|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Being lucky to have a business in Eagle River, Wisconsin where musky fishing is always a hot topic. I have to say that when people say that wisconsin has no big muskies they don't know whay they are talking about. Now big means different things to different people. I say that muskies over 48 are big muskies. I hear of many fish of this size being caught it even has surprised me. The thing is the people here that live on lakes and catch the bigger fish are not saying much about it. They are not snapping lots of pictures or any at all. They are not to prove how many or how big a fish they can catch. They are just out there to enjoy the sport. Yes some stories my be streched some but fishinging is like Chicago politics,a crazy game. I believe most of the people when they tell me and have seen some pictures. Yes there are big muskies in vilas and oneida county, more then you ever thought. I wish I could have been out there this year and did some fishing as it really has been a good year here.
Pfeiff
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 9/3/2010 12:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
| what |
|
| |
|
| Johnny Lawrence - 9/3/2010 7:01 AM
what
Just read it slow and you'll get it.
Heck, to me 45" is a big fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | Don doesn't know what he's talking about.
Zap this thread, Steve.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yeah, no big fish. Obviously. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20194
Location: oswego, il | Yeah, how many big fish pics dio you see out of say the Tiger Cat Flowage? Yep, people are keeping it quiet! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
So does this mean the M1st outings next year will all be in WI??
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 182
Location: musky waters of SE, WI | Is this thread made to help bring business to your business? Lets let everyone know fishing has been hot in vilas/oneida counties yep |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ryan,
I kinda doubt many muskie anglers get haircuts while on fishing trips. Mr. Skarie; No, we move them around..Kentucky, New York, WI in two locations, NW Ontario in two locations, and Vermilion MN so far. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| What exactly is "big"? 50"? If so, there are 50" fish just about everywhere there are muskies. It really comes down to how many big fish there are in a given area, and how likely you are to catch one. I think too many people get caught up in trying to compare what they are catching to what they see on the internet and on magazines. Take a look at the two fish below. Both are 38". The first one was caught in Vilas County, and is a pretty good fish for where I was fishing. The second one was caught on Eagle Lake. Even though the second one was actually bigger, (look at how they are built) it was not what I'd consider a "good fish" for that area by any means. In my opinion, you really have to judge the quality of your catches by the lake you are fishing, and nothing else.
Attachments
----------------
 38 070210.JPG (131KB - 106 downloads)
38 81110 sm.jpg (109KB - 99 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
| Esox addict brings up a great point. The "good fish" or "big fish" definitions are pretty funny. I remember being on them pretty good last year and taking a bunch of 44 inch fish for granted, I can't catch a cold right now and would be thrilled with either 38 pictured above. I know that to be part of the big nuts musky club we're all compelled to meaure a 4 foot fish down to the 1/4 inch to compare and share stories with with our buds. That said, at some point its probably good to sit back for a bit and just enjoy the opportunities we have to chase these big fish on multiple lakes.
Edited by box 9/3/2010 2:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
| they are smart in WI, they keep it hush hush...they know better |
|
| |
|
Posts: 78
| Agree the term 'big fish' is all relative to the person fishing and then also per the water being fished. I fish for muskies becasue I truley enjoy fishing for them and seeing these fish. All muskies to me are great fish as I do not catch very many in a season sometimes as little as a hand full. For myself fish for the fun of it and the hunt, and do not base it on how many 50's i catch in one season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Slow Rollin - 9/3/2010 3:25 PM
they are smart in WI, they keep it hush hush...they know better
Musky anglers in general are a bunch of Einsteins. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Slow Rollin - 9/3/2010 4:25 PM
they are smart in WI, they keep it hush hush...they know better
They are so smart in Florida, that we don't even know there are muskies there!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | Big is relative but like originally said there are A LOT of trophy class big fish caught that we never hear about. Look at the 56" 48.5lb fish caught in Lake St.Clair last fall. It took until this spring before MuskieHunter found out about it. Recently there has been bigger cough561/2"cough fish caught and locally verified and released but chances are you wont here much about them, especially on here. A lot of local Good Ole Boys on various lakes like to keep things quiet. That way they keep their lake......their lake. Sometimes I think people forget there is more to the Muskie world than what we see on here or other places on the 'Net.
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | There are lots of big fish caught on the LOTWs and in NW and Eastern Ontario, and in Minnesota that you don't hear about. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Its really a shame that some of you have to find something to fault in a post like this. I try to give up some information that may help someone decide where to fish next week and this is the kind of reponses one gives back. I don't say this to bring in business to the shop as I have all I handle the way it is. I never said there are not big fish in other places. I simply said there are alot of nice fish being caught in Vilas and Oneida counties. Yes to me a 48 is a very nice fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Don agree a 48 is nice fish anywhere.
But to be honest with you I don't care if its 32" or 52" musky. They are all fun to pursue. I get a thrill from every single one. I fished in Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Canada. this year alone. I'm a very lucky man and the fact that I get the chance to fish for these critters is a blessing. I've had some wonderous times on the water over the years and I can't or won't measure the success of those adventures in inches. I'll probably never catch a 55" fish I don't fish waters that give a person a fair opputtunity at that class of fish. But I did get to help my wife catch her very first musky. A very nice 48 3/4" musky on our summer trip to Canada. If I live to be 100 I'll never forget that afternoon. With Nancy and my two kids we caught and release a truly big fish. Maybe not in inches but in memories. My wife the city slicker talks about that fish like it was our families greatest adventure. I guess after twenty years its mission accomplished. That is until next seasons vacation.
Edited by Hunter4 9/3/2010 10:45 PM
Attachments
----------------
IMG_3375.JPG (194KB - 107 downloads)
IMG_3379.JPG (207KB - 110 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Great post Don! What's the limit? I need a wall hanger.
JBoy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
Location: c.wis | northern wisconsin gets enough pressure, keep it quiet- there are quite a few lakes that have had 48"+ taken out of them without many people onpening there mouths about them............. look what happend to kentuck- it was plasterd all over the internet last winter and on anygiven day id say more then half of the people out there are chasing ski's send the masses to madison or milwaukee everyone down there is use to all the boats
Edited by eric001 9/4/2010 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
| eric, central Wisconsin gets enough pressure for Muskies too, and you don't always keep that quiet. How is that different? There are arguably more people pursuing Muskies on those southern and central WI waters as the lakes up here without a doubt, why invite more to the specific spots you fish? To fill a motel?
Don made a great post about a general area, not naming any specific waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 317
| I have fished Vermilion, Eagle, and Lac Suel, but I got my first 50 (51.1") from Big Tom in Wisconsin last August. I guess there really are no big fish in WI!
Edited by MuskyStalker 9/4/2010 8:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | There are some big, huge fish in N.Wi. ......No need to journey wayyyyyy..... over to Mn.
But hey, why are there so many boats from Wi. on N.Mn. waters ?? Hhmmmmmmmmm?? No big muskies here. They must like the blond, shapely Ladies that we seem to have running around everywhere......
Jerome
Edited by Top H2O 9/4/2010 9:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Top H2O - 9/4/2010 9:23 PM
There are some big, huge fish in N.Wi. ......No need to journey wayyyyyy..... over to Mn.
But hey, why are there so many boats from Wi. on N.Mn. waters ?? Hhmmmmmmmmm?? No big muskies here. They must like the blond, shapely Ladies that we seem to have running around everywhere......
Jerome
It is easier to catch a low 50 in MN, people are there simply because it takes far less skill and time...BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Muskystalker,
That was a nice fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Benr,
you living in Co and would know all about that, huh ?
Well if that is true, than Mn. must manage it's fishery much bettet than alot other states. Less skill ?? Wow. And time ?
Keep talking............................................... |
|
| |
|
| Top H2O - 9/4/2010 9:46 PM
Benr,
you living in Co and would know all about that, huh ?
Well if that is true, than Mn. must manage it's fishery much bettet than alot other states. Less skill ?? Wow. And time ?
Keep talking...............................................
I do, was fortunate enough to fish Vermillion about 15 years ago quite a few times, have fished out east for 8 years, and grew up fishing most of the midwest for muskies for 20 plus years...Yes, now I am fishing in CO....I think MN is lucky to have nice large bodies of water and an active group promoting the fishery, but you asked why WI plates were in MN...so I answered. Much better areas in the US for super large muskies, but if you want to catch a 50 MN is a great and pretty easy place to get it done....BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I understand what your saying Ben, but, things have changed a lot in 15yrs....
I've been on V for 12 yrs now and the last 5 have really changed.... more skill is a must,.. and luck is also a big player. Time on the water between boated fish has really gone up, so it's not as easy as some people think.
Yes Mn. does have some lakes with big fish, but if Wi. is so full of big fish than why are alot of people coming in droves to fish Mn. waters??
I don't think skill and less time on the water is correct,,, I do believe Mn. Has thousands of bigger fish than WI.
Thanks Mn DNR and M.I.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | When one looks at big fish per acre of muskie water...we have more lakes, but less surface acres, and as a result, the hundreds of waterbodies and rivers with decent populations of trophy fish now emerging as a result of the new 45" and 50" limits, new management program begun in 1998, and revamping of the Winnebago to Green Bay waters and stocking of the waters in the south, coupled with CPR.... WI contains some pretty good trophy muskie angling; the opportunities are just spread quite widely across the state and some of the big fish waters are quite small.
Jerome made a point I made a few years ago when everyone was screaming about the new mecca in MN. I believe in a nutshell, my comment back then was that the trophy muskie fishing there will always be good, but due to 'new reservoir syndrome', harvest of trophy muskies, and overall slow but steady loss of big fish due to dozens of influences converging, MN will remain a trophy destination, but may not ever again be as good as it was and for that matter, is now.
We'll see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| Steve;
I have never met a muskie whether I caught or saw it caught that I didn't enjoy!
Fishing in Minnesota is still pretty good with different lakes coming online to take pressure off the proven ones. Possibility is still there for MN to get better. My son and and I both got 50"+ fish 2 weeks ago with Musky Stalker and he had 2 more 50"+ fish in his boat 7 hours before we were able to make it up there.
As in MN and just about every where there are a number of trophy fish that will never be heard about or seen. I personally know a number of 53 - 55" fish that will never be touted because guys want their fish spots protected from pressure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I have to agree with the thread in general---ther are lots of 48+ inch fish caught in both MN and Wi that are not reported---I know of several in the last couple years including a 55" from a small (under 400 acre) Wi lake that will never make any noise on the internet. It has to be that way--most of those smaller WI lakes could not take any more presssure than they already recieve. I applaud these anglers for their efforts to keep their lakes/spots from the increased fishing they would recieve. I also think some of these large fish will never make a PICTURE PAGE due to the few who will want to judge their size, or the way the fish was held, was it netted or kept out of the water to long---Ther is sometimes alot of BS that goes with posting a Picture so again I know many who just will not do it. I say good job to those anglers and I have done the same thing myself---as much as we all think we know what goes on out there on the Lakes--there is much that is being covered up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| I'll agree that muskie fishing in WI is better than it's probably ever been, but as long as there is a statewide 34" size limit the opportunities for quality muskie fishing are going to be VERY limited.
There are small lakes that don't get a lot of pressure putting out quality fish. If word got out on those lakes it would be over, as a 200 - 500 acre lake can only support a relatively small # of fish. ANY amount of angling pressure can be a detriment. The people who fish these lakes know that and keep quiet with good reason.
There are also some lakes where higher size limits have been implemented. Those will continue to improve, but only to a point, as the publicity surrounding those lakes draws a great many anglers.
It's my hope that the day will come where WI finally implents an intelligent management strategy, and then we can see once and for all what kind of quality fishing is possible in Wisconsin. It will never be MN. The lakes aren't the same size, the forage is different, water chemistry is different.... But it certainly could be a lot better.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Intelligent management strategy? That one has been beat to death, and every time it's agreed that many WI waters that are sterile, put and take fisheries don't grow 'em any larger than low 40's, and that rarely. Unless the goal is to lose support from those of us who want to occasionally harvest a muskie and as a result stop stocking the sterile, poor growth rate waters(like Spider in Oneida, for example), your idea of 'intelligent' may need some more thought. Better to have some 34" waters that MIGHT produce a 42 and see the occasional harvest there than leave the waters with trophy potential at 40. Or less.
It will take the same kind of pressure exerted on the PUBLIC to get and keep Pelican at 50 to get new waters past the CC here. I'd advocate getting the waters with honest trophy potential protected and leaving the numbers lakes at a lower limit for those who insist. Some lakes simply won't support a trophy population due to water chemistry and forage.
The waters that have shown any trophy potential at all are already under restrictive size limits or are on the way there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| Steve, I'd agree with lower size limits on "sterile" put and take fisheries. No reason not to on a population of fish that will not grow to trophy size and do no reproduce. But how many lakes out there really DO have trophy potential that will never be realized due to angler harvest? If it's rare to find a 45" fish on a lake with a 40" size limit, is that because of the lake ecosystem, or because fish are getting bonked and hung on the wall once they reach 40"?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'm curious as to what exactly is meant by "water chemistry" that won't support trophy fish.
Could someone be more specific about what is different about those waters than others?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32835
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure.
I'd look up the classifications of lake age first so one can understand impact from outside sources on each water body one is investigating.
http://www.mlswa.org/lkclassif1.htm
This was covered in excellent detail during the 'it's the fish' debate. Many Wisconsin lakes are extremely sterile due to water source and the makeup of the 'bottom' of the lake, and won't grow 'big' fish of any specie even with near zero fishing pressure...even 'sunnies', as MN folks call them. Poorly buffered, acidic waters don't support the necessary 'food chain' to grow big fish...hence the major concerns about acid rain where the waters are already poorly buffered. What happened to many lakes in the East is a classic example; beautiful clear waters devoid of any nutrients, and the fish are not just 'stunted', they are gone.
Most systems in N WI fed by moving water or that are moving water in the form of a flowage or river seem to do quite well, but even then some have sterile enough conditions the average fish even with almost no fishing pressure is small by comparison.
Many Wisconsin lakes are seepage and drainage lakes that actually have so much mercury from natural occurring heavy metals leeching into the water from Acid rain that these little 50 to 300 acre lakes require a fish consumption advisory posted if there's a public landing. Some are so sterile there are almost no fish at all.
The opposite 'problem' can occur in lakes that are well balanced before man's influence; because of pollution over fertile conditions can exist, and algae, weed growth, oxygen levels, and more are problematic. One sees that sort of thing in the fertile, aged waters and man made waters in southern and western WI.
http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/aquatic/sextant/chemistry.htm
Some lakes here are VERY sterile and support only small perch and not much more. A 5" perch is rare. Take one that's a couple years old and 2" long out, put it in an aquarium, and keep the water balanced and the perch fed, and POOF, it grows like mad.
Wisconsin has a ton of waters that are regularly stocked and do not produce big fish of any specie, nor is there any natural reproduction of some of the gamefish stocked. They are essentially 'put and take' waters, and they are what they are. Stopping harvest by placing such restrictive limits that none CAN be harvested means stopping stocking because harvest is the very idea.
Very rudimentary, but hopefully correct enough and succinct enough to get the idea across. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Thank You. Interesting info.
JS |
|
| |
