish is not going to survive the angling process? Obviously, in certain instances this may be readily apparent and the decision can easily be made (bleeding heavily from the gills at the time of release, etc). However, you must admit that the risk to sub-legal fish is just as great, if not greater, as there are more of them being caught...relatively speaking. And if we are able to educate more anglers on the process of proper C&R practices, maybe we can reduce overall mortality--for ALL muskellunge. As such, I applaud MuskieFIRST (and Steve Worrall in particular) for undertaking such an endeavor. So hopefully the mortality issue will start to become less & less of a factor.
Now to perhaps the most difficult point to address--that of the legality of keeping a 50" fish. On one hand, this won't be an issue if the limit is increased to 54"...end of problem. But is that the *best* way to handle it? I can honestly say that I don't think anyone knows. But in many parts of Canada (where they rely on the sport fishery for economic health to a much larger degree than we do here), this is exactly what they have done. People want to go fish where there are BIG fish. And as CPR has grown in popularity over the past 10 or so years, there seem to be more 50" muskies being caught. While I feel that it's a tremendous accomplishment to say the least, it doesn't seem to be heralded as much as it was in the past...but THAT IS GOOD! That means that overall angler satisfaction is higher, and the fisheries management folks are doing their jobs! But the next obvious question that should be asked is "just how big can these fish get?" While we don't yet know the answer to this question, one thing is for sure--every dead 50-54" musky represents one less potential 55-60" musky...and dare I say, one less potential WR fish! We simply don't know what we don't know, and as such we should take any necessary steps to protect the fishery while we sort all of this out. We can always decrease the size limits again in the future, if it appears that this is indeed the best course of action.
So once again I want to thank all of you who have participated in this thread to this point--especially those of you who have expressed opposing viewpoints. These types of things need to be aired publicly, and thank God for places like MuskieFIRST for allowing this type of exchange. While we are not able to reach anglers that do not frequent the musky forums--we ARE able to reach people who know people who probably know some of these people. So it WILL make a difference, and we should keep discussing it. We should hear all objections and concerns, and address them in turn--because this is how a compromise can be reached.
And thanks for keeping it civil fellas...
Tom Betka
Research Director
Titletown Chapter, Muskies Inc.
Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 6:53 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I remember seeing dumpsters full of carcasses of 8-10 pound walleyes at Bay de Noc after word got out about the trophy fishery. Most guys were CPR fishermen, but you don't hear much about 12's and 14's anymore. I don't visit the walleye boards anymore, so I don't know what's happening up there. Just talking to Walleyes Unlimited guys, they report that trophies are getting to be more rare occurances.
I think we're preaching to the choir here. Most of us carry cameras, not clubs.
The Eagles said it best......."You calll someplace Paradise....Kiss it goodbye." | |
| | |
| Why release a 50" Muskie from a totally stocked system with little recruitment and the Muskie is legal to keep?
According to the MNDNR it costs about $2890.00 in stocking funds and from 12 -15 years to replace a 50" Muskie in a totally stocked system. That's why.
When are Muskie going to achieve a "Sport Fish" status that Bass have already attained for decades? Muskies are an apex predator just like Blue and Black Marlin and Sailfish. Most professional ocean Charters don't sell the fish anymore, they sell the thrill of catching it and release regardless of condition. That's why you don't see hanging from the tail root from the wharf shots anymore. They are just to valuable and rare to kill. Simple as that.
Steve Voigt | |
| | |
Posts: 462
Location: Syracuse, Indiana | Tom I agree with the 54" concept, but in my view the GB fishery deserves more. Increasing the size limit won't prevent meat-hogs from taking multiple fish (although it will be more difficult). In addition to increasing the size limit, I would personally like to see a tag system. Harvest your fish of a lifetime. Enjoy it. Have my congratulations. Just let the next one go so it can grow. Dave Cates | |
| | |
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | Gander Mt Guide - 11/19/2007 12:04 AM
Cost for one....not everybody does skin mounts and replicas for the same amount to persuade anglers to toss them back. A college kid like you knows #*^@ well that a skin mount at $9.00 an inch is alot more appealing than 12-13.00 an inch.
COST? Come on...in this sport or any other like it, well that is a poor excuse. Using your model the difference between a skin mount vs. a replica is $208.00. Now if the angler travels 120 miles round trip to the taxidermist to drop off said fish, and his truck gets 15 mpg, at $3 per gallon he now has $24.00 in gas. So now we are down to $184.00(plus he'll probably stop to get a soda and head through McDonalds Drive thru). What is that? 10 less baits(hey sell a few that you are not using)? One less rod/reel combo? Skip a Muskie show next year, etc. etc. It is all about choices. But cost is a poor excuse. Tighten the belt somewhere else....I'd be willing to bet 10 dimes to a dollar that every fisherman/sportsman has $200 worth of gear that they don't use that could hit the buy/sell trade boards or ebay..Now there is an idea for the Outdoor Channel...kind of like HGTV's Clean Sweep....Don't anyone try to sell me on COST! Equipment, Boats, Gas, Vehicles, Food, Sheesh, what's another $185 to have a mount that will last a lifetime! Let's even take it a step back/further...If the guy can't afford the $676 for the mount, my guess is he is going to have problems with the $468 as well and probably shouldn't be spending the money on the "luxury item". Therefore, why not take the measurements and wait until he/she is more financially stable to make the purchase.
Edited by Wisconsin Wade 11/19/2007 8:53 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | CATCH PHOTO RELEASE all fish !!! It makes me sick when I see someone keep a fish today.The good old days are gone. Replica mounts, no skin mounts, when I see a skin mount today it makes me MAD and SICK to look at it. Think for the furture not live in the past. | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Here in Michigan we have a tag for Sturgeon. I've been trying to push for years that this system would work well for muskellunge management. Here is how the sturgeon tag works:
Current law requires an angler of any age to obtain a sturgeon tag prior to fishing for sturgeon. Please remember the following when fishing for sturgeon:
- Regardless of whether you intend to harvest a sturgeon or practice catch/release, you must obtain this tag before going sturgeon fishing.
- The sturgeon tag is free and is not a substitute for a fishing license.
- While fishing, the sturgeon tag must be in your possession.
- In addition to possessing the sturgeon tag, all anglers 17 years old or older must have either a restricted fishing license or an all-species license to fish for sturgeon.
- When you register and receive a sturgeon tag, you are helping the Department of Natural Resources collect information on the sturgeon population and the number of people fishing for them.
- The sturgeon tag allows you to harvest one sturgeon, and each angler shall only receive one tag in a fishing season.
- Registered anglers that elect to harvest a sturgeon during the open possession season must tag the fish prior to bringing the fish in for registration, but they may continue to fish for sturgeon (catch/release only) during the remainder of the open seasons for sturgeon.
- Sturgeon that are to be released after capture do NOT need to be tagged.
| |
| | |
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | tcbetka - 11/19/2007 6:48 AM
I will admit, the cost differential is an issue. That's why we have started working on some potential countermeasures against that hurdle--but it's going to take a concerted effort between the anglers, the taxidermists and third parties that may want to help subsidize these efforts. Obviously no one is going to pay for an angler's mount...just because they said they released a fish. These are OUR resources, and we can all benefit from their conservation. If an angler catches a magnificent fish and wants to mount it, then they have made the decision to spend a certain amount of money to pay for that mount. So we are really only talking about the cost *differential* between the skin mount and the reproduction, correct? While it is too early to detail some of the early measures being considered, there are things that can be done to make this less of a burden.
Tom Betka
Research Director
Titletown Chapter, Muskies Inc.
I just read this...Tom, are you saying that we need a subsidy program to have a fish mounted? I am all for keeping discussions civil, but a that is a bit ridiculous. It is a "luxury item" and I don't think that taxidermists/sportsmen/philanthropists shoud be forking out money so that someone can get a reduced rate to have a fish replica mounted. Where does that stop? How about a subsidy program where I can buy Bud instead of Busch? I really respect many of your ideas and efforts but am not for this type of "entitlement". | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wisconsin Wade - 11/19/2007 8:45 AM
SNIP...If the guy can't afford the $676 for the mount, my guess is he is going to have problems with the $468 as well and probably shouldn't be spending the money on the "luxury item". Therefore, why not take the measurements and wait until he/she is more financially stable to make the purchase.
I hadn't thought of that Wade--that's an excellent point.
I just read this...Tom, are you saying that we need a subsidy program to have a fish mounted? I am all for keeping discussions civil, but a that is a bit ridiculous. It is a "luxury item" and I don't think that taxidermists/sportsmen/philanthropists shoud be forking out money so that someone can get a reduced rate to have a fish replica mounted. Where does that stop? How about a subsidy program where I can buy Bud instead of Busch? I really respect many of your ideas and efforts but am not for this type of "entitlement".
I am not sure of just *what* could be done, or what SHOULD be done in this capacity Wade. Your point(s) are well-taken. I am only trying to facilitate discussion and invite ideas to flow...and involve as many people as possible in the process.
The way I see it, if we can learn about all possible objections to increasing the size limit *before* we put it to the vote--then we will be much better prepared for the debate that is sure to come.
I appreciate your participation in the thread.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 10:45 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | First off right now the size limit on GB is 50 inches so anyone fishing it has the right to keep any fish 50 inches or larger nobody is disputing that. It doesn’t mean people can’t fight for a higher size limit to further protect those fast growing fish. Last year the people who attended the spring hearings, where a 54” size limit was proposed vote overwhelmingly in favor of it. Those voices should not go unheard.
Wisconsin has an emerging fishery in Green Bay that has to potential to compete with the best waters Canada has to offer, doesn’t it make sense to protect this emerging fishery at least to the same level of protection as Canada has provided. They enacted these high limits a number of years ago with no detrimental effect on the economies of the local communities. They have the science that backs up these high size limits, and since most of this science pertains to Great Lakes fisheries why do we have to re-invent the wheel lets use there examples and run with it to our own benefit.
As to "why release a fish that is going to die anyway?" This is the same argument many use with any higher size limit weather it’s increasing from 30, 34, 45, or 50. Please read the following:
From: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/faq.asp?id=69
Q)Most serious musky fishermen today release all of their muskies, Why do we want to regulate something the public is already doing voluntarily?
A)An estimated 92 % of all muskies are released, but the mean length of harvested muskies is only 37 inches (Simonson and Hewett 1999). As a fish grows larger than 40 inches, the odds of its being kept instead of released keep increasing. Based on data in Casselman (1999), it takes a female musky an average of 9 years to reach 40 inches and another 7 years to reach 50 inches. It may be caught many times during this time, but each fish can only be harvested once. Casselman et al (1996) suggest that with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population. Relying solely on voluntary release is not an effective way to grow big muskies.
Q)Higher length limits won't do any good because too many fish will die after they're released, especially if they're deep-hooked on live bait. Besides, unhooking a large musky is dangerous!
A) Some hooking mortality is bound to occur any time fish are caught and released. However, with a minimum of handling and some common sense, most released muskies will survive, without undue risk of injury to the angler. Proper catch and release techniques are already being practiced by many anglers. Efforts to educate all anglers on these techniques should continue, and again anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery.
Great discussion!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| "Replica mounts, no skin mounts, when I see a skin mount today it makes me MAD and SICK to look at it."
No offense intended, but its amazing how much your attitude mirrors that of PETA, isn't it?
I understand your desire to promote C&R, but please remember that musky are still just fish. When you guys take such a hard line approach to subjects like this, you tend to look a little out of touch with reality and end up doing more harm than good.
For me, I don't think I would ever keep a musky. They stink too much for me to think about eating one and I won't pay to have one mounted. But that should be my choice, not yours.
Lastly, I would urge caution on this topic... to me, once you have established that a population of fish is too delicate to sustain ANY harvest, I think you have made a real case for not allowing anyone to target them in the first place.
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | brad b - 11/19/2007 11:14 AM
No offense intended, but its amazing how much your attitude mirrors that of PETA, isn't it?
Not at all, Peta promotes fishing being banned. Alot differant than saying people should let trophy fish go. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Brad, I think the main concern for most is about the future, and what kind of future Green Bay may have down the road if muskies are getting kept on such a regular basis. That's what the concern is about from what I can gather. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wade,
This morning I called both Rick Lax and Joe Fittante. Both charge identical amounts for muskellunge skin mounts and reproductions, and both charge about the same per inch (around $12). So there's certainly no cost incentive there...
However I do realize that guys might be only charging lesser amounts for skin mounts elsewhere--or they may not even offer reproductions, so the only choice is a skin mount. And if they are trying to make a name for themselves in the business, then their rates would probably reflect that. Rick Lax told me that is not uncommon in fact, but he didn't elaborate on the names of those taxidermists...nor did I ask. Suffice it to say that guys could get skin mounts done cheaper than reproductions, so that may remain an issue--though I fully understand the points you were making in your previous post.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 20
| will it really matter if vhs kills all the fish anyway?
Edited by bjb360 11/19/2007 1:10 PM
| |
| | |
| "Brad, I think the main concern for most is about the future, and what kind of future Green Bay may have down the road if muskies are getting kept on such a regular basis. That's what the concern is about from what I can gather."
I disagree. I think the concern here is NOT over harvest of a ridiculously insignificant portion of the fish population, it's about some guys not wanting anyone to ever harvest a musky. The original post on this thread was from a guy that knew of 8 fish being harvested this fall. Not 8 last weekend, or 8 this month. 8 this fall.
In my two or three trips to the bay for musky, I've been in the boat with about 9 fish. None of them were over 50 inches. Therefore I can predict with absolute certainty that at least 1/2 of the population of musky in Green Bay survived this high rate of exploitation and will be there for walleye angler to incidentally catch next spring. And I'm equally as sure that someone will start a thread either here or on another web site to complain about that. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | VHS isn't going to kill *all* the fish--but it will take some, presumably. It's unfortunate, but that's nature. But as anglers, we can and SHOULD do our parts not to hasten the process. But even with the best precautions theoretically possible, wildlife vectors are still going to spread the disease. This would include water fowl, other water-oriented birds, migrating fish, etc.
But you have made a good point, perhaps without even realizing it... If VHS has yet to fully rear its ugly head in the bay, shouldn't we be even that much more proactive in taking measures to protect the fishery? If VHS takes 25-30% of the large fish (my numbers for the sake of argument--I have no hard data on that), then do we want anglers to harvest another 5 or 10 percent...or more? Certainly VHS may not take that many fish--but it could take more! And if we wait until we know for sure how many fish it does take, the horse is going to be out of the barn and the barn just burned down. Dead fish are dead fish, and it may take another 12-15 years to get back to where we are now!
As I mentioned in a previous post, sound fisheries management dictates some degree of fluidity in management strategy--and this includes regulation. So to the opponents of the 54" size limit I ask...if the authors of the current 50" size regulation had known about VHS several years ago, do you think they would have settled for a 50 inch limit--especially if they'd known how many large fish would be harvested? We'll never know of course, but I bet not. In other words, times change, and so must we if we want to continue to see positive results towards meeting our goals. I have said it before and I will say it again--we simply do not know what we don't know about: The population of fish in the bay; migration of the fish throughout the bay system; the impact of harvest on that population; the future impact of VHS on the fishery; and the size potential of these fish. That's too many unknowns for one equation, the last time I took math.
It's hard enough trying to predict things that are (for the most part) out of our control, so why not do something about the things that we CAN control?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 1:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Welcome to our annual winter disagreement between the "it's fine look at the fish being caught who cares if people keep them" crowd and the "more and more people are going to pound the snot out of it and what's going to happen 5 years down the road if we sit idly by and do nothing?" crowd...
As the discussion becomes further polarized, it will likely disintegrate into "It's just a fish you PETA freak" vs. "I saw 250 dead muskies over 50" floating just last week, and anybody who even thinks of keeping one of these fish should be castated and shot!"...
After which the thread, like all the others, will slowly fade down to page 2 and beyond...
So let's just be honest, shall we?
Half of you are afraid that if we don't bump up the size limits or something the Green Bay musky fishery will soon become a has-been, and you won't be able to catch as many fish. The other half just want to be able to whack a fish and not feel guilty about it because you have kids, or you think skin mounts are better than replicas, or you just plain want one and really either don't believe or don't care that people harvesting a trophy fish might just have an impact that goes beyond a shiny "look at what I did" on the wall... | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| A couple thoughts here.
No, I repeat NO, muskies have been found to have died from VHS in Green Bay. It's a cold water disease(55 degrees or so), and I've not heard of any die off since the water temps finally made it under 60. This year, or any previous year. So, yes, it would matter.
A tag system isn't the answer. You have to carry a tag if you are fishing for muskies. But if you use your tag, then you don't have to carry one? Huh?
Yelling at people isn't the answer. Whether they are mishandling(in your eyes) a fish, or keeping a fish. Public ridicule at a MI tourney was tried, and it appears, had no effect on one guy.
In the past, when the subject of skin mounts came up, I suggested that one of the reason for live mounts was cost, and that the taxidermists could help by RAISING the price of skin mounts to the same price as repro's. While I am not taking credit for it, I do know that Joe, Lax, and Artistic Aglers have taken that step. Financially there is no reason to have a skin mount by these three. Repro's look so much better, IMO. If you want to see how bad a skin mount of a Green Bay fish looks like, I can advise you on where to see one. If you want to see how great a repro GB fish looks like, well, I can help there, too.
Look, this is a relatively new fishery. I've been fishing it longer than most, and I've introduced many people to it. Pretty sure none of them would actually keep a fish, but I could be wrong. Kept fish are going to happen. But we need to educate, as well as work towards getting the limit raised. I was on board with Dennis last year on the 54" proposal. I agree with it. I am a bit concerned that the new biologist doesn't not appear to agree with it, if I am hearing right. I will talk with him, and try to get a read on his actual position. If this is not on the spring hearing questionaire this year, after overwhelming support last spring, I will be finding out why.
Nick, the 50" limit didn't happen last year. It's been there for quite a while. Last spring was a resolution to add the 54" limit to the ballot on next April. It was a nonbinding resolution.
Most fish caught in the Fox, and on the lower bay, were palnted in the Fox. I have received info from probably 25 Fox caught fish, and so far, everyone was released in the Fox. I agree on relaeasing in more diverse locations in the future.
How many people catch and decide to keep a "fish of a lifetime", only to toss it out in the garbage when they do their annual freezer dump? I bet it's more than you think! They call the local taxidermist, and get a quote for a skin mount. When they come to after the shock, they put it in the freezer til they "save" the money. They never seem to be able to pull the trigger on that mount, and the fish is wasted.
Edited by Shep 11/19/2007 2:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 6
| The real problem here is that this area is seeing way too much pressure from way to many people fishing it. This was brought on by the recent tournament and the discovery of this area by the " for profit fishermen". There are several guide boats bringing people out there everyday.
In my opinion size limits are not the problem. The problem is too many people brought on by the profit fishing.
Bob | |
| | |
| Here is a hypothetical question. Why does there need to be a size limit at all? Make it all CPR. Either the Tax payers or the Clubs are paying for these fish.
If you don't want to fish a CPR system stay home.
This is my simple solution. The clubs should promote this. Especially if they are paying for the fish!!
Also catching big fish trolling is not a very big accomplishment. Sure i'd love to catch a 50 trolling but I'd prefer a 40 casting.
| |
| | |
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | How many guides do you think are really guiding on the Bay?
Are all of these "guides" legal? If not, call the Coast Guard. It is a hefty fine along with the possible loss of boat, equipment and tow vehicle. Along with that, you have dealt with the feds so now you will have the IRS crawling up your butt to see if you are filing all necessary paper work.
If they are NOT licensed by the Coast Guard, are NOT on a random drug testing program, do NOT have flares, do NOT have a throwable floatation device with a rope, do NOT have an anchor, do NOT have their captains license accessible on-board the boat at all times they are working and do NOT have Type I life jackets for all people on-board then they are NOT a legitimate guide for the Bay and Fox River System. Turn them in and get them off the water. One way to rid your waters of some pressure.
If they are legit with all the necessary requirements and paper work, leave them alone. They have invested a lot of time and money into becoming legal. If others want to earn some extra money, they can take the time, energy and money to become legal and make money as well. Or, try to pass a law that would not allow guiding to be done. They could then run "charters" and not "guide trips". LOL
I know some of the legitimate guides that work on the Bay and Fox and they know how to handle fish and TEACH people how to handle fish. Please do not blame the success of the Bay on guides. People can hear about a place, but they have to learn how to fish it to be successful. This is a prime example of that. I have been fishing the Fox successfully for musky since about 1988, but kept my mouth shut about it because I did not see others doing it. It has gotten better and better, even with the added pressure.
Capt Chuck | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Musky_Slayer - 11/19/2007 7:18 PM
Here is a hypothetical question. Why does there need to be a size limit at all? Make it all CPR. Either the Tax payers or the Clubs are paying for these fish.
As far as I know, there is no precedence for this sort of thing in the musky world--but maybe someone will correct me if I am mistaken. But this is not simply a matter of "vote for the most popular option, and that's what we'll do."
We must be realistic in terms of requests made to the DNR (the regulatory body for our fishery, as you may recall), and thus these options have to be a compromise between having both biological & sociological validity. While some may support a total CPR fishery, I don't think you're going to sell that to the DNR. And without selling it to the DNR, it isn't going to happen. Why should it? How *could* it? (Short of a budget bill, I mean...)
If you don't want to fish a CPR system stay home.
This is my simple solution. The clubs should promote this. Especially if they are paying for the fish!!
Just because special interest groups make donations to benefit a natural resource, it doesn't mean they have ownership of that resource. Don't forget that groups like Muskies Inc. were conceived and developed to assist in the welfare of the resource--they were never intended to negate the need for the regulatory agencies that are mandated (by law) to "take ownership" of the resource. They have to maintain it, and under scrutiny from all directions while doing so.
This is about altruism...not about being materialistic.
Also catching big fish trolling is not a very big accomplishment. Sure i'd love to catch a 50 trolling but I'd prefer a 40 casting.
LOL, good one. Tell that to the 20 or so boats out there on any given weekend that *don't* catch a fish. I think they might have something to say about that...
TB
| |
| | |
Posts: 65
Location: De Pere Wisconsin | Guest - 11/19/2007 7:56 AM
Why release a 50" Muskie from a totally stocked system with little recruitment and the Muskie is legal to keep?
According to the MNDNR it costs about $2890.00 in stocking funds and from 12 -15 years to replace a 50" Muskie in a totally stocked system. That's why.
Steve Voigt
If the dollar figure above is anywhere near that for the Green Bay/Great Lakes Spotted muskies per individual fish...........WOW. The question is then where do those monies come from? If it is all DNR then they make the call - but if it is raised funds do those groups have more heavily weighted input on conservation decisions such as size limits? Or do you hand the money to the DNR and trust them? Not sure how that works and would be interested to hear if anyone has any insight there.
Maybe instead of tags, if want to keep a fish you just have to pay to replace it  | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Sled hit the nail on the head without even being serious about it...maybe this resource should be treated like Vilas/Onieda cos. NO MOTOR TROLLING. I bet you see a lot more of your 50+ fish NOT caught. Boom, problem solved, no need to raise a limit that was just raised. | |
| | |
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | NO trolling law on the Bay?
You would then outlaw trolling for all species on any part of Lake Michigan associated with Wisconsin.
Boy, you would LOSE BIG on that one. Present that somewhere serioulsy and you would first get laughed out of the place and then tar and feathered.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | davidd said:
If the dollar figure above is anywhere near that for the Green Bay/Great Lakes Spotted muskies per individual fish...........WOW. The question is then where do those monies come from? If it is all DNR then they make the call - but if it is raised funds do those groups have more heavily weighted input on conservation decisions such as size limits? Or do you hand the money to the DNR and trust them? Not sure how that works and would be interested to hear if anyone has any insight there.
Maybe instead of tags, if want to keep a fish you just have to pay to replace it
You make donations to a PROGRAM, which happens to be managed by the DNR. But as far as I know, there is no implication of authority when it comes to management decisions. I don't believe the State of Wisconsin would consider selling its resources if it meant they would lose control over their well-being.
As much as some would like to think so, donating money to help the DNR support a program does not imply expertise in managing it. While I do not agree that we should blindly hand over large sums of money on a regular basis, I vote that we let the people trained to manage...manage. Of course I would expect them to be receptive to our concerns, but that doesn't mean that the biologist is going to call the MI chapter President to "run it by him" whenever they are contemplating a management decision. But I would hope that they take enough interest in the organization to already know how we feel--but that's a two-way street...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 8:31 PM
| |
| | |
| NO trolling law on the Bay?
You would then outlaw trolling for all species on any part of Lake Michigan associated with Wisconsin.
Boy, you would LOSE BIG on that one. Present that somewhere serioulsy and you would first get laughed out of the place and then tar and feathered.
notably, this is NOT a place where anyone gets laughed out of, nor tarred and feathered. to this point, this discussion has remained friendly and respectful. please take care to keep it that way.
as far as no trolling on the Bay? yes, obviously not going to happen as there's way too much investment in created fisheries (other than muskies) that are only really able to be targeted by trolling.
however, the suggestion speaks to the issue at hand: how do you protect the muskies that so much work has gone into placing and producing? no trolling is no more or less of a legitmate way to do so than a 100% catch/release rule would be. either way would mean far fewer fish being removed from the system.
imho it really comes down to each individual's definition of "trophy".
for many people, a 45" fish is wall-worthy. for some it's 50". for a much smaller number it's up at 54" or 56".
how did the GB system come to have numbers of 50"+ fish?
have subsequent year-classes been stocked at the same rates?
if follow-on year classes are equally healthy in numbers, the harvest of fish over a certain size (currently 50 inches) isn't jeopardizing the whole fishery - it's only jeopardizing the likelihood of numbers of fish making it to their ultimate potential. let's keep things in perspective, we're not talking about the doom of the entire fishery, just a threat to a certain portion of the fish arbitrarily defined as trophy class fish.
if your goal is to help to get more fish to the 54"-56" range, the best way to do so (imho) is to get other people invested in this as the goal. unfortunately, i think you'll find the special interest group of people who share this goal is relatively small and hard to mobilize, especially when talking about a fishery that already has a 50" limit in place - something that's already beyond what most "average" fisherman in the area consider a trophy.
when the DNR looks at limits, they generally respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen). this is what happened when the board denied increasing the limit again: they recognized it as the desire of a small slice of the total fishing population and they acted on their value that allowing someone to harvest "the fish of a lifetime" is a good thing. (not saying i agree, just that i understand!)
20 years ago, it was an uphill battle for people to spread the idea of CPR on smaller fish. the new uphill battle is getting people to do it on big fish in order to make huge fish. it was doable then, it's doable now, and imho a better strategy than trying to continually raise the limits.
| |
| | |
Posts: 65
Location: De Pere Wisconsin | That is what I thought as far as input goes but wasn't sure. Does the spotted program rely on outside funding to survive? Or are the raised funds used for going "above and beyond" or in other words making a good program better?
I would like to have a shot at catching bigger muskies than just 49.9999 inchers in several years, if the "big" ones continue to get pulled. Pointer Prides fish from a few weeks ago that had the data posted was very interesting since that year showed 120 yearlings planted at that location. In the last 12 years there has been 1100 yearlings roughly planted in that general area. The number of fingerlings (10" roughly at planting) is a much larger number, but mortality is substantially higher also, according to former Dnr fisheries biologist Kevin K.
There are alot of fish in the water, but not an indefinite number. You only need to look at the actual number of fish stocked and then think about how many ways a 12 year old musky could die and the numbers start to look a little scary.
I would love to see how big these fish could get and think 54" is reasonable - where does 54" come from would be my next question...how about 56" to be safe | |
| | |
|
Limits should always be put in context of fish potential.
Elk lake (200 acres) in Mn had a 48" limit. The first few years of stocked fish got to large size, fish in the 52-54" range were kept for mounting.
After a few years, the fish in that lake all topped out at 49-50". Anything over 50" was a rarity, even in the DNR nets.
Now that lake has been C&R only for 3 years, and I know of two 50" + fish caught this fall.
50" is probably to small a limit for GB.
John Skarie
| |
| | |
| In a big city like GB with all the internet hype and pictures you'll have first time musky fisherman and walleye fisherman targeting musky. If my first musky was a 50" and I didn't know about CPR i'd keep it too. Each year you will have a new wave of fisherman who have never fished musky out there. The guys keeping the fish probably are not reading MH, EA, or MF.
| |
| | |
| 54 inch size limits... musky tags... no harvest... eliminate trolling.... Man, and I thought the deer hunting elitists were difficult to please.
PLEASE be careful about trying to get new rules passed. They often times have implication far beyond what was originally intended. | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I said i was done with this, but, here are a few more thoughts:
1) In WI, you need a stamp to hunt Pheasants, ducks, turkeys, as well as to fish Trout. I do not mind paying another $10.00 to fish musky. You paid x= amount for your boat, you spent x= amount for your baits, etc.
2) Why not make musky totally catch and release (other than in waters where they are stunted), so little johnny's rich parents can have his 26" mounted?
With the realism Lax puts into his craft, I'd rather have a rep done that is going to last into my grandkid's rec room, than to save money to have something done that would not out-live me.
It is the meat (or skin) hogs that this fishery has brought into our addiction that scares the crap out of me.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Make that 3 fish you know of 50" from Elk This year | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | BenR - 11/20/2007 12:32 AM
Why not just keep stocking it? It seems to be working fine...If I recall one guy kept a bunch last year and I am sure a few others did as well...Now this year seems even to be better than the last...Seems like people are trying to fix something that is not broken...
How long do you think that would last Ben?
It takes *at least* 12-13 years to grow a 50" musky out in Green Bay--and that's substantially faster than in many other places, from what I am being told by guys from other fisheries. So how long can the system sustain repeated harvest of 50-54" fish before we run the numbers way down? Certainly there are fish being stocked yearly--but the DNR would like to stop that at some point. It's expensive and labor-intensive, and I believe it's generally agreed that a self-sustaining population is healthier for the fishery in the long run. And why not shoot for a self-sustaining fishery? There's habitat, improved water quality and LOADS of forage! In other words, there doesn't appear to be anything preventing that from happening--so let's not make over-harvest a factor.
Sure, it may seem better out there this year...but that proves nothing, other than that more guys are fishing this year. The system can stand some harvest, certainly...but how much harvest? How many 50"+ fish can be *safely* removed? I don't believe anyone knows--that's my point. So wouldn't it be prudent to take immediate action to protect the resource whilst we figure it all out? Keep in mind that the first year of significant stocking was the 1988 year class (stocked in '89), so most of the remaining fish in the early years of stocking are just now reaching that magic 50-54" size range. So it doesn't seem like rocket science to protect them as much as possible, and see where it takes us over the next 5-6 years.
If, in 5 years, the largest fish being caught are no longer than 54 or 55 inches...then maybe the size limit can be eased back a bit. However if these fish (like their cousins to the east) can reach out to 56, 58 or even 60(!!!) inches--then we will have fish that big! Just think about that for a second--that has tremendous implications for the local community. And what a success story that would be for the DNR's stocking & management program; as well as the businesses, clubs and private individuals that helped to support the program. It would be a win-win-win situation.
I will say (in the interest of total disclosure) that I have heard that the DNR has some preliminary data suggesting that these fish may not reach lengths of that proportion. In 2006 Kapuscinski (et al) published an article that reported that their analysis to that point indicated that these fish may not reach record lengths, but that they *may* in fact reach record weights. I am still trying to obtain the full article for review, but it seems as though there is a very real possibility that we could see muskellunge of enormous proportions (dare I say...55-60 pounds or more?) within the next 5-8 years. And remember, that paper was written in 2005, with data probably collected from 2004! So we have had 2-3 more years of growth. And shoot--we have already seen one from the river; Ryan Dempsey's 56x33.5 fish from April 2005. I wonder if Kevin knew about that fish (or the 59" monster caught and released from Sturgeon Bay in 2005) when they wrote the article?
Let's give these gal's sisters a chance to show what they can do...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/20/2007 8:17 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau said: “…if your goal is to help to get more fish to the 54"-56" range, the best way to do so (imho) is to get other people invested in this as the goal. unfortunately, i think you'll find the special interest group of people who share this goal is relatively small and hard to mobilize, especially when talking about a fishery that already has a 50" limit in place - something that's already beyond what most "average" fisherman in the area consider a trophy.
when the DNR looks at limits, they generally respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen). this is what happened when the board denied increasing the limit again: they recognized it as the desire of a small slice of the total fishing population and they acted on their value that allowing someone to harvest "the fish of a lifetime" is a good thing. (not saying i agree, just that i understand!)”
That’s a great idea Lambeau and that’s exactly what happened, but it was more than a small group of special interest. Here are the county vote totals from last year on the 54” topic.
Here is the list of each county the Green Bay 54" Size Limit increase was proposed in with the votes.
Barron Co. / 20 Yes & 6 No
Bayfield Co. / 27 Yes & 8 No
Brown Co. / 67 Yes & 15 No
Dane Co. / 92 Yes & 43 No
Door Co. / 25 Yes & 19 No
Douglas Co. / 11 Yes & 3 No
Forest Co. / 18 Yes & 4 No
Iowa Co. / 26 Yes & 4 No
Kenosha Co. / 46 Yes & 8 No
Manitowoc Co. / 38 Yes & 21 No
Marathon Co. / 33 Yes & 19 No
Milwaukee Co. / 49 Yes & 42 No
Oconto Co. / 28 Yes & 9 No
Onieda Co. / 22 Yes & 6 No
Outagamie Co. / 43 Yes & 6 No
Portage Co. / 64 Yes & 13 No
Racine Co. / 44 Yes & 14 No
Sawyer Co. / 22 Yes & 0 No
Shawano Co. / 37 Yes & 11 No
Sheboygan Co. / 58 Yes & 14 No
Vilas Co. / 49 Yes & 8 No
Washburn Co. / 19 Yes & 4 No
Washington Co. / 57 Yes & 14 No
Waukesha Co. / 108 Yes & 18 No
Waupaca Co. / 58 Yes & 20 No
Winnebago Co. / 47 Yes & 14 No
See the entire thread on this topic at the following:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=34...
Even the don’t over-regulate me old timers up in my area Oneida/Vilas county passed this proposal.
In my opinion the DNR board DID NOT “…respond to the desires of the overall pool of customers (fishermen).” In fact based on the above vote totals from the vaunted spring hearing they did the exact opposite. In my opinion you live by the sword you die by the sword. They hold up the spring hearings as the only way to get new rules passed, but when the politicians don’t like the result of those hearing they do a side step around them.
If the board would have done there job the “overall pool of customers(fishermen)” would have had another shot to shoot this down. Last years vote was a resolution vote, why not put the resolution on the rule change ballot and really let the people State wide vote.
If I had to guess a small group of special interest GOT to the board and convinced them to prevent the moving forward of this proposal even though it’s what the majority of spring hearing attendees WANTED!
THE SPRING HEARINGS ARE A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was said before and I’ll say it again, the best thing to do is buy a politician. It works from local school boards all the way up to the President.
BenR said: “Why not just keep stocking it?”
What the Politicians would say: “Well you see with budget cuts and VHS stocking Green Bay at past levels just isn’t possible, but don’t worry I am sure it will be fine, local business interest say more and more people are coming to fish it. Isn’t it great. If there’s problems well worry about them later, lets ride the gravy train while we can!”
And remember “…each fish can only be harvested once. Casselman et al (1996) suggest that with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population.”
That being said don’t give up, THE ONLY WAY TO EFFECT CHANGE is to work with the system we have, eventually they will have to listen if enough people speak up.
One other thing is to make sure this doesn’t get muddied up anymore. Stick with what has already been voted on which happens to be something Canada is proving WORKS.
Fast growing fish that are be heavily pressured, simple un-risky solution to increase the size limit to let them grow bigger, makes total sense.
Look at what John said about Elk lake again:
“Elk lake (200 acres) in Mn had a 48" limit. The first few years of stocked fish got to large size, fish in the 52-54" range were kept for mounting.
After a few years, the fish in that lake all topped out at 49-50". Anything over 50" was a rarity, even in the DNR nets.”
If there is extra vigor going on right now in GB, doesn’t it make the most sense to protect this first large class of fish to see just how big they can get. The Size limit can always be lowered later if needed. But wouldn’t the fish eventually leveling out at 53-54” be better than leveling at 49-50”, especially if the goal is a long term trophy tourist destination.
Why can’t we learn for the past experience, even if it is from other States or Countries, and be proactive for the future rather than waiting to react to negative situations on our own.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| That’s a great idea Lambeau and that’s exactly what happened, but it was more than a small group of special interest. Here are the county vote totals from last year on the 54” topic.
Here is the list of each county the Green Bay 54" Size Limit increase was proposed in with the votes...
i disagree with your assessment. people are sheep...if someone speaks up at a meeting in favor of something, and no one speaks up against it, most of the people present vote in favor. also, a very small percentage of overall outdoors consumers attend the hearings, representing a select group of especially invested people. it's simply incorrect to assume that the hearing attendees and vote totals represent broader outdoor consumers' opinions.
it's the system we've got, and i agree it's a bad system, but let's not say "hey it's good" when we like the outcomes, and "hey it's bad" when we don't like them.
If I had to guess a small group of special interest GOT to the board and convinced them to prevent the moving forward of this proposal even though it’s what the majority of spring hearing attendees WANTED!
so why not "get to the board" or even better yet, get ON the board. it's not really that hard to get elected and get on committees if someone wants to get involved in the actual Congress side of the process.
If there is extra vigor going on right now in GB, doesn’t it make the most sense to protect this first large class of fish to see just how big they can get. The Size limit can always be lowered later if needed. But wouldn’t the fish eventually leveling out at 53-54” be better than leveling at 49-50”, especially if the goal is a long term trophy tourist destination.
again, it comes down to defining what a "trophy" is, and what a person should do when they catch a trophy. those of us who see "trophy" and "ultimate potential" as interchangeable terms are a very small group compared to those who see 50" fish as harvestable "trophies".
it would be VERY easy for someone to argue that creating a long-term tourist destination includes making the harvest of a trophy accessible. ie., some would argue that raising the limits might actually keep some people away from the area because they want to be able to keep that fish. this kind of argument would resonate with "general" fishermen much more that higher and higher limits because most people believe we're over-regulated already.
i'm not saying this is what i think or agree with, just that this is where the resistance is likely to be coming from.
imho, in light of the success of that resistance in stopping the limits from increasing, the best way to protect those fish is to actively educate - reach out to the people who aren't reading EA/MH/MF. write a guest editorial for WI Outdoor News or Wisconsin Outdoor Journal or your local paper to reach the broader fishing audience.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau, I listed documented proof that 68.5% of interested Wisconsin sportsmen in counties where the proposal was presented voted in favor of the 54” limit.
Do you have proof that there is a larger overall resistance to this?
The WDNR board is made up of Governor Appointees; it is not an elected position. If I am not mistaken this proposal was tabled there not at one of the elected Conservation Congress Committees.
I gave up on fighting and complaining about the Spring Hearing system and made the decision a few years ago to start using it.
EVERYBODY said this is the system and we need to work within it, regarding the Multi Lake 50” proposal back in the early 00’s. “Musky fishermen and WDNR biologists didn’t get the word out, it’s our own fault it didn’t pass!” So now musky fishermen are using the system going by THEIR RULES, and what happens a small group of people side step the system, I.E. WDNR board and Legislators (see the early season C&R season) which has been shot down at the hearing on multiple occasions.
If the WDNR board would have done there job this would not have been LAW it would have been a rule change question on the WDNR rule Change Ballot this Spring, the people who opposed it would have had every opportunity to garner support and show up and vote against it. Just as the people in favor of it could show up and vote for it. In stead a small group of appointed Politicians tabled it. For what reason, and persuaded by WHO?
It’s not about saying "hey it's good" when we like the outcomes, and "hey it's bad" when we don't like them.” It’s about working within the rules they set up and then having them change the rules to their liking.
It’s not about definition of trophy, (which by the way WI all species fishermen have agreed upon is 50”according to a WDNR poll), this is Wisconsin’s first potential world record musky fishery, why not protect it as such. At least until the VHS and stocking issues have been resolved and it’s true potential is know. That is what was voted on by the attendees of the spring hearings last year, that is what should have been given the chance to become a new rule this year. By the way the vote last year was before the added scare of VHS.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Lambeau, I listed documented proof that 68.5% of interested Wisconsin sportsmen in counties where the proposal was presented voted in favor of the 54” limit.
Do you have proof that there is a larger overall resistance to this?
no, i don't have "documented proof" that there's resistance to it. however, it is my perception from talking to people about catch/release issues, that there's generally resistance from many people to anything that prevents them from harvesting a fish when they want to do so. we're talking about people who choose to keep low-40" class fish - the idea of raising a limit to 54" that's already at 50" is complete nonsense to these people.
clearly, the "proof" that this exists is in the fact that someone was able to influence the board to torpedo this proposal. it resonated with the RIGHT people.
my point is that when dealing with people who are willing use their power to arbitrarily dismiss the CC system in the way that happened on this issue, trying to argue "widespread support" based on the hearings isn't going to fly because it's too easy to ignore such a small number of people who bothered to offer any kind of opinion on the issue, and the decision-makers have already shown a willingness to do so!
1108 people in favor or raising the limit.
343 people opposed to raising the limit.
a total of only 1451 people voted statewide.
how many fishing licenses were sold in WI last year?
the CC hearings are an exercise in democracy that WI residents are _allowed_ to entertain themselves with. if there's an issue that holds meaning to someone in power and they want a different outcome than the hearings suggest, it's very easy to side-step the process either beauracratically or legislatively.
this is why, imho, trying to protect fish beyond the current "trophy" limits is a good goal, but really it's a secondary goal - it's too easy for those opposed to stop it or for the regs to be changed again. imho, the primary strategy should be getting people to buy in to the idea of releasing these fish, because then you've accomplished a much more durable goal.
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
Location: Syracuse, New York | Just wanted to offer a quick opinion, from someone outside the area:
First, based on the #'s and sizes being reported it seems that you have a trophy fishery that has been well managed and is beginning to reach its potential. Everyone fortunate enough to enjoy it should be greatful and applaud those who have worked to make it what it is.
Secondly, managing a fishery based on consensus opinion is never a good idea. It leads to mismanagement based on widely held, but often inaccurate beliefs/assumptions. Allow the scientists (and the agencies that employ them) to do what they feel is best for the fishery. Your DNR has published guidelines to direct the management of musky fisheries that appear to be in the interest of all fishermen, so allow them to manage this fishery as they see fit to meet those guidelines. It seems they have done an excellent job thus far. Try working with the groups managing your resources rather than against them. It will accomplish more in the long run.
Plus, while it is easy to point to fisherman and keeping fish as the biggest factor in determining fish populations and trophy numbers. Recreational fishing is highly visible, but often less significant. On large bodies of water, Natural causes (weather, VHS, changes in forage) will have far greater impact.
With that said, I'd personally like to see them all get released, in case I ever get up there to take a shot at 'em.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | MRoberts - 11/20/2007 11:20 AM
SNIP...
If the WDNR board would have done there job this would not have been LAW it would have been a rule change question on the WDNR rule Change Ballot this Spring, the people who opposed it would have had every opportunity to garner support and show up and vote against it. Just as the people in favor of it could show up and vote for it. In stead a small group of appointed Politicians tabled it. For what reason, and persuaded by WHO?
So Mike, are you saying that the 54" resolution was *tabled*? I wasn't able to follow that train of thought all the way through. The last thread I saw mentioned that it had passed and would be presented to the full Congress at next the hearing next spring. Do I have that incorrect? If so, can you please point me to the thread (or a URL) that discusses this?
Thanks.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Mike,
How do you propose we get the non-muskie angling crowd on board with C&R? Preaching to the choir here won't do much. As others have stated, the audience we need to reach isn't reading the muskie magazines or the muskie related websites. Though I have no clear evidence to support this, I suspect that the incidental muskie is the one that most often goes on the wall. Putting myself in the shoes of the casual angler here it's very easy to see why telling someone they shouldn't keep the biggest fish they have ever caught would seem stupid.
The goal here is obvious -- maximizing the potential of our muskie fisheries. Despite the flaws in our current system, I feel like legislation is the best way to accomplish that. Telling people they shouldn't do something, even when presented in the best way possible, is not nearly as effective as telling them it is unlawful to do something.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "54 inch size limits... musky tags... no harvest... eliminate trolling.... Man, and I thought the deer hunting elitists were difficult to please.
PLEASE be careful about trying to get new rules passed. They often times have implication far beyond what was originally intended."
BINGO! | |
| | |
| The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites... | |
| | |
Posts: 743
| Tcbetka, why are you alarmed by this? you're not actually suprised by this, are you?
tomcat
Edited by tomcat 11/20/2007 12:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| No Name - 11/20/2007 12:30 PM
The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites...
Hmmm....
"MuskieFIRST.com"
If we're not supposed to talk about Muskie Fishing, what then?
How about this:
Geeen bay sucks, there's no muskies in there!!!
is that better? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | muskie! nut - 11/16/2007 8:11 PM
54" size limit will not happen. The NRB committee will not allow the increase the size limit from 50 to 54 even though it won (almost statewide) vote by 2/3 vote.
I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done.
I believe I read it someplace else also, I will ltry and find it. There is more info on this at "The Next Bite" on there Muskie/Pike forum under the thread Green Bay. Pete Maina echoed whate Muskie! nut said above.
Lambeau, a 54" limit is VERY NEW territory for the WDNR, my guess is the NRB got scared, because they don't know enough about the topic, but that is why the have a Muskellunge Management Committe novel idea how about using them. Just becasue it's new doesn't mean it wrong.
What upsets me the most is the maniplation of the system. Your argument above regarding votes was used against us with the 50" multi lake proposal, (from the oppiste side) they shouldn't be able to have it both ways as I already pointed out.
hitchcos, the system takes the management out of the hands of the biologist, that is the major concern all of have now matter what side of his issue we are on. If I am not mistaken this proposal had the support of the Biologist incharge of GB at the time of it's writing, (someone please correct me if I am wrong) That person has since left the positon and it was vacant when this was going though commitees and the NRB.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/20/2007 1:09 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | No Name - 11/20/2007 12:30 PM
The more you discuss this topic on the internet, the more publicity this fishery is getting. The more publicity the more and more people that will come!!! I have already heard of a couple friends running to GB for Thanksgiving, and the only reason is because what they are reading here on these websites...
I understand your concern. But the fact remains that Green Bay has been well-known as an emerging fishery for the last few years. So it's been gaining in popularity over that time period as well. And remember--while more anglers can certainly mean more muskies caught, it only takes a few anglers harvesting 50 after 50 after 50 after... to decimate the population.
So which is it: Keep things hush-hush and let a certain few of the people who already know about it continue to harvest big fish after big fish; or we "hit the panic button" about the concerns regarding possible over-harvest, and start to garner increasing support to protect the fishery *while there are still big fish left*? Yes there is a risk that we are exposing the fishery to more potential anglers--but if they support the cause, then wouldn't that help things out?
What should we do? We need to act before things go too far. Take immediate action, and arrange for additional data to be gathered so a more informed decision can be made in the future. As I have said before--I cannot imagine that the folks who conceived the reintroduction of muskellunge into the Green Bay system could have ever known things would play out as they have to this point. But this is the end of the fishery, and (hopefully) no permanent or irreparable damage has been to the fishery. Yes, dead fish are dead fish, and nothing will bring them back. But the system can tolerate some harvest--no one here seems to be saying that it can't. The main concern is simply that we are letting things go too far without taking steps to insure that permanent damage is NOT being done.
TB | |
| | |
| "I understand your concern."
To be honest, I'll probably never fish GB.. Just thought that word is going to spread fast, and much, much faster when these topics continue on the internet.. I have watch what the internet does to the waters I fish in MN... Only an FYI... Good luck on the challenges you face.. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | No Name - 11/20/2007 1:16 PM
"I understand your concern."
To be honest, I'll probably never fish GB.. Just thought that word is going to spread fast, and much, much faster when these topics continue on the internet.. I have watch what the internet does to the waters I fish in MN... Only an FYI... Good luck on the challenges you face..
No sweat...thanks for the post. I would have preferred you make it non-anonymously, but that doesn't diminish the content of the post. We don't live in perfect world--and there always seems to be an upside & downside to everything. But people know about this stuff. One guy sees it online and points it out to his friends, who tell their friends, etc. Pretty soon many, many people know about it, and it's impossible to tell who got what from where.
I'm sure that others share in your concern, so it was good to air it.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I apologies for further spreading miss information please see this Email conversation I just had with Tim Simonson chairman of the WDNR Muskellunge Committee:
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:31 PM
Tim, if you have the time, what's the scoop on the GB 54" limit. Lots
of talk about it on the internet musky forums. Many different versions
of what happened going around. If you have quick and dirty scoop I
would post it so people could stop speculating.
Basically the way I understand it is the NRB tabled it, as being to
restrictive. Even though it made it through all the necessary
Conservation Congress resolution steps and committees. Is this correct?
Thanks Tim hope you have a great Holiday Season.
Mike
Reply: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:42 PM
Mike - That's not correct. It's never been before the NRB. As far as I
know, the Conservation Congress still has it. I believe it was assigned
to the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress. I don't know anything
else first hand.
You can look up the chair and members of the committee here - no phone
numbers, though:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/committees/
Tim
So there you have it, all this anger based on flawed info, you have to love the internet, but the other good thing is it’s easy to get the correct answers fast if you know the correct people to contact.
That being said it doesn’t mean this is going to be a question on the Rule Change ballot, someone with all the proper info needs to contact the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress and be the squeaky wheel, it may already be to late for this year. As the ballot may be set, the NRB does review and approve the ballot at some point or another.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | BenR - 11/20/2007 1:26 PM
If you continue to stock the fishery it will last as long as you stock it...Keeping a 50plus inch fish doesn't stunt the growth of the younger fish stocked in the fishery. It appears that this fishery is made to grow larger fish...So I really don't see what the problem is...Each year new fish reach 50 inches and from the reports over the last few years....more are getting to 50, than are being taken out....
Except when something like VHS happens, and the state puts a hold on future stocking for an indefinite amount of time! Sound crazy? Well it's not...because it essentially has happened. The restriction got eased here a few months ago, but could easily go back into place at the sign of more problems.
Continuing to stock a fishery that could sustain natural reproduction is simply putting all your eggs in one basket... (No pun intended, lol.) And as I said, if something happens along the way and the yearly stocking efforts are not able to be maintained, then you will have gaps in those year classes down the road.
Keep in mind that the wild card in all of this is the upper bay itself. How many fish are up there? Who knows... According to Kapuscinski et al (2006), since 1989 there have been 113,130 fingerlings, and 2762 yearlings, stocked into Green Bay and its tributaries. But we still don't have a good estimate of the population of muskellunge in that system--it just hasn't been studied, apparently. So how serious is the problem? Who knows... And how do the fish in the upper bay interact with those in the lower bay and the Fox River--are those fish simply "money in the bank" for anglers fishing the lower bay? Who knows... (Do you see a pattern here?)
We don't know what we don't know. I have been saying it all along. We need to find some answers, before bad things happen while we do nothing.
By the way--if anyone is interested, that Kapuscinski reference is: "Population dynamics of muskellunge in Wisconsin waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, 1989-2005." It was published in Environmental Biology of Fishes, July 2006.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI |
MRoberts - 11/20/2007 2:00 PM
SNIP
So there you have it, all this anger based on flawed info, you have to love the internet, but the other good thing is it’s easy to get the correct answers fast if you know the correct people to contact.
That being said it doesn’t mean this is going to be a question on the Rule Change ballot, someone with all the proper info needs to contact the Great Lakes Committee of the Congress and be the squeaky wheel, it may already be to late for this year. As the ballot may be set, the NRB does review and approve the ballot at some point or another.
That's what I though Mike, thanks for clearing it up for me. I spoke with Tim about this last week, and he basically told me the same thing--and I been posting as such. So when I saw your post about it having been tabled, I went "oh-oh."
Glad that it has been cleared up.
EDIT: I have found the local representative on the Great Lakes Committee, and have a call in to him as I type this. I will find out where this stands ASAP and report back.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/20/2007 2:17 PM
| |
| | |
| BenR, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
I think most people need to realize Green Bay is a stocked fishery at this point. A put and take fishery if you will, the number of fish stocked in past years seem to be an incremental number. So I expect the harvest of 50+" fish will increase respectively.
Yes, I realize the goal is a sustainable population of naturally reproducing mukies.
Alarming trend, no. Just a simple equation of more 50" fish and more people fishing for them.
The size/age structure of these fish question is just a guess at this point. I don't think anyone has the answer at this point, metabolism and the ability for a species of fish to deal with water temps and forage all play into this equation, not somebody's desire to catch a word record fish, or set the bar higher for a "trophy".
Lambeau, I favor your approach of promoting catch and release of large muskies. I just wish more guys in the muskie community were as diplomatic as you. Kudos.
I find it very difficult to swallow to admitt that I'm associated with some people in these muskie fishemen circles. Name calling, shameing, threatening, etc. etc. etc. I don't think is a good way to encourage catch and release. I've always believed you can catch more bees with honey.
Some of the biggest proponents of the 54" size limit really need to sit back and look in the mirror and ask themselves if they would honestly agree with a person that said the same things they have said to some of their fellow fisherman....that's right, fellow fishermen. Not fellow musky fisherman. | |
| | |
| so WHO is going to do what is needed to find out what can be done about getting it on the ballot? Maybe some of the guys fishing that water all the time should be the spearhead and do something rather than rant and rave on the internet. | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| Playing Devil's advocate here but what really is a replica mount? It's nothing more than a nice painting of a fish. Don't get me wrong Lax is a true master artist when it comes to this but what would it take for me to call him up and order up a 55" fish? My guess is all it would take is a credit card and a shipping address. Now to get a 55" skin mount I would have to come up with a 55" skin to mount where would I get that? I would have to catch it. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
PErsonally I don't have a need to mount a fish or get a replica made as they just don't really interest me to have one on a wall but to say that a replica and a skin mount are the same or that the replica is better is not true. The replica may last longer but when it really comes down to it it's nothing more than a fake. Would all of you who advocate for replicas think the same way if you walked into a house and there was a deer mounted with reproduction antlers on it?
Here's what I do: Take a nice picture and don't measure the fish, then get a 8"X10" of the picture and put it on the wall. When someone asks how big it was tell them "I don't know I don't measure my fish. All I know is that it was a nice fish that I was proud to catch" Why does everybody need to measure every fish and then get a girth on it also? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | been-trollin' - 11/20/2007 2:17 PM
so WHO is going to do what is needed to find out what can be done about getting it on the ballot? Maybe some of the guys fishing that water all the time should be the spearhead and do something rather than rant and rave on the internet.
With all due respect; what do you think we are trying to do? As my last post points out... *I* am trying to find out what can be done (if anything even NEEDS to be done) to get it on the ballot. It may already *be* on the ballot. But we are indeed trying to spearhead and do something!
Please realize that what is posted on this forum (and other forums) is only the tip of the iceberg. Believe me--wheels are turning. Just because it is not all laid out here in black & white doesn't mean nothing else is being done.
I am only trying to facilitate discussion here to help maintain a flow of ideas. And while I (we) appreciate all posts, it would be helpful if folks would at least sign their names to their comments. All of the responses are taken seriously, and MANY people local to the Green Bay fishery are following this thread--you wouldn't believe the feedback I have gotten over the past five days. But if I (we) are committed enough to take the time to research information and respond to these posts, we ask that the poster at least take ownership of their comments. Anonymous posts are very frustrating in that respect. But thank you for your post nonetheless.
And once again, we (I) would like to thank MuskieFIRST for providing an outlet for this communication, and for allowing the discussion to continue.
Tom Betka
Research Director
Titletown Muskies Inc.
| |
| | |
|
A put and take fishery refers to one that is stocked for the sole purpose of allowing anglers to kill fish.
There is no such thing as a put and take muskie fishery.
The investment of money and time it takes for these fish to grow is so great, that state policy would never allow a put and take muskie program.
These fish are meant to be caught over and over by large numbers of anglers, with the hopes of someday having a self-sustaining population.
The point of putting these fish in GB was to create a trophy fishery, not just another muskie puddle.
JS
| |
| | |
| Since many fishermen would consider a 50" fish a trophy specimen. I would guess the goal has been accomplished.
Why suggest tampering with it then? If it's not broke why fix it? | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| For the same reason you change the oil in your truck and winterize the motor on your boat. It ain't broke now, but the future will only bring more angling pressure, more harvest, possibly VHS, and ultimately the potential for decline is a very real one. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jayman_unlogged - 11/20/2007 2:57 PM
Since many fishermen would consider a 50" fish a trophy specimen. I would guess the goal has been accomplished.
Why suggest tampering with it then? If it's not broke why fix it?
Because we don't know that it isn't broken...and we don't know how to tell if (or when) it becomes broken. And by the time we *do* know these things, it may be too late. Oh, and please define "broken" with respect to this fishery? Is it based upon the number of 50" fish caught per year? How many is not enough?
The system is complex, and not fully understood--in fact we have a LONG, long way to go to understand it.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/20/2007 3:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 6
| I believe that very few posting here knew about this area before the 50 boat tournament in October which led to the discovery of this area by the profit fishing industry. The only problem out there is that there are to many people fishing this area. There are at least two guide boats that I know of bringing people everyday. There was no problem before this tournament. This tournament has directly caused this over pressuring of this area but the only talk is of size limits. It certainly can not be good for these fish to be caught over and over again on a regular basis.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | If you know what fishing is all about...Size limits do not matter. There will always be the clients, and the first timers...but what gets them into it? Education is key. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Fishing in Wisconsin is cyclical. When GB get's hammered beyond belief for another year or so, the locusts will find another hot bite. Anazing how good the fishing up in Vilas has gotten after Minnesota and Illinois fisheries began taking off. Some people will always chase the "easy bite" instead of putting in the work. The 50" limit will work fine if you allow it to.
Fishing pressure is always going to happen when a water gets advertised. You boys up in GB have to learn to live with it. Concentrate on your fishing more instead of what other peole are doing and you'll find happiness. I have a place on one of the most hard hit lakes in Vilas. I used to blame flatlanders (ask Bette) and anybody else I could think of for the fishing being crappy. Tournament fishing has taught me that it isn't who's fishing the lake, it's how the lake is fished that matters. The fish are there, you gotta work and try new things to get them.
This whole thread is beginning to smell of sour grapes because other people are fishing and beginning to do well.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/20/2007 5:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | bobp - 11/20/2007 4:40 PM
I believe that very few posting here knew about this area before the 50 boat tournament in October which led to the discovery of this area by the profit fishing industry. The only problem out there is that there are to many people fishing this area. There are at least two guide boats that I know of bringing people everyday. There was no problem before this tournament. This tournament has directly caused this over pressuring of this area but the only talk is of size limits. It certainly can not be good for these fish to be caught over and over again on a regular basis.
Bob
Hey Bob, hope all is well...I will disagree with you that the MI tournaments have been the sole factor, I'll even to venture a guess that they haven't played a large role regarding the "discovery" of the Fox River/Lower Bay muskie fishery. The 2x MI tournaments did not take place until well after the proverbial cat was "let out of the bag". How does the saying go...2 guys can keep a secret if 1 of them is dead. We no longer live in an age where skinny wirey guys deliver mail on horseback. Many factors have been in play regarding the popularity of the Musky fishing in this area. IMHO some the main reasons that the fishery is popular is its proximity to the 3rd largest city in WI, and with the surrounding communties of Appleton, DePere, Allouez, Bellevue, Suamico, Little Suamico, Isaar, Seymour, Oneida etc...(Trying to reedeem myself LOL) I would say the population mirrors that of MADTOWN(@nd Largest City in WI). With gas prices, etc. the local water(Green Bay) is bound to get more pressure. Also, the fishing is outstanding. It is easily adapted to by the casual fishermen. A boat with a motor, a rod, a reel spooled with 30 lb. test and a crankbait with a lip on it and you're in business. Also with the internet information is readily available(so I guess you could blame Al Gore for that). If my memory serves me correctly the fishing "became" hotter in the late 90's, by the early 00's articles were being written in major publications. By all accounts the MI tournaments were really Johnny come latelys on the scene. I haven't been fishing the system as long as some for muskies. I think I was serious about it in '01. I can tell you that having fished both MI tournaments that most of the teams, I would venture to say that 1/2 of them for both were regulars on the river and lower Bay. Were a bunch of fish caught for both tournaments...the answer is yes. But again, the tournaments came after the publicity, articles and the reports. And that is not a bad thing, it is just the way it is....Wade VandenHeuvel 
Edited by Wisconsin Wade 11/21/2007 7:11 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7049
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I've been kind of reading and watching this thread....a few observations:
-the fishing is GREAT on Green Bay right now. hordes of people flocking to fish there. people catch large fish, then find ways to talk about their successes (tv, print, web).
-a number of LARGE fish are being killed by what sounds like a small population of fisherman.
-the size limit is 50", which is (to my knowledge) the largest size limit in the state of WI.
-people now want a higher size limit.
-fish are being killed either through harvest of trophy fish and/or delayed mortality, but no one really KNOWs the true population of fish there.
-the fishing is fantastic on Green Bay right now.
-some local fisherman are getting upset with people coming to fish "their" body of water.
So, to me, it sounds like we're dealing with a world that isnt 100% c&r, on a body of water with a really good population of really great fish. Education about c&r, working to change legislation and size limits....these are probably the best ways to keep this body of water at it's present state, right? Fighting and ugliness on MuskieFIRST are probably not going to stop a few individuals from keeping fish, so let's keep this conversation clean and civil. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | but Andrew ... what is your position on skin vs. reproduction ... i always thought they went hand-in-hand ... | |
| | |
| there have been a LOT more than 10 killed this year ...one guy who is tapped into all that is going on up there knows of at least 23 or more killed...to me it's really sad WI legislatures can slam thru something like the crazy early season barbless season for muskies but can't put thru a 54" size limit in the same fashion..?? .why is WI always decades behind Canada and MN when it comes to preserving a great fishery...and making changes? look at all the great lakes in MN and Canada and it's easy to see why they have the fisheries they do...they preserve the big fish...Green Bay has the potential to be something even more special and great than it is now and putting a higher size limit up there will make a difference...I don't even fish there much, nor will I..but still it just baffles me how WI fishermen and the people who have the power to make changes make excuses for why we don't have the fishing that other places do...forage this, size of the lakes that, blah blah blah...try HARVEST...maybe I'm off base but I would say GB is about the ONLY place in WI that even comes close to any of the wates MN or Canada has with respect to actually catching a 50+ ...and so many are being killed out there...daily!
makes me sick. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | isn't there some pontoon dude on mille lacs that has a similar reputation ???? honest question ... also, i would assume minnesota has a pretty big walleye group still anti-musky trying to do similar things ... i know when we went to vermillion the guy who tended bar in tower was talking big about he and his buddies wanting others to kill all the muskies cause they ate his walleyes ... this same subject is pretty typical it seems from missouri and indiana's bass guys who hate muskies to minnesota's walleye guys doing the same to the wisconsin tourists and skin-mount history ... unless you are a state representative from eagle river, it doesn't seem there's much you can do about it but complain ... eh? | |
| | |
| or line the right pockets with some dough! | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Great post Brad!
GMG are you serious? The fishing doesnt need to be cyclical. It is cyclical because people harvest several fish. If limits are in place to prevent over harvest then the fishery can remain at a high level with large fish being caught often.
Fishing pressure on GB is a given. But with increased exploitation it makes sense to raise limits to prevent over exploitation due to fishing mortality. | |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | this post alone has made me want to go there and fish!!!:-) | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Fishing pressure on GB is a given. But with increased exploitation it makes sense to raise limits to prevent over exploitation due to fishing mortality."
Seriously, you think Green Bay is fished harder than any class A in Vilas and Oneida counties between Memorial day and Nov 30?? Maybe they need to raise every limit on every class A up there? Great idea.
I didn't say it need to be cyclical, the way people fish seem to be cyclical..they find the hot bite and one that's advertised, then they move on to the latest and greatest.
I have a question for you...since when is fishing legally "exploitation"??
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/20/2007 8:30 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | bobp - 11/20/2007 4:40 PM
I believe that very few posting here knew about this area before the 50 boat tournament in October which led to the discovery of this area by the profit fishing industry. The only problem out there is that there are to many people fishing this area. There are at least two guide boats that I know of bringing people everyday. There was no problem before this tournament. This tournament has directly caused this over pressuring of this area but the only talk is of size limits. It certainly can not be good for these fish to be caught over and over again on a regular basis.
Bob
I would assume you didn't fish this area last year? It was just as much a zoo last season as this. In fact most guys congested the river making it alot worse. Now guys just zig zag over and over on a bay with a few scattered in the river. I don't disagree with guides adding to the pressure in GB but word has been out about this place for some time. http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/muskievideo.asp This is a link to the video on this site dated 11/30/05 that talks about the GB fishery. This video pretty much tells you it is a great fishery. Also gives a good history. Check it out.
Edited by Team Rhino 11/20/2007 8:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "this post alone has made me want to go there and fish!!!:-)"
Stay in Vilas Flatlander! | |
| | |
| It was the tournament last year that substantially increased pressure after the results were posted online.
GMG
Not sure if you've seen the mouth of late but it's wall to wall. It is much worse than any inland lake i've ever seen. Maybe Vermillion on the weekends is the only comparision. | |
| | |
Posts: 6
| Hey Wade hope all is good with you too. By the way GB is the third largest city in Wi not the second. Where did you go to school ? Same place as me right . Just to clear a few things up then I am done with this. I do not visit these boards very much any more but I have been watching recently because of the GB situation. Yes the river and channel have been heavily fished for a long time now but few people have ventured beyond. The area in question I have fished for several years. I have been fishing the bay since I was a young boy in the early 60's. Last year I fished this area extensivley and there was never more than a few boats. Six was the most and a lot of times no one else. I knew that this would not last but this fall was still not too bad. Pretty much the same people as last year. That was untill the tournament. Then all hell broke loose. Now you can count up to 40 boats in this area. Yes people have a right to tournament and profit fish but 50 boats is way too many and an exploitation of the resource in my opinion. And yes this is the main reason for the explosion of people fishing this area and the fish being kept. I do not like to see all these fish kept either but just as people have a right to tournament and other profit fishing these people have a right to keep these fish if they want. We all know that almost all musky fisherman release there fish. We do not need higher size limits ! If someone wants to keep a fish, big deal, let them keep it.
Bob | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I spoke last night, to the chairman of the Great Lakes Committee (GLC) of the Conservation Congress. After the resolution was voted upon favorably by the citizens in the various counties, it was assigned (by the Executive arm of the CC) to the GLC. They met near the end of September to discuss the various resolution proposals that had been assigned to them. They declined to pass it through to the DNR. So it is indeed a dead issue.
This comes directly from the chairman of the GLC, so I am quite certain of the status. He has yet to receive a copy of the formal decision (in writing) back from Madison, so that is not available to me.
So the process must begin again, and a new resolution must be written and voted upon throughout the state--and it once again will need to go *back* to the GLC for consideration. But until we can read the resolution and more importantly, the GLCs written decision declining to pass it forward, we cannot begin to formulate a new strategy to help it be successful. But the good news is that the chairman of the GLC was very willing to maintain a dialog, and discuss with me exactly why the resolution failed in September. This can only help us in the long run.
Therefore I will take all of this information back to the Titletown MI chapter, and ultimately we will sponsor another resolution. These plans are already underway.
So we wish to thank all who have participated in this thread. Your comments are appreciated, and will be considered when we formulate our next course of action. Please feel free to either PM or email me with questions/comments. I will post periodic updates about the process as they become available.
Tom Betka
Research Director
Titletown Chapter, MI | |
| | |
Posts: 194
Location: Lincolnshire, IL | bobp - 11/21/2007 6:07 AM
Hey Wade hope all is good with you too. By the way GB is the third largest city in Wi not the second. Where did you go to school ? Same place as me right . Just to clear a few things up then I am done with this. I do not visit these boards very much any more but I have been watching recently because of the GB situation. Yes the river and channel have been heavily fished for a long time now but few people have ventured beyond. The area in question I have fished for several years. I have been fishing the bay since I was a young boy in the early 60's. Last year I fished this area extensivley and there was never more than a few boats. Six was the most and a lot of times no one else. I knew that this would not last but this fall was still not too bad. Pretty much the same people as last year. That was untill the tournament. Then all hell broke loose. Now you can count up to 40 boats in this area. Yes people have a right to tournament and profit fish but 50 boats is way too many and an exploitation of the resource in my opinion. And yes this is the main reason for the explosion of people fishing this area and the fish being kept. I do not like to see all these fish kept either but just as people have a right to tournament and other profit fishing these people have a right to keep these fish if they want. We all know that almost all musky fisherman release there fish. We do not need higher size limits ! If someone wants to keep a fish, big deal, let them keep it.
Bob
My Kids are always switching the keys on my keyboard, they think it's funny, The sad part is that I went to School in Madison as well, but I thought that it was only one street...my bad...I always forget that one....Take Care!
Edited by Wisconsin Wade 11/21/2007 7:13 AM
| |
| | |
| so the WI Fishermen voted in favor of the 54" but a committee shoots it down....and we bother to vote why....?
Like MRoberts said, the Cons Congress is a joke...
I don't understand how we can vote something thru and it just gets shot down...what is the point of even voting if a small committee ultimately decides what THEY want, not what WE want...crazy. | |
| | |
| the GLC is a committee that elected members of the Conservation Congress can get themselves on...which is to say that any one of us could get themselves on to it and thereby influence it's decisions.
Tom, if you talk to him again, along with the written decision, you might ask him to also provide you with a copy of the minutes of the meeting in which that decision was made. those minutes are a matter of public record. interestingly enough, the minutes from recent meetings from just about every other CC committee are posted on the DNR website, with the exception of the GLC.
here's the current make-up of the committe if anyone felt like writing some letters.
there are some recognizable names on this list...
DALE MAAS W9449 BREEZY PT RD FOX LAKE 53933 (Chair) DODGE
DAVID TUPA 6691 COUNTY A EGG HARBOR 54209 (Secretary) DOOR
RICHARD ALVIN N376 LAKKEN RD SARONA 54870 WASHBURN
DONALD ANDERSON d N2938 HOSPITAL RD KEWAUNEE 54216 KEWAUNEE
RICHARD BECKER 8633 HWY 42 TWO RIVERS 54241 MANITOWOC
NORMAN BLOHM N8661 LAWN RD SEYMOUR 54165 OUTAGAMIE
JOHN BLUMREICH 2034 WALTON LN BELOIT 53511 ROCK
ALVIN BOCHLER 3203 CITY HEIGHTS RD ASHLAND 54806 ASHLAND
SCOTT HECKER W5195 CTY A WILD ROSE 54984 WAUSHARA
VERNON KONRAD 319 N JOLIET UPPER STURGEON BAY 54235 DOOR
PETE PETROUSKE 1498 PONDAROSA GREEN BAY 54313 BROWN
RICHARD PLADIES PO BOX 266 CRIVITZ 54114 MARINETTE
BRUCE PRENTICE 604 3RD ST W ASHLAND 54806 ASHLAND
ED REWOLINSKI 4212 S PINE AVE MILWAUKEE 53207 MILWAUKEE
WAYNE SCHROEDER w 3530 N STORY ST GRAND CHUTE 54914 OUTAGAMIE
RONALD VANDER LOOP 2121 ORRIE LANE GREEN BAY 54304 BROWN
RUSS WARYE PO BOX 128 PRESQUE ISLE 54557 VILAS
MICHAEL WITKIEWICZ 2755 BARTELS DRIVE RACINE 53406 RACINE
CHRIS GROTH PO Box 10448 GREEN BAY 54307 (DNR Liaison)
BILL HORNS PO BOX 7921 MADISON 53707 (DNR Liaison)
Edited by lambeau 11/21/2007 8:21 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Tom, sad, but we had the same thing happen here in Central WI when I drafted the 45" limit for the WI River. The C.C. warm water committe shot it down after it passed by a huge margim locally. Why? It ws getting late in the evening, and some other Musky related issues had already failed to go through. I went to the chairman of the board and spoke of how the public voted it through in large numbers. He was surpised and angered that it didn't make the advisory ballot. It was reinstated, and we didn't lose any time with it, as he upped it the following year to a rule change question and it is now law. It might pay to make a call to the chairman of the board. Also, if Kevin Kapucinski's contact is still available, one might want to contact him to get his views. He was the manager in charge during the 50" rule change, and his opinion might weigh heavily in this.
One thing, keep to the issue here guys, especially those interested in a higher size limit. Arguing, here, about people legally keeping fish, and why a rep. is better than skin, will not help you when you are up in front of your counties' constituants at the hearings. Could hurt. Let the proposal speak for itself, and the fact that the public majority voted in favor of it when the resolution was tabled. One note, it was we(locals, DNR, interested parties who fish there), who fought hard for the 50" limit years ago already. We were already getting into 50" fish over there when that went through, and some of us questioned why it wasn't set higher to start with, but that is water under the bridge. I guess I am saying be glad that it is at least 50".
That said, why not shoot for 52"? Of course 54" could be an end all to this argument, but 52" might be more easily attained. Don't blast me here please, as this is just a thought. 52" would offer a ton of protection(the majority of the fish I've seen kept from there over the years have been 50-51.5" fish, and yes that is obviously because of where the size limit is now). Yes, I know some fish can get bigger than that there and we've seen them and heard of them. But, one might have to adjust, to enjoy more protection, while appeasing the fish managers and committees. I think it is safe to say that 52" would afford a ton of increased protection, and potentially allow for more support.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/21/2007 8:17 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 743
| Seriously, what did you guys expect? the VAST majority of people who visit this website are all for Catch and Release...but there are peoplee both OK with the #1 musky fishery in their state being taken advantage of. there are MANY MANY conservation minded anglers in Wisconsin. However, a big part of the Wisconsin Fishing Culture is "if i catch it, it's mine", no matter if we are talking muskies, pike, bass, walleye, catfish...whatever. So seriously guys, what did you expect? in this situation, a few bad apples might spoil it for everyone else. but this should not be alarming, this is how most fisheries in WI are treated by the locals. they are "entitled" and it's their "right" to kill what's legal...anyone who lets legislation sets their moral standards doesn’t properly use their own reason and conscience. just because it's legal, doesn’t mean it's right. and just because it's illegal, doesn’t make it wrong. One this is certain, and probably will be for a while. If you create and build an outstanding fishery in WI, some the locals will try their best to keep what is "theirs"....
it's just part of it guys....i think it takes a good mix of "cramming the message down their throats, ridicule, making meat hunters feel like 2nd class folks" and "nice education". you can reach both crowds that way.
Seriously...this is not an "alarming" trend..the post should be called, "we knew it would happen".
peace in the east
tomcat
Edited by tomcat 11/21/2007 8:47 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Tom, get real, try to do something to help, or keep the narrowmindedness in Indiana where your states' Musky fishing just happened to begin 200 years after it did here in WI. You can berate another regions culture all you want, but unless we see you actually DOING something to help improve/change it, your rhetoric doesn't do much other than anger and alienate, making it more difficult for those that are trying to make change to complete their efforts.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/21/2007 10:23 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK guys, let's take a deep breath...
Thanks for the posts. For Jason--I have in fact spoken to the Chairman of the GLC, for quite some time last night. He & I had a VERY productive conversation, and he has agreed to make himself available to me during the re-write of the proposal. All I can say here publicly is that the wheels are turning on the resolution re-attempt, and on a couple of other available options as well. But I must have as much factual information as possible--on everything from the most current population estimate of muskellunge in the bay system, to VHS, to the history of the current size regulations. There is a LOT of information to pour through, and I have started that process. I expect to have rough draft(s) of everything we are working on by the first of the year. So obviously we aren't going to get anything accomplished by the end of this season, given that it's only 9 days away.
Jason, if you will PM me a contact number, I would like to give you a call within the next 3-4 days. I am going to Tomahawk for a couple days for Thanksgiving, but will be back to Green Bay on Friday, and can call you then if it's OK.
Thanks again for keeping this a civil discussion.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/21/2007 11:57 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| I didn't read all the pages of this thread, just wanted to make a comment on the "tag" idea on the opening few posts.
This is another idea that looks good on paper, but won't do much.
Taking an uneducated guess here, I have to believe that there aren't many repeat "offenders" out there. These guys take a 50+ and they go away happy.
Yes, obviously we've all heard about the individual who killed 5, 8....however many 50s last year. Sure, you'd limit that person to ONE 50"er. But that doesn't stop the next guy who's out there looking for a 50 for the wall. Or the ten other guys out on the water every day looking for their "one for the wall."
The tag idea is a bad one, because while yes, most us cringe when we hear that one person harvested multiple huge fish in one year, I'm sure ALL the other people who kept just one fish, outnumbered the 5-8 fish that this one person kept.
Education, signage and size limits will go way farther than this stamp or tag idea.
JMHO.
-Eric | |
| | |
| this is how most fisheries in WI are treated by the locals. they are "entitled" and it's their "right" to kill what's legal.
imho, you exaggerate a bit, but it's true that there are many who believe the legal harvest of fish is ok, even in the case of a sportfish such as muskies.
however, as Reef Hawg had pointed out, throwing stones across the border doesn't help one bit.
understanding where these beliefs come from is the first step in working to change them. in other words, if you take the time to dialog with people without judging them, and discover why they believe and act in the ways that they do, you'll uncover the keys to their motivation and you'll build relationships that will help to change those beliefs.
Wisconsin has a long and rich history of muskie fishing, one that existed long before anyone anywhere even thought about releasing fish. it's wonderful that some places have muskie fisheries that "grew up" in the era of catch-and-release and were able to develop a release culture at the same time; however, that's not the history in Wisconsin because it's so much older than most fisheries. that history is the foundation of the present-day fishing culture, and it means that many people still define success in muskie fishing as catching a "legal" or "keeper" fish.
it's foolish to suggest a strategy of belittling and shaming these people for beliefs that they grew up with, that they've learned as a normal (and notably legal) thing to do. using a Dr. Phil "pop psychology" approach such as this will actually make people hold onto their beliefs more strongly; it's counterproductive.
a real understanding and study of motivation and human behavior in social contexts tells us that people are more motivated by postive reinforcement and the building of approach goals. this suggests that replacing the "reward" of bringing home a physical fish with psychological "rewards" of praise, attention, and the sense of "doing the right thing" will be very successful.
take the idea of QDM for trophy deer. it runs directly counter to "if it's brown it's down" thinking, but it's working in Wisconsin by rewarding people for doing it, not shaming those who don't. if you run QDM on your land you get praise and attention for doing so in the forms of signs, etc.
social research proves this to be true. something like getting the local paper's outdoor writer to start a photo contest of released (only) fish is the kind of thing that motivates people. tie that in with education and you've got the start of a long-term change in local culture.
Edited by lambeau 11/21/2007 9:54 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Lambeau, couldn't have stated it better. WI has already made huge strides from the days of thumping most every legal(it is what my father did until the mid 80's). To further this trend we must educate, take steps to improve regulations and promote awareness, while not alienating. How little people realize or care about another 'regions' culture, when theirs(that they consider 'right') differs.
Tom, talk to the actual chairman of the C.C.(it was Steve Oestreicher a few years ago when we dealt with similar issues) and find out if there is any way to avoid square one. If it passed locally and in all counties voted in, there is a chance.....
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/21/2007 10:07 AM
| |
| | |
| This summer the WDNR and NRB acted quickly to increase the size limit on sturgeon and to reduce the season length. They did this on what is touted as the healthiest and largest population of Lake Sturgeon anywhere.
Yet we see no action on a potentially fragile GL muskellunge restoration effort that could end up struggling to cope with VHS disease and a drastic increase in fishing pressure. (Very typical in this state)
Everyone benefits from a higher size limit and/or C&R only regs. Most importantly the GL Spotted Muskies and the restoration effort benefit from this effort. No one is harmed by letting muskies swim away alive.
If after a few years VHS is not a threat, the fishery is researched more fully and harvest is sustainable, we can look at lowering the size limit.
With all the effort by the WDNR and Muskie clubs that supported the GB fishery, it's amazing (and disappointing) to see the number of Muskie fishermen, DNR personnel, CC and NRB members that do not support the protection of the (potential) large spawners in this unque fishery. (It's the only Great Lakes Muskie fishery we have!)
It would be nice to see people put their differences aside here and voice support for what is best for the fishery and restoration efforts.
A huge thank you to Tom for taking this on. You are doing the right thing.
When in doubt - do the best thing for the fish. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 11/21/2007 10:10 AM
SNIP...
A huge thank you to Tom for taking this on. You are doing the right thing.
When in doubt - do the best thing for the fish.
As the Research Director for the local MI chapter, I am only the voice for MANY concerned anglers in the area. But rest assured--there are many people working on this, both locally & beyond. We thank you for your kind words.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Reef Hawg - 11/21/2007 10:04 AM
SNIP...
Tom, talk to the actual chairman of the C.C.(it was Steve Oestreicher a few years ago when we dealt with similar issues) and find out if there is any way to avoid square one. If it passed locally and in all counties voted in, there is a chance.....
This might be a good idea, and I will look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.
I appreciate the help.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple thing I have been thinking about this morning, there seems to be two way to look at the situation on Green Bay.
Fishermen’s perception of trophy fish and the fisheries maximum potential.
State poll of all species anglers showed that a strong majority of Wisconsin fishermen believe a trophy musky is 50”. If management is about creating a trophy fishery than a 50” limit should be fine.
However shouldn’t management be about maximizing the fisheries potential? There is lots of evidence out there that GB has more potential than the 50” limit will provided. When considering it’s new, there are other potential negative problems out there it just makes sense to me to protect it until more is known about it. If the WDNR goal is a self sustaining fishery than the higher limit makes sense. Look again at what Dr. Casselman has said:
“…with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population.”
So what has been the increase in mortality is it 2%, 4% or even 10%, more than it was 10 years ago. If it’s only 2% more that would require a doubling in stocking to keep the present number of big fish in the system, if it’s 10% it would require 16 times the level of stocking. Unless there is significant reproduction, which is still an unknown.
To me it makes far more sense to protect the fish, because the State flat out doesn’t have the money to increase the level of stocking to keep up with even a 2% increase in mortality.
When we where working on the Pelican Lake proposal we started at 45 the WDNR convinced us to go for 50” because they felt that fit Pelican’s potential far better. That should be the angle used here to increase the size limit. This has been said before, if it doesn’t have that potential then the limit can always be dropped back to 50.
Good luck guys and let us know how we can help. Keep up the good work.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good thoughts, Mike.
...And another way to look at the "fisherman's perception of 50 inches as a trophy" thing, is that if the limit would be increased to *above* 50 inches (forget 54 inches for a moment), then this should result in MORE 50 inch fish being available for them to catch, correct? You can only keep a 50 inch musky once...
I think by now most of the folks following this thread have figured this out, but there's a much bigger issue than a size limit at stake here. With uncertain population estimates, unknown migration patterns within the bay itself, unknown spawning success rates, unknown angling pressure and the (yet unknown) pending impact of VHS, this fishery is facing significant uncertainty. Preserving the fishery by increasing the size limit on muskellunge is only one of the things we can do. Trust me when I say there are others. And the wheels are in motion.
Thanks for the post.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/21/2007 11:26 AM
| |
| | |
| Thank goodness some are displaying some common sense here.
Was Green Bay envisioned to be a trophy fishery from inception or not? Did they import the Great Lakes strain to see what could be accomplised or not?
The majority of people could care less if Muskies even exist. Demanding a consensus of all anglers Statewide to protect a project like Green Bay is not fair to the fishery or the people that put funds, time and energy into this project.
How many lakes in Wisc. still have a 30" minimum? How in the world can you say that having ONE fishery protected to see it's true potential is unfair to any angler?
Steve Voigt | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain |
How many lakes in Wisc. still have a 30" minimum?
Steve Voigt
Zero | |
| | |
| "If after a few years VHS is not a threat, the fishery is researched more fully and harvest is sustainable, we can look at lowering the size limit."
If harvest is sustainable.... what are you talking about?
Unless I'm missing something, these fish are NOT reproducing naturally. If that's the case, NO amount of harvest is sustainable UNLESS stocking continues. Stop stocking tomorrow and declare the season closed forever and the population is doomed, as the fish will die from release mortality or old age.
Suppose there is natural reproduction. If your protecting a fish until well after its spawned a few times, (I have to think a 15 year old fish has experienced the birds and the bees more than once) your giving the species more than ample opportunity to establish itself. Combine that with the fact that the most effective spawners are not the oldest fish and you really should have no concern for sustainability of this population.
So what do you REALLY hope to accomplish with a 54 inch size limit? Seems pretty clear to me your simply pushing YOUR ideals onto the rest of the state. There simply is no legitimate biological reason to increase the size limit so high.
But, if you want to push another law onto the books for NO biological reason to protect "your" fish, go right ahead and try. But for crying out loud, be honest about it. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'There simply is no legitimate biological reason to increase the size limit so high'
Sure there is. GB is a potentially unbelievable trophy muskie destination, and that alone has biological merit.
Also, I'll leave the explanation to a biologist, but protecting the big girls to 54" definitely has merit RE NR.That is precisely why you see that limit on so many trophy potential waters in Canada today, and NO ONE is arguing that was a bad move. I hope that becomes a reality on Mille Lacs too, it's needed.
And, I don't see anyone 'pushing', I see some dedicated conservation minded folks who are legitimately concerned for the future of the fishery discussing ideas and strategies and thosw who think that line of action is not what is needed offering their opinions. If you live in WI, you know how to work against these ideas, have at it!
Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested. I'm not at all sure this is a 'Wisconsin' trait, I see similar feelings across the country. I honestly believe most folks just don't get how fragile ALL 'big fish' populations can be when suddenly and catastrophically overfished. Ask any fisheries manager how difficult it can be to manage for what so many anglers want...LOTS of fish, and LOTS of 'big' fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Steve Worrall - 11/21/2007 7:50 PM
Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested. I'm not at all sure this is a 'Wisconsin' trait, I see similar feelings across the country. I honestly believe most folks just don't get how fragile ALL 'big fish' populations can be when suddenly and catastrophically overfished. Ask any fisheries manager how difficult it can be to manage for what so many anglers want...LOTS of fish, and LOTS of 'big' fish.
Right on Steve. Ever go onto Lake Link and read posts about how no one can get a perch limit or how the muskies have eaten all the bluegills? Go on one of those threads and go back a year or so. I'd bet a year of tuition that you'd see posts from the same individuals saying how they took the whole family out and limited out and how easy it is to get a limit. Then read on and watch how the fish become a bit more difficult to find, but still limits are obtainable. Then it goes to all the fish are gone, where did they go? Its probably the muskies, or the DNR not doing their job. No, its over exploitation. As populations decline and fishing pressure remains the same, exploitation rate goes up, its really quite simple.
Something needs to be done on GB. Everyone is always saying how WI cant produce big fish because of the catch and kill mentality. Well now we can do something about it on GB and produce fish that rival fish anywhere else that is producing trophy fish.
One last note....GMG are you really going to compare fishing pressure in Vilas county to pressure on GB? C'mon, you cant really be serious.... | |
| | |
Posts: 26
Location: Wisconsin | The worst thing I see happening on the bay is people catching muskies and not being prepared to release them properly. People should take as much time and effort in there preparation of releasing fish as they do in catching them, like having a proper size net so the fish can remain in the water, having all the right tools handy, cutting hooks instead of just ripping them out.
As far as the size limit, I have seen many big fish released there, but if a person catches what they feel is a trophy to them I see nothing wrong with it and 50" is fine.
Tom P
I fish lake "Y" lake "X" is over-fished | |
| | |
| GB is a potentially unbelievable trophy muskie destination, and that alone has biological merit.
isn't that really more of a "social" merit argument, than a biological one? it's already a trophy destination, becoming even moreso isn't so much about whether or not the fish are surviving/thriving than it is about what sizes we would like them to reach before being exposed to the risk of harvest.
the context of that post within this thread was a response to the suggestion that the harvest of some fish over 50" would lead to the implosion of the entire fishery. it's hard to see that happening on a created fishery with continued stocking.
Also, I'll leave the explanation to a biologist, but protecting the big girls to 54" definitely has merit RE NR.That is precisely why you see that limit on so many trophy potential waters in Canada today
those are also waters that have no stocking and are known to have successful reproduction, making the role of every single female that much more critical throughout it's entire lifespan.
i've heard it suggested that the goal is for Green Bay to become self-sustaining, but is that really likely? is it a stated goal of the DNR and are they researching whether or not there is successful NR happening in the Bay? if so, i'd support the higher limits as a biological need, if not, it moves back into the realm of responding to the differing preferences of anglers.
also, if the DNR believes there's a biological for a certain rule/size limit, they have the ability to implement rules outside of the Conservation Congress system. to this point they've not acted to raise the limits to what we're discussing here, suggesting that they don't see a biological need re: NR.
i personally would love to see the 54" limit, and i voted in favor of it because protecting those fish even longer is my preference. it's possible that others would have a different preference than mine, and i'm willing to dialog with them because i believe i can convince people of the social and economic benefits of doing so.
people complain about pressure, but ultimately it's a sign that great things are happening and that the people developing this fishery are doing a great job!
Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested.
he is however, entirely incorrect when he suggests the remedy is to shame and berate people. it doesn't work, it makes things worse, and continuing to encourage people to do so is irresponsible.
push the DNR to act when needed, work to raise the limits when possible, and educate people about the value of releasing muskies (and other fish) even when you encounter them harvesting a fish that you wish they'd released.
the stories of anglers at the landing in GB being cursed and berated to the point of tears after catching the trophy of their lifetime is shameful. the shame isn't their harvest of that fish (although that's unfortunate), the shame is that C&R-minded anglers would ruin the experience for someone in that way.
it's amazing how well people respond to genuine congratulations coupled with "next time please consider..."
Edited by lambeau 11/22/2007 4:49 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| I tend to agree with the "we should have seen this coming" thought process.
A couple very successful tournaments, umteen magazine articles and fishing celebs up here filming shows......what did we expect?
Saw the same thing happen to Lake Webster in Indiana. Pretty much the same general timeline, only Webby doesn't grow monsters like GB does.
Webster was stocked, got popular, guides showed up, they and others advertised, fishing shows were filmed........and then all of a sudden these same guys writing articles, guiding and filming shows are all over the boards being the loudest voices wishing for a size limit increase, barking about people mishandling fish, claiming to see dozens of dead fish every day, people keeping fish, yada yada.
If you build it, they will come.
I know this is easy to say now, but we should have been ready. It WAS inevitable.
I just find it funny that the same folks guiding and filming shows on GB are now the ones getting involved after the fact. Maybe they were involved all along and their efforts just weren't so visible, I dunno. Not trying to blame anyone here. I applaud them for their efforts to help.
Just saying that when Tomcat said "what did you expect," he was dead on.
As far as someone said earlier about fishing the bay since the 60s and seeing few other boats and now seeing 40-50 boats and that being way too many and an exploitation of the resource.......WHAT exactly do you think should be done about that? Hold a raffle to see who can fish that day and who has to go back home? Plant trees in 3/4 of the parking lot so there's only room for so many rigs? No offense, but the people are here and more will come, this is reality. Deal with it. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Muskie addict,
You are correct, we 'should' have seen this coming. But I think in a sense we did and we had the 54 resolution on the docket already and it seems to be at a stand still.
"If you build it, they will come." Right, we built it, now lets protect what we built. No sense just letting it go to shambles.
Edited by Pointerpride102 11/22/2007 8:09 PM
| |
| | |
| [edit]
for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place! that's there only because the GB fishery's potential actually WAS anticipated and the locally invested people acted to protect it. to suggest people "didn't see it coming" is a disservice to those who actually are out there doing the work to make those things happen. we all owe those people our thanks and gratitude, not the kind of disrespectful internet quarterbacking that you're doing by saying that "we" weren't ready.
you make it sound like the current 50" limit is something from the dark ages.
outside of a handful of other lakes in Wisconsin, how many water bodies in the United States have a 50" or larger size limit in place? seriously, what ones are they?
it was expected for those fish in GB to grow big, and progressive limits are currently in place to protect 99.5% of the fish.
you're also mixing up increased pressure due to publicity with whether or not fish are kept. do you think the infamous bar owner who's kept a number of fish gets the Muskies Inc magazine as part of his membership to find out the tourney results? i'm not sure of it, but as far as i know he's not a visitor to this site, either.
the general fishing public in the GB/Fox Valley area knows all about the fishing and it's not because of some articles in the muskie magazines that most of them don't read, nor because of bits on muskie television shows that they don't watch. have you seen De Pere in the spring? guess, what? some of those people know a thing or two about catching muskies too, and all of those fishermen talk to each other. we're not talking about a backwoods lake up north that no one has ever heard of, this is a popular fishery in a major population center. to blame those MI tourneys for any of this is downright silly, the tourney came after, not before.
people catch fish. people talk to other people. word gets around.
again, i support a 54" limit, heck i'd support making it entirely catch/release, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are already extremely progressive regulations in place on that system as a result of the work people did to give those fish the opportunity to grow large. we should be thankful for that fact.
Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:26 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What other explanation for the fish having potential to reach 58" or more is there other than 'biology'? Leave 'em in there, and we will see. Harvest them at 50", and we won't, not if the pressure continues to climb. Social and biological issues often clash; as I said, ask any fisheries manager. Lambeau, really now, the DNR will not unilaterally alter the size limit from 50" to 54" up there no matter WHAT happens, I just don't believe that for a second, and the fact they have 'not acted' doesn't reflect a thing. They WANTED a 50" limit on several lakes up here that meet the direct criteria you mentioned and wanted those lakes protected badly enough to openly support the proposals...hmmm, had to have folks like Mike and Norm make it happen on ONE and that years later. The CC process is what it is, and if the DNR enacts emergency regs, the Legislature can and sometimes does simply change the law to as close to what it was as is possible. What a mess.
To some folks concern about 'implosion':
1) Yes, as I understand it, it is/was a potential hope/goal to see the fish reproduce and assist if not sustain a fishable and perhaps trophy population. Since the spotted muskie program there began, however, the very definition of the word 'trophy' has changed. A classic example of social change, I think.
2) Yes, a 50" limit is in place. It was put in place when there was a fraction of the current pressure, and the current pressure is liable to be a fraction of future pressure based on what we have seen to date.
3) Once a fish reaches 50", it is a true survivor; the vast majority of that year class NR result or stocking effort are long dead. I question the same thing about Mille Lacs..what IS the goal? Get the fish to trophy size and leave it in the hands of the anglers after that point, or perhaps now the fisheries are what they are protect a true trophy angling destination that might indeed redefine the term 'trophy' once again? As both fisheries come to age, that decision one way or another has to be made, IMHO.
4) The argument presented that the fishery can be sustained at the current level with stocking and therefore 50" may be adequate can be used to convince a 54" or MORE may be needed when one factors in increased mortality due to major league increased pressure and therefore a need to protect a broader base of the older year classes just to hold 'big fish' numbers static to what is there today.
I entered this debate after Tomcat edited his post and apparently the worst of that battle was in the past. My comment is OBVIOUSLY referring to what is there now and ONLY to the idea that fisheries are frequently exploited. His constant 'only in Wisconsin' bashing is a theme I have seen from that quarter for years, and of course is not accurate in that context and of course...is rude.
'i personally would love to see the 54" limit, and i voted in favor of it because protecting those fish even longer is my preference. it's possible that others would have a different preference than mine, and i'm willing to dialog with them because i believe i can convince people of the social and economic benefits of doing so.'
So my last post indicated I have a more inflexible stance than yours? I think not. I have HUNDREDS of times said ' it is, after all, just a fish' to extremist attitudes while all the time working on improving trophy fishing potentials wherever my tiny bit of influence might hit home, and that for over 30 years. I was there when some of the first spots were stocked in Green Bay, standing right next to Kenny Ellis. Of COURSE the fisheries folks and muskie clubs involved over the years did a great job to date, and will do the very best possible to so so in the future, but as you suggest, alot depends on 'social pressures'. This is a source of exactly that from many viewpoints, would you not agree?
And, just an observation from reading the last couple posts, I think -addict was using the word 'we' collectively and was not supporting anything but the 'what did we expect' portion of Tomcat's post. Some folk's abusive attitudes sometimes fires me up as well, but that should not then cause collateral damage throughout the debate.
I'll assume your last two paragraphs are directed at those who might accept or display that unfortunate and ill advised behavior, correct? | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| I almost don't know how to respond to that, Lambeau.
First, um, yeah, you could say I've spent time in GB. It takes me 8 minutes from my driveway to the launch pulling a boat, and my friend and his partner won the 2007 BOTB tourney. I'm well aware of what's going on there.
Second: "for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place! that's there only because the GB fishery's potential actually WAS anticipated and the locally invested people acted to protect it. to suggest people "didn't see it coming" is a disservice ......."
OK, if the current limit was so forward thinking and goes above and beyond so many other bodies of water and we should be falling all over ourselves thanking those who put it into play......then why this thread? Why all the posts? Why all the interest, and squawking now? Why all the concern about people keeping 50" fish? Why are so many people working so hard on doing somthing MORE about this? How many other bodies of water ANYWHERE have the potential GB has?
I'm doing a disservice?
Look at the title of this thread! "Alarming trend." Evidently this 50" limit wasn't enough and people are concerned about what might happen if the size isn't increased......because people came and started keeping fish, which is what we're talking about in the first place. You cite all these great things and all the work that's been done and all the foresight, but we all still have a sense of urgency to do more. And, yes, I believe we should have seen it coming. Huge body of water, GL strain, on the banks of one metro area and easy access from other much larger metro areas. This whole "gee these fish sure get big and people are coming here to keep them" thing seems to have totally blindsided us, and I'm not sure it should have. People have been saying WR fish and Green Bay in the same sentence for a decade.
Fine, kudos to our muskie forefathers who set the 50" limit, but five pages worth of posts tells me I'm at least partially right and that people are looking for more than what the current 50" size limit can do for this fishery.
Your post was a little all over the place, so I'm not sure what you're really saying. We're on the same team here man, I assure you.
-Eric
*edit* Grrrr!
Edited by muskie-addict 11/23/2007 8:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | muskie-addict,
There may be some confusion here, there are two usernames in play onsite that are very similar. | |
| | |
| It takes me 8 minutes from my driveway to the launch pulling a boat...I'm well aware of what's going on there.
Eric: sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine when people who are not involved in any way in a particular issue lob internet rocks at it from afar, and i mistook your "muskie-addict" screen name for "esoxaddict" who isn't someone who's been fishing in the GB area as far as i know. imho, you are exactly the right person to be opining on this issue. i removed the first couple lines from my previous post. i also pride myself on generally not posting in personal ways at or towards anyone, it just got a bit under my skin yesterday. i'll be up at my parents' starting next Thursday and hitting the river, keep an eye out for the purple Tuffy and please stop by and say hello if you're out.
my deepest apologies.
"for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place!"...OK, then why this thread? Why all the posts? Why all the squawking?
i think the issue of people being alarmed about fish over 50" being kept is separate from the issue of whether or not the need to protect fish in that system to a large size was anticipated. it was anticipated (thus the very high limit when compared to any other waters in the U.S.), and there is cause to look at raising it even higher. it's possible for both things to be true. with a 50" limit in place i don't believe anyone dropped the ball in a way that's going to result in the destruction of that fishery; raising the limit will simply help to protect the fish longer and create more opportunity for people to catch trophy fish...of course, that'll result in even more pressure...
i just bristle a bit at the suggestion that people "didn't do enough" to protect the system. they did! the trophy-factory waters in Minnesota only have 48" limits, and most of them were only raised recently. people complain about the numbers of fish kept from those waters as well: the pontoon-troller on Mille Lacs is more infamous than the bar owner taxidermist on Green Bay. for some reason when it happens over there it doesn't get attributed to a state-wide culture of "meat-hunting" in the way it does when it happens in WI. the current limits on Green Bay are an example of what can/should be in place on other waters everywhere that have this kind of potential.
can it (should it) be updated for GB now? absolutely, but to do so does not mean that people failed to act responsibly in the past.
i stand by my comments that i don't believe the increased pressure is the result of TV/magazine/internet publicity, but the pressure and the publicity are both the result of the incredible success of the fishery. the numbers of trophy fish available in a relatively small area is the reason for all of that.
Fine, kudos to our muskie forefathers who set the 50" limit, but five pages worth of posts tells me I'm at least partially right and that people are looking for more than what the current 50" size limit can do for this fishery.
that's the rub.
it's absolutely true that people are hoping for even more: bigger fish and more fish protected from the risk of harvest. it's clear that the GLC believed differently, and convincing them that this is the desire of more than just a relatively small group of fanatics is the task at hand.
Tom Betka has repeatedly assured us in this thread that plans and actions are already in place to help make this happen.
Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:28 AM
| |
| | |
| the DNR will not unilaterally alter the size limit from 50" to 54" up there no matter WHAT happens, I just don't believe that for a second, and the fact they have 'not acted' doesn't reflect a thing.
i think it reflects the fact that the survival of the fishery isn't at risk. if it was, that would be a biological need. take for example the extreme harvest restrictions put in place on perch fishing in the Bay when the perch population was clearly at risk of disappearing - they acted due to biological need, not because people preferred to catch jumbos instead of 8"ers.
when the overall population isn't at risk, raising the size at which fish are first exposed to the risk of harvest is really a social need, not a biological one. we're talking about the difference between protecting 99.5% of the population vs protecting 99.9% of the population. that's a social decision on how much of their biological potential we want fish to protected from the risk of harvest.
(and yes, this is entirely semantic.)
i support it as a socially desireable outcome, i just believe arguing that it's a biological "need" isn't something that will resonate with those who are in position to make decisions about it. we want even bigger fish because that's what we're trying to catch: being honest about that with people can be very effective.
Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:44 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wonder if it isn't more "biological" than you think Lambeau. As I have said several times in this thread--we simply don't know what we do not know.
I have spent the last several days gathering and reading literature, on various topics. I can tell you that I can find exactly two pieces of literature pertaining to the post-1989 muskellunge populations in the Fox River and Green Bay: Kevin Kapuscinki's 2006 paper that I mentioned in a previous post, and the 2007 Great Lakes Fishery Commission Report which can be found here (thanks to Brett Jolly for pointing this one out):
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/Great%20Lakes%20Fishery%20Commissio...
While the population estimate looks more encouraging in 2006 than in 2005, (2975 vs 425; p61-62), there is still some ambiguity in report. Where were the sampling sites, for one thing? Why the HUGE discrepancy in estimated population density between years--was the first year abnormally low, the second year abnormally high...or both? How much interaction is there between the bay fish (ie; north of Long Tail/Point Sable) and the extreme southern bay & river? We obviously need to see a couple more years of data to be able to get a good feel for the true population of the system.
Also, in that report on page 64, they "estimate" a catch of only 455 musky for 2006. Shoot, I think there were almost 50 fish caught on the weekend of the MI tournament alone! Certainly 400 fish is a lot, but when there are at *least* 25-30 boats out there on many weekends, I wouldn't think it would take that long to rack up more than that. And their "anecdotal evidence" of 6 harvested fish? Heck...didn't RT whack 6 all by himself? Where are they getting this data? In 15-20 times out there in the last 2 months, I have yet to be asked a single question about my catch... (Maybe the surveyors are just counting fish mentioned in the musky board forums? LOL.) Seriously though, I would like to see evidence of a bit more effort to gain more accurate data before we take those numbers to the bank.
And then there's VHS. After 10-15 hours of reviewing nothing other than VHS literature, I can tell you one thing...we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA when, where, and how bad it will hit us. It's already in Lake Michigan, to be sure, but I have found no indication of quantity of fish lost--other than vague terms like "large quantity," "massive die-offs" and "several hundred tons" of freshwater drum, muskellunge and round Goby die-offs. Needless to say I haven't gotten the warm and fuzzies about how well the existing fish are going to fare when the big one hits, so to speak. And God help us if it turns up in one of our hatcheries--because the US Dept of Agriculture will make us shut that facility down, destroy all of the existing fish and start from scratch. I saw in one piece of literature from Michigan, where they estimated it would cost 40-80 MILLION dollars if they had to revive the hatchery program after a positive VHSv episode!
So with all due respect to the sociologists out there (and there *are* significant sociological implications here, no doubt about it), the biology of this issue is far from certain. In fact I would go so far as to say that we may want to consider preserving as many fish as we can, just for a rainy day.
How anybody can say there are no biological issues, is way beyond me...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/23/2007 7:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Those who think it may/should be either a necessity or an extremely desirable goal based on biological concerns to again increase the length limit on Green Bay Muskies are not being any less 'honest' with people than those who say they would like the same increase because they personally feel the fishery is secure into the future and just (perhaps selfishly) want to find out what the true potential of the Green Bay Muskies might be .
It depends on one's position, based on largely individual observations as Tom so clearly indicates. Disagree with the reasoning, sure, but don't suggest my opinions are not 'honest' if I choose to believe that the increased pressure on a somewhat condensed population of big fish just now coming into maturity indicates additional protection of the population now just reaching the upper confidence limit might be needed. Who the heck would I be less than honest with HERE if I said that; this is the 'research forum' at MuskieFIRST, not a CC meeting, and I might just feel my ideas are accurate.
Raising the limit from 28" to 30" to 34" to 40" and then higher on any Wisconsin water is OF COURSE a complicated set of decisions that are based largely on management goals. Those management goals are determined by, in Wisconsin, first the DNR with minimum sizes based on NR, population, potential, and more (Dave N has described that process several times) and then largely public desires driven by the Conservation Congress process here. Pressure by small politically active groups has in the past and will in the future strongly influence management strategies, would you not agree? Some here may feel the point has been breached and activism is needed. I'd say we need to allow that latitude given we are not yet presenting these concepts to the general public.
| |
| | |
| like i said, this discussion has moved into being a bit semantic, and that's probably at least a bit of my doing.
it's probably also distracting from a more valuable discussion about strategy for affecting change in raising the limits: outcome being more important than reasoning when it comes right down to it.
thankfully it's clear that Tom and others are clear thinking and planful, so i trust we're all in pretty good hands there.
part of the value of continuing to kick this around is to hone and improve the arguments in favor of raising the limits...
Tom has stated a number of times, "we don't know what we don't know" about the amount of harvest, and also raises the bogeyman of VHS as two points of "evidence" that there's a biological need for increased limits.
Steve supports a line of reasoning that it's intellectually honest to suggest that there is a biological need for higher limits because those beliefs are held in earnest.
i suggest that what you're both doing is using an absence of evidence about something to suggest that there is evidence for the absence of something...and i suggest that this is flawed logic and therefore a bad strategy to adopt because it's too easy to deflate.
Tom, you admit that you can't find any clear evidence that the population has been impacted by harvest, and that no one knows the real numbers of fish being harvested. you use this to suggest that the numbers being removed are probably higher than we know. but what if they're lower than you suspect, or that the total population is more robust? it's equally possible. the only information available on total harvest is entirely anecdotal, and when coming from pro C&R sources who witnessed fish being taken, it's likely that this is exaggerated to at least some degree.
you state the need for more evidence before we take "encouraging" population estimates to the bank; shouldn't we likewise see more hard evidence that there's any problems before taking that belief to the bank? keep in mind, there is a 50" size limit currently in place. VHS is really an unknown, and a potential threat to "large numbers" of fish of all sizes, or something that may not strike in meaningful ways at all. the distinction between a 50" or 54" limit (impacting only a relative handful of fish and a small percent of the total population) is hardly going to be a defense against that virus.
Steve, you bristle at the suggestion that it's less than honest to wave the flag of "biological need" to raise the limit on this fishery. it might be an honestly held belief of yours and others, but that doesn't necessarily make it rational or based in fact. present a single bit of evidence that there is a real risk to the overall total population of fish and i'll happily agree with you that we're talking about biological need. (the "present some research or evidence" refrain is one that you yourself have asked from others at times!) in the absence of any evidence that the fishery is at risk, i suggest that we're only really being honest when we couch this discussion in terms of "want" rather than "need". ie., we want all the fish between 50"-54" to be released, but there's not necessarily a threat to the muskie population as a whole if some of them are harvested. under the current 50" limit, the threat of harvest only applies to a very narrow slice of the population, and raising the limit simply narrows it even more. either way, the vast majority of fish in the system are protected to grow and (hopefully) find a way to reproduce.
i'm not afraid of moving forward on the platform of "want", and i think part of this sky-is-falling thinking is the result of people fearing that without a biologically-based crisis we won't be able to get the outcome that's desired. i disagree, and think that standing in front of others and saying that we want to be able to catch the biggest fish possible is more believable than trying to tell them that the whole fishery will get destroyed if the limits aren't raised beyond an already progressive level.
Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 10:55 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | There's a lot of truth to what you've said...and I didn't mean to imply that there are strong biological reasons to change the limit to 54 inches. Rather, I am simply stating that there may not be any biological reason NOT to. And I admit that the sociological ramifications are very significant here. The fact remains that we have to be prepared to rebut experts using biological argument--and just because I can't come up with a slam-dunk biological argument to support raising the limit to 54 inches, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (or that one is even needed!). I also understand that the absence of evidence is not, itself, evidence. But the fact remains that if forced to debate using biological argument, there are several valid concerns to be considered.
But this is primarily a sociological issue. I won't try to hide that. Most people I have talked to are very concerned that a few people are taking too many big fish. But it boils down to the fact that there really isn't much else we can do--there are only so many options. And given the history of the first go around with the GLC, and the reported lack of biological support (I must say "reported" mind you, because I haven't yet gotten to read the minutes of the meeting) for the proposal, it doesn't appear as though we have many other options.
So I guess you could also say that, in this case, the lack of clear-cut biological evidence in favor of keeping the limit at 50 inches...doesn't mean it exists.
Is the glass half empty, or half full?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/23/2007 11:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) Pressure on the Bay is increasing in percentages one cannot deny
2) It appears no one is sure of the population numbers there, or numbers of large fish, strong upcoming year classes, etc
3) The fish are concentrated at certain times of the year and therefore more susceptible to pressure; the anglers concentrate and can and do some days catch impressive numbers of fish when compared to other waters. If 10% of the fish CPR'd ( the low end of most estimates I have seen) succumb to angling mortality, the available numbers of fish in the upcoming year classes available to GET to 50" will be reduced. How much of an issue is that? Does that alone encourage additional conservation steps?
4) The upper confidence limit there has perhaps not yet been reached and could be VERY impressive, are we not doing enough to protect Wisconsin's only current possible World Class Muskie fishery? Is it not that trend to avoid progressive trophy management here that cause the alarmists from the far right of my position to gain audience with the "Wisconsin kills everything' argument?
5) There is legitimate concern the fish now over 50" may be over harvested; the 50" limit was imposed based on what was then, this is now.
6) One of the papers now available re: GB suggests that a larger limit may become 'desirable'.
7) Most of the discussion is far from 'the sky is falling'. I believe the title of the thread is " Alarming trend", not 'The Sky is Falling in Green Bay'. The question for all practical purposes is...should something be done? Then...If so, what?
I believe I have said several times that it's primarily NOT biological issues alone that create changes in management strategies in Wisconsin like those some seek here. I CAN tell you if you want to apply the proper pressure in the proper places, you had BETTER have whatever biological issues are available nailed down tight and carefully applied to the argument/discussion/proposal, and I'll push that all the way to that information TB wants to take to the 'bank'.
Present evidence that potential over harvest of the upper end of the available Muskie population ISN'T a problem and will not be as pressure increases. Or, refute that, either way, present something....
The 'want' platform if presented in the form some suggest is in my opinion certain doom to any increased size limit proposal brought to the CC; the Muskie community has been there and done that and I can assure everyone based on that experience 'want' alone won't get it no matter how convincing. It was the 'want' argument that won the day with the original 50" proposal up here, and that proposal was overwhelmingly defeated because it was considered elitist and lacked good solid educational efforts... good educational lobbying, to be blunt. This is politics, in reality. Winning on this issue means altering perceptions and promoting reasonable and careful activism, and all those efforts can be tossed out the window by a committee anyway, based upon failure to answer/address 'concerns' of those who would implement the new regs. I bet it was too much 'want' in the proposal and not enough 'need' to give those looking at the idea a solid stance if they felt the proposal had merit, and that caused the tabling of the last attempt to change the size limit on the Bay. TB, let me know what you find out there.
This process will not be easy and will require the 'want' to be strongly argued with the 'need'.
Why is the limit at 50"? Want? Need? Why not 45"? 48"? What portion of the population might reach 54" plus and then be subject to harvest? Is that number any different than the number that now reach 50"? Sure, mortality WITHOUT angling can be 30% per year of any year class. What is the true potential there?
Some may not fear VHS, but I do based upon the source of the last VHS Muskie kill being Great Lakes related. Should it be part of the public argument? Probably not, not enough data. As a result, it will appear alarmist.
Would it be best to err on the side of caution BASED on the fact not enough data is available on the Muskies in green Bay, and at least get action on getting study going while *perhaps* finding methods to encourage a more conservative approach to harvest there until study can be completed?
Will the State of Wisconsin continue to stock Green Bay at past and current levels? Will those levels survive the increased pressure that is inevitable on the Bay in numbers large enough providing the fishery that some now accept as Status Quo??
My opinion? Line up the questions, and acquire all possible answers. Do not over react or over act. Prepare educational materials, back them with opinions from the fisheries professionals here in the State. Prepare a proposal that is neither all want or all science, but a consolidation of both. Get your stuff together, acquire a base of support that is broad and reasonable and able to 'spread the word'. And be prepared to lose no matter what, pick up and go for the next year.
Or, do absolutely nothing and hope for the best. If after all the need doesn't exist and respectable numbers of the Green Bay Muskies actually reach full potential, this argument is moot. If not, then all Wisconsin has to do is stock a bunch more and keep the system going; accepting year classes may be weak or strong and the trophy population will be more unpredictable than some would prefer into the future.
That's if it was me 'standing in front of people'. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good post Steve...you took the words right out of my mouth; or at least said them better than I may have.
The 'want' approach did not work by itself; of that we are fairly certain. The 'want' approach *was* sufficient to get enough people behind it and get the CC to consider it. And I think that it will again be enough to get it to the CC and the GLC. But that's where the 'want' approach will cease to work. This isn't opinion...it's fact. It happened, as Steve points out. So we must take a somewhat different approach--one that includes 'want' (as this can be a powerful catalyst for change), but one that also includes the biological 'why' we want it.
But in all fairness, why shouldn't that be required? Why would we want the DNR to make a very significant change to a (somewhat) controversial regulatory issue *without* there being at least a modicum of biological evidence? If things didn't work out in a couple years, the finger-pointers out there would be asking WHY they "caved" to public opinion, based largely on a sociological argument. And you know what...those finger-pointers might be correct! The fisheries managers are trained to do their jobs, and are charged with the welfare of the resource. If they aren't the ones that should consider the science...who is?!
I said in my last post that this is basically a sociological argument, and I stand behind that statement. The driving force behind this movement is the fact that many people want to see just how good this fishery can become. They don't *want* to have to drive to Mille Lacs, western Ontario, Georgian Bay or upstate New York just to have a shot at world class fish. Yes, a 50" fish is considered a "trophy" by most people...but is it "world class"? Sorry, but I personally don't think so. But still, I get it--I get the fact that there should be a biological basis behind this argument, in addition to the sociological issues. You don't have to hit me over the head with a 2x6...a 2x4 is plenty! But the thing we cannot lose sight of here is that, if there was a strong biological argument that existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This would be a done deal, and we'd be looking at a 54" limit there already.
But why 54"...why not 52? Who knows? Why not 56? Well, here's what I say about that--why reinvent the wheel? Canada has been using a 54" limit for years in some places, so why NOT use that? These are the same fish, eating much of the same forage, for the most part. I argue that the "world class" (there's that catch phrase again) Canadian fisheries seem to favor a 54" limit, at least in many places. So why not adopt this in Wisconsin? That may be reason enough to do it right there. But of course it just isn't that simple, is it?
So Steve, you must be reading my notes. Without detailing the entire plan (because it is still in evolution, for one thing) I have been advocating the formulation of a comprehensive plan to protect the current fishery, protect the future fishery, and support on-going study to provide the DNR with hard data upon which to base future management decisions. Of course, this plan would address both the sociological AND the biological concerns. Thankfully, there are others that agree with me and so the wheels are in motion. And although I have not laid it out for them in detail, I am happy to report that (to this point anyway) our local DNR fishery managers have been supportive.
So remember folks--if this were just a matter of biology, it'd likely be a done deal by now. But it's more complicated than that, as it involves sociological arguments as well. Which is more important? Who knows. Does one have to be more important? Can't BOTH be important? This is real-world we're talking about here...things aren't always black or white.
TB
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lots of good arguments from both sides here. As I see it, it boils down to being "proactive" or "reactive" (should the trophy population crash due to overharvest, which can and has been argued that the current trend is heading it that way).
Some few years after Lac Suel got "noticed/found out" the HARVEST there was massive (personal best for the wall and... one Wisconsin guide was taking and MOUNTING many BIG fish, going so far as to have a secret compartment in his boat after they made it C&R only!). When the MNR realized what was happening...with concern from many US anglers(!), they IMMEDIATELY made the muskellunge fishery catch and release only. Initially it was to be for only three years, until they could study the fishery and DETERMINE just what they had there for a muskie population. That was the early 90's...it is STILL C&R only there! It is therefore apparent, that their studies concluded that there was NOT a population in Lac Suel that could sustain continued trophy harvest. By being PROACTIVE, the Ministry likely avoided a near total crash of the trophy muskellunge fishery there. Had they waited and been REACTIVE, it is unlikely Lac Suel would EVER come back, as Ontario does no stocking!!
EDIT: Forgot to mention that after Wabigoon got hammered in the early 80's that lake too went to C&R only for quite a few years. When it was determined that it could stand minimal harvest as the trophy fisherty was rebounding, it was reopened with a 54-inch size limit.
Where I ask, is the GUARENTEE the the WDNR will continue to stock Green Bay, or at some point in the future will be able to afford to at the stocking levels necessary to sustain the continuing and increasing pressure there, without even factoring in the EXTREME likelyhood of VHS damage there?
It has been estimated by biologists/scientists that VHS has wiped out about 40% of the ADULT population of Muskellunge in the St. Lawrence River (this is supported by the greatly reduced catch there by area guides on both the US and Canadian side of the river). Should VHS hit the Bay and targets the adult/trophy population, even with MASSIVE (and unlikely) restocking, it will take another decade and more to return it to where it is now. Exessive harvest NOW can only compound the problem should VHS hit.
I know Steve said we shouldn't be "alarmist" re VHS, but that strong likelihood/possibility MUST be factored in. Yes, I realize that some may argue why not harvest them rather than let VHS get them, but as was argued with C&R in the beginning, no angler can KNOW which fish will (have the potential to grow to trophy size...C&R) succumb to VHS. Harvest the wrong ones, and almost the entire population of trophy sized muskies could be wiped out!
As for me, the proposed 54-inch size limit only makes sense at this time. Protect that valuable fishery until some studies can be done (and see if VHS does hit) and THEN re-assess the situation and make any further changes if necessary, either with even higher size limit; C&R only or even reduced size limit. KNOWLEDGE is KEY!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/24/2007 2:23 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for posting Larry--it's always great to hear the history of these issues, from one of the world's foremost musky historians. You've remembered what most of us have forgotten, or never even knew!
I also wanted to post a link to follow-up my last post. Here is a nice link explaining a little of Ontario's muskellunge size limit structure. Check it out:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/Mnr/csb/news/mar22nr00.html
I especially like the part where they give some of the rationale behind their size limit structure. And as I have said before in this thread--they base a much more significant part of their economy on the value of their resources, in the form of tourism. So while this certainly doesn't commit us from doing the exact same thing, I tend to think that if it works for them, well then just maybe it will work for us as well. But there's more work to be done before that can start to happen, and as I write this I am waiting for a call regarding the first of many meetings sure to come on this subject. Hopefully this will take place later this afternoon, so we may begin to formalize our plan of action in this effort.
Thanks again for the posts everyone.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/24/2007 2:12 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | In my continuing research, I found a couple of interesting links.
The first is a St. Lawrence River Fisheries Management Survey, and the second link has the results of that survey.
http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/slrosurveyl.pdf
http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/slrreport.pdf
Take a look at the muskellunge portion of the survey, on page 4...only one question (#16). Now look at the answers to that question on page 7 of the survey report. Pretty interesting. According to the report, almost 80% of Canadians favored the 54" size limit on the Larry, but the American participants didn't favor it by nearly as much a margin. It's the same river! So, can we assume from these results that perhaps Canadians place more value on large muskellunge--or maybe have a different perception of the *value* of large muskies?
Still, the important thing to realize here is that the 54" limit *was* preferred by the majority of all participants, both US & Canadian. Boy, the things you can find on the internet...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/24/2007 1:50 PM
| |
| | |
| i heard that there is a meeting this weekend (Saturday?) with interested stakeholders.
is that true?
is it an open meeting?
i'll be in Green Bay on Saturday and would like to attend if it's in the afternoon.
Edited by lambeau 11/26/2007 8:49 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for asking...
We have formed an entity we are calling the Green Bay Musky Coalition, and it presently consists of several local musky clubs and numerous concerned individuals from throughout the state. Although the time is still tentative, we are planning to hold a meeting on Saturday, December 29th at 1pm at the Green Bay Yacht Club, near the Bay Beach landing at the mouth of the Fox River. In addition to the various press releases we will be making prior to the event, we will make a formal announcement on all of the musky boards as the time nears, and will also post directions to the meeting site. The agenda of the meeting is still being discussed, but I will be making a short Power Point presentation at the beginning of the meeting, in order to bring everyone up to speed on where the process is.
As I have alluded to in previous posts here in this thread, we have conceived a comprehensive plan to assist the DNR in protecting this fishery. This plan will be based upon both biological and sociological arguments, and all details of the plan will be discussed at the meeting, with ample time given for questions and discussion. While I do not want to go into great detail on the plan at this time, I can mention that there are provisions for both immediate and more longer-term actions; in addition to financial planning to assist in research to benefit the local fishery. Finally, last but certainly not least, this comprehensive plan will also include steps to development an educational campaign to help improve the success of C&R in the sport. Of course this would not be exclusive to the Green Bay fishery, as all anglers should benefit by these efforts.
I must say that I simply cannot believe the support we have gotten to this point. I can't begin to tell you how many emails, phone calls & PMs I have gotten since this whole effort started. In addition to overwhelming local support, I have spoken to many people from around the state who all want to be included in our efforts. We are happy to accept help from everyone who has offered, although I find myself spending more & more time trying to coordinate this help! However I don't consider this a bad problem to have, and therefore hope to see and meet everyone at the meeting on December 29th. Please check back for additional updates.
Once again, on behalf of the newly formed Green Bay Musky Coalition, I wish to express our gratitude to MuskieFIRST for allowing us this venue to exchange ideas. And thanks to everyone that has posted in this thread or contacted our group to express support for this critical effort.
EDIT: Almost forgot--as far as I have been told this will indeed be an open meeting.
Tom Betka
Research Director
Titletown Chapter, MI
Edited by tcbetka 11/26/2007 10:12 AM
| |
| | |
| Tom -
Just read your last couple of posts. I don't hand out compliaments easily, but you really seem as though you have a very good grasp of this.
Have you talked to the DNR about data collected from tagged fish? Due to the size of the bay and the nature of these fish, I'm betting that a tagging effort is probably going to be one of the few tools for gathering data. Also, do you know if the stocked fish are marked in any way? Not sure how else you could determine if there is any nature reproduction occuring.
For the most part, I'm not a fan in increasing size limits just because someone wants to catch a bigger fish. If there is some biological rationale behind it (like the 28 inch size limit on walleye in the fox river in spring), then I support such a move. However, I don't think that wanting to catch a bigger fish constitutes a biological reason to increase a size limit.
In any event, please keep us all posted on what you learn. I can't promise you that I will support an increase in the size limit, but I do like learning more about the fish in our lakes and rivers.
BTW, I live in Oshkosh and fished the bay for Musky yesterday. It was a cold, windy day and the bite was off. We didn't have a bump. Still a great day on the water though. I've fished the bay for musky for 4 year or so and have not harvested a fish yet. I probably never will.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey Brad,
As far as your question to stocked fish being marked...yes they are marked with a fin clip. I'm not sure if they tag all the fish they stock as well or if they just fin clip them. I caught a tagged fish this fall and recieved the info from the DNR as to when it was stocked, at what length it was stocked and its age at stocking.
Tom is doing a great job taking this whole thing on. He is very passionate about what the fishery there in GB and its great to see his willingness to take on this task. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Brad & Mike,
Yes, as far as I can tell from the literature, the fish were fin-clipped from the get-go. And there were also some fish with Floy tags, although I don't know how many fish were "Floy-tagged." But these are simply tags that get inserted under the skin (near the dorsal fin, usually on the left side) with a numbered portion that protrudes from the skin. You then simply read the number on the tag, and ask the DNR to look up that fish's history in their records. Incidentally, "Floy" is simply the manufacturer's name:
http://www.floytag.com/
The problem with these tags of course, is that they are subject to breakage, and being lost--thus sacrificing the value of any follow-up data that might be obtained. But the concept is simple--each has a unique ID number that is simply recorded at the time of implantation. This then stays with the fish (like a SS number, almost) for the rest of it's life. Every time the fish is recaptured and measurements are taken, the data can be compared to previous information on that fish. Mike's fish was a perfect example of how this can work, and he got excellent feedback from the DNR on his fish...and they got excellent feedback on the growth of that fish since it was stocked some 11 years earlier.
More recently (and I am uncertain just when this started, but probably within the past 3-4 years) the DNR has gone to a PIT device. This is a "passive integrated transponder" that is about 1/2" or so long, and no more than about 1/8" in diameter. You can see something like them here:
http://www.biomark.com/RFID-tags.htm
This device is quite nifty in that it gets implanted under the skin, and thus (once the site has healed) it isn't subject to being lost. If course if the fish gets injured (by a boat propeller or something) there is chance that the skin could be disrupted and the tag lost. But that probably isn't likely. But the downside of this tag is that you can to have an electronic device to interrogate the PIT; and unless you interrogate it you may never know that the fish was tagged. So you could be sacrificing data, simply because an angler wouldn't even know the fish had been tagged (because they couldn't see the device), and they don't have a scanner to interrogate the fish's dorsal fin area to discover whether or not it *had* been tagged.
So the PIT tag is more for biologists than anglers, while the Floy tag can be read by anyone. But the PIT tag is more likely to be retained by the fish, mainly because nothing is hanging from the fish. I have never inserted a PIT tag, but did place several Floy tags in various species of fish (mainly trout) back in college, while working with biologists. But our biologist tells me that the PIT tags are quite simple to place and cause minimal trauma or distress to the fish. In fact as far as I can tell, the fish wouldn't hardly know anything had happened, as they are really very small.
Incidentally, the fin-clipped fish really don't indicate to the DNR anything other than that is a stocked fish. In other words--if they net 20 fish in the spring, and all are 35-40" long (i.e.; probably from the year class), and 1-2 fish do NOT have a clipped fin, then the assumption is that those 1-2 fish were not stocked...and thus this can be interpreted as evidence of natural reproduction (unless someone forgot to clip the fins at the time of stocking). As they normally clip a fin on stocked fish each year, the clipping doesn't really indicate which year those fish were stocked in, as far as I can tell.
And for Brad, if you PM me a contact number I will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about why we feel (biologically *and* sociologically) these fish should be protected, lol. Otherwise you are more than welcome to attend the meeting on the 29th, and I will lay it all out there as well.
Thanks again for the posts guys, and thanks for the kind words.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/26/2007 2:28 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Just a follow up on how the PIT tag gets implanted:
For trout we made a small incision in the stomach with a scalpel. The PIT Tag is relatively small and slide into a small incision very easily. I'm not sure if it would be possible with muskies, but with trout we knocked them out with MS-222 which is a chemical in the -cain family (cocain, lidicain, novicain). A very simple procedure that is does not cause much harm to the fish. There is, as is with all tagging, a chance for mortality, but is likely minimal.
The PIT tag, once read will give off a long ID number generally containting both letters and numbers. This is a similar process to that of one of those Lost Pet Recovery programs. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I know they also use a special syringe to implant the PIT devices as well. In fact, you can see them towards the bottom of the site in the link I referenced above.
TB | |
| | |
| Thanks for the feed back Tom and Pointer.
I am no expert by any means, but I am familiar with both tags as I have been lucky enough to tag along on the DNR shock boats on the wolf river and watched them floy tag about 300 fish in a single day. I was also on the Winnebago trawler a couple of times and watched the DNR use the electric wand to check sturgeon for the implanted tags.
Good luck with your study. I am looking forward to reading more about these fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Pointerpride102 - 11/26/2007 12:23 PM
Just a follow up on how the PIT tag gets implanted:
For trout we made a small incision in the stomach with a scalpel. The PIT Tag is relatively small and slide into a small incision very easily. I'm not sure if it would be possible with muskies, but with trout we knocked them out with MS-222 which is a chemical in the -cain family (cocain, lidicain, novicain). A very simple procedure that is does not cause much harm to the fish. There is, as is with all tagging, a chance for mortality, but is likely minimal.
The PIT tag, once read will give off a long ID number generally containting both letters and numbers. This is a similar process to that of one of those Lost Pet Recovery programs.
Tricaine Methanesulfonate; Finquel is a common brand name
IT would work on muskies, but I'm not sure it would be all that necessary, just inject the tag like we did on Bluehead Suckers...unless you were gathering a suite of data which requires substantial handling of the fish. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I think that would be more useful for a telemetry study, where you need to actually insert the transmitter into the fish. But for a large fish it seems like the syringe injection method would be quick & easy.
TB | |
| | |
| they using PIT tags for the comparative growth studies of WI strain and MN strain fish in Lake Monona on the Yahara chain in Madison.
Edited by lambeau 11/26/2007 9:08 PM
Attachments
----------------
 pit tag.JPG (100KB - 197 downloads)
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Interesting...
At the MI tournament, we were instructed to scan for the PIT tag along the dorsal fin. But here is appears as though the tech is injecting the tag into the ventral surface of the fish.
I wonder how far away from the tag the scanner can be, and still read it?
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I will support the Green Bay Musky Coalition.
The pit tags are injected into the musky's cheek muscle if done when they are larger.
Keep up the great work Tom, Jeff, and everybody else.
Edited by Jomusky 11/26/2007 10:42 PM
| |
| | |
| lambeau - 11/23/2007 8:24 AM
"i think it reflects the fact that the survival of the fishery isn't at risk."
With VHS in play, I think the Biologists on the St. Lawrence would have a very different opinion on this. Biologically the 54" size limit makes sense on most waters that have large growing populations, that's why most of the best canadian fisheries had a 54" limit placed on them by the biologists who run them. Green Bay is very similar to many of the Georgian Bay fisheries.
It's both a biological and social issue that favors further restricting harvest on all counts.
Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie.
| |
| | |
| "Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie."
That has got to be about the worst idea I have heard yet.
I understand the passion that most of you here feel towards these fish, but for the love of Pete, stop with all of the ridiculous suggestions. Sooner or later some idiot down in Madison will jump on board with one of these suggestions and screw up fishing for all of us. | |
| | |
| Biological reasons for 54” (Or C&R only)?
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, it may be very difficult to continue to stock Green Bay in the future. (I believe no GL muskies –zero- were raised in the hatchery this year, although 1000 yearlings were stocked). In a very shortsighted move, the sole inland GL strain Brood lake was disbanded over the last couple of years leaving VHS infected Green Bay as the WDNR’s sole source of GL Muskies. (Shortsighted – because a 2nd/3rd/4th brood lake should have been created before disbanding the first one) At this time, the DNR is hesitant to bring Muskie eggs/fry into the hatchery unless they can be sure they are VHS free and currently there is no way to disinfect eggs from VHS infected water. The only alternative is to get eggs from other States/Provinces which is going to be very expensive if even possible. Muskie clubs will likely have to come up with even more $$$$ to keep the program running.
This leaves protection of the existing fishery (especially the large POTENTIAL spawners) an absolute must.
Why is it always so hard to do the right thing? Protecting the big spawners has no downside biologically. (NONE) Harvest of large fish has many downsides biologically (fewer spawners) and socially - see Boat ramp problems, and costs of stocking and raising fish. (The costs are largely supported by Muskie clubs that favor high size limits.)
Education is the key. Unfortunately it’s education of the CC, NRB and DNR that is required. These are the groups where the size limit increase stalled. The education of the general public worked and the Muskies have the public support for the 54” limit as proved by last springs CC vote on the resolution.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI |
"Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie."
Actually, I spoke with both Lax & Fittante taxidermy...they both charge essentially the *same* amount for a skin mount or a reproduction. So it would actually cost MORE for a skin mount, because you would have to factor in the cost of delivering the fish to the taxidermist!
After the early research I have done on this subject, I abandoned any further discussion of this issue--for the reason I just mentioned. The taxidermists that specialize in reproductions have already taken this issue into consideration, and (by their actions) have taken the necessary steps to encourage CPR. Case closed on this issue, IMO.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 9:56 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 11/27/2007 8:51 AM
Biological reasons for 54” (Or C&R only)?
Actually there are biological reasons for BOTH those assertions, IMO. And I will be detailing those arguments at the 12/29 meeting in Green Bay.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, it may be very difficult to continue to stock Green Bay in the future. (I believe no GL muskies –zero- were raised in the hatchery this year, although 1000 yearlings were stocked). In a very shortsighted move, the sole inland GL strain Brood lake was disbanded over the last couple of years leaving VHS infected Green Bay as the WDNR’s sole source of GL Muskies. (Shortsighted – because a 2nd/3rd/4th brood lake should have been created before disbanding the first one) At this time, the DNR is hesitant to bring Muskie eggs/fry into the hatchery unless they can be sure they are VHS free and currently there is no way to disinfect eggs from VHS infected water. The only alternative is to get eggs from other States/Provinces which is going to be very expensive if even possible. Muskie clubs will likely have to come up with even more $$$$ to keep the program running.
This leaves protection of the existing fishery (especially the large POTENTIAL spawners) an absolute must.
I cannot argue anything here, although I am not intimately aware of the DNR's exact stocking practices over the past few years. But I agree with you in that, if VHS has the hatchery shut down for some indefinite time period, that will likely cause a significant gap in the number of fish in those year class further down the road, unless they can acquire replacement stock from elsewhere.
And I *obviously* agree with the part about protecting the large fish...lol.
Why is it always so hard to do the right thing? Protecting the big spawners has no downside biologically. (NONE) Harvest of large fish has many downsides biologically (fewer spawners) and socially - see Boat ramp problems, and costs of stocking and raising fish. (The costs are largely supported by Muskie clubs that favor high size limits.)
Education is the key. Unfortunately it’s education of the CC, NRB and DNR that is required. These are the groups where the size limit increase stalled. The education of the general public worked and the Muskies have the public support for the 54” limit as proved by last springs CC vote on the resolution.
I agree that education is of paramount importance in this effort, and that it will be one of the goals in our comprehensive plan to support the fishery. But we are not here to antagonize the NRB, DNR or CC...but rather to assist them in this endeavor. It's not just "our" (i.e.; the anglers') fishery--it's "everyone's" fishery, and thus we believe we should all work together to preserve it. It's just that many of us feel there should be a more aggressive approach to getting this to happen.
Thanks for the post!
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| 6 pages of commentary, and I have yet to read (or I just missed it) anyone making a legitimate argument for why the 54" size limit proposal should NOT be pursued. But we're basically all on the same side here. The people who have the final say may have differing opinions, or may be persuaded to shoot this down by "the opposition" so to speak.
Anybody care to take a stab and what some of the anti's might have to say?? There will be opposition. It helps to know what it might be, on what grounds, so those moving forward with this aren't caught off guard.
So far the only "opposition" seems to be from two schools of thought.
1. It ain't broke
2. You just want to catch bigger muskies (no biological basis)
What else is there? Bueller?
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well this is exactly what I have been trying to determine throughout the course of this thread...and thus far haven't seen or heard any viable (i.e.; objective) arguments. I will tell you what our DNR biologist(s) have told me though.
The argument against the 54" size limit increase was that the fish were quite possibly "fast growers, but short livers," and thus weren't going to live much beyond 54" anyway. So taking that as the major *biological* argument against the 54" limit, I set out to find out if that's a viable argument or not. I now say it isn't, and here's part of the reason(s) why.
1) These are fish from the same genetic lineage as those in Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence. Since those fish have been documented at nearly 60 inches, there isn't any *genetic* reason to think that the Green Bay fish couldn't reach those lengths as well. Indeed, there is a picture on the Titletown MI website of a 59" fish reportedly caught and released in Little Sturgeon Bay a couple of years ago. I have an email out to the angler at this time, but cannot yet verify the story of the catch, though I have it from a reliable source that the fish is as big as claimed. The angler was fishing smallies, and released the muskellunge. I am not even sure he's a musky fisherman. And there have been fish documented in the Fox River in excess of 54-55" (Ryan Dempsey's 56" fish caught 4/2005, to mention one). There are also multiple other stories that I have heard, regarding reputable anglers seeing fish well into the upper 50" size range.
So the fish currently in the system seem to have the ability to grow well into the 55"+ range; certainly larger than 54 inches.
2) In Kevin Kapuscinksi's 2006 paper, he reported that through analysis of their data acquired over several years, that the Green Bay fish could reach lengths of around 60.34 inches (that's the upper limit of their confidence interval). They also concluded that the fish could reach weights of nearly 71 pounds (again, the upper limit of the confidence interval based upon their mathematical data). Thus they concluded that, while the fish might reach record weights, they probably wouldn't reach record *lengths*. To this I say...so what? The current world record system is based upon WEIGHT, not length. Who cares if the fish is 57, 58, 59 or 60 inches long? As long as it's girth is adequate (likely, with that forage base), it is likely capable of reaching a world-class weight.
When you plug this 60.34 inch length into Kevin's equation for the length/weight relationship, you indeed get 70.9 pounds. And this agrees with his mathematical model for the age/weight relationship. Incidentally, Kevin's ultimate length projection also seems to agree with Dr. Casselman's data on the ultimate growth potential of fish in those other waters. So I believe the biological evidence is indeed there.
Although there are some additional arguments to be made in support of the 54" size limit, that's about as deep as I want to get into this at the present--mostly because because I am going to go through all of it (and more) on December 29th. I am not certain what is being planned, but it might be possible to either videotape the PowerPoint presentation and upload it here, or I could simply make it available as an on-line presentation. I will work with Steve Worrall and MuskieFIRST to do it in whatever manner they deem most appropriate; if they choose to make it available. Otherwise we can upload to a private site as well.
I can tell you that I have spent in excess of 60 hours working on this in the past 2 weeks, and there is no end in site. The effort is simply enormous, as there always seems to be more information just around the corner. But I keep getting additional information, which leads to *more* information, and so on. At some point, I believe it will end, but we aren't there yet. So while previous efforts to get the 54" limit passed may have left some stones unturned, I can assure those interested that the current effort will not. And don't forget--we are talking about more than just a size limit increase; so there are things in the works that I haven't even begun to discuss here.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 2:16 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Not to over simplify here, but the only opposition from the DNR (presumably from the people who are paid to know about this stuff) is that "the fish might not grow much past 54"?? Soo... there MAY not be a great benefit. But what can it hurt?
I wonder if this boils down to the powers that be not wanting to spend a lot of time, money, and effort to pass something that will only please a handful of muskie fishermen, which as we know are a very small percentage of the overall fishing population. Not trying to throw a wrench in your machine here, but I think its worth mentioning that in the grand scheme of money, tourism and the state of WI muskie fishing is pretty insignificant. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | esoxaddict - 11/27/2007 1:08 PM
Not to over simplify here, but the only opposition from the DNR (presumably from the people who are paid to know about this stuff) is that "the fish might not grow much past 54"?? Soo... there MAY not be a great benefit. But what can it hurt?
In all fairness, they had a concern regarding the enforcement issues associated with the new size limit as well. Michigan has a 50" limit on the Menominee river, and thus this might be an issue. But that's one of only two places in their entire state with a 50 inch size limit--the other is Thornapple Lake, which I am told is a broodstock lake. All other areas appear to have a 42" limit, as I read the fishing regulations on the MiDNR website.
I wonder if this boils down to the powers that be not wanting to spend a lot of time, money, and effort to pass something that will only please a handful of muskie fishermen, which as we know are a very small percentage of the overall fishing population. Not trying to throw a wrench in your machine here, but I think its worth mentioning that in the grand scheme of money, tourism and the state of WI muskie fishing is pretty insignificant.
I cannot speak to that. I am still trying to gather some data on the economics of musky fishing in various parts of the continent. As of yet, I haven't found any solid data, but I suspect it's much more significant than you might expect--especially in the premiere spots like LOTW, Eagle Lake, Lac Suel and Georgian Bay.
If anyone has any of this type of data, I would very much appreciate it if you would consider sharing it with me.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey Tom,
I ran across this article about the economic impacts of fishing on the Winnebago system. Hopefully the link works, if not let me know. Hope it is somewhat helpful.
http://www.uwex.edu/CES/CTY/WINNEBAGO/cnred/documents/Summary_4_pag...
Also came across this one that, although might be too general/broad, has some info on what would happen if the number of anglers declined in WI due to deteriorating fisheries. It also has some references that might be useful.
http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/publications/SELP_mercury_fishing.htm...
Edited by Pointerpride102 11/27/2007 2:22 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, it was helpful. Thanks. I will forward it on to the appropriate fellow working on that issue.
Thanks again Mike.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 3:53 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | sorenson - 11/26/2007 8:56 PM
IT would work on muskies, but I'm not sure it would be all that necessary, just inject the tag like we did on Bluehead Suckers...unless you were gathering a suite of data which requires substantial handling of the fish.
It works on skis. Syringe. Anterior to dorsal fin. Fish caught in nets are different animals from fish caught angling. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Put 2007 dollars to this muskellunge fishery value from a 1973 study "Muskellunge Management in Chautauqua Lake by S.B. Mooradian & W. F. Shepard:
...in 1965...the economic value of the muskellunge fishery (in 13,000 acre Chautauqua Lake, NY) was 1.8 MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY.
From: NY Fish & Game Journal Vol. 20 No. 2 July 1973.
Also, "old" Wisconsin studies HAS shown the HIGH percentage of TOURIST anglers that come to Wisconsin to persue muskellunge.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com
Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/27/2007 6:38 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I am no economist, but I went to this site:
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateCPI.html
...and used the the consumer price index inflation conversion program to show find that it would be equal to about 10.8 million in 2004 dollars (most recent data available). So it appears the value would be increased by about 6-fold.
Wow!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 7:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And that is BEFORE muskie fishing became so popular. Can't imagine what the value is currently to the town of Green Bay. Can't imagine that they want to loose it! | |
| | |
| There is no doubt that people come to GB and spend money specifically because of the musky (I certainly do) but to suggest a corelation between a 42 year old study on a lake in NY and spending on Green Bay today isn't a great idea IHMO.
And while I'm thinking about it, are there significant numbers of musky anglers on the bay at any time of year other than late fall? Does anyone try to catch these fish in June and July, or is it simply a Sept/Oct/November thing? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, as to the validity of the data Larry mentioned--I think any data showing how valuable musky fishing is to a local economy is better than NO data. If we can find recent data for *any* musky fishery...great! We'll use it. But I cannot seem to find anything at all; at least that directly pertains to musky fishing specifically. So we are pretty much forced to use whatever we can find to make our case.
As to your second question, yes--people fish out there all year long. Not in the numbers we see right now, but I fished out there several times this summer, and saw a good number of boats trolling for musky. But you raise a good question, because we really don't know just how many people are fishing for them! In fact, that's one of the things we are proposing in our plan...improve creel census data collection through volunteerism at the major landings. There are enough folks involved with the Green Bay Musky Coalition now, that it shouldn't be too difficult to develop and implement a plan to have someone stationed at the landings regularly; at least on the weekends.
I don't think we would have to have someone there 24/7, mind you. These sorts of studies are done on a limited basis, with extrapolations to determine an estimate of total angling success (and harvest). But the 455 fish caught (and 6 harvested) in 2006 (data mentioned in the 2007 report to the Great Lakes Fishery) is a gross underestimate, I am afraid. And of all the members in our Titletown MI chapter, not one has ever told me they have been asked to report their catch at the landing.
Yet another example of how we don't know what we don't know...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 11/28/2007 10:41 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that the hearings held by the DNR last winter RE: New tournament regulations generated some interesting figures on how Muskie angling in general and tournaments in specifics effect local economies. Eagle River and Rhinelander had a rep at our local hearing at Nicloet College, try them to see if they still have those figures. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Steve. Would you happen to have any specific names? That might make it easier to bird-dog that information, as (hopefully) those people would still be available.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey Tom,
Here is a link I've stumbled on that talks about how muskies have become a great source of income for the state of Maine. Not sure if will be helpful to your needs, but might be worth a look.
http://www.fortkent-muskie.com/catch.html | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's a wild link--I don't quite know what to say after reading it, lol. It's an interesting read, to say the least. But it seems as though they are trying pretty hard to convince someone that they aren't harming the fishery with this tournament. It would be interesting to know more about some of the circulating "confusion and misinformation" that necessitated this statement...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Tom,
You might be aware of this already, but maybe not. It might be of some use to you.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Musky%20regulation%20change%20factshee... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Mike,
I did see that, a while ago as I recall. It's many years old, judging by the stuff in there about raising the limit to 40 inches. I can't recall exact when that was, but the limit in Green Bay was increased to 50 inches in 2003, so it's probably older than that.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | We were actually creel surveyed by the DNR several times at the metro launch this fall, giving them valuable info. Saw them there quite a bit. They definately do not get a count of everything going on, but from what I saw, they did a fair job this fall down there, if anglers were honest about what they caught..... One thing that could happen(that I have seen at other lakes and hunting areas) is to have a survey form at the landing to be filled out upon return each day by choice.
That said, the days I saw the DNR surveying, there were fish kept(they actually borrowed my bump board for one of them one day for some reason...), so they did get a count on some harvested fish in their survey as well.
Again, it may have just been chance, but we were surveyed multiple times this fall, or about 20% of the time we were there. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Cool. Thanks for the report.
I was out there 20+ times this year, and never talked to anyone. Several guys I know were out there about as much or more, and you are the first to tell me they were surveyed. But I am glad to hear it's taking place, and one of the things we would like to see happen is for additional effort to be devoted to surveying anglers at the launches. Hopefully we can work with the DNR to do that, although I am certain it will take some volunteer work to accomplish--and of course I realize that we will never survey 100% of the anglers. But there's always room for improvement.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No doubt that there can be more surveying, hence my suggestion for types of surveys, and surveying methods. This could be something that need be done by a local club or organization though, unfortunately. The DNR might be getting ample numbers for their work through their survey frequency. That said, I'd be glad to help you come up with a plan of action on that end, as I've thought about conducting a similar survey on the WI River system here. Just wanted to reitierate that I wasn't trying to play devils advocate in my last post. Out of about 15 trips this fall(down from most years with the kid now......), we did get surveyed a few times by the same dude(student at UWGB if I remember correctly). All surveys we were part of were during the first week of November on week days. I think Shane Mason mentioned that he knew you. He was with me on one or two survey occasions and might have the name of the guy doing the work.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/30/2007 10:29 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks. I will talk to Shane about it when I see him next. I would bet he'll be at the meeting for our MI chapter in a week or so, otherwise the meeting on the 29th for sure. I will try to get the name and call the creel survey fellow to see how many times he's been out there. But weekdays are probably *not* representative of the degree of activity out there. I have been out there on weekends with 30 other boats, only to see it go down to about 10 boats on Monday and Tuesday...
But we can help with this effort. There are enough clubs involved with the new group that each could maybe take turns or something.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| OK, so we've talked and talked and talked about this. I haven't kept up with every post.......is there a 1, 2, 3 plan here, what steps have been taken, what steps WILL be taken, and where are we at now?
Just looking for the Cliff's Notes of this whole topic.
Thanks,
Eric | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, there *is* a 1-2-3-(and 4) plan here as a matter of fact. But it isn't published yet, so I cannot really go into it. But the presentation from the meeting on the 29th will be published on the site here, so anyone that wants to see it will be able to. But I cannot publish it until after the meeting though...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 12/5/2007 2:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Why the secret?
Be nice if Titletown had someone who kept up with the website, you could publish it there, which, no offense to M1st, seems more appropriate, since Titletown has been very involved with everything that relates to the Bay area. Obviously M1st will get more traffic.
-Eric | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, there is no "secret" per se, it's just that I haven't finished the presentation yet. But we can certainly post it on the website after the presentation.
As far as the Titletown website goes, I agree that it needs to be updated--and in fact, that is supposed to be happening as we speak... Jay Zahn (chapter President) has told me that someone has volunteered to do this, although I don't know when they were actually going to be finished. I got the past website fellow to put my contact name and number up there when this whole thing started a few weeks ago.
But if you want to know more about the content of the presentation, just call me. My number is on the our website. I will tell you as much as I know, lol.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, the cat's out of the bag...lol. We are starting to get some press here locally. The other day a local TV station ran a piece on several newscasts, and I was interviewed. Unfortunately, they pretty much made it sound like it was a "tourism vs. DNR" deal and totally missed what I was trying to tell them in the 45 minute interview. They only used about 30 seconds of what I said, and that just happened to be the little bit we talked about the possible impact on tourism. They also interviewed a local tourism-related official in Green Bay and the Regional Fisheries Biologist from the area (who basically said that the DNR is confident that there is no danger to the muskie population, and that they were "hopeful" that natural spawning would take over.) Here's a link to the story about that interview...
http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=7467910
...there's video with that link as well--just click on the little camera icon near the story title.
Then this morning there was a nice piece that appeared today in several newspapers around the state. The writer (Jim Lee) has been out there fishing with Brett Jolly (great job Brett, btw) and sees the real issue--and wrote it up that way. Here's a link to his piece:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007...
So the wheels are turning towards 12/29, and it appears that we really need to ramp up our efforts to educate those not intimately involved. I guess in a way it's good that these stories have hit now, because that allows me some additional time to clarify things via the PowerPoint presentation I will be giving.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 12/9/2007 8:09 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| "I'm open to a 54-inch minimum," said David Rowe, Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist at Green Bay and the person responsible for managing the spotted muskie fishery, "but I just want more biological information before making any decision."
Dr. Tom Betka, a Green Bay physician and muskie angler with an undergraduate degree in aquatic biology, believes a moratorium should be placed on muskie harvest until the potential impact of viral hemmorhagic septicemia is known.
"If VHS hits southern Green Bay and the Fox River during the spring when muskies spawn, it's going to kill a lot of fish," Betka contends. "If we eliminate harvest, it's going to allow more muskies to survive the virus."
The survivors, he said, are likely to be fish whose genetic makeup allows them to withstand the disease. Those fish will be critical to the future of the muskie fishery.
Cut/pasted the above snippets from the article.
I think they're great points. But between the above paragraphs, and what has been said about the media turning this into a "tourism" thing rather than a "save the fish thing," it sounds like we're really hanging our hat on VHS. So, if VHS DOESN'T rear its ugly head, the way its been portrayed here, seems like the stance from an outsider could very easily be "well, crises averted, no need for this limit change."
I guess I'm just a little concerned that for whatever reason, the focus has been shifted away from protecting the fish for the sake of protecting the fish....to concern about tourism $$$ and the threat of a disease.
To me, that's the hurdle: protect the fish so we can all enjoy them and so eventually we can "see what they've got" in terms of growth potential. It almost feels like the track has been rerouted so we now are avoiding that hurdle and are instead faced with tourism $$$ and VHS being the obstacle/factor now.
And, perhaps those are better trump cards than what we started with. Maybe it doesn't matter what specific thing it is that gets attention. I just hope that we don't wind up with a temporary limit increase or moratorium with a sunset date built in...after which, we'll be back to square one.
Carry on.
-Eric
Edited by muskie-addict 12/11/2007 9:02 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Hey Eric, is that a really a bad thing? Trying to convince people to want to protect a fish that relatively few people care about or even know about seems like a lot bigger challenge to overcome than protecting tourism dollars and the possibility of VHS. What I mean is this - if our objective is met through reasons other than our own, it's still works in our favor. In a perfect world, it would be about the muskie fishery for its own sake, but I'd rather see it happen because of toursim, or because of the possibility of VHS than not at all. It's an easier sell if you can attach money and unknown potential viral disaster to it. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Eric...
However I will add one thing. This issue has been addressed (to some degree) in the past 54" size limit proposal, via the spring Conservation Congress resolution process. As you are aware, it passed in all but one county where it was introduced. So, sociologically speaking anyway, it seems to be favored. But then it was defeated in the Great Lakes Committee meeting of the CC in September. Why was it defeated? Biology, or the lack thereof. Ron Vanderloop (GLC Chairman) told me personally that the reason the resolution failed was, essentially, a lack of biological support.
So while I agree that we cannot hang our hats solely on VHS, I think we do need to consider all of the biological evidence that supports the concerns that we have. And to that end, the presentation I have put together does just that. I am not saying that I have exhaustively explored each & every biological issue mind you, just that I brought some biology to the table for this meal. I don't think the focus has been shifted from "protecting the fish for the fish's sake" at all; but rather I just think that we are finding new (more objective) ways to express that sentiment.
Oh, and I don't know what to tell you about the whole "threat to tourism" angle...I certainly didn't stress that in the 45 minutes that I was interviewed. Certainly this issue has ramifications for the tourism industry--but it's MUCH bigger than that. But unfortunately, that's not the angle the local TV folks played.
Anyway, thanks for the post.
TB
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Hey, I was on TV! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | LMAO...was wondering how long it would take you to figure that out! You are also in a newsletter. Check this out:
http://www.mroutboardsnewsletter.com/tips/dec07.html
TB | |
| | |
| After every one of these I read, I just can't help but feel you guys are missing the boat on this.
IMHO, the role of fisheries management should not to protect fish for the sake of the fishermen that want to catch more and bigger fish, it should be to protect the fishery. A 50 inch fish has had SEVERAL opportunities to spawn. If natural reproduction has a chance to take off, it will with this limit.
Instead of spending the time and effort to increase size limits (which may or may not increase the size of the fish significantly), why not spend your time educating people on selective harvest, the benefits of catch and release, or even better fish handling techniques to decrease the chances of post release mortality?
After 50 inches, I see no reason why an angler shouldn't harvest one if he/she so chooses. For myself, I would never keep a musky unless it had no chance to survive the release. But I sure as heck would hate to be forced to release a 53 inch fish when I knew it was going to die. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Would it be any better if you had a 49"er that was going to die?
I agree that protecting the fishery is important, but in an instance like this when there is little to no natural reproduction, and the fish exist only by stocking, "protecting the fishery" means protecting the fish.
One of the goals, I believe, is to someday have natural repo, but I don't think anyone believes there's any successful spawning.
I, and I think alot of others concerned about this, are seeing what's going on, have witnessed that GB has become a high-profile place to "put one on the wall," and realize that alot of these "wallhangers" aren't even 12 years old yet and have not had a chance to see their maximum potential. | |
| | |
Location: WI | muskie-addict - 12/14/2007 5:54 PM
One of the goals, I believe, is to someday have natural repo, but I don't think anyone believes there's any successful spawning.
I for one believe there is natural reproduction going on. Many of the guys who catch fish out there will tell you they do catch fish without fin clips.
They have only been there a short time now, not long enough to see how well it is going. But I have seen enough for myself. And we are still picking up barred fish on occasion,
Its going to take awhile to see how self sustaining this fishery can be. Every year they seem to be taking steps in the right direction to develop a self sustaining fishery. This was not designed to be a put and take fishery. The efforts to diversify the genetic pool, stocking areas with a greater chance for natural reproduction. All done because they want to establish a self sustaining fishery.
Its one lake in Wisconsin, out of over 700 you can go thump your trophy. But then again you have to define trophy. To me it would be like going to the zoo to shoot an elephant for the wall. Only I have to stare at that elephant everyday and sleep at night.
But there are guys who wouldnt think twice about it. As long as they have the head on the wall and can say, look what I did.
| |
| | |
Posts: 135
| I guess I'm just puzzled why anyone would want to keep any fish they're not going to eat if you can get a replica made?. This whole discussion of size limits is based on people keeping fish that they don't need to keep, and having the right to do so for some reason.
Everyone likes to stand by the statement "It's their right to do so" But honestly, what are they gonna do with that fish, eat it? Let the dog eat it? A waste is a waste, and just because the DNR or whomever is too politically careful doesn't change that. As sportsment we all know not to let our kill go to waste. I think so many folks hang onto a fish in the heat of the moment, then later on do nothing with it because a skin mount costs alot of $$ (and so does a replica, even more, I admit), they don't know how to go about preserving a fish for mounting, or they just "get over it" by the time the big fish high fades. I've seen it alot, mostly, thank god, 10-15 years ago. When faced with the decision boatside to keep or release a fish that's the biggest you've ever seen, let alone caught, I can see how the uneducated angler might keep it 'Just in case". I suppose that this is where education really shines, if it's common knowledge that you can get a replica that looks amazing, and that will last longer than a skin mount, then you can decide whenever to get that trophy.
That's what we get with the rapid growth of our passtime. Education is the key, and while I agree that you can't win many folks over by "guilting them" or finger wagging, I still have to ask Why would anyone keep a huge fish that they are never going to eat or do anything with? | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Proposal from the Coalition to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board is now in the articles section here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38...
I'll leave it to Tom to move the discussion from this point, he has the timeline in better perspective than I and is up to date on reactions so far from our DNR and the NRB.
SOme have been a bit critical about the time it has taken to publish this document. It was my opinion that the documents needed to be in the hands of all the intended recipients for consideration for a period of time before publication as a necessary courtesy to those it is hoped will seriously consider this proposal.
| |
| | |
| In response to whit65, I disagree w/ you .....I believe there alot of educated anglers that decide to keep there fish and have great reasons to. I have fished muskies for the past 30 years and have kept a 54" musky and have no regrets... It my right, and its legal. My reasons: One the real thing is better than a replica, a replica is easy to pick out in my opinion. ( had my fish done by Ron Lax and have seen good replicas.) Second, I have boated many fish over the years and released many, so I had no remorse for keeping it. Third, the chances it would die after the release or speared eventually is there. Financially it is cheaper not to go the replica mount. And the meat was saved and eaten.
Plus, people put alot of undue pressure on people keeping a musky to mount, when it is no different that mounting any other fish species or even animal. Especially when you consider a high percentage of sportsman have something mounted!
Also, look at Tom Gelb one of the great musky fisherman, one of the most educated, has put more time in the sport then most. I'm glad he kept his trophy, he deserved it! Yet he gets criticism from people in the same sport for keeping it. Mostly by people w/ very fews years in the sport, epsecially when compared to him. Its very unfair to a person that has given to sport tremendously.
I feel most people who criticize and point at others for keeping a fish is not good for fishing in general and have no right to judge others. That is somebody I feel is not very educated, and someone who is jeolous. It bothers me to see someone wreck memories for someone who has possibly caught his trophy of a lifetime, to be harassed or pointed at. That is something I think people need to be ashamed.
I beleive in catch and release, but I think it has gone way out of control. Just be happy there is a 50" size limit.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tail dancer,
Are you from Minnesota? | |
| | |
| I hope not | |
| | |
| I live in the Tomahawk area, graduated from Point w/ a fish management degree. I 've also fished the Fox River for the last 16 years... And have known about the muskies and caught muskies on the fox and other Tributeries leading into the bay for the last ten years. | |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Tail dancer.....I agree with most of what you say. Have bounced around the musky boards off and on for several years and I love these guys.....they are some of the most dedicated fishermen to their fish than probably any group I know...perhaps the Trout Unlimited people are in the same category too. But there does seem to be a certain degree of myopathy in regard to anything but musky issues and spreading musky far and wide. I frequent many forums in the northeast besides the musky ones and the diehard musky fanatic is not being looked on with favor on most of these sites. And the overriding complaint is that "the musky diehards" give anyone even thinking about keeping a legal fish a hard time and especially belittle them if they actually come in with a legal musky.
And if the fisherman counters with the fair assessment that the fish is "legal" then many times they are regaled with a diatribe of how fisheries managers knuckle under to pressure and don't know what they are doing by allowing musky to be kept. This has really become the perception guys....it does not get you anywhere in the long run. Spreading musky to every body of water concievable is not a wise choice either, especially when getting them out of their native range but that seems to be the push of musky diehards.
The second most brought up point on "other than musky" fish boards is that there is agitation relating to the fact that no matter how often the minimum size for a legal fish increases....there seems to be an immediate expression of dissatisfaction from musky fishermen and a plea for yet a higher minimum size.
These are just my observations...I love musky....but I also try to understand others point of view and the ecology of the whole situation.
Trout Unlimited use to have a reputation in the west of being some elitist fly fishing group who wanted to impose their views on everyone else in regard to trout (again they have pushed complete C&R as an agenda for many waters....BUT not all). But over the past few decades instead of railing they actually got in and worked with local and state fish depts to improve, upgrade and restore native trout habitats. They don't push for spreading the fish where they never were originally but have won over many, including myself, with their embracing all science involved with their work for trout.....not just specific items that would push one agenda.
I will say due to the efforts of Steve Worrall and the people on MuskieFirst that it is possible to have a reasonable discussion on this topic without it getting very far out of hand. Zealousness needs to be channeled and not blindly dissipated....it will get you much farther in the end.
The Alaskan | |
| | |
Posts: 135
| Well TailDancer I definitely agree with your right to keep that fish, and your right to have a skin mount made of it, and I applaud you for putting the meat to use too. I don't want to get into the absolutes of you never should or whatever. I must say that I still don't understand keeping one if I know it's going to swim away and live to fight and eat and contribute to the fishery. Sure it might die later, sure somone might spear it, then again, a jet engine might fall off of a passing airliner and kill it too. Just nice to know that I was able to interact with that fish and release it to eat some more. Skin mounts don't last as long as replicas, and having seen both and had 3 replicas done, I disagree that skin looks better, just depends upon the artist working on it. Bad paint jobs happen on skin and on fiberglass.
I for one would not badmouth anyone for keeping, just saying I don't understand the need. It's quite possible that the next trophy that I catch and want to keep might not be revivable in spite of my best efforts, it happens. If that were the case, I'd keep and skin mount it, and eat the meat too. To me it's about the waste, and killing a fish that doesn't have to die just so that I can re-live the fight is not enough reason to me when I can get a repro for just a little more $$. In this sport, it seems cost must not be that big of a deal based on how much we all pay for baits, rods, reels, line, gas, etc. But again, to each his own, and I hate political correctness just for it's own sake. Fish on, taildancer, my best wishes and you might just hear from me some day for a recipe for that big musky that wouldn't revive, cause I will eat her!
W65 | |
| | |
| Hey guys, I didn't mean to offend and I know there are alot great people on these boards. And I do promote catch and release and thinks its been great for all of fishing in general. I would think the majority of Musky fishereman do release and thats good! I skimmed this topic and have read alot different views and very civil. I just get sick of reading and hearing the very one side views of being mad and sick of seeing a musky kept or any fish. I really like what Reef Hawg had to say: "Educate, Promote, Create Awareness, and Don't Ridicule. Shake the hand of someone who kept the his/her trophy of a lifetime" We need to remember fishing is about catering to the needs of everybody, not just the trophy fisherman.
I really would like to see a tag system in place, that would be great. I grew up learning to fish muskies w/ my dad and he kept everything. And that was in the 70's and 80's. My mom likes to eat muskies, they were good baked. And that fish I kept, I gave all the meat to my mom. I don't frown on my dad for keeping fish, he taught me. I do promote catch and release to him and guess what it works!
I will tell you what, these fish will grow faster then Canada's Lakes. Plus the amount of forage in the system is phenominal. I thinks and hope the system can sustain the pressure, just look at the walleye population and the size.
Can't wait til spring!
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think there would be a lot of people in favor of a tag system for muskies. The problem is, enforcing it. It has been pointed out several times how one or two people that are especially good at targeting these big fish, could be responsible for the filling of many tags. For example, if a guy was a guide he could fill his tag, and (potentially) help many different anglers fill their tags as well.
So from everything I have heard from countless individuals over the last four months of working on this issue, if there could be a (set) maximum harvest number of fish harvested from the bay, there would be a lot of support for it. I am not sure how this would be enforced, but it might in fact hold some promise--it works for Sturgeon obviously, although I think the DNR has a far better idea of an accurate population estimate for that species than there they do for muskies.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 2/28/2008 7:27 AM
| |
| | |
| This is a very important issue one man's trophy is a nother man's nice fish.Alot of fish in a small area make's it to easy to over fish.Maybe to much trolling in a small area.I have heard the talk of raising the keep size to 54" that will pertect them to a point.But with the kind of preasure they are getting that is just a stop gap.Maybe total C&R in the Fox.If you want to troll for them troll on the Bay?I have ben trolling on the Bay for 2year's now they can be caught.Very simmiler to ST CLAIR> | |
| |
|
