|
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Simple Question:
Would you support catch and release for muskies in the state of Minnesota? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Already do Kev. You must mean catch and release only, mandatory? I would. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 94
| Even though I don't fish MN that much I would agree as well. In fact I think it should be mandatory in every state that has muskies. It will only help the future of the sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Catch and release regulations for the state of MN concerning muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | any muskie fisherman would,but don`t think it will ever pass,that vacationer that got a 50 on a minnow won`t understand and probably doesn`t know about replicas. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Most muskie fishermen release all now, most that are targeting other species are not equiped for speedy sucessful release and a percentage die. By proposing catch and release only you are giving amunition to groups like PETA and others that claim we are tormenting animals for merly our own gratification.
this site needs a spell checker...at least I do
Edited by horsehunter 12/4/2011 7:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Harvest isn't always bad. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 181
Location: St.John, Indiana | I am all for catch and release ,but I want the option to keep and true trophy if I choose to. States with Muskie population already have size limits some are to low ,but that's the state position on the issue. If we want to protect the fishery, education on proper release methods with proper tools should be the focus. |
|
| |
|
| horsehunter - 12/4/2011 7:43 PM
Most muskie fishermen release all now, most that are targeting other species are not equiped for speedy sucessful release and a percentage die. By proposing catch and release only you are giving amunition to groups like PETA and others that claim we are tormenting animals for merly our own gratification.
this site needs a spell checker...at least I do
I agree with horsehunter on this one. Don't get me wrong, I would love if everyone would practice catch and release, but I think making regulations will just be a stepping stone to further restrictions. Additionally, people that aren't regularly on the water would not have the knowledge of laws, and would likely not abide by them. I know of all kinds of lakes that have special restrictions on bass lengths (fish typically have to be 2" to 3" longer than state limits), but I constantly see guys with fish that aren't even close to legal.
I encourage and support catch and release for all species in all bodies of water (though I except the fact that some harvest is necessary for the fish and good fishing). I really do not think anyone should take it farther than that. Inform new musky anglers, walleye anglers, bass anglers, et cetera about proper techniques and equipment needed to handle muskies. I know that has helped significantly on my home waters.
I would, however, support bumping up size restrictions. Even though I just noted that some people will still kill illegal fish, at least there is the chance those individuals will get fined and perhaps they will think twice if they are aware the fish is not legal. Not sure what limits are in MN, but I think a 45" or 50" limit should be set in all states that carry muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/4/2011 8:11 PM
horsehunter - 12/4/2011 7:43 PM
Most muskie fishermen release all now, most that are targeting other species are not equiped for speedy sucessful release and a percentage die. By proposing catch and release only you are giving amunition to groups like PETA and others that claim we are tormenting animals for merly our own gratification.
this site needs a spell checker...at least I do
I agree with horsehunter on this one. Don't get me wrong, I would love if everyone would practice catch and release, but I think making regulations will just be a stepping stone to further restrictions. Additionally, people that aren't regularly on the water would not have the knowledge of laws, and would likely not abide by them. I know of all kinds of lakes that have special restrictions on bass lengths (fish typically have to be 2" to 3" longer than state limits ), but I constantly see guys with fish that aren't even close to legal.
Do you constantly call law enforcement then? It is the anglers responsibility to know the laws of the water they are fishing on, regardless of the special restrictions. Saying, "Oh I didn't know" will still get you a ticket. |
|
| |
|
|
I would support C&R only on our native waters like Leech, Cass, Winnie, Little Boy, Wabedo, Etc.
Stocked lakes I think the 48" is good.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 718
| would... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3156
| theres a theory 'not mine' but only bring it up to be devils advocate ,,,that if you have something be only catch and release it gives groups like PETA a chance to play the 'abuse of wildlife' angle because your not using that wildlife for food anymore
also there is alot of opinions by non muskie anglers NOW that if muskies are always released then why keep stocking has many??? I hope we know hooking mortality is has low has we want to believe.
Edited by happy hooker 12/5/2011 6:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32923
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | May be tough to get the DNR to support, and definitely will be an issue with stocking 'politics'.
Ontario placed the size limit on trophy water at the upper confidence limit or close enough that harvest would be so close to zero it would be negligible, and the lions share of the fish caught that are large enough to harvest are still released. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 373
Location: Maine Township, MN | C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| 54 inch minimum on trophy lakes capable of producing fish of this size. Leech, Bemidji, Cass, Mil Lacs, Vermilion, etc. Rest of the state leave at 48 inch. Study lakes like Elk, etc leave as catch and release.
Curious as to manadorty catch and release on lakes like Lac Seul if it's made any difference in population or increased the size structure? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | sworrall - 12/5/2011 5:44 AM
May be tough to get the DNR to support, and definitely will be an issue with stocking 'politics'.
I think that we in MN know from the last couple years that DNR support means about as much as 3 squares of TP lately.
Right now with the current budget issues with the DNR fisheries there is ZERO money for any new projects. Translation: stocking new lakes is probably a no-go and there's a very real possibility the DNR may have to cut back in future years if the license increase doesn't pass. Knowing this what do we do as muskie anglers to mitigate this problem? C&R is one thing that has come up (C&R on native lakes should already be in place IMOP anyway). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 718
| I like Sworrall's idea bump it to 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | nocturnalmotors - 12/5/2011 6:45 AM
C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50".
This isn't possible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| 54" or 55" sounds good on the lakes that can realisticly put out a state record, and those waters with low-zero stocking. |
|
| |
|
| as others have said...having a 48" statewide is pretty good but going to something higher would be the next step...54" would be great and still allow the occasional true fish of a lifetime to be harvested...getting statewide C & R to go thru I think is not realistic |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3156
| for us in Minn we hear this all the time especially on outdoors radio shows,,,Muskies may not eat walleyes but they dominate the main lake structures pushing walleyes off and scattering them making them harder to catch.
in regards to Mile Lacs the muskies and the popular smallmouth are released and walleyes are kept which will change the balance of the lake.
total C&R gives the budget an excuse to raise and stock less muskies,,,I say NO to total release
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 360
| I would support in any state. |
|
| |
|
| Interesting question. My son is a senior in high school and attending a "government day" through high schools with legislators in MN. The "bill" he is bringing forward for discussion by students attending the event is to raise the size of muskie that can be kept in the state to 52 inches or better. Everything smaller would be a manditory release. While I like your idea of all catch and release even better, my son is suggesting a significant increase in manditory release. This is the "big issue" that he will be addressing at this state-wide event.
It only makes sense. The amount of money and time it takes to rasie a big muskie -- the effect bigger fish could have on tourism -- the opportunity more more people that fish to catch a trophy --- all good reasons to rasie the size limit or make all muskie fishing catch and release only.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 532
| I dont think a pure C&R would be feasable. How ever I dont live in MN but i would like to see in my state or any state for that matter to have a "Musky Stamp" The stamps revenue would go to increase stocking or keeping the fingurlings through the winter to have them get larger... things related to musky.
Also no one can legally keep a musky with out a musky stamp. So that way when a person chooses to keep a musky of legal size they have helped replace that fish by purchaseing the stamp.
As most people who are not musky fisherman who keep a musky are doing so to mount it. The taxidermist would have to ask to see a musky stamp, if there isnt one they would report it.
It isnt perfect but it is work in progress in my brain
Edited by anzomcik 12/5/2011 12:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | anzomcik - 12/5/2011 10:59 AM
I dont think a pure C&R would be feasable. How ever I dont live in MN but i would like to see in my state or any state for that matter to have a "Musky Stamp" The stamps revenue would go to increase stocking or keeping the fingurlings through the winter to have them get larger... things related to musky.
Also no one can legally keep a musky with out a musky stamp. So that way when a person chooses to keep a musky of legal size they have helped replace that fish by purchaseing the stamp.
As most people who are not musky fisherman who keep a musky are doing so to mount it. The taxidermist would have to ask to see a musky stamp, if there isnt one they would report it.
It isnt perfect but it is work in progress in my brain
If most musky anglers are already catch and release, who would buy the stamp? |
|
| |
|
| I think a statewide regulation of C&R only would be great, but I would want to allow the DNR to make exceptions for specific bodies of water (sort of like JS's suggestion). |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | who would buy the stamp Pointer? really? and you went to the same college as I did? I would think a good % of musky anglers would buy the stamp if they knew the money was going to stocking the waters they fish.....duh. dnr budgets getting cut is going to mean less stocking..so a stamp that would put more money into stocking makes sense.. I know I would buy one and have zero plans to thump a musky...
Edited by BNelson 12/5/2011 1:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | I would buy a stamp just incase a big one died on me,I was told by a taxidermist that if a fish were to be kept he still suggest a replica because it will look better,but will take a mold of the fish and make the replica from that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | smellie ... you went to point? never knew that.
tax-for-use by installing a stamp-fee = slippery slope. you might be surprised how much resistance you would get for that. how many people are hard-core musky fishermen vs. weekend warriors or generalists. that number is really important and although i'm sure you and many would do a bunch, i'm not interested in starting a stamp collection for pheasants, grouse, deer, muskies, smallies etc... plus in your life it's just you. start to multiply your "tax" to families and then consider the resistance you may get.
this one was debated pretty thoroughly in another thread relating to Wisconsin ... maybe look at it, or let's re-hash it. it was a dandy.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| I would buy the stamp. I actually do not understand why states do not already do this. All the great lakes states require salmon and trout stamps, as a way of supporting those fisheries, why not a musky stamp to support musky stocking? |
|
| |
|
| Unfortunately the administrative costs of our wonderful DNR beurocracy make stamps a break even situation.
The Walleye stamp that MN has lost money for 3 years in a row, and now is making some revenue.
If muskie anglers are willing to donate, than a donation to a Muskies Inc. club that funds stocking or muskie related projects is a much better donation as far as getting the money to where it needs to be spent.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I don't know that a stamp makes sense... It's great for fish that are typically harvested for the table, but how many folks are going to buy a stamp just in case? I buy the inland trout and GL salmon stamps because I just might wind up wanting to take some home. Unless a big muskie dies on me, I have no plans to harvest any muskies, so for me the stamp would be useless. I also think possession of the stamp might actually encourage harvest for some folks. "I caught this muskie, and I paid for the stamp, so I am going to keep it because I can." Think of the folks that regularly limit out and fill the freezer with fish because it's their "right"...
A muskie stamp might be good in theory, but the consequences of implementing it may just be worse than doing nothing at all.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32923
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Because the great lakes trout and salmon stamps support what is basically a put/take fishery where harvest is ENCOURAGED big time. I only buy one if I plan to go catch salmon and trout and kill them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I like the 54 inch limit proposal for the simple reason that a 54 inch minimum would allow people to keep a record class fish. If any state became catch and release only, then the state record wouldn't mean a thing and the chances of the world record becoming legit would be lessoned.
And just think of the controversy if MN was catch and release only and someone caught a 62x32 inch Muskie on a MN lake. If someone did catch a Muskie of that magnitude, I would like to see it kept and become the new world record - no matter where it was caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/5/2011 12:27 PM
Unfortunately the administrative costs of our wonderful DNR beurocracy make stamps a break even situation.
The Walleye stamp that MN has lost money for 3 years in a row, and now is making some revenue.
If muskie anglers are willing to donate, than a donation to a Muskies Inc. club that funds stocking or muskie related projects is a much better donation as far as getting the money to where it needs to be spent.
JS
Dang it John, stop making sense! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi everyone,
Not sure a "stamp" would solve the $$ problem, especially in this electronic world we live in. Requiring a stamp in and of itself has a cost, so the cost benefit of implementing a stamp program may not be in the best interest of anyone....
Now...(playing off of the idea here somewhat). States are already strapped for $$ as Treats mentioned. So...just like on a tax return, you can donate money to a wildlife fund out of your return, why not have that as an option when you purchase your license? Quick question at the counter, you state your amount and off it goes to stocking efforts (hopefully) Brainstorming here for a moment with this, in MN we already have to do a quick survey to purchase licensing for migratory waterfowl, so it could be a way to collect data as well.
Again, not sure of all the logistics that might go into something like this in terms of $$ allocation, but it could make it more available for stocking efforts. I also think it would not be that hard to have a muskie endorsement category on the license if one plans to fish muskies and make it a nominal fee. We buy the license already for the opportunity to fish as it is, which disregards catch and keep or catch and release...
Isn't that pretty much the same as the great lakes stamp? you need it in order to keep fish, but if you are out there running equipment to target those species would you not be cited if you didn't have the salmon and trout endorsements? hard to prove at times, yes...especially in the muskie world, but the endorsement could give the opportunity to keep one and help promote c + r...
I think many would pay a small amount for the opportunity to target these fish... With popularity still growing in the sport, the tax revenue base cannot handle the extra efforts needed to sustain the fisheries..
Steve
Edited by VMS 12/5/2011 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | because VMS in the world of Muskies there are the guys who do all the work and then the slackers and others (tribes and recreational fishermen) who ruin their efforts by treaty or by not being as smart/good/equipped (fill in the blank) and don't spend as much, work as hard or donate as much time as they do so they should either be restricted for their lack of effort or support ... or be forced to pay as much in commensurate moneys (stamp, fee fill in the blank) until those who know best are satisfied that it's enough for them to rightfully share the water and the fishing privaledge with them ... it's winter outside ... winternet is here and we'll learn all about it for the next 5-6 months. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | thats right,winternet is here,lets start another world record dispute,lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota |
Doesn't it still comes down to $$? I, by no means said a stamp or endorsement would be THE way to go...but I do see it as a possible option depending on the logistics and $$ required. It may be a break even situation as the walleye stamp...
As a question that I would be very curious of anyone in the know might have insight to: which freshwater species of fish in North America is the most expensive to stock and maintain?
If muskies happen to be at the top of that list, wouldn't it be a good thing to have the opportunity to somehow donate in a more efficient manner through licensing OPTIONS (regardless of how it is done...donation, stamp, endorsement, what have you) in the long run so long as the $$ raised go to stocking and expansion efforts?
Regardless...the $$ have to come from somewhere to support stocking efforts in the expanding world of muskie fishing..
Almost sounds like you're mad at me sled...
Edited by VMS 12/5/2011 5:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| John is like, 6 for 6 lately with throwing the red challenge flag.......
I'm not entirely sure of what you said, sled.......but I agree wid it... and it will always be that way.
Yes,....... I would support it.....and listen to options....
and I don't like the stamp idea, anymore. Or....garrantee to me that those dollars won't be used for some other project.....then I might consider it.
Edited by Jolly Roger 12/5/2011 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | jonnysled - 12/5/2011 11:15 AM
i'm not interested in starting a stamp collection for pheasants, grouse, deer, muskies, smallies etc... plus in your life it's just you.
The MN DNR has no interest in making stamps for every species of fish and game. It's just more work for them and by the time you figure out the cost to manage the stamp you're probably not going to net much of anything anyway.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | VMS - 12/5/2011 4:55 PM
Almost sounds like you're mad at me sled...
not at all ... it's a general theme when the stamp conversation comes up or especially when we rally support for asking to add more regulations to ourselves. i have conservative views and believe that stuff is a slippery slope.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'll give you that one...
Sad thing is, regulation is for those who don't abide, but yet those who do abide are the ones who see the restriction to it. Those who don't abide could care less..
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VMS - 12/5/2011 4:31 PM
I'll give you that one...
Sad thing is, regulation is for those who don't abide, but yet those who do abide are the ones who see the restriction to it. Those who don't abide could care less..
Steve
The Dude abides.
Sorry, that had to be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 559
| PP Dang I near peeed myself when I read that I would be for C andR only I have never kept one and hope I never have to |
|
| |
|
Posts: 532
| I know I am late to post a reply from my first post of a musky stamp. Originally my thought of the stamp was for people to specifically target the fish, and for those who think they may keep a fish to buy them.
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits) For me the freedom of going fishing when i want and knowing that at least those who do play by the rules are helping out with a sport I love. It would leave much less of a bad taste in my mouth when i see a large (or maybe not so large) fish kept from people who accidentaly caught one.
But I see where alot of people are coming from, you hope but not know the money is really going to the fish. Also I understand not wanting a stamp for every animal of fish you target. It was somthing I kept mullin over in my head when I am in the tree stand.
Edited by anzomcik 12/5/2011 6:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 85
| The problem is that it's not this "internet" group of dedicated muskie heads that are keeping fish, for the most part.
It's the other 90% of MN anglers that want a fish to "stuff" because they're simply not up to speed on the fisheries and apex predator balance, stocking, etc. and all other "winternet" points.
Generalizations here, but for the most part they are mostly valid:
1) First off, they don't know all the regs.
2) They can't properly identify a pike from a muskie.
3) They don't have a stick/board that goes to 50-54 or whater inch minimum.
4) Due to the lack of monies already mentioned, it's not enforceable.
5) Some out of muskie spite will say "F" it and still keep/kill.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ChinWhiskers - 12/5/2011 5:45 PM
C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50".
This is not catch and release only. You cannot have catch and release only, yet still be able to have 1 fish in possession as then it is not catch and release only. What you are describing is a statewide 50 inch limit, not catch and release only. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | anzomcik - 12/5/2011 4:16 PM
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits)
You may know a lot of people like that, but I run into SOOOO many muskie anglers that won't even buy a $2 raffle ticket where all the proceeds go to stocking their home lake it's amazing. Oh yeah, and they'd also be buying a chance to win a boat! I think that well over 1/2 the muskie anglers wouldn't buy it personally. |
|
| |
|
| I'd never keep one, so generally yes, I'd support total C&R. But Hooker has a point if a C&R reg led to less stocking then that's an issue. Conversely if budgets go to hell and stocking drops anyway, then I think we should push for C&R. (but muskie stocking is small change compared to walleye stocking - if budgets get real bad there probably needs to be greater restrictions on walleye harvest) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | Silver Scale - 12/5/2011 8:19 AM
54 inch minimum on trophy lakes capable of producing fish of this size. Leech, Bemidji, Cass, Mil Lacs, Vermilion, etc. Rest of the state leave at 48 inch. Study lakes like Elk, etc leave as catch and release.
Curious as to manadorty catch and release on lakes like Lac Seul if it's made any difference in population or increased the size structure?
I was thinking of Lac Seul as I read this as well. I would support catch and release only. Enough fish are killed by mishandling anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Howdy guys,
I am usually a lurker on here but wanted to throw in my 2 cents to this topic. 47 people have voted no and there has been 49 responses mostly in the I favor category. I would vote no and this is why.
Where I live we do not have Muskies that get very big so every year I go to Minnesota in search of my dream fish. The limit for a keeper I had set for myself is 54" and I have came close twice but had to release them for being short. When I go to Minnesota I drop a couple thousand dollars every year into the local economy in search of my dream fish. I probably have 8 to 10K spent so far in this quest and I really hope this fish dosn't cost me 30K LOL.
What I'm saying is that fish, when we hook up, I want that to be my fish that I've worked so hard for and scheduled my life around for all these years. I want it to have the same battle scars and the same markings and be the one I took on mano e mono. So If I ever get that 54+ I'm taking it. Anything smaller is going back. It's a one time thing and the way I see it I earned it. Some of you guys may not like that but that's my reason for voting No and i'm sticking to it, but if that ever happens I guess I will need to decide then.
A fifty would be nifty but a fifty four is four inches more!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Muskie Treats - 12/5/2011 6:26 PM
anzomcik - 12/5/2011 4:16 PM
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits)
You may know a lot of people like that, but I run into SOOOO many muskie anglers that won't even buy a $2 raffle ticket where all the proceeds go to stocking their home lake it's amazing. Oh yeah, and they'd also be buying a chance to win a boat! I think that well over 1/2 the muskie anglers wouldn't buy it personally.
I would agree completely. For all the people saying they would happily support a stamp, how many of them donate money to their local musky club or MI chapter? If everyone who claims they would pay for a musky stamp were to take that money and donate it to a club, I'd bet those clubs would have a lot of money. I know some do donate quite a bit of money and time to their clubs.
Honestly, if the stamp was 30, 40 or 50 dollars no one would buy that. Certainly not the average angler who doesn't target muskies and certainly not the die hard musky guy who isn't going to keep one anyway. |
|
| |
|
| For the record......the stamp that Roger Watters was working on was more of a "tag" and not so much stamp. It was a one per year deal.
For those stuck on picking apart the stamp/tag idea, you can certainly fish without harvest. Just because you buy it, doesn't mean you've got to keep a fish, or that you're necessarily going to. But if you do, you get one fish. Now, you get one a day above the size limit per day, and no money goes into replacing the fish other than what we rely on from the DNR and their existing monies. So what if someone feels entitled to kill A fish a year since they bought a stamp. Better than two a weekend 10 weekends out of the year.
Correlating the two stamps in conversation, or comparing and contrasting them, amounts to arguing for the sake of arguing, IMO. The fish, the fisheries, stocking numbers, monetary impact, numbers of anglers, on, and on, and on,......not to mention the mindset among those angling for trout/salmon vs muskies couldn't be farther from each other. |
|
| |
|
| I think that in order to musky fish certain waters, there could be a stamp or something along those lines. I fish GB most of the fall and would love to see the thousand of guys that go out there every year to target musky chip in and help the stocking efforts since there is almost no natural reproduction that occurs out there. I don't know if I think that people keeping musky is really the problem. I think its more along the lines of people not realizing that when they catch a musky they can't treat it like a channel cat. Three years ago on GB I saw dozens of people catching fish and posing for three of four pictures only to hand the fish to their buddies who also posed for pictures. They'd release the fish, keep on trolling, and the fish would pop up a minute or two later and go belly up. I'd need two hands to count the number of times I've had to pull in lines and try and revive these fish. When the waters warm it usually doesnt work. Now, I fully support a 54 inch size limit on trophy waters but I think better education is the key here. |
|
| |
|
| Why do you want to pay more money for a stamp? That's only going to drive up the cost of regular licenses and other fees. The Fish and Boat Commission, DNR, whatever isn't going to improve fishing. I buy annual licenses for three states, which total about $150. I don't need to pay more money, especially when I guarantee there will be no improvements on the water in any way.
I feel as though I'm paying enough between licenses, boat registration, trailer license fees, ramp fees, et cetera. Why should I have to pay more, and why would I want to?
What really bothers me is that people can use the lake for other purposes - picnicing, walking or riding their bike on (well-groomed) trails, using maintained bathrooms, et cetera for FREE. They don't pay a dime, nor are they constantly harassed.
The lake isn't being maintained, but their wood-chip trail is. Why do I have to break out my wallet to be on the water while others get to do their activities for free?
Winter sucks! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | If fish are properly handled and released stocking is usually not necessary the fish population will be self sustaining. Ontario closed its musky hatchery over 20 years ago and with the exception of The Lake Simcoe Project whoes aim is to reintroduce muskies into Lake Simcoe no stocking is done. The lake where I live and others nearby were last stocked in 1973 yet people from the Chicago area still drive 14 hours non stop to fish them. Musky fishing is as good as it has ever been.
However mandatory total catch and release could be the top of a slipery slope.
Edited by horsehunter 12/6/2011 8:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
Guest I don't know what State you are refering to, but in MN the fishery gets "helped" a lot by the DNR and our liscense money. Maybe you need to research that a little.
On a further note, all the things that you think people are doing free are paid for with State taxes. It's your choice to use a bathroom or go on a picnic just like everyone else.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | horsehunter - 12/6/2011 7:28 AM
If fish are properly handled and released stocking is usually not necessary the fish population will be self sustaining. Ontario closed its musky hatchery over 20 years ago and with the exception of The Lake Simcoe Project whoes aim is to reintroduce muskies into Lake Simcoe no stocking is done. The lake where I live and others nearby were last stocked in 1973 yet people from the Chicago area still drive 14 hours non stop to fish them. Musky fishing is as good as it has ever been.
However mandatory total catch and release could be the top of a slipery slope.
The ability to eliminate stocking and creating a self sustaining fishery may be true on the ontario waters where there may exist satisfactory spawning grounds for the fish to procreate...but...what about those states/areas where the fish have been stocked but spawning is not successful?
In therory, I would say you are correct, but I believe there are enough instances where that is not the case...thus the supplemental stocking (or full stocking in some cases) to help the fishery will always be needed or the population would die off.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
Location: deephaven mn | 54'' minnimum is what we need.
no need to keep a 54'' either, but t may save a few 52"s |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Too many unknowns to go there I feel. The one tag is a good way but it should be one tag for any musky. That someone like myself that release everything have a nice out if I would have a 38 incher or whatever size it is that I know is not going to make it. I I decide to use it on a 50 or bigger I can, I think this way you protect the fishery better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3156
| its sure gonna get lonely on our TC area Tiger lakes if we rely on natural repo  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | Now if you could get the Darkhouse Assn to end their Spear and Release Program on Bemidji and Plantan.
kevin cochran - 12/5/2011 2:50 AM
Catch and release regulations for the state of MN concerning muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Silver Scale - 12/5/2011 8:19 AM
54 inch minimum on trophy lakes capable of producing fish of this size. Leech, Bemidji, Cass, Mil Lacs, Vermilion, etc. Rest of the state leave at 48 inch. Study lakes like Elk, etc leave as catch and release.
Curious as to manadorty catch and release on lakes like Lac Seul if it's made any difference in population or increased the size structure?
It has been my understanding that in the 80's and early 90's trophy fish were being purged from Lac Seul at an alarming rate. I have been told the big fish numbers are getting closer to what they once were but it still is and always was a lower fish density lake...So the C&R policy seems like it has been pretty effective and at minimal not a negative in any way |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so what have we learned.... almost 27% of the respondents voted "no"....this site is a hardcore C&R site..so what that says to me is there is a snowballs chance in H*LL that it would get any traction statewide when you have all the other fishermen and sportsmen chiming in...not sure how it works in MN to get things passed but if this same vote happened in WI....well we all know what that outcome would be... |
|
| |
|
| kinda looks like a lot of the banter on this thread is coming from out of state fishermen anyway, wonder how many voted no? probably more people looking for something to hang on the wall coming from out of state than in state.
here in MN you don't really need a consensus anyway, just one lawmaker willing slide it in some bill where it doesn't belong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32923
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'probably more people looking for something to hang on the wall coming from out of state than in state.'
Why would that be? |
|
| |
|
| I look at the DNR budget, the possibility of getting new lakes, the increasing pressure on the existing lakes as well as the potential for new damaging legislation, the future fisherman. The budget is bleak, as well there are those that dont want to pay anything for their effort. The chance of getting 6 more lakes is about 10% with the present people deciding the priority's of the state, this was highlighted by the disregard for the Governors veto by the appointed official. Muskies and Pike are the lowest priority now.
The sport is steadily growing and MN and LSC seem to be the destination of choice for most anglers, so how do we balance the load against the available water. It seems Muskies have a cross-hair on their back, literally. Every Lake with the LL strain has the ability to produce fish over 55, and does. Is a 55 off Mille Lacs more important than a 55 off a 800 acre lake with as much or more pressure as the pond?
MN Muskie management is geared towards trophy fishing, with this you'll see fewer and fewer numbers lakes with the exception of some brood lakes. How do we sustain the fishery with the obstacles ahead? for the past 2 years the DNR has shown us no plans for new lakes or provided us with any answers for the questions we have. In the 80's and 90's they created what we have today and its starting to come up short. How do we prepare for the next generations? Or do we just let it go and see what happens? I dont believe in letting go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What does a resident full season fishing license cost in MN? WI? |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 12/8/2011 2:43 PM 'probably more people looking for something to hang on the wall coming from out of state than in state.' Why would that be? I think the thought is non-residents dont have a dog in the fight so they are more willing to take from another state. We hear about the gross over-limits of fish and game all the time; but it seems if that violator is from some other state it sticks with us. When we hear about the 54 I think it was last year that came off a popular lake and went to Wisco we tend to remember that and forget about the guy that took a 55 home because he's a local. Plenty of residents are whacking fish.
|
|
| |
|
| marine_1 - 12/7/2011 6:54 PM Now if you could get the Darkhouse Assn to end their Spear and Release Program on Bemidji and Plantan. kevin cochran - 12/5/2011 2:50 AM Catch and release regulations for the state of MN concerning muskies. Something tells me they aren't look to release them in the future. They want you to buy a tag to keep Muskies and Pike over 36. A dead fish is a dead fish and it doesn't matter how it died is the thought. Somebody said one legislator and their bill; they are right. It doesn't take anymore than that. There's allot of people that are looking to take these big fish besides little Timmy when he gets his first.
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 12/8/2011 2:43 PM
'probably more people looking for something to hang on the wall coming from out of state than in state.'
Why would that be?
simply because the release ethic in state seems to be a little above average compared to other places. i'm just curious if the survey would produce similar results among residents only. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 2:52 PM
What does a resident full season fishing license cost in MN? WI?
Only $17.00 in MN plus a buck or so to the vendor of the license.
and only $20.00 in WI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | short STRIKE - 12/8/2011 2:14 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 2:52 PM
What does a resident full season fishing license cost in MN? WI?
Only $17.00 in MN plus a buck or so to the vendor of the license.
and only $20.00 in WI.
Would MN and/or WI anglers support a license increase? $22 resident in MN and $25 in WI? |
|
| |
|
| Its not a matter of MN support, Lic increase is viewed as a tax(horrible). Its probably not going to happen till after 2012 election.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 3:19 PM
short STRIKE - 12/8/2011 2:14 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 2:52 PM
What does a resident full season fishing license cost in MN? WI?
Only $17.00 in MN plus a buck or so to the vendor of the license.
and only $20.00 in WI.
Would MN and/or WI anglers support a license increase? $22 resident in MN and $25 in WI?
just out of curiosity, since I've never had the opportunity to go there, what does a Res. license cost in Utah? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | short STRIKE - 12/8/2011 2:43 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 3:19 PM
short STRIKE - 12/8/2011 2:14 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 2:52 PM
What does a resident full season fishing license cost in MN? WI?
Only $17.00 in MN plus a buck or so to the vendor of the license.
and only $20.00 in WI.
Would MN and/or WI anglers support a license increase? $22 resident in MN and $25 in WI?
just out of curiosity, since I've never had the opportunity to go there, what does a Res. license cost in Utah?
I pay $30 for a combination Hunting and Fishing license. A second pole permit is $15. Just a singular fishing license is $26 (same for hunting). Tags for animals beyond small game are extra. All are valid for 365 days.
Many anglers here support a license fee increase, since there hasn't been one in several years. |
|
| |
Would you support?