|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | My question is this and I am really curious as to your replies. If it becomes fact and is law will you accept an angler keeping one over 54 or will you get down on him for doing so. I say if the guy gets a 54 and wants to keep it all the best wishes to him on one hell of a fish.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | ALL fish should be released. No matter if it is 34, 44, or 54. Just because they are 54 inches doesn't mean their life is done. The whole "it's past it's prime" lingo I hear is just another excuse to make it seem alright to keep a big one.
I would also like to see a * by the rules of keeping a fish. I personally believe that all fish that are going to be kept need to be measured on a bump board correctly, that way there are less 51's and 52's being killed after people call them 54's.
But then again, these are just my thoughts and I understand that I am in the minority when it comes to releasing all fish. | |
| | |
| All fish should be released unless it is that magic once in lifetime 70 pounder that I will certainly keep! | |
| | |
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I would only keep one fish.... A world record. So.....I guess I will never keep a big muskie or pike. I will, however, have a replica made of the first 50" muskie and/or pike I catch.
I like the idea of my kids catching a 55" so I am a no on the keep a 54" 
James | |
| | |
| Hulbert
You're keeping it real. You speak for lots of us and the message needs to get louder.
Guest | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | I am some one who would congratulate the person on a helluva fish. While I don't condone nor encourage people to keep any muskies, I don't see the point in condemning a guy or gal who keeps a "legal". Sure, INSIDE I'd be upset as heck, but to denegrate a person's personal choice (when they've followed the state and local laws) is to me both shortsighted and rude. See Al Nutty's article in the front of the new issue of Esox Angler, "When is it OK?". It pretty much sums up how I feel!
I am in full support of a 100% C&R fishery in North America. I will continue to release all my fish. It is high time to consider starting a full-fledged movement towards 100% catch, photo, and release across the country! Tell me I'm wrong!
Mike Witowski | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the limit is 54", I'll encourage CPR of all fish from Bay of Green Bay. I'll encourage education and show folks what people like tbetca and many others here have done to try to preserve that fishery's possible world class status. Look to the efforts of those who got the 54" limit proposed in the first place, and got it passed in the CC vote statewide. Efforts like the one by the Coalition are extended with honesty and respect, something the Muskie Cops of the world could learn from. These folks extended the effort to actually get something done, and continue to work toward goals I can GUARANTEE for which, once put into place, 'inner looking', small minded knee-jerk reactionaries will later try to take credit .
If you are really dedicated to conserving trophy populations where ever they exist by encouraging CPR of all Muskies there, I challenge you to step up and DO something constructive about it. And, by the way, bitching here and getting all righteous doesn't qualify, IMHO. Look to Tom's efforts if you want to find a true conservationist. Noise isn't action. Especially here, one is pretty much preaching to the choir.
That said, if the law states a legal fish is 54", I will allow that the right exists to harvest a 55" fish after my educational efforts fail to sway someone. That's reality. Don't like it? Get the limit changed to CPR only.
Good luck with that.
That said, the question was Bay of Green Bay. A total CPR only Wisconsin law would eliminate a large number of Muskie waters from management altogether, and I'd oppose that for obvious reasons.
I support good, sound, logical management of our resources preserving the True Trophy Status of those that are special for the future. Ontario set the bar, by setting the limit at 54" to protect the status of waters where the upper confidence is about that, and just a shade larger, and protecting waters that truly need it with a CPR only regulation; temporary or permanent based upon the situation.
By the way, Crappies and Bluegills are 'fish' too. Just try to make me release the 15 I intend to keep Saturday for dinner..... | |
| | |
| I understand that I am in the minority when it comes to releasing all fish.
do you really think that's true, Mike? that you're in the minority about releasing all fish? my sense is that it puts you firmly in the majority!
i think some slight differences come in when people start speculating the "what ifs..." about catching a world record, etc., but really the far majority of muskie anglers are releasing every fish they catch. Muskies Inc numbers are somewhere over 99%, and although there are some non-MI people who do keep fish, they're a shrinking minority.
the biggest disagreements i've seen probably arise in the preferred style that people adopt for advocating CPR and educating about release, not on the issue of whether or not releasing fish (esp. trophy-size fish) should happen.
to answer the question: for me, i don't think someone should be attacked and shamed if they choose to exercise their legal right to harvest a fish; i also think it's perfectly fine to respectfully say that we wish they'd make a different choice and release it.
| |
| | |
| I'd have no problem with an angler keeping a fish of that size. How many 54's does the average Musky angler catch in a lifetime? Not too many. I don't catch as many fish as guys like Hammernick, Hulbert, etc., but I also believe in a thing called delayed mortality. You're fooling yourself if you catch 100 Muskies a year and think every one of them survives, even when the best CPR techniqes are used. I think that is a fact, although the numbers can't be determined.
So if a guy wants to keep one or two 54" Muskies in his lifetime, which he would be extremely fortunate to catch, I say have at it. Enjoy your mounts and the taxidermy bills that come with them.  | |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Without getting too deep into this, I think the idea of a few lakes accross the state being 100% C&R for all species would be neat, just as a test. It would be an ideal location for taking youth to a.) hopefully catch some great fish and b.) teach the valuable knowledge of CPR. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Since few have actually answered it: No, I would not get down on another angler for doing so.
I might mutter something under my breath in private, or to the guys in my boat, but I would never confront another man or woman about that. They didn't launch their boat that day as a "fence sitter" who wasn't quite sure if they were going to release that fish or not...should they be lucky enough to catch a big one. They knew when they launched their boat they were going to put THE one in the box if it bit. And me trying to stop them makes me the jerk in most people's eyes.
But, to each their own. If that's their one of a lifetime, I'll shake their hand. I've seen infinitely more fish that either died, or almost certainly would die soon, from mistreatment or from getting a hook in a bad spot, than I ever have, or EVER will see muskies kept just for the sake of keeping them.
-Eric
Edited by muskie-addict 1/23/2008 8:50 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 999
| When we get the size limit changed to 54" and then when 54"s become common like 50's on the bay then life will be good and I wont be bent out of shape about the occasional fish that is kept. I am bent out of shape about hearing all of the 50's that were kept the past 3 years!! Let's not get to worried about who will keep "the first 54" when it hopefully gets put into place, lets worry about getting it passed first! And then I sure dont want to hear any gripping or bickering if someone does indeed keep one chances are they wont be die hard release musky fisherman anyways it will be Walleye or Salmon fisherman gone wild who will thump one.
Mr Musky
Edited by Mr Musky 1/23/2008 9:02 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | There are alot of good points on this thread, however:
Are not most kept fish from folks uneducated in the C&R value/ Little Johnny caught a musky while bluegill fishing and his dad thought it was a northern?
Muskys should die of old age. The only Musky skin mounts should be of one that wouldn't go. I know that if I had one that wouldn't go, I would feel like I just shot my brother.
With the way Repos have evolved (Namely Rick's Work), why keep any fish, legal or not?
Sure, it is within your right to keep a legal musky, caught by legal means.
However, When I get that one that I feel tops the career, I'm getting a rep, because it will last long enough for my grand daughter to have in her Den, and it will be just as prestine as the day I picked it up from Rick. | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| I'll advocate releasing all fish, but if it is a legal fish I won't get down on a guy for it. Even if it was from the bay that's a heck of an accomplishment. Doesn't really matter where it is from, inland or Great Lakes Water, it's something to give a pat on the back to the guy who got one like that.
Now if a guy/gal becomes a piggie about it and keeps multiple fish of that caliber then it definately is within reason to question one's conservation ethics.
Personally if I ever came across a fish like that I wouldn't even measure the thing. Just post the pics and let the girth and weight police do their thing since they tend to be more accurate than any certified scale anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 97
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan | I think that 100% of muskies should be released. I am never going to keep a musky, no matter what the size of it is. Even if it is an unquestionable world record, the thing is going back in the water and I am getting a replica or supersized picture. I understand that saying this on a forum and actually releasing a GIANT fish are two different things, but I believe I would release it. I honestly dont see why anyone would keep a musky other than because it is obviously not going to make it. I agree that those huge fish, 54"+, are a fish of a lifetime and are really rare, but that is why they should be released! Again, I dont see the reason for people keeping muskies. They aren't good for you to eat and replicas are better than mounts and I believe pretty equally prived (could be wrong on that though). | |
| | |
Posts: 1530
| its a personal choice. here on st clair i tell guys a good photo and save your bucks for a replica. they dont fall apart.. as stated from derries, delayed mortality is by far the greatest factor in muskie fishing. photo ops are the worst case scenario... thees so little known on the beast. with muskie fishermen creating only 18 per-cent of angling studys are either outdated or just plain flawed. | |
| | |
Posts: 743
| 8inchcrank - 1/23/2008 8:58 PM
Without getting too deep into this, I think the idea of a few lakes accross the state being 100% C&R for all species would be neat, just as a test. It would be an ideal location for taking youth to a.) hopefully catch some great fish and b.) teach the valuable knowledge of CPR.
Justin, this is one of the best ideas i have heard online in a long time!!!
I know this is not feasible..but what about a limit on the number of 54" fish a guy can kill each year..like 1. i think in hunting you can only kill a certain amount of deer in one season, right? well..that might be an interesting avenue to curve how many fish are getting whacked. In Canada you can buy a Conservation License or Full License. With a conservation liscense in Canada, you cannot be in possession of muskie, even if it's over the size limit.
if a "harvest" or Full license cost $20 more, that would eliminate some people from evening purchasing the license and hopefully less dead fish too. Then, if some one kills a fish with a conservation license they can be prosecuted. (if this license system already exists in WI, boy do i look foolish).
Don, to answer your question, no i would not accept someone who wants to kill a 54" fish. Katch and Kill works for just one person. Catch and Release works for the rest of world. "for the good of the greater"...
if it's 54" by 34" and world record...well, i cannot fault anyone for keeping a world record.
tomcat
| |
| | |
Posts: 1294
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dockboy said: “I agree that those huge fish, 54"+, are a fish of a lifetime and are really rare, but that is why they should be released!”
Right NOW on Green Bay, that statement is correct. That is the reason for the desire to increase the size limit to 54". In waters that have the genetic potential and forage, muskies OVER 54" are NOT "rare"! It has already been proven that muskies there can far exceed 54" IF they are allowed to do so rather than get harvested as soon as they get over 50".
To answer the question, my policy is: "I support “Catch & Release”, but if legal, its YOUR fish. I do ask that you consider the great replica mounts available today before deciding to kill your fish…Thank You!"
To berate those that keep a legally caught muskie only alienates them, but there is no harm in politely trying to "educate" them as to why you feel it would be better if they release them.
As Derry's and others have alluded to, proper handling prior to release and minimal time out of the water for photo ops is far more important to reduce delayed mortality than worrying about the occasional "fish of a life time" being kept. This is where our energy and efforts should be spent in the future throughout the entirety of the North American muskie fisheries, ESPECIALLY in naturally reproducing waters and waters under rehabilitation like Green Bay. The "glory killers" who keep all legal fish are another matter. | |
| | |
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | IMO, if you say you are for a 54" size limit, you have stated it is OK for someone to harvest a fish over 54" If you beleive in total C&R you should be against a 54" size limit and pushing for a total C&R regulation. WHat is it??? You can not have your pie and eat it too! What do you want, A or B? You can not have both? If the WI DNR passes a 54" size limt on the Bay and a couple years down the road anglers start keeping numbers of 54" fish, I am pretty sure the DNR will not be willing to change the regulation AGAIN! And I am willing to bet, if anglers were harvesting 50" fish, they sure as hell will be keeping 54"ers. What do you want on the Bay, a 50" limit, a 54" limit, or total C&R? Remember not just muskie anlgers will be making the decision. | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Johnne,
Go ahead and push for total CPR. Good luck with that.
Your last statement is exactly why your luck will be non existent.
In certain waters, total CPR may make sense, but I am pretty sure won't happen no matter how hard we 'push'. That's reality, so why pretend there is another reality out there? There isn't.
In others, it doesn't, not if the goals of management are what they are. Are you for dropping hundreds of lakes that will never support trophy muskies from the stocking list altogether, and stopping stocking totally on some lakes with trophy potential? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. | |
| | |
| total C&R would be cool on a few big trophy waters in WI but I doubt I ever see that in my lifetime...just don't see that happening...how many musky waters are there in Canada or MN with that regulation..not many.
I will not belittle someone who keeps a fish over 54" if they do so legally with a license. Now the individuals who find the need to keep multiple fish over 54", well that is just not right...I agree with others that we are fooling ourselves if we think some of the big fish we have caught and released haven't died in the hours or days after we released them ...sure by keeping one they have no chance of survival but come on...some die. The reason fish are stocked is so that some can be legally harvested if the angler chooses to do so. Berating someone for keeping one I feel does more harm than good overall. It alienates that person from really wanting to become part of the C&R crowd as now that person just thinks of the musky nuts as some sort of elitist j*ckasses imo.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. Of course, I could get me a T shirt and remove all doubt. | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| I believe the question was "will I accept it if an angler decides to keep a 54" + muskie..."
I WILL accept it, just as I accept the current statewide 34" size limit on many WI waters. I will not LIKE it, though, and if given the opportunity, I might mention to that angler how long it takes to grow a fish that big, and how few and far between a catch like that is. Just like the rest of the choir here, I'd rather see them all released. But I'm not going to go beating up people at the launch over it, nor will I stand up on a soap box and be a jerk about it.
It's more important to me that we continue to educate and continue to work towards building better fisheries across the continent. When someone catches a 54" fish, and whacks that fish, the whole muskie community gets their shorts all in a bunch over it and we make ourselves look like the bunch of a**es that we pretend we aren't the rest of the time. I can accomplish more in that fishery (or any other fishery) by doing something like showing a newbie a pair of knipex, and explaining why its better to cut the hooks than leave them in a fish, or spending a day fishing with them and explaining that muskies are really more fragile than one would think, getting them excited about watching them swim away, etc.
I believe we lose more big fish by incedental catch and poor release than we EVER will by people taking trophies, so why cry about it? Let's just do the best we can with the law, and if/when someone we encounter keeps a giant fish, congratulate them, maybe explain our passion for C&R, and move on. Trying to make them feel bad about it ain't gonna bring that fish back.
If a big one ever goes belly up on me? I'll let Lax use it for the mold, get a skin mount, eat the meat, and then I'm going fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
or
I am against drunk driving but if you want to do it, that's toally cool with me. I won't think less of you.
Either you are 100% Catch and Release or your not. When you tip toe around it, that means you think you are, but if the opportunity presents itself with a monster fish....who knows what will happen.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MikeHulbert - 1/24/2008 10:32 AM
I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
or
I am against drunk driving but if you want to do it, that's toally cool with me. I won't think less of you.
Either you are 100% Catch and Release or your not. When you tip toe around it, that means you think you are, but if the opportunity presents itself with a monster fish....who knows what will happen.
Good points Mike, I actually agree with you on something!
One thing that I dont really understand is everyone stating that we need to educate, educate, educate people on CPR, yet the same people will turn around and say they will keep a possible WR. Seems hypocritical to me, we preach releasing every fish then say, "Well you can keep this fish because its a special fish." Let them go, no reason to keep one.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | MikeHulbert - 1/24/2008 10:32 AM
I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
Seriously, keeping a fish and beating your wife???
I realize it is just an analogy, but this my way or else attitude with C&R is what alienates us (the C&R crowd) with the casual fisherman. It is the same way with QDM or any other perceived "trophy" group.
You can be total CPR in your boat and still acknowledge someone's legal right to keep a fish. If someone opted to keep a 51"er on Pelican where 50" is now the legal limit, I would congratulate them, and then explain how many releases it took to get the fish to that size, and encourage future releases. You catch far more flies with honey......... | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, that's bull, Mike.
it's against the law to beat ANYONE.
It's against the law to drive drunk.
Both are laws intended to protect PEOPLE.
The laws protecting Muskies are what they are because the fisheries managers think that's what they should be, and in WI's case, so do the majority of sportsmen. How do I know that? because I was part of an effort to get changes made, and we had our collective rear ends handed to us.
I happen to be in the minority on many issues there, but I recognize that fact and don't insult other's intelligence to try to argue my position.
And no, I'm NOT for 100% catch and release, there are some waters that are MANAGED for harvest. If we somehow get 100% CPR here statewide, those lakes will no longer be managed for Muskies. Some lakes require harvest to keep a balance. You won't ever fish those waters, because the nature of the system is such that the fish do not get very big.
Take Cave Run, for example. I sat with the fisheries manager there for a couple hours, and listened to why he felt it would be very bad for the lake's future to place a larger size limit on the lake. He was basing his policies on management based on reality, not what we as Muskie anglers think is right. Has to do with the cyclical nature of the shad there, and the probable crash in population that would occur if no harvest or a larger limit was put in place. What to do there??? Ignore the experts who manage a near zero NR system(pretty well, I might add), and do what seems like a good idea instead? | |
| | |
| I see your points Mike then will say that what is wrong with being 99.9% release.
the 100% release crowd that are so h*ll bent against anyone for keeping one to me start looking and sounding like people that are flat out selfish. The fish are there for everyone, not just you or me because we will release them all but they are there for little jonny who wants to get his first and for the old timer who never got a 50"er to put on the wall, if he chooses to do so fine so be it..good for him he got his trophy, do you agree with it, no, but what good will it do by jumping all over the guy...really none imo...I'm all about release but comparing domestic violence and keeping a fish is a stretch... jumping on someone for keeping ONE fish is just crazy to me...you have no doubt killed far more than one fish over the last few years from delayed mortality..how can you justify getting all over some guy who keeps a trophy fish to him or her when there is no doubt you have killed far more fish just by simply the sheer number of fish you have caught and released?
I think being 100% c&r is great but so is being 99.9%...there will still be plenty of fish for us all to catch. | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Mike
There's no reason for YOU to keep one. Hell, your livelyhood depends on those fish being there. If you were keeping them I'd think there was something wrong with you. But saying there's no reason for anyone to keep a legal fish? If it's of legal size, and joe angler paid for a license, according to the law he has a right to keep that fish, and doesn't need a reason for it. Understanding that doesn't make anyone less than 100% catch and release. Regardless of whether or not someone would keep a WR fish, education is paramount. Think about it. What turned YOU into a C&R guy?
For me it was a lot of small things, like the day my dad handed me a fillet knife at age 8 and said "here, you're old enough, YOU do it.", or watching a buddy spend 10 minutes reviving a pike and watching it swim off, tremendous guilt over a skin mount I got when I was about 14... But as far as muskies, it was an experience with a guide, watching how much care he took in unhooking and releasing my first musky, and the learning that took place afterwards about how few muskies survive to get to be trophy size. hpw long it takes, how few of them there are in a lake...
Look at it this way: if you change 10 people's minds about C&R who ordaniraly would have kept every legal they caught, how many fish does that potentially put back in the ecosystem? Even if you kill the legals YOU catch, that education and knowledge you passed on has a greater positive effect than you yourself ever could simply releasing your fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 743
| sworrall - 1/24/2008 12:00 PM
OK, that's bull, Mike.
it's against the law to beat ANYONE.
It's against the law to drive drunk.
Both are laws intended to protect PEOPLE.
OK..then use the abortion analogy. "i am against abortion, unless my teenage daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend who i do not like, then she will terminate the pregnancy"...that's sending a mixed message by tip toeing around topic. you either ARE FOR IT..or AGAINST IT...
I dont think anyone, except a few people, thought mike was actually comparing killing a musky to beating your wife or drinking and driving. he was just trying to use an example, an anology, so people understand hypocritical stances on catch and release. talk about taking things out of context..GEEZE.
NO..i am NOT comparing killing a musky to getting an abortion..but since Steve had to bring up beating wives and drinking and driving is illegal, i thought i would use an analogy where all activities are legal.
sweet meat. the topic of catch and release will never be resolved. EVER.... | |
| | |
| Hey Steve, Do you think if the taxidermists in any state, would put a restriction on accepted length to mount.. Wouldn't that generate some awareness as to kept fish?/ Quite a few mounts at taxidermists in N. Wisc sure have a lot of small fish put on styrafoam and $ tags on them... Have you checked with the Taxidermists in your area?/ Just a thought... I'm still trying to catch a good fish not a "Medium" size fish... Don't break the toy... | |
| | |
| if any of you 100% release guys think you haven't killed a few just by simply fishing you are fooling yourselves.
Truly fooling yourselves.
Don't want any to die, don't fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tomcat,
Mike typed:
'It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.'
No, it isn't, that's bull.
Give me a break. Mike should know what an analogy is. | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | MikeHulbert - 1/24/2008 10:32 AM
I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
or
I am against drunk driving but if you want to do it, that's toally cool with me. I won't think less of you.
Either you are 100% Catch and Release or your not. When you tip toe around it, that means you think you are, but if the opportunity presents itself with a monster fish....who knows what will happen.
I'm shocked you would equate a legally harvested fish with illegal acts like domestic abuse or drunk driving. That's quite the outlook!
So, because I won't belittle every person who keeps a giant fish (legally), I'm not 100% C&R. Well, Mike, I respectfully disagree with you. If I release all of my caught muskies, and encourage others to do the same, then to me, I'm 100% catch and release!
I just strongly believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices. While I hope others will release all their fish, I will not persecute anyone for not agreeing with my ethics.
In your opinion then, what percentage C&R am I- so that I can know!?
Mike Witowski
ps-I applaud your passion and sticking to your guns. No disrespect meant! | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | commonsense-less ... and ill-logical ... Steve ... this is precisely what i was talking about. amazes me to this day that grown ups can miss the point and continue to argue the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again as if it were the first time...
there should be an idiot button for such things ...
or maybe it's just that it's the howevermanyith days of -20 deg. that's makin' me crazy!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 158
| Mr Hulbert, I am 100% CPR, but your analogies are off in my opinion, drunk driving and domestic violence are illegal. I have seen people keep muskies on some lakes I fish and it does get me steamed up but I don't fly off the handle and yell at these folks. If there comes a time that a meeting with the DNR about total catch and release happens in my area I will attend and voice my opinion. Mr. Hulbert please don't take this the wrong way, I respect the heck out of you and understand how many muskies return to the depths from your hands, but until legislation prohibiting keeping a legal fish there is not much I can do about the clubbers out there. I am just gonna keep releasing and casting.
If someone keeps a 54 out of Green Bay I certainly don't agree with his/her decision to keep it but I will not rip them up for it.
Ted Bisbee | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Sorry for posting such an analogy...
Didn't think people would take it so seriously.
And no, the 55 incher didn't die. I was right back out there in the morning. If it was floating, it would have seen it. Trust me. Let me guess....you were the ONE walleye boat that right beside me when we caught it right?? You were there, right??? You were there the next morning at 5:30 am right beside me....right?? I didn't think so.
Sorry to start such a huge fight. Just stating my opinion, which is once again obviously wrong again.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | So let's say a devoted christian says they won't judge people with other religious beliefs, are they being hypocritical? Just another analogy....
I'm definitely 100% catch and release. I don't care how big it is. If I know someone that is out to keep a musky for the wall, I can guarantee that they won't be fishing in my boat. Nothing against them personally, but I am not going to be a part of that. I wish we had higher size limits across the board. I wouldn't mind total catch and release regulations. But rather than complain about size limits that are too low, we need to get out there as musky anglers and do something about it. My hats off to those that get out there and make a difference.
Aaron | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Your opinion is fine, Mike, I get what you are trying to say because I know you. Others, who don't know you, might misunderstand. Thus I pointed out the foibles. | |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Worrall,
I appreciate the fact that you understand what I am saying. I guess that's one problem with typing things and not actually hearing the converstaion or knowing the person personally you are having the conversation with.
I guess that is what makes America so great...if all we have to bitch about is keeping a fish...then we must have it pretty good!
| |
| | |
Location: Illinois | It's alright, Mike- you should speak your mind! It's a credit to you that you'll speak out for your beliefs. I can't count how many times I"VE put my foot in my mouth or said things the wrong way! I understand your point, about it being a cut and dry issue. I knew deep down what you meant, but reacted bullishly anyway. My bad! Can't we all just get along??
Mike Witowski | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
The fish was released. Everyone knows there is at least a 5 tp o 10% mortality rate from CPR. Is this an example? Maybe, but one thing for sure, if Mike had bonked that fish it wouldn't have had ANY chance of survival.
So maybe one of the locals released that fish, maybe Mike, maybe it just plain died. That happens too.
Would it have been more acceptable if an 'in state' guide had been out there and released that fish? Enough already, let's get back to the topic at hand.
| |
| | |
| I have heard estimates that delayed mortality kills maybe even as many as 10-20 percent of the fish released. Of course proper handling only helps to reduce these numbers. And experienced and commited CPR anglers are likely to be on the low end of these numbers. But fish die even when released by the best. One other thing, a dead fish does not always float... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | In one study done in 1980 (Beggs, see reference below), there was mortality as high as about 30%. However, in this study the fish were anesthetized and moved to a lab some distance away, surgically tagged, transported back to the water, and then released. Casselman (2005) also mentioned another study done on Tigers that indicated around 9-10% mortality. He also mentions (in that same report) that the true incidence of delayed mortality (although essentially unknown) is probably lowest amongst experienced musky anglers. I am not aware of additional studies, so if anyone knows of some...I am quite interested. Please point me in that direction.
After literally hundreds of hours of researching this, it appears to me that no matter who you read, more education regarding CPR and the causes of delayed mortality goes a LONG way to minimizing death of the fish after release. I have an article published in the current issue of "Muskie" (January 2008 MI magazine) that talks about this very thing, and about some ways to minimize delayed mortality in these great fish.
Finally, for those who don't belong to MI (what the heck are you waiting for, btw ?!?), here's a link to an article I wrote for one of the local boat dealers' newsletter:
http://www.mroutboardsnewsletter.com/tips/dec07.html
The plan here is education, pure & simple. It doesn't matter WHAT the size limit is, nor does it matter if it's total C&R or not--if the fish aren't handled properly, all the regulation in the world won't help much.
TB
References:
Beggs, G.L., G.F. Holeton and E.J. Crossman. 1980. Some physiological consequences of angling stress in muskellunge, Esox masquinongy Mitchill. Journal of Fish Biology 17: 649-659.
Casselman, S. J. 2005. Catch-and-release angling: a review with guidelines for proper fish handling practices. Fish & Wildlife Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 26 p. | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Ok, so now that we're apparently done attacking each other...
The laws, whatever they are in your area, ARE. There's a segment of the population who will take whatever is legally theirs to take because their license entitles them to do so. We can argue until the cows come home over whether legal = acceptable, and we can preach here all we want. Neither is going to accomplish a THING.
So what can we do as C&R advocates to encourage others to reconsider keeping that trophy before they even catch it?
I suspect all of us at one time were in a place where we would have kept a really big musky. What changed YOUR mind? How did YOU get to be pro C&R? And more importantly, how can YOU (or how do you) help promote C&R in a way that actually WORKS?
Here are some ways that I will use when talking to people about muskies:
- People always look at my pictures and ask me "do you keep them" or "did you eat it"? I will usually say something like "no, they're fun to catch but they're no good to eat" or "no we release them all. There's only about 1 musky per acre of water, so they're pretty scarce as it is, might only be a couple hundred in the whole lake..."
- Sometimes I'll tell people about the fish down here on the Fox Chain that's been caught three times that I know of, or just mention how many muskies die before they get big.
- Even a simple "nah, I'd rather let someone else catch it." or "if we kept them, a few years down the road you'd be lucky to see one in a week of fishing" can make people think.
- Sometimes I'll mention that they don't reproduce sucessfully because of shoreline development, or tell someone that a big muskie might be 20 years old, or what it costs to stock them...
Instead of bickering, why not focus on what we can DO. So lets hear it -- anybody got any bright ideas?
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, let me tell you what we are doing in Green Bay...
1) A "signage" campaign is underway, to create appropriate signs for display at the local landings.
2) Efforts are also underway to explore ways in which we can indicate to receptive anglers (either at the landings, or on the water itself) which boats they can approach for *non-confrontational* assistance with unhooking, measuring, handling, photographing (or whatever) muskellunge. While there are many guys out there who are targeting muskies directly, there are also MANY "incidental" musky anglers that are catching these fish while out for walleye, for example. Given the potential size of some of the fish we have seen, we feel that many of these anglers will benefit (and would welcome) assistance in handling these magnificent fish. In fact, this very thing happened with a 48" fish caught by a walleye angler during the 2007 Best-of-the-Best tournament in October. One of our MI judge boats was kind enough to assist the angler in successfully netting and releasing the fish...a great outcome for all involved.
3) I personally am participating with Steve Worrall and MF in the educational campaign mentioned in the "Musky Research" portion of the forum. While I do not practice as a biologist, I do have training as a fisheries biologist, and I do practice medicine. So I know a bit about the physiology of living things, and this is quite helpful as many of the responses to stress seen in fish are very similar to those seen in humans.
4) Finally, we are trying to reach as many non-forum anglers as possible. I have written an article that appears in this month's MI magazine, as well as an article in the newsletter that I linked to in my first post. Other guys in our coalition are speaking to the public at the musky shows and on their shows (Pete Maina, Joe Bucher); and MANY other guys are just trying to get the word out to everyone who'll listen about the values of C&R for maintaining the fishery. The number of folks in the musky coalition is well into the hundreds, so everybody knows someone that will benefit from this information.
So while there are certainly other things that can be done, and *will* be done in the future, the folks in the Green Bay Musky Coalition have realized that it isn't JUST about regulation. We are all trying to put our money where our mouth's are, and show some incentive to get things going in a positive direction.
But the most important thing that has been done so far is discussion! By raising these issues and brainstorming with a group of people, great ideas are generated. Eventually these ideas propagated into action, and the ball is in motion. Keep in mind though, that the effort (at least in GRB) is in its infancy...so there are many things that need to be accomplished.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | TB, I guess the discussion here made the papers in Rhinelander yesterday. Anyone see that article? | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | esoxaddict - 1/24/2008 2:10 PM
So what can we do as C&R advocates to encourage others to reconsider keeping that trophy before they even catch it?
That's a good question. I believe the answer is to begin a marketing campaign that documents the economics of getting a skin mount. By appealing to people's common sense and educating them about reproduction mounts. I think many folks don't think about a musky sitting in their freezer while they figure how to afford a skin mount. In reality, they don't have to have a muskicle all that they need is a good photo.
Distributing a pro-repro message to the public is step #1. Encouraging repros over skin mounts of all species, not just muskies. Advertise this message in multispecies and other species magazines. How can we get the ball rolling? Make a proposal to our musky clubs. See if we can't come up with a clever advertisement and the funds to buy ad space in places where they will make the most difference.
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | I've gotta say I pretty much agree with Mr. Worrall on this one. As a rule I release every musky I catch and encourage others to do so also. Having said that I also realize that there is no reason for a 100% Catch and Release limit statewide in Wisconsin. There are some waters that are over populated by small fish that would likely benefit from more harvest.
The comments Steve made about Cave Run regarding predator vs prey balance make sense to me. I think the biologists and fisheries managers are in a better position to make informed decisions than the average fisherman about things like that.
The original post was about the 54" size limit on the waters of Green Bay. I'm sceptical about world record possiblities from these waters. It may be possible, but there is way too much talk about it. The current regulation is 50", which is a huge fish anywhere. I just read the article by Jordan Weeks in the latest issue of MuskyHunter in which he discusses whether increasing size limits is the silver bullet to managing our musky fisheries for trophy potential. Jordan basically says that they jury is out on whether this is really the silver bullet that many think it would be. The stories about a few individuals harvesting more than a few muskies over 50" from Green Bay in the past few years is saddening. It does not, however, mean that the population is in crisis or that imposing a 54" limit would help the fishery in the long term.
Unless we make the fishery no harvest (catch and release) we can expect that there will always be some harvest. If GB is the next great up and coming trophy fishery then wouldn't increasing the limit just put off the inevitable for a couple more years for those few fish that will be harvested? Just about all the studies I am aware of indicate that current harvest rates are very low for muskies statewide in Wisconsin and harvest rates have continued to decrease. Many of us diehard musky fishermen get a sick feeling when we see or hear of a large musky harvested by a someone fishing for panfish with a worm and 6# line. Part of that is concern for the fishery and part of that is most probably envy that we didn't catch the fish.
We should all be aware that focusing more and more attention on GB, especially if we succeed in raising the size limit will ultimately lead to more not less musky deaths. Delayed mortality will likely increase as fishing pressure increases, i.e. the more muskies that are caught the more that will die. It's unfortunate and we need to educate on proper catch and release, but it's a fact.
I fear that increasing the limit to 54" will cement the idea of musky fisherman as elitists in the minds of many. Remember that we share the resource with all residents and license holders regardless of whether they fish for musky or not. In my opinion 50" is enough. I will release what I catch. If I am priviledged some day to catch a fish over 50" I will get a graphite reproduction "if my wife says it's OK". If I catch the world record, I will hope that I do not have a heart attack on the spot. Whatever happens after than is hard to predict.
Just my opinion.
Tom Ramsey | |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Wow I just wrote something really long and deleted it all. My head hurts.
Don't attack people, get along, promote the sport, preserve the resource, trust biology, educate.
The negativity during sub zero temperatures is depressing. Everyone wants to catch more and bigger muskies. The fishing is the best it's ever been, let's preserve and celebrate. | |
| | |
Posts: 1459
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | I DON'T GET KEEPING A FISH
1. REPLICAS WILL BE ENJOYED BY YOUR GREAT GRANDKIDS, WHILE A MOUNT WILL ROT.
2. YOU MAY CATCH THE FISH AGAIN IF YOU RELEASE IT.
3. BIG FISH GENES PASSED ON MEANS MORE BIG FISH.
NO BRAINER. | |
| | |
Posts: 999
| I agree with Steve, there are plenty of lakes in Wisconsin that harvest would actually benefit the lake! So 100% C&R across the board does not always make a fishery better. There are many lakes that need higher size limits and there are many lakes that lower size limits then 34" would benefit the fishery.
Mr Musky | |
| | |
|
It's very difficult to study the effects of size limits, and other regs and how they impact populations.
In MN, they banned spearing for a period of years on Cass Lake. The intent was to see if the muskie population would benefit from it.
In the end they could not come to a conclusion about it because during the time of the study ,more and more anglers were practicing C&R. The adult population did increase, but they couldn't prove why.
There are so many variables out of control of the Biologist, (fishing pressure, predator-prey relationships, how effective is sampling on a particular body of water, habitat destruction, etc. etc.) that many theories are not held up with concrete evidence.
Common sense conbined with training and experience in the muskie world is what regs are made with more often than not in fisheries.
Canada went C&R on Lac Suel, and it's been a huge success. Surely delayed mortality occurs, but the lake still has one of the healthiest trophy populations in the world even after 20 years of fishing pressure.
The question really becomes how much improvement is realized with higher limits and even C&R.
I really don't think you can argue that improvement won't occur, but is it significant?
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Spot on, lambeau and John. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Thank you for all the really good replies to the post. I had a long reply all ready to go but decided against posting it.
I will say this I don't buy it for a minute when anyone honks there own horn and says they are 100% c&r. If you catch alot of fish your going to have one that simply won't make it. You may have put it back into the system but it is just as dead as if in the bottom of your boat.
On big fish say 54 and over I believ I am told delayed mortality is much higher then smaller fish. The fight of a bi fish so much more stressfull. Could it be thats why some of the fish are kept? An angler can see they won't make it so its kept.
My thought on reproductions is its a reproduction. They are nice but not the real deal. As I get older I can't help but feel if I get my fish of a lifetime the real deal is going on the wall. It won't rot. They do require a little more tlc.
Keeping the fish of a lifetime should bring congradulations and not be looked down on. I think the word elitists came up again and its unfortunate to think any of us have come to that or even close.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 1459
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | As far as will I come down on someone who legally takes a fish. No, but here's a story...
I was at work when a guy comes in who I know fishes skies to pick up something...he was out with a buddy trolling and they picked up a 48. He said it was in the boat in the parking lot, did I want to look? No, thank you, I said. Not b/c I wanted to 'dis' this guy, but because I would not be comfortable even looking at the dead fish. I reminded him of replicas and he said they tried to release, but it was badly gill hooked and pumping blood...didn't make it.
I took him at his word, congratulated him on a nice fish...but still was not interested in looking at the fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| I could see "it died" being used as an excuse to pacify the C&R nazis when someone is afraid to admit they kept it because they WANTED to. I can also see how any one of us here could easily have a 54"+ musky badly hooked, or fought for a long time, and just plain croak.
When serious anglers have to worry about what we're going to tell people because we caught a big fish and the fish didn't make it, I think we've got a real problem on our hands. That problem is US. If you believe the odds, we've ALL killed muskies. And this 100% thing... Are we STUPID? "oh, I am 100% Catch and release!" like anybody is going to claim anything different? "Not me, I am 94.625% C&R!" But I still get an A in muskie release ethic, right?
Do 'ya wonder why multi species anglers think we're a bunch of __________'s??
You know what I am? I'm just a guy who loves to fish. I do what I can to make sure the fish I catch swim off, unless I plan to eat them. I encourage others to do the same. I am a Muskies inc member, and I support the club by making regular donations. I also try to be a steward of the lakes and the land, leaving it no worse off than it was when I got there. I treat the fish and the environent they live in with respect. I treat other anglers and other people with respect.
If I ever catch a really big fish and it ain't dead, I will take great pleasure in watching it swim off. If it doesn't, I'll decide from there what to do with it.
If that ain't enough for somebody else out there, well... I don't give a flying *#*#, because if you got a problem with that, you got a problem. And that's all I got to say about it.
| |
| | |
| I could see "it died" being used as an excuse to pacify the C&R nazis when someone is afraid to admit they kept it because they WANTED to. I can also see how any one of us here could easily have a 54"+ musky badly hooked, or fought for a long time, and just plain croak.
a) please use terms such as "Nazi" with extreme care. i'm inclined to remove posts that use that kind of incendiary language because it emotially shuts discussion down instead of rationally moving it forward.
on the one hand we're talking about not berating people who (unfortunately) choose to harvest a fish. let's not berate those who advocate 100% release, either. agree or disagree and explain why? yes. call them names? no.
b) any of us could "easily" have a 54" muskie croak? lol...good thing they're not quite so easy to find and catch than that!
If that ain't enough for somebody else out there, well... I don't give a flying *#*#, because if you got a problem with that, you got a problem. And that's all I got to say about it.
ironically, this is exactly the attitude that many people here (including you) are accusing the 100% release advocates of adopting...the "i don't care what you think" approach is unhelpful from people with either point of view.
i personally think we can all benefit from listening to each other, considering the points of view, and discussing them. that doesn't happen if we stick our fingers in our ears just because we don't like what the other person is saying.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Mike, as usual you failed to see the point I was trying to make...
"C&R [...]" is a term that should make all of us think. That's why I used it. Not to make light of Hitler and his atrocities, but to get people to take a step back and think about how we come across sometimes, telling people what is and isn't an acceptable practice in fishing, DESPITE what the laws and biologists may say, completely ignoring logic and reason, condemning those who might choose to keep a fish... I've even heard someone say "so and so should be shot" because he kept a fish. Look at the criticism Tom Gelb got here for keeping that big fish, a fish that despite his desire to revive it, did not survive...
There ARE people out there who read these discussions and think "#*^@ C&R [...]!" And that sort of alienation that we've created, when we've gone THAT far in pursuit of what is essentially a good thing? It's not a good thing anymore.
It's extreme to the point of being counterproductive, and it defeats our cause. The term "[...]" IS offensive. The fact that it exists makes me think sometimes WE are offensive, and in being so are our own worst enemy. Again, as stated above, we ARE all playing for the same team here. Perhaps its time to act like it? At the risk of being deleted for using another poliitically incorrect analogy; "C&R Jihad" isn't going to win us any favor. When we cross the line from passion and enthusiasm, and cause others to use terms like "Nazi or Jihad" in reference to us and our efforts, what chance do we have at ever seeing our efforts succeed?
And my last statement -- easy to dismiss, isn't it? Because of the "I don't care what anyone thinks" attitude I (intentionally) conveyed. You fell squarely into the trap, MIke. And thank you for that. Illustrated perfectly how "extremist" attitudes and statements can people to react, even people who essentially agree with us.
| |
| | |
|
It's interesting how people who practice and advocate "100% C&R" are labeled as "extremists".
You don't have to look very far to see how effective, and neccesary 100% C&R can be.
You guys think muskie fishing has pressure problems?
Look at what happened to trout fishing in the 80's. Fly-Fishing was the fastest growing sport during that time. Rivers were jam packed, even the wilderness areas had drastic increases in pressure. Populations were decimated very quickly due to harvest, and delayed mortalities (trout are very sensitive to warm and low water conditions).
100% C&R saved many rivers. It didn't stop there; no live bait, barbless only and restrictive seasons and even hours were common.
Because of that populations have rebounded back to being better than they were in many areas.
Many of you may think it's extreme, but to others it's very sensible.
John | |
| | |
| "C&R [...]" is a term that should make all of us think.
it's considered extremely bad and ignorant internet form.
it stops discussions, it doesn't "make all of us think".
don't do it...see below:
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion.
| |
| | |
Posts: 170
| Back to the original question...if a 54" limit was put in place (crossed fingers) and someone kept a 54.5", No, I would not slam that individual. BUT, if that same individual caught a 54.75" and kept it, then a 55" (recognize that pattern?) yes, then it would be time to call him/her out and at least make it public knowledge (like this past years multiple 50's by a certain...well, I won't go there).
Hey...the days are getting longer, we should be over 32 degrees this weekend, and the calendar will soon be flipped to February...we're getting closer!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Bad form, huh? So at the end of the internet when the judges hold up the cards with everybody's score on it, I'll get points decucted from my score?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
Extremists are not always labeled that way necessarily because of their beliefs. I believe some waters should be 100% C&R.
It's tactics, public displays of belligerent behavior, anti-social displays of angry rhetoric...these and a combination of other things will earn the label, and rightfully so. Now some days extremists rule the day and get what they want by political pressure or other legal, reasonable but noisy channels. In the case of 100% for all muskies everywhere, I'll be sure to say again and again, be careful what one wishes for, one may get it.
Addict:
No, lambeau was trying gently to inform you it is unacceptable to use that term here. I'll do that a little more forcefully; don't. I'll use 'self appointed Muskie Cops', as in enforcers, not a derogatory word if interpreted as I mean it. There is no 'other' interpretation of the term, 'Nazi'. I know what you mean, and a few of these guys do bring that mental image forward, but it just is a little over the edge to use that Noun. | |
| | |
| The musky regs on big fish waters here in the U.S. are a joke.
Don't believe me? Well, lets say a particular guide on Vermilion or Mille Lacs legally kept all of the 50" fish they caught this past year and the year before and before that. The numbers of over 50" fish that this single fellow could have harvested LEGALLY is astronomical. Few here would say something like this is acceptable...even though perfectly legal and within his rights.
When it comes to big fish, we are self-governed. I think that is why Hulbert and others keep beating the drum of pure CPR.
Guest | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It isn't 'us' who is the problem.
It's folks who don't know all what we THINK we do, or care.
It's folks who abide by the law, but don't realize that by taking a49" fish off Mille Lacs, they are killing 'our' future trophy....wait, maybe some DO know from experience listening to some of us.
Maybe that's why they don't care.
Ask your fisheries manager why he/she hasn't asked for a higher limit on 'your' lake. Go ahead, make the call. | |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Steve,
After listening to the response of the Great Lakes board about the size limit at Green Bay "when will you musky guys quit" would it be safe to say (right or wrong aside) that 'they' think we're as nuts as we think they are? | |
| | |
| Steve I liken this to the 'Do Not Pick the Flowers' laws in state parks. It's a natural asset on public land for all to enjoy. There's so many, what's the harm in taking one home? The harm is that everyone wants to take one home. Soon enough there are none. Only after that happened did the laws have to be invoked. Big muskies are like those flowers, except they take 15 or more years to grow. Similiar to my example, I suppose the big-fish fisheries need to be ruined before there is motivation enough for those in power to make the changes we are calling for. And the length limit is only part of the issue on trophy waters. To have 'the right' to keep one per day is absurd. I know this is preaching to the choir...but newbies who frequent here just might be influenced by these discussions. BTW, I have called. Many times...and sent letters and emails. No response. No call back. What else do you suggest? Seriously, I'll do it. Guest | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
In this case I need to know who I am talking to. Drop me a PM.
Great analogy, no argument from me to any of it but the 'absurd' comment; which was a perfect example of what I was pointing out. | |
| | |
Posts: 17
Location: Puyallup, WA | I'm with you Mike H. Release em all.
I'd feel a lot better about some one keeping a 34"er over a 54"er. I've heard the excuse many times about how it's on it's last leg. One more spawn is one more spawn with giant genes. Can't spawn if it's dead. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Can't spawn if the spawn doesn't work, either. While this is a "put and take" fishery, the biggest reason I supported the efforts to increase the limit from 50" to 54" is because I feel that too many fish between 50 and 54 were being killed. Including 5 by one greedy individual two years ago. He also kept a 58" fish. At the time, I offered my congrats on the 58", and supported his keeping that fish. I also voiced my disapproval of his keeping the other 5. I was accused of being one of the reasona there are no big fish in WI. This by people who have done nothing to promote and fight for raised limits here.
So to answer the original question. If someone caught a 54+ fish, and decided to keep it, I would offer my comgrats on a great fish. I would also mention that I hope they will consider releasing any fish over the limit that they would be fortunate to catch in the future. No way do I raise my voice and cause a big to do. It is just a fish after all.
As for the 100% C&R advocates? Some waters will not support that notion. You'll end up with a lot of stunted fish. Just like a lot of pike lakes. There's a lake up by Eagle like that. Go catch 10-15 fish per day, but they are all less than 34". And they all get released. I think lakes like this would benefit from a slot limit of some sort. | |
| | |
Posts: 17
| Just thinking out loud here....here's a general framework: the WI DNR sets aside 25 $500 replica credits per year for anglers who catch 54"+ muskies that are released.
Now all of a sudden instead of keeping the fish and having to pay for a real mount, anglers have an incentive to release a fish they could otherwise legally keep. The angler is rewarded with a nice credit towards a replica and the fish swims and is hopefully caught again by a lucky angler.
There is the $12,500 annual cost that would have to be addressed, but I'm guessing a private/public partnership could be agreed upon.
-TW | |
| | |
Posts: 785
| REDCHAMP - 1/28/2008 12:34 AM
I'd feel a lot better about some one keeping a 34"er over a 54"er.
I agree with this statement. On lakes that require harvest to prevent overpopulation I think a slot or maximum size limit would be an OK tool. I do not believe selectively removing the largest fish from any given body of water is a positive thing. Stunting is a phenominon that occurs on only a small percentage of waters in the muskies range and we must be careful not to lead people to believe by harvesting big muskies they are preventing the population from stunting. In fact many of the stunted pike fisheries are a direct result of people harvesting the largest pike in the lake. Removing the top of the line predators can throw a stable fishery off balance which then requires US to act as the dominant preditor by keeping fish.
I think a 54" length limit is awsome, and you folks that fish Green Bay should thank a fisheries guy every time you see one.:-)
Edited by musky-skunk 1/28/2008 2:09 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| I say we leave management strategies up to the people qualified to make those decisions. I do have a question though...
If this is all about preventing harvest, and we DO manage to get a 54" size limit put in place, what happens when those fish reach 54" and are caught? Is anyone here going to be any less upset when so and so keeps a fish? Unless you put the size limit above a length where muskies just don't grow, there is going to be harvest. Admittedly there would be a lot less at 54", but we're still going to be here griping about it either way.
What I want to know is who is it keeping these fish? What is the incentive to keep the second or third one? I can understand keeping one, but two? More than two? What the heck do you do with them?
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | jeff ... that is precisely what they are trying to do ... promote the "potential" for the growth of a world record fish ... which when computed usually needs 54" to carry the load. if they go prior to 54" we'll never know ...
| |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| I get that, Sled -- you'll never know how big they can get when they get whacked before they get there. That's something I'd consider a statewide area of concern in WI.
I'm just wondering if we're going to be back here in a few years wanting it to be 56" or 58" when we find out that Green Bay is unique enough in its forage and habitat that muskies regularly grow to tremendous size.
If we're 5 years down the road and 54"ers are getting harvested... THEN WHAT?
High size limits work, no doubt. But if the goal really is to see how big they will get, than no harvest seems like the way to go. Or one per season per angler, or a ridiculously high size limit, like 60".
But then sure enough, someone will whack a 60" one of these years and we'll be right back where we started... | |
| | |
| This subject is beat to death. MY opinion does not matter to anyone but myself but i would say "nice big dead fish" but the fishermen would get NO congratulations.
Just because the law states its ok does not make it right.
DUIs were not inforced until about 25 years ago. the cops would pull you over and make you get a cab or take you home. How many people had to die to get the law changed.
I know some of you will come back with its people vs fish. I understand. But Change is the only constant in our lives and some of these so called laws or rights as some call them need to change.
Release [...]. nice wording. calling people this or even bringing it up just makes me and others draw the line in the sand and nothing gets done.
Why is it our right to keep the fish? Did we ask them? Did we personally put them in there? Where did this right come from?
EGO is the driving force behind killing a fish. nothing else.
again this is just my [...] opinion.
Brian Maxey
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/28/2008 3:03 PM
I get that, Sled -- you'll never know how big they can get when they get whacked before they get there. That's something I'd consider a statewide area of concern in WI.
I'm just wondering if we're going to be back here in a few years wanting it to be 56" or 58" when we find out that Green Bay is unique enough in its forage and habitat that muskies regularly grow to tremendous size.
If we're 5 years down the road and 54"ers are getting harvested... THEN WHAT?
High size limits work, no doubt. But if the goal really is to see how big they will get, than no harvest seems like the way to go. Or one per season per angler, or a ridiculously high size limit, like 60".
But then sure enough, someone will whack a 60" one of these years and we'll be right back where we started...
Wouldnt this be a good thing, showing that the higher size limits are working and we can push it up higher and higher, making bigger and bigger fish?
If we are back in 5 years trying to push the limit to 60 I think that would be phenominal. There will always be people against higher size limits but if we push it 54 and 54+ start popping up more frequently why not go higher? | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
as Larry Ramsell stated before too ... there are bodies of water where there needs to be a harvest ... i know of one i'd like to see some fish come out of ...
balance ... moderation ... keys to logic ... which it seems is void in most of these arguments.
a guaranteed outcome is the result of thinking with your heart ... i could take this into politics but would end up being deleted, but ... apply principles of balance and moderation to any situation and you can achieve better results.
i doubt there will be an issue with an out-of-control population of 56"-60" fish ... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 3:10 PM
it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
SNIP...
I'd like to see your math on this sir, because I don't necessarily agree with it.
In order to define standard deviation, you need a mean. And in order to calculate a *valid* mean, you need data points. And herein lies the problem...we don't yet have enough data points. So while a 54" fish may currently be larger than the average fish swimming in Green Bay, is it because a) they simply don't grow any larger that they are now; or b) there is a "size cohort" of fish that are aging, and the average size of the fish within is increasing? These are fish of varying ages that are all near the 50-53" range, and (as their growth rates may have slowed as they have aged) now tend to comprise most of the fish in the current legal harvest range.
The bottom line is that only time will tell the true tale here. Sorry, but when there's only one data point over 50" in a model that is now being used to determine the "average ultimate length" the fish can grow, I'm not quite willing to bet the ranch just yet. And if you talk to the guys who have been out for years fishing muskies (Shane Mason and JoMusky are just two that immediately come to mind), I think you will find that they will tell you how the "average size" of the fish they have been catching has been increasing steadily--and that 2007 was pretty much the best year they've seen for big fish.
So I take issue with the statement that the low 50-inch range is the biggest these fish will attain. It hasn't been proven just yet, and the whole thing just smells a bit "fishy" to me...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/28/2008 3:28 PM
| |
| | |
| so you are saying that all the other big waters that have very high or all C&R regulations those fish are somehow inferior because there are fish RARELY ever caught over 55"? That smells fishy. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if you re-read it tbetka you will read the same thing in my words as those written in yours ... outside of 3 sigma means that <97% of the fish are currently "allowed" to grow which is what i've been reading behind your efforts. if you allow the fish to grow past 50" you will realize the potential.
math is math is math. on a stocking and harvesting system you are putting in and fish are dying (whatever way) ... correct? ... and then there are genetics, male vs. female, forage availabilty, natural growth progression and competition among other variables so the pool of fish are stratified and not all are the same size right? ... you don't "have to have a mean" ... median may be more descriptive ...
if you re-read it you will see i'm in support of the effort [...]
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | a corellation to the wisdom of the increased limit proposal on gb being compared to similar success eagle to allow the full potential to be realized [...]
emotion loses ... logic wins
pointer answering your question ... you'll then continue to deal with a smaller and smaller percentage of course and have to in the end deal with the reality of the actual population and the ability of the species to grow over a lifetime ... there is a point when the population of the data is zero at a given size or above ... and the potential is met rendering your "size limits" as essentially no harvest. there is a limit to potential for all species ... aberrations exist as freaks for sure ... but also within limits ... ie: ... what are the chance we see a 10' tall human? ... i met the 8'er ... he was on the same plane as me a few months ago (at least i think he's like 8' or something crazy like that) ...
did i say that the 54" limit should allow the potential to be best understood and that i agree with the proposal ??? .... i thought so ... in the words of worrall .... sheeeeeesh
Edited by jonnysled 1/28/2008 4:18 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I agree sled.....I was merely addressing Addict's post....and I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to no harvest. With the indeterminant growth of a fish, we dont truly know what size they can grow to....We are all out there looking for that one 'freak' that lived a bit longer and grew a bit bigger.
Live long, grow slow, grow big! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | bulldawger - 1/28/2008 3:29 PM
so you are saying that all the other big waters that have very high or all C&R regulations those fish are somehow inferior because there are fish RARELY ever caught over 55"? That smells fishy.
Bulldawger, I mean this in the best possible way but the only thing that comes to mind when I read your post is... Huh?
Please restate your point, because I don't know what you are trying to say.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/28/2008 4:21 PM
| |
| | |
| tb, from your post a above you are somehow trying to say (at least to me) that somehow these fish in GB are going to attain some above avg. lengths that the majority of fish in other big fish waters that either have all C&R reg's or 54" size limits for example are currently NOT attaining...at least that is how I read your post. Are fish caught on those other waters over 55", sure but isn't it very rare? Um yah, it is. So why would fish in GB commonly grow to lengths above 55"?
To me 54" should give us a very good indication of what is possible up there. But I'm not biologist, I only play one on T.V.
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you don't seem to be able to understand what anyone is saying tcbetka ...
read, listen ....
your "reactions" will not help your cause. guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting. your challenge of trying to improve the potential at green bay are going to come with a huge amount of politicing, listening and reading from both your supporters and detractors ... here you've misunderstood support for something otherwise with a quick sharp-tongued response (sans edits) ... i only hope as you guys move forward that you balance the approach and take away the quick reactions because chances are there might be some people out there that have more than half a brain and won't listen to rhetoric and/or emotion.
it would be great to see a green bay stand alongside georgian bay, eagle, the st. larry as a potential house for the next world record ... but the name of bucher and maina alone won't do it ... it's going to require finesse and the ability to stand strong in a series of tougher debates than happen on this or any other forum ...
good luck ... this is only criticism from someone who hopes the cause wins ....
yet, somehow it's misunderstood ... i'm still trying to understand how that could have happened after reading and re-reading ... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I am not saying that at all, actually... I am simply saying that, while they might not reach an average of 55, 56 or 58 inches--it is quite probable that they will reach an average size LARGER than the current model suggests. But if we don't give it some time, how will we know?
I make no claims as to the maximum potential size these fish can reach. My only assertion is that, to date, these fish seem to be able to exceed expectations. This being said, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words into my mouth, or speak for me in any way...because I really do not agree with everything you are saying.
But we are each entitled to our respective opinions, and that I *do* respect.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 4:29 PM
you don't seem to be able to understand what anyone is saying tcbetka ...
read, listen ....
your "reactions" will not help your cause. guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting. your challenge of trying to improve the potential at green bay are going to come with a huge amount of politicing, listening and reading from both your supporters and detractors ... here you've misunderstood support for something otherwise with a quick sharp-tongued response (sans edits) ... i only hope as you guys move forward that you balance the approach and take away the quick reactions because chances are there might be some people out there that have more than half a brain and won't listen to rhetoric and/or emotion.
it would be great to see a green bay stand alongside georgian bay, eagle, the st. larry as a potential house for the next world record ... but the name of bucher and maina alone won't do it ... it's going to require finesse and the ability to stand strong in a series of tougher debates than happen on this or any other forum ...
good luck ... this is only criticism from someone who hopes the cause wins ....
yet, somehow it's misunderstood ... i'm still trying to understand how that could have happened after reading and re-reading ...
No, in fact I understood what you were/are saying quite well, Mr. Sled. And while you seem to feel you know what *I* am trying to say, I certainly don't know where the "sharp-tongued response" thing comes from. But, with all due respect, you might try to use the edit feature once or twice yourself--if for no other reason than to clarify just exactly what you mean.
In my opinion, the thought process in your posts (except the last one) have been somewhat fragmented, and your lack of attention to proper punctuation makes it extremely difficult to follow your train of thought--and I had the same problem with Bulldawger's post; and indicated so. But certainly, I could be wrong and maybe everyone else understands your point completely. Sorry, not me. In any event, please don't interpret my inability to comprehend these types of posts as an inability on my part--rather it's more like a plea for proper use of the English language. If the post is written in a haphazard and confusing form, then how can you criticize someone for not understanding it's true intent? What kind of message does a poorly written and ambiguous post send to those who are trying to make an informed decision on the facts of the matter? I know the message it would send to me...
So with all due respect sir, if you really want to support the issue, then I suggest you concentrate on making your points clear and concise. That's all I am trying to do, and there is no ill-will or malice intended towards yourself, or Mr. Bulldawger for that matter.
TB
| |
| | |
| agreed, I was just trying to understand what exactly you were trying to say.
good luck fishin.
BD | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
as Larry Ramsell stated before too ... there are bodies of water where there needs to be a harvest ... i know of one i'd like to see some fish come out of ...
balance ... moderation ... keys to logic ... which it seems is void in most of these arguments.
a guaranteed outcome is the result of thinking with your heart ... i could take this into politics but would end up being deleted, but ... apply principles of balance and moderation to any situation and you can achieve better results.
i doubt there will be an issue with an out-of-control population of 56"-60" fish ...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
it was in response to jeff aka essoxaddict ...
"it's a bell-shaped curve" = populations of fish.
the 54+ are outside the 3 sigma limits = fish bigger than 54" in this species are rare (< 3%)
"so similar to Eagle Lake you establish potential" = the 54" limit allows you to see how big a fish can grow
"i would be surprised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose = if there's a problem killing too many 56-60" fish in the future ... i'm suggesting it's likely not going to happen
you state this is hard to understand. did that clarify?
the rest of your patronizing b.s is transparent and if you continue to lead with the attitude that comes from your posts you might find similar results as those found by the now defunct wrma.
looks like somebody pumped you up to the point where it seems you've believed it. i'd like you to be successful but like the wrmp, i'll be surprised if you can't move past go with your patronizing style.
i particularly enjoyed your lessons in statistics ...
your boy pointer seemed to understand ... maybe he can help you out. he goes to school for this kind of stuff right?
if you need definitions for any of the words let me know and i'll help. i'd look forward to another statistics course from you too.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 5:17 PM
it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
SNIP.
That's my point--how do you know this? how do you know that the "54+ are outside of 3 sigma?" Support your statement. No rhetoric.
But I think you are confusing the term "patronizing" with my attempt to make you accountable for your statements. I was not trying to be condescending towards you or anyone else here--I am just trying to get you to stand behind your rhetoric. It seems to me as though you are trying to imply that those who don't exactly take everything you say as gospel, are patronizing you.
Look, we seem agree on many things--but I operate on facts and science. And I simply do not agree with your assertion regarding the SD statement. It's not about ego here; and if you are right and I am wrong, then I am wrong and you are right. That's all there is to it. But that assumes facts not yet in evidence, and the jury is still out in this regards. I would simply like to see your math.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Why is it our right to keep the fish? Did we ask them? Did we personally put them in there? Where did this right come from?'
Hoo boy.
Yes, actually, some of the folks visiting here DID have a significant hand in stocking the Green Bay fish, financially, and personally.
Anthropomorphism at it's absolute worst.
And like it or not, most waters out there are managed for harvest or they would be listed as C&R only. Because you don't like it doesn't make it socially unacceptable by the majority, biologically harmful, or as one particularly off the edge individual suggested, 'stupid'. Not liking the regs simply means you wouldn't harvest a fish that has been determined by good science to be perfectly acceptable to take home based on the management goals on that water. If the Goon was supposed to have zero harvest, it would be CPR. If the idea is to SEVERELY limit harvest, the limit would be...exactly where it is. If the generally accepted upper limit on the Goon was 60", I would bet the farm the limit would be alot closer to that.
Bottom line, reality check here, is SOME folks are Pro Harvest and SOME Anti Harvest, and those to extremes. Most are in the middle and think either extreme is off the edge. It's the middle, which also means majority, the 'extremes' need to win over to get things extended in the direction they desire. Mike and Norm did that very well in a very tough environment working with EVERYONE involved in a democratic process to get Pelican Lake to the much needed 50" limit. If ONE SINGLE STATEMENT made by either had mirrored the above, argument over, we lose. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
The premise is the big fish of the Bay of Green Bay may have not yet reached upper confidence limits and may indeed reach 56 or more inches. Why would this water NOT be equivalent to the Larry? Faster growth, perhaps, but that even is unsure. The premise is that the harvest levels of fish over 50" out of an area where the majority of the larger fish present are perhaps concentrated is unacceptably high when factoring in :
1) The admittedly social desire to see how big those fish can get.
2) The assumption NR is not present to any degree accepted by the DNR so the only fish that can reach the sizes some feel is possible are stocked, numbers are definitely finite, and the future of that stocking in question.
3) The future health of the fishery is in question due to the possible introduction of mortality from VHS.
4) The sheer numbers of anglers and fish caught indicates that angler related mortality is going to be high, and if the traffic increases to a very concertrated fishery as most feel it will, will be higher. (I know, I know, bear with me here) creating a situation--- where the finite numbers available after natural, angler related, and other factor driven mortalities are considered--- place to these folks a VERY high value on the remaining adult population.
One possible solution is to stop fishing muskies altogether. That, since much of the Green Bay project was sponsored by Muskie clubs, isn't likely to get much support.
Another is to ask for a higher size limit so more fish can reach the upper anticipated level. That was already done and passed by the public, with all the Wisconsin trappings, but was in the end stopped... basically in committee.
Another is to ask for a temporary moratorium on harvest and unilaterally as a group find funding for a careful study, since our DNR cannot at this time fund what would be a very comprehensive and expensive project. When the study is completed, the DNR can do what they feel is right setting the limits...hold to 50" or increase to 54" as the public has already accepted through the CC, or go to C&R, or..???
Did I miss anything?
No one is really sure how big these fish can get. Not yet. Time alone will tell, and not a whole bunch more time at this point.
No one is really sure if NR will ever be at an acceptable level to maintain any fishable population. Only time will tell that, too.
No one is really sure what effect VHS might have on the adult population there, only time will tell. Hopefully....
No one is really sure what the total population might be, but there are some experts who have a good idea. Study would be great, and study takes money, and....time.
So, in a nutshell, a few folks are looking to be proactive to try to get answers to all these questions, are trying to be proactive with the cooperation of everyone including the DNR to the point of offering to raise the money needed to put the study into action, and are, so far, meeting with all the obstacles one might expect when basically 'butting in' on the normal process by running up a caution flag. They expected it, I believe, but are truly motivated.
Am I correct, Tom?
If not, I'd be happy to edit and correct, drop me a PM.
So, back to the original question...
Argue it either way, but do so reasonably. If someone disagrees with you, that means neither YOU or THEY are right or wrong, just that you disagree. As the future of trophy Muskie management unfolds, you may BOTH be wrong. One thing for sure, it's those folks in the middle and those who know how to get their attention and understanding have a better chance at things going their way than those who choose to intentionally alienate.
And I really hope I never have to ask a fish anything; the Crappies I caught last night would have been PISSED!
The right came from our fish and game laws, and it isn't a right, it's a privilege and that's a fatct. Break fish and game laws, and it's a privilege you will lose for a while, not a 'right'.
I'll protect that privilege of harvest in fishing and hunting with everything I have, but to the limits to which all of us (scientists, biologists, anglers, etc) agree. Giving up that privilege to some anthropomorphic concept is a sure road to disaster.
At least I think so, and like Maxey, my opinion won't get me a cup of coffee tomorrow morning.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Thank you Steve, for so eloquently making some of the points that I was trying (unsucessfully) to make...
Our opinions mean little. Our words, and the way we present ourselves mean EVERYTHING. If we are to accomplish anything, we have to do it collectively. And as difficult as it is, we have to be polite, accomodating and intelligent about it. Admittedly, the nazi reference was over the top, and I apologize to anyone I may have offended over it. I think we need to be aware that perceptions like that ARE out there. When we start the process off with an opposition that sees us and thinks "oh no, it's those elitist muskie freaks again!" what chance do we have?
WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE?
Thankfully there are cooler heads at the helm than myself out there, taking steps to make great things happen in our fisheries. Think about the possibilities of a world class fishery in Green Bay for a monent. Not 13 hours away in Canada, RIGHT HERE. It's easy to get worked up over wanting it to be the best it can be, as proven above.
Understandable, but counterproductive. Again, we are our own worst enemy in this. If we can't even be civil with each other, even when we have the same goals in mind? How are we going to persuade the decision makers to support what we believe in? Unless we present ourselves in a friendly and intelligent way, is anyone going to even listen to what we have to say?
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | You guys are making it WAY more complicated than it needs to be.
Right now there are fish being caught and seen over 54 inches.
Right now there seem to be many fish being kept over 50 inches.
A 54” limit will allow all fish the “Possibility” to grow to over 54”. They need the genetics but there is the chance and some are growing that big now.
It is likely that not all fish will grow over 54” but the ones that do are sure to be heavier, giving the system a better chance at producing world record class fish.
By protecting the fish between 50 and 54 it “hopefully” allows more fish to live in the system at that size, thus increasing opportunity to develop a naturally reproducing population, which inter usually means a healthier fishery.
And a MAJOR benefit, there are more fish over 50 to be caught, giving more people the opportunity to catch and release these fish as they grow.
Even if only 3% of the population gets to 54” there are still lots of fish in the 50 to 54 inch range to play with. The fish don’t need to be kept to provide a positive trophy fishing experience.
If so many people are keeping 54” fish that it becomes a problem I see that as a good thing and it means the limit was successful, and if need be it can be addressed at that time. At least that’s the way I see it.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thank you for the post Mike, I obviously agree with what you have said...
I wanted to respond to your comment about "making it too complicated" though. First of all, I agree--I, for one, do tend to make it complicated. But I do this knowingly, and I will tell you why. For one thing, it's a tremendously complicated issue. After studying this problem for more hours than I can count, that fact is even clearer. Sometimes simple works, but then other times...it just doesn't.
But the other issue here (for those that may not know this), is by calling out guys that make unclear statements, I am attempting to maintain focus on the true issues. And in the preceding discussion with JohnnySled, I have tried to do just that...eliminate confusion. I took issue with the statement that a 54+" fish is 3 standard deviations outside the mean--and I took issue with it mainly because we do not know what the true mean length of these fish are. Mr. Sled and I have communicated via PM a few times, and I apologized for any possible offense I may have implied. My only purpose is simply to present the most accurate information, and keep the discussion factual.
The problem is that I seem to be the one that receives phone calls and email messages from members of the press, asking what I think about this "fact," or that "statistic"--and often these facts & statistics are simply things that have been read straight from some post on a musky forum. You see, often times these reporters are interested in the issue alright, but they don't possess the background information to know which information is factual, and which...isn't. So it takes time to go through these things with these folks--simply to make sure the information is accurate. So I am making this more complicated than it probably has to be, simply to do my part to make sure that the most accurate information is presented. But sometimes I come across like (as Mr. Sled put it) I am patronizing people. And although I make every effort to avoid that sort of thing, I make no apologies for being the keeper of accurate facts.
But I did not mean to patronize neither Mr. Sled, nor Mr. Bulldawger, and apologize if they felt that I did. I would request however (as mentioned eariler in the thread), that both of them redouble their efforts to make their posts as clear and concise as possible--simply to avoid confusion in the future. Both of these fellows sound like they have the best interests of the musky fishery at heart, and I certainly applaud their efforts in that regards. Right or wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I feel strongly that there is something to be learned from everyone; whether they agree or disagree with my comments regarding this issue.
TB | |
| | |
Location: WI | Some good stuff here from Steve, Mike, Tom.
I agree Tom with the "unclear statement" statement thing since you covered most of it I wont rehash it.
But an unclear Sled statement I dont think you touched on I though was
"guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting."
The word "overall" is what caught my eye. Was overall meant to infer a majority? If so you might want to do a little more research on that one. See Dan Meyers wasnt even brought into the equation untill after it failed to receive majority support on multiple occasions. If the majority would have supported it nobody would even know who Dan Meyers is.
Tom since my name was brought into it.
"And if you talk to the guys who have been out for years fishing muskies (Shane Mason and JoMusky are just two that immediately come to mind), I think you will find that they will tell you how the "average size" of the fish they have been catching has been increasing steadily--and that 2007 was pretty much the best year they've seen for big fish."
I will say you very much correct.
Its been proven that the spotted muskies grow faster, and get longer. Ryan Dempsey's fish from 3 years ago was already 56.5"
Each year since the spotted restoration, things have gone way up, I am floored at how fast these fish grow. Next couple years are going to very interesting.
the DNR said it best themselves in the 2007 Lake Michigan management report.
"If the present growth and survival
rates continue, a higher harvest length limit would be desirable (54 inches such as Canadian great
lake waters)"
Full Report here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/Great%20Lakes%20Fishery%20Commissio...
To answer the original question.
Personally I would congratulate the guy with his one over 54. If he feels the need to wallpaper the room with every one over 54, that will be another story.
Personally I am 100% C&R and that includes guiding. However I grew up eating these fish, (havent ate one since the early 80's and never took one for the wall) However there is a culture in Wisconsin, a very deep rooted one, that those who didnt grow up in it, or from outside Wisconsin dont understand. And many of these guys werent muskie fishing before C&R became commonplace. And many of these are the guys who seem to lack compassion. But I think its mainly because they have never known any other way
Edited by Shane Mason 2/5/2008 1:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | my case will completely rest after this final writing ...
my original post was in response to jeff (aka essoxaddict) who suggested that if a 54" limit is achieved, how long before there is a need for a 56 or 58" limit ... or some such post ... in-fact i think it even included the number of 60" ... the famous "3-sigma" comment was meant as a mathematical inference (painting a picture if you will) suggesting that 1. it's not likely that a chronic problem of people keeping multiple fish of those sizes would occur and 2. that if the fish can indeed reach those numbers, that they would be a small percentage and rare to the overall population (the famous 3 sigma inference) of the same species of fish (based on what i would expect most have seen from comparable waters with similar laws) ... never once was it implied or stated by me that the fish would not be "able" to reach those numbers but that the fish that do peak would be a small number as related to the total population and therefore the inference. the "3-sigma" word was used as an analogy to define the words with a picture ... my bad came when i forgot that people don't see the same mental imagery as a math geek chem e. mba ... it makes sense to me, but might be greek to others that read. i was surprised to see what made perfect sense get so far out of context and made such a riff.
as tcbetka mentioned, the water has gone well past the bridge and i hope this clarifies things a bit.
otherwise, i'm not surprised that this has become an argument based on vocabulary gymnastics ... maybe it's by virtue of the message board medium. i don't think there could ever be a subject on the internet that doesn't become an argument, even amongst people who agree .... i'll never understand that part ...
if somebody is going to claim that we'll be swimming in 54-60" fish by merely limiting harvest at 54" (which is what i felt jeff was implying) ... i felt it fair to throw out a challenge to the claim.
it would be great to prove that wrong eh? ... | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Thanks for the clarification, Sled. Now, as to what I was implying, I guess I should have stated that more clearly.
1. Why 54"? Sled explained that nicely.
2. The second part of my question was pure speculation, WHAT IF. I'll try to be more clear:
I'm not expecting that 54" fish will ever be "common" no matter what we implement as far as laws. If it's not happening on Eagle, Lac Seul, etc, than there's no reason to think that Green Bay will have some magic ability to create giant fish. There is a limit to how big a muskie can get even under ideal circumstances. "Swimming in 54" - 60" fish, Sled? Not on this planet my friend, maybe in heaven...
But let's say that we DO pass a 54" size limit. And lets also say that large numbers of fish DO start showing up over that size (which again, I do NOT expect). The same poeple that are harvesting them now at smaller sizes, are going to be harvesting them at and over 54". WHAT THEN? What is the response from the Muskie crowd going to be? Will we be right back there trying to get the limit pushed up again?
I agree, it would be a great problem to have and it would indicate that the green bay fishery had indeed become a smashing success.
But would WE be happy? Would we EVER be satisfied?
| |
| | |
| It's really too bad that things can't work like they do in Ontario and other places.
Ontario saw Lac Seul being pillaged of it's big fish and PRESTO, all C&R implemented to save the big fish and the muskie fishery, sure this is a huge body of water with little to no stocking and not the same as GB but that was almost TWENTY years ago...and here we are in 2008 and unfortunately this body of water sits in WI ...if it was in Ontario how many of us would bet they would slap a 54 or C&R reg on it no questions asked...seems crazy things like early season c&r north of highway 10 can somehow get slammed thru but a exploding trophy fishery like GB can't go the same route....
I for one would vote for all C&R up there if it ever came up for vote...why not have ONE like that in WI???
| |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | BN, I agree.
Why not have "ONE" in Wisconsin?
Great thread and great information. Keep it going.................. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great point bn...and many of us working on this effort have wondered about the very same thing.
To the question of "why can't we have a 54" limit on Green Bay," one of the answers I have gotten from the DNR was "because that would be a 'special' size limit in the state." By this they meant that Wisconsin has in place a size limit regulation structure, and the 54" limit isn't currently a part of that. So that's perhaps another reason why there has been some resistance to the proposed size limit increase. But if we want to raise the bar for musky size structure (and overall growth potential), shouldn't we be willing to break new ground? There has to be a tip to the spear, and why not Green Bay?
I think an addendum to Sled's post should be that, since muskies don't grow as fast towards the upper end of their natural size structure, that there are many more 50-54" fish *now* then there would be 54+" fish *then*, if we were to have a 54 inch size limit out on the bay. After his last post (which was much clearer, thank you Mr. Sled!), I agree with the point that I think he is trying to make. But this isn't a bad thing at all--so there are fewer >54 inch" fish to protect with a new limit, than there are now with the current 50" limit. But the point is that there will be *more* 54+" muskies if we do raise the limit. So I argue that, at least in this case, the end may well justify the means...
The only way to get 54, 56, 58 or 60-inch fish is to allow the smaller fish to grow bigger. And one of the most effective ways to do that is through size limit restrictions on the harvest. Canada does it, and look where it has gotten them. I personally agree that Wisconsin needs to accept the concept of "thinking big" when it comes to musky harvest regulations--if they want to get back in the game. I think that the current system is based on the days when the fishery was beset with years of unbridled harvest of any & all musky over 'x' length. But that was then, and this is now; and you have to realize that a 50" musky, while still a tremendous fish, isn't what it used to be. Minnesota, New York & Ontario have all shown us that there is MUCH more that is possible, and we cannot be afraid to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall. If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere. We cannot be afraid of being perceived as infringing on the tradition of the mystical "50 inch" mark. Look around, it isn't what it used to be...because so much more is possible! But dead fish don't grow bigger.
So it's going to take widespread public support to get it done here in Wisconsin, and it may indeed take going *back* through the Conservation Congress process once again to make it happen. Like it or not, that is the reality.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8806
| Ok, so how do we get that support, Tom? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | We may have to do the same thing that was done last year--authors for each county, presenting it at the spring hearings, go back through the Great Lakes Committee, and then (hopefully) to the whole state on a ballot. But it's too early to tell if that will need to happen, as there are some things in the works right now. However I cannot go into detail at this moment, but I can tell you that Steve is working on a progress report for the site here, and it should be available within the next couple of days.
Sorry to be elusive, but I simply don't have additional information at this time. Suffice it to say that the announcement will explain a lot of things, and will also include documentation to further support the effort. As I said, look for this within the next few days...
What we need to do to garner support for this effort over the next 2-3 months, will depend (to a large degree) on the result(s) of what's pending at this very moment.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Are we prepared to have the 54 limit on the ballot for this spring's CC meetings? | |
| | |
Posts: 1938
Location: Black Creek, WI | If the 54" Movement requires data... what data currently exists and what data are we missing to help "justify" the cause?
If $$$ is needed to collect the data... can we focus some energy towards fund raising? Since VHS has terminated stocking efforts... perhaps the money that WAS being spent on stocking could be applied towards getting the DATA needed?
I find it hard to believe that with all the fyke netting done the past few years... a size distribution "bell curve" is not available somewhere. And that DATA would help convert EA's 3 sigma speculative statement to fact or fiction.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Mike & jlong...these are all good questions. But I think we should table them for the rest of the week. As I mentioned, there are wheels in motion right now in Madison on this issue--and there have been for over three weeks. I would anticipate some sort of report on the status (from Madison) within the next few days, and Steve will describe the current activities in much greater detail within the next day or so.
I apologize for sounding evasive, but you'll just have to trust me when I tell you that it will become very apparent to everyone when Steve makes the announcement, and we make public the documents that detail the recent goings-on.
We aren't trying to hide anything from anyone, but I really want everyone to have the same information at the same time.
TB | |
| | |
| "We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall."
While I doubt it was your intent, that sounds kind of arrogant....
No one has shown any significant harvest of any kind on GB and here your stating that we NEED to worry about incidental harvest from childern?
And what would it hurt to let people know what is cooking in Madison? Or are you trying to hide what's going on so that people who don't agree with your position don't have a chance to voice their opinion on how OUR natural resources are managed? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | No arrogance intended Brad... I simply believe that the paradigm of entitlement needs to change. We are *all* entitled to keep a legal fish--one per day. It's legal. Fine. How long do you think the population would last if that were to happen? If the fishery continues to gain in popularity and more people start fishing it because, as everyone knows, "it takes no skill to catch a 50" musky while trolling on the bay" (don't laugh--you wouldn't believe how many people have told me that), then sooner or later there will be enough number anglers catching "the fish of a lifetime" and keeping them--and there goes the numbers. It will happen if we don't take steps to prevent it; but don't take my word for it, ask the guys who have seen it happen in other fisheries. Call Joe Bucher, Pete Maina, Steve Worrall or Larry Ramsell and ask them.
Also, please define "significant harvest." I admit--if there are 250 fish over 50" out in the southern bay and the Fox, and only 25 are harvested yearly (I made those numbers up, btw), then it isn't likely that the population will plummet entirely because of the harvest (but there are other factors in play here, too). But that assumes that there are enough fish to absorb the harvest without any major impact. But what if there only 100 fish over 50" out there, or 50...and the harvest removes 25 of them? See my point? The ability to withstand the harvest is dependent upon the total number of fish eligible *for* harvest. And the problem with that is that we really have no strong estimate of how many 50+" fish there are in the population.
Finally, I don't know how to respond to your last paragraph, other than to say that I have given all of the documents I prepared to Steve Worrall for upload to the site here. When it's uploaded, everyone will know exactly what has gone on. And by the way--you don't need to have *me* tell you...you can call or write the DNR folks in Madison just as well as I can. It's your legal right, just as much as it is mine. You are the one that said it's "OUR natural resources" that are in question. No disrespect, but to me it's *your* statement that sounded arrogant...suggesting that I am possibly trying to hide something. My previous post has clearly indicated that Steve will be making the announcement, not me.
TB
EDIT: And by the way Brad, I just went back over my previous post (with the "little Johnny" reference) and reviewed what I had written. You completely missed my point! The point was not to pick on the "little Johnnies of the world" but rather that I feel there is no better place to start planting the seeds of C&R than with the youth of the sport!
"If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere."
Edited by tcbetka 2/2/2008 8:59 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Proposal is now in the articles section here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/02.02.2008/1294/Emergency....
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.
I will say this much; it was my opinion that the proposal needed to be in the hands of all the intended recipients for consideration before publication as a necessary courtesy to those it is hoped will seriously consider this proposal.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for posting it Steve.
The date of submittal is as indicated on the document.
After the meeting on the 29th, there was overwhelming sentiment from those in attendance that a request be made *directly* to the Natural Resources Board (as mentioned in the PDF document of the PowerPoint presentation) as soon as possible. Therefore I continued working on the emergency resolution, and over the following 10 days I finished the document seen referenced by Steve, and it was submitted on January 8th.
Prior to submitting this document it was reviewed by 8-10 other individuals, including many prominent and concerned anglers. (Many of their names can be seen under my name near the end of the document.) I then submitted (via email) the document, along with letters of support from both Joe Bucher and David Cates (current President, MI), to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. Within an hour of submitting the documents, I received notification from the executive assistant to the NRB that all the board members had been emailed the document.
Approximately two weeks ago I was notified by Greg Wells (past President, MI, and co-author of the original 54" size limit proposal), that the Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team was asked to draft a response, and in fact they had done so. Then last week I was notified by the office of Senator Cowles, that the matter had been advanced to the desk of Matt Frank, Secretary of the DNR. To date I have not received formal notification of any decision or recommendation from the DNR.
In addition, about two weeks ago I personally met with David Rowe, the local Fisheries Biologist here in Green Bay. This was after the emergency request was sent to the NRB, and the WMMT had drafted it's response letter. We discussed the entire issue for over an hour, and Mr. Rowe advised me that he had been the one to actually draft the response letter on behalf of the WMMT, but he did not share the content of the letter. He also advised me that he would be happy to discuss the issue with any concerned individuals, should they wish to do so.
So basically, that's it: A request for an emergency moratorium on musky harvest was submitted by myself, on behalf of the Green Bay Muskellunge Coalition. However to date we have not received a formal response. Much discussion was had to determine the best time at which to make public this request, and it was decided *not* to make any announcement until such time as the DNR had enough time to formulate their response, without undue pressure from other concerned parties. Once we were informed that the matter was forwarded to the DNR Secretary's desk, we felt that enough time had passed, and thus the decision was made to make public the events leading up to tonight's announcement.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Thanks for the update Tom.
I still want to pose the question, are we prepared to take it to the CC spring hearings if we have no word from the NRB? I feel if we want to get the 54 passed for sure we need to get it on this spring's hearings. Even if we need to do authors like we did last spring, we need to keep on top of the ball. I'd be happy to author Portage Co.
Thanks again for all your hard work Tom! I'm sure it has been very stressfull for you.
| |
| | |
| "We need to be forward-thinking, and not worry about all the "Little Johnnies" of the world that might catch a 51" musky with a snoopy fishing pole, and want to hang it on the wall. If you want to educate anglers on the value of C&R, what better place to start than with Little Johnny?!?! Teach these folks the value of watching a trophy swim away--the process MUST start somewhere."
No, I did NOT completely miss the point you were trying to make.
I simply felt that your choice of language was rather poor. Emotions often run deep on topics such as this, and I find it very important to watch what you say closely. More than that, I think your wrong about who your message should target.
Personally, I consider it my job to teach my children values - whether those values be the importance of hard work or issues relating to outdoors conservation. I'll listen to most people that present a reasonable argument on how to manage our natural resources, and if *I* think its appropriate, I'll share that with my kids.
If you want to REALLY get someone's chili hot, tell them how to raise their kids. | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Brad, let's try to stick to the subject matter at hand.
I don't see anything here contrary to raising a child to appreciate CPR and protecting our natural resources.
I understood what Tom meant, he explained it again, and I bet you do too.
Back to the subject at hand please.
| |
| | |
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | Wow...where's does anyone begin after taking the time to read this whole thread...it's amazing that even with it's length (and it being the middle of winter...very much so here in Alaska) the subject has for the most part stayed in the center of the thread. I offer my totally unsolicited opinion as an infrequent musky angler (although I would love to do more) and totally seperated from the local politics down your way in the northern midwest to east.
First off I would certainly be for the 54" limit but would never denigrate anyone for keeping a legal fish. And I personally disagree with anyone who feels a reproduction is the same, or better looking (when done by a top taxidermist), than a skin mount....(I do have a tiger and a natural musky replica)...but I can tell a repro everytime. Anyway....that's off the subject.
The one idea as I read this thread, not being a diehard musky fisherman, is how out of contact with reality are those who are adamant about total C&R and having no patience with anyone that disagrees. Why so much adoration for the musky? If we C&R all the walleye wouldn't the average get bigger too......or bass...or crappie or whatever. Are those who fish for these "lesser" species somehow diminished because they can't bask in the glory of the noble muskellenge? Sorry for the tenor of my remarks but hopefully you get my point.....musky fishermen are, and always will, be in a decided minority of total fisherman. So within that knowledge you have to work....if you hope to get anything accomplished.
In the western states in the last 30-40 years there has been a great wave to restore native trout to their original habitats. It has not been an easy task as the rampant stocking of "generic" rainbows and nonnative brook and brown trout have nearly run many native species and subspecies to the brink of extinction. People still have argued they have a right to the put and take hatchery fish to the detriment of the native fish.....or even wild trout. Montana took the bold step of ending all stocking of rivers in 1974.....we vacationed and fished there from the mid 1960's. We were devasted....we were pissed off, like all the other fishermen because there would be no trout. The limits were decreased and some restrictions in areas applied as far as gear, and low and behold those stinking biologists were right.....the fishing is better than it ever has been (although, granted, much is from nonnative rainbows and browns....but even as wild fish they have done great).
How many waters being stocked are outside the native range of the musky? Certainly this has impacted the indigenous species of fish. It seems that the most consistent, productive large fish water is in Canada where, as far as I understand and I could be wrong, most of the reproduction is natural and within the native range of musky.....food for thought. Also, unless someone starts to do some genetic engineering (as they have done with the miserable triploid trout monstrosities) don't you believe enough musky have been caught and measured over the last century to have an indication of what size their genetics allow? Sure you will get an extremely rare huge fish but it is decidedly the exception.
A second thought also occurred to me (two thoughts in one day....my wife wouldn 't believe it) about why so persistent on keeping upward increases of the size limit when perhaps many more musky could be saved by closing waters when the water temperature gets too high? This has a much greater effect of most fish than keeping a few. Don't know of any specific temperature experiments with musky....but on trout when the temp hits 70-72 degrees the delayed mortality increases from 4-5% to OVER 40%.....now that is a dramatic difference.
As an outsider the vehement position of you better release everything or I am going to harangue you until you capitulate doesn't do much for me wanting to comply. I really think the education of C&R has come along ways in just the last decade with musky because of all the effort.....remember moderation....not intolerance.
By 4 bits worth,
Brian
PS: Don't take an Alaskan Native fishing with you if you plan on releasing everything you catch here as they find the practice extremely disrespectful to the fish.....they don't believe in "playing with your food" | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Brian, thanks for the post... I lived in Alaska for a year in the early 90s, and flew all over the state flying charter and fire-fighters. Incredible scenery, and an incredible fishery.
I read your posts and agree with you, for the most part. But that I mean that, as I don't have much experience with trout, I cannot really comment intelligently on the management of the species. But please don't think that I am an advocate of a strict 100% catch & release on muskellunge anywhere, and anytime. That simply isn't the case. If you read the document Steve linked to, I have laid out the reasons supporting the request for the emergency moratorium. Yes, I am advocating a complete catch & release status for musky in Green Bay and its tributaries for the next few years--but this is *not* a request for a permanent change. I would ask that you simply skim the document Steve referenced, if you haven't already, and that should allay your concerns. But thanks again for your post.
And for Brad...
I wasn't trying to tell you how to raise your kids! You seem to want to find something to take issue with, no matter what I say. But I submit to you that the same ideals that were practiced by our fathers & grandfathers, aren't going to cut it anymore. In the days of GPS and high-powered electronics (underwater viewing systems and Humminbird's Side Imaging sonar are just two examples that immediately come to mind), the scale has *definitely* been tipped in favor of the of the angler, and away from the quarry. So in order to insure that the harvest doesn't overwhelm the population (in this case musky, but you could say the same thing about walleye or perch, I suppose), we are going to need to redouble our efforts to educate folks that there isn't an infinite supply of *any* of these species. That's all I am saying. But I am not the only one who feels this way, I'll bet...
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pointerpride102 - 2/2/2008 10:38 PM
Thanks for the update Tom.
I still want to pose the question, are we prepared to take it to the CC spring hearings if we have no word from the NRB? I feel if we want to get the 54 passed for sure we need to get it on this spring's hearings. Even if we need to do authors like we did last spring, we need to keep on top of the ball. I'd be happy to author Portage Co.
Thanks again for all your hard work Tom! I'm sure it has been very stressfull for you.
Mike, for the most part...yes, we are ready to re-approach the CC if necessary. But keep in mind that we have requested a temporary moratorium on *all* harvest of musky out here, and thus to argue for an increased size limit is somewhat schizophrenic! You either want to allow harvest, or you don't...
That being said however, if the emergency moratorium request is denied, then I suppose we will have no other choice but to readdress the 54" size limit increase via the CC. It passed by more than a 3:1 margin in the past, so obviously the majority of the citizens who voted in the 26 counties were in support of it. It should have, at the very least, made it to a state-wide ballot for ALL interested citizens to vote on. But somehow that process broke down (and that's a whole other discussion), and thus many people have expressed frustration that the effort wasn't given its due course. However after researching the issue for many hours, I discovered (and presented) many other concerns that hadn't been previously explored, and thus the group elected to first proceed in the direction of the emergency moratorium request.
But thanks for volunteering to author the Portage county proposal. The offer is duly noted. If the need arises, I am sure we can use your help.
TB | |
| | |
| "So in order to insure that the harvest doesn't overwhelm the population (in this case musky, but you could say the same thing about walleye or perch, I suppose), we are going to need to redouble our efforts to educate folks that there isn't an infinite supply of *any* of these species. That's all I am saying. But I am not the only one who feels this way, I'll bet... "
Then educate anglers. Pushing for a law to restrict harvest is not education, its forcing them to comply with your thoughts on the topic.
And STOP suggestting that angling pressure on GB musky is going to overhelm the population. ALL fish less than 50 inches are protected. Even if it were possible for anglers to harvest a significant number of the fish over 50 inches each year (10, 20, or even 50% of the population OVER 50") that is STILL a small percentage of the overall population. Comparing that scenario to the perch and walleye populations where the majority of the population is available for harvest (and that rely on natural reproduction) doesn't make any sense.
And while I agree with you 100% that it is very important to the future of our great sport to encourage people to use exercise responsible harvest, this is not the way to further that goal. Allowing personal feeling to enter into the fish and game management arena is EXACTLY how the unpopular spring C/R musky season got passed into law.
I do respect the time and effort that many of you have put into this, but I do not agree with what you are trying to do. | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I disagree with your assessment. I feel the increasing pressure on that water coupled with other factors will DEFINITELY have a negative effect on the fishery there. I will continue to support at the very least a 54" limit there to slow the harvest and protect the upper confidence level fish for a few more seasons as was overwhelmingly approved in 26 counties last year, and would like to see a period of study on that water to determine the level of NR if any, determine a best estimate at the real population, and look to the future stocking restrictions/possibilities to see if the fishery can be maintained at anything like it's present state. This sort of moratorium on true trophy potential waters has precedent.
You are absolutely incorrect about the new C&R Muskie season. That season was brought into law by a lawmaker in Eagle River, not the DNR or NRB. The public had voted that proposed season DOWN in the past, and there was little support statewide for the idea.
What do you think the Conservation Congress IS, other than a conduit to effect fish and game mamagement in Wisconsin by public opinion (aka personal feelings)?
So I'll choose to KEEP suggesting the major increase seen and inevitable growth in pressure and related increase in harvest coming (you haven't seen anything, yet...) may have a major negative impact on the upper tier of the adults muskies there. Add the rest of the concerns brought up by the coalition, and one has what amounts to a great argument for at the very least what was already approved by the public in many counties in Wisconsin...a 54" limit.
So I guess I for one will not STOP suggesting what I believe to be the issue at hand. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | sworrall - 2/4/2008 10:18 AM
the upper confidence level fish
"the upper confidence level" when discussed by statistitians usually defines a % outside of 3 Sigma limits when describing a population of data ... i used the same reference and got blasted steve ...
| |
| | |
| edit to post in 3..2..1.. | |
| | |
| "You are absolutely incorrect about the new C&R Muskie season."
No, I am not. I said that it was personal feelings on the topic allowed that terrible law to be passed. That IS accurate. The route the GBMC has choosen to persue this has NOT been the same shady, underhanded tactic used to pass the spring C/R season, but that does not change the fact that it is still little more than personal preference on the topic that is pushing this - not a biological need of the system.
And I completely agree with you that the Spring Hearings are little more than a conduit for personal preference in fish and game management. And I think we also can agree that more than popular vote should be considered when establishing new fish and game laws.
On the rest, we will not agree.
No hard feelings I hope.
Take care. | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Brad B,
Context. You probably shouldn't compare what was done with the new season regs and what the Coalition is attempting to do using the same adverds and adjectives, for the very reasons you posted above.
Obviously more than 'popular vote' IS considered. Keep in mind, that sword cuts both ways. Of course there's no hard feelings, we just agree to disagree, something even my wife and I find constructive on occasion....
Sled,
That term has been used while discussing a population of Muskies by folks like Casselman to define/describe (basically) the maximum potential growth ( In his presentations I watched at the symposium, he described that expected potential in weight, not length) of adult muskies in any one system during the recent symposium. He also made it very clear in his symposium presentation that the fish needed to be allowed to grow old enough to realize that potential, and that in some systems that is pretty darned old. I believe the term was used during the panel discussion as well.
Since the term as it was used by Dr. Casselman at the symposium seemed to directly reference the 'outside' potential weight of oldest and largest muskies in the system, I would guess that the percentage of the total population those fish represent would be very small considering the reported double digit % mortality in any given year class each and every year. Think about that impact on surviving numbers from any one year class a bit, if one starts with 4000 at stocking and the fish live to 20 years. Add 7% angler related mortality, a total number on the Bay that isn't yet known because not enough study data including creel surveys are at hand. Increase the angling pressure in a compressed area as much or more by a percentage basis as what has happened on the Bay to date, and I feel this area and the Muskies in it stand to be overfished. If I'm wrong, I'd at least like to offer our DNR the money and time to prove me wrong instead of being proven right by the potentially very real decline of the trophy class fish there, and perhaps the population in total.
At any point, if the expected maximum growth is 56" at 55 pounds , or 58" ??? weight in the Bay (something we may never know at this rate), I'd like to see a few get there before getting knocked on the head. If a significant number are harvested at 50", which I firmly believe will happen as the popularity of that water grows, we will be left with a fishery where a 'big fish' will be 48" to 50". I personally think the same scenario (to a degree) will occur on Mille Lacs and Vermilion if those fish are not further protected, but that's me and I worry alot. What if the overall numbers of Muskies on the Bay is reliant on stocking? Why is it the argument used over and over here against this move wasn't used against the proposed and approved new size limit on Pelican or the 50" limits elsewhere in the state where the expected top end fish will be 52 or so??? Ohhhh...that's right, it was.
I have a couple references to look to if one wants to see reactions of fisheries folks elsewhere to the mere prospect of overfishing and unacceptable harvest numbers of large specimens. Wabigoon and Lac Seul come to mind, as do the rest of the 54" waters in Ontario. Why 54"? Why close Lac Seul to harvest altogether? Listen to what Dr. Casselman and many of the other scientists presenting at the Symposium has to say and it should make some sense.
So there's the context.
Hooper, have you watched the Symposium video, read the papers, and purchased the book? I strongly suggest you do all of those things....and what are you going to edit when you finish counting? | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm glad to see the clarification of the term and it's support from the Casselman studies at the symposium. it always made common sense to me and applies to most populations of species unless there is a significant skewing (ie: the baby boomers).
when stated by Casselman and Worrall one response ... when stated by poor ole Sled ... it's a free-for-all .... lol
makes me wonder what the agenda really is? | |
| | |
Posts: 32904
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think the stated agenda is anything but what you see. My agenda matches to a large degree with the rest of the Coalition, but my personally desired end goals may not match everyone else's, much like my chosen methods of communicating what I hope to see happen on the Bay might not match everyone's.
I had a 'context reference' for my use of the term that helped make what I was trying to say clear, not sure if the term is used in any studies but is was in that context at the Symposium, I believe. Even though I might not be using the term exactly as it should be, that's sometimes all one needs on a Monday....
Poor old Sled?? HAAAAAAAhahahahahaaaa...I don't think so, you are perfectly able to maneuver about the course of any debate. | |
| | |
Posts: 1294
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | brad b said: "The route the GBMC has choosen to persue this has NOT been the same shady, underhanded tactic used to pass the spring C/R season, but that does not change the fact that it is still little more than personal preference on the topic that is pushing this - not a biological need of the system."
I beg to differ and "biological need" is indeed present. I think perhaps the one most important facts that has been missed throughout this discussion is that when the Green Bay project began, it was one of RESTORATION. For that to happen, muskies of ALL sizes need to be protected...and studied. If RESTORATION is an obtainable goal, ALL SIZES of fish present in the system IS IMPORTANT for that RESTORATION to be complete and viable. Continued "cropping" of the largest fish in the system could result in a population of fish that eventually will all be under even the current 50 inch size limit.
This was NOT intended to be a "put and take" fishery. It may end up being such, BUT WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL "ALL" FISH THERE HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FOR A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME AND STUDIES COMPLETED!
My vote is for the closure moratorium until we find out. At the very least, the proposed 54 inch size limit would buy some more time until we know for sure. Let's give that fishery a chance to be one that is self sustaining and WORLD CLASS! | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Very good point Larry, I believe that is the KEY to the entire argument.
Also someone who knows the history of Wabigoon and Lac Suel should write that history down and explain what the Ministry did to protect Lac Suel when it looked like it was going down the same road as Wabigoon. These are remote lakes in the Canadian wilderness and they where worried enough about Lac Suel to enact special regulations after what happened on Wabigoon. They were not a reborn population in a Metropolitan Area, relatively close to the Midwestern heart of musky fishing. A trip to Green bay is less than 5 hours away for how many fishermen, that may be searching for there first 50” fish to mount on the wall.
I believe these facts should be pointed out to the powers that be, as they do a pretty good job of showing the need, and they show the fact, this is not unprecedented.
I read the entire proposal last night, GREAT JOB to the authors!!!!!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| |
|
54 inch limit on bay