|
|
| I think it should go to 48 inch size. What you guys feel?
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I believe the new 40" size limit goes into effect this season. Pretty sure that measure went through all the hoops. Got to take baby steps on size limits here. There is still a ton of resistance to higher size limits by non musky anglers and barstool biologists. Frankly reprinting that article doesn't do much to help in my opinion. Why the reporter gives as much credibility to an individual angler as a professional fisheries biologist is beyond me. Not a slam on Rich but why does one anglers opinion rate being the voice of public opinion.
Edited by Pete Stoltman 2/21/2012 7:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | On many waters in WI a 48" limit would effectively create a 100% catch and release fishery. Those waters then might not receive any stocking at all and offer no NR, and we'd lose some of our best action lakes. Waters with trophy potential have higher limits. Pelican, for example, is 50". |
|
| |
|
| Wouldn't a 48" limit effectively eliminate the taking of any male fish out of the water? Come on, you're not being reasonable. What about the guy who has to justify his time on the water to his wife? "What do you mean you let a 46" fish go"? "Are you out of your mind"? "We have to eat, buddy." "You better start bringing something back from your outings, or I'm calling an attorney."
Sure, 48" is reasonable for a few trophy lakes in a state. Or a big river. But very few fish are going to grow to that size. A 48" limit on all state or provincial waters is unreasonable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is a strange argument. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| What Steve said. When my wife wants a fish fry she requests me to go walleye fishing for a day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| If you "need to bring fish home to justify your time on the water", muskie fishing may not be for you. There are a lot easier fish to do that than muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe The Swan was speaking somewhat 'tongue in cheek'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Will your wife leave you if you go golfing and don't kill something and bring it home to eat?
Will Little Johnny get mad when his parents don't let him drive at age 12 and give up driving forever?
Edited by Flambeauski 2/21/2012 9:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| toothy or whoever else might get involved in this
has far has size of lake,,,, they point to the fact that Minnesota lakes are larger and that is why a higher size limit works because larger lakes grow bigger fish
but that argument carries no weight
the metro tourney has been won twice with 50 inch fish from a lake that is less then 200 acres
the current state tiger muskie record is from a lake less then 200 acres and the former record from a lake not much more then 400 acres
55 from a city lake last year
numerous 54's over the past few years from MPL's city lakes
the idea that only big lakes produce big fish is false and should be pointed out by the history of that here in Minn
what you need is some metro dnr or metro guides to come over and give some testimony
Edited by happy hooker 2/21/2012 9:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The size of the lakes isn't the issue. Water chemistry and forage is. Some of the stocked lakes here are as infertile and acidic as they can be and support fish life at all, and all fish grow very slowly. Bass in those lakes have an almost impossible task getting to 14", which is the legal size here. |
|
| |
|
| Some food for thought.....
http://www.idofishing.com/forum/showflat.php/Number/510010/fpart/1/... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | that's been discussed here in great detail. |
|
| |
|
| There are several million viewpoints, with many being valid. I wish that instead of changing the size length, the dnr would have looked at the forage base of many lakes. The majority of kept fish are caught by "non-musky" fisherman, which means they would have kept it whether it was 34 inches,40 inches,or 48 inches. What makes fish bigger is food. I feel that the 40 inch limit was formed in opposition to organizational fishing(tournaments,leagues,club outings,guiding). There are many examples of forage base/size of fish lakes. If you put a fish in a pool - he is not going to grow, if you put that same fish in a lake - he has opportunity to eat/grow/reproduce. Two fish species that have increased in the Northwoods - smallmouth bass and musky. Both catch/release driven not size length of kept fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | I think all of us have a skewed view of musky fishing and size limits because we fish these fish. We also understand that muskies have a negligable impact on other sport fish(walleye, bass, and panfish). Sure they eat some but far fewer than the normal fisherman does. However, the majority of fisherman do not specifically target muskies and many see them as a pest eating all the fish in the lake. Also, like others have pointed out, most muskies are kept by people who accidentally catch one. I dont know of anyone personally that targets muskies and keeps them anymore. When I tell people or show them pictures of fish I have caught, they can't believe I let them go(these are the people that keep them). I am all in favor of a higher size limit but I don't believe it will have a big impact on the number of fish kept. Also, I think it opens the door for more negative views towards muskies and more people illegally keeping them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20218
Location: oswego, il | I think the statewide 40 was a great step in the right direction. The only unfortunate part about it was that a bunch of lakes were bundled into a 28" limit to go along with it. The Greshams have no business with a 28"limit on those waters. Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
If your wife will divorce you for not bringing fish home to eat, just stop by a store and buy a box of ding dongs, ho-hos you will be fine.
Edited by ToddM 2/21/2012 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | "Also, I think it opens the door for more negative views towards muskies and more people illegally keeping them".
If lots of kids are drinking (booze) under age you don't lower the legal drinking age, you raise it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| There are small lakes in WI capable of producing fish of substantial size. There are also a great many others that simply are not fertile enough. No amount of catch and relase, increased size limits, or stocking of fish is ever going to make those lakes trophy fisheries. If all they have to eat are small perch and bluegills, you're never going to see the growth rates or the size potential that you see in other places. It's not really the size of the lakes as I understand it, it's the biomass that the lakes can support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Milwaukee, WI | ToddM - 2/21/2012 11:07 AM
Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
I agree with this. Each lake should be managed differently, or at the minimum, create several classes of lakes so that similar lakes are managed in a similar manner.
The major stumbling block is that this takes more time and more money. Neither of which are in abundance at this time. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM - 2/21/2012 11:07 AM
I think the statewide 40 was a great step in the right direction. The only unfortunate part about it was that a bunch of lakes were bundled into a 28" limit to go along with it. The Greshams have no business with a 28"limit on those waters. Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
If your wife will divorce you for not bringing fish home to eat, just stop by a store and buy a box of ding dongs, ho-hos you will be fine.[/QUOTE whats the size limit on ho-ho's? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | 40" statewide is a great step...as others have said imo 48" is not going to fly in WI in the near future....40" is great and just push for certain lakes/chains etc with potential of producing larger fish for higher size limits like our Cap City club did for the Madison chain (45" min size limit)..... |
|
| |
|
| Is this helpful for some questions?
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Muskylengthlimitfaq.pdf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | When it comes down to it a 48" limit is not that unreasonable. I live in MN and our entire state keep limit is 48" or bigger in some areas. When you catch a fish that is 46" inches in length you have to think of how long it took that fish to get there (depending on the lake of course) in some cases it can take 15 years or more. In my personal opinion a fish that has made it long enough to live 15 years deserves to stay in the water. Regardless of how many times it was caught. If you are bringing home fish to eat, why would you be going for the trophy fish in the first place, why not go for some smaller better eating fish, like small northern... pickled is one of my favorite things in the whole world... I could eat it every day!!! People want to trophy fish, to trophy fish. When you keep and kill even a 40" it makes it harder for the rest of us to enjoy our time on the water, makes it harder to catch fish. Eventually if something is not done, WI will lose a lot of the trophy lakes that you guys have. I only fish there once or twice a year, but if it started declining, I would feel sad about it. I love the fishing next door and I will continue to come and fish it as long as I know that there are plenty of trophy's to be had.
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| Flambeauski - 2/21/2012 9:13 AM
Will your wife leave you if you go golfing and don't kill something and bring it home to eat?
Lol! I almost just spit water all over my computer. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | FAT SKI, I think you make some good points but you clearly don't understand the process that is involved in raising size limits in WI....getting our statewide limit to 40" was a huge step...getting it to 48" would be nice yah, but it might not be realistic any time soon....there are many waters in WI that even if they had a 48" size limit fish over 48" would be few and far between... 40" is a huge step.... going to a statewide 48 in WI to me is not needed...pick and choose the waters that can and will produce higher percentages over 45" and do what it takes to get those waters to a higher size limit.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | This is gonna get good. I can already tell. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Bnelson, question: How much of WI's size problems are a direct result of sucker fishing and the mortality related to it? I personally think that a lot of lakes could be kicking out much bigger fish if it weren't for all the meat, and most especially single hook rigs.
If you look at all the lakes in MN, they all kick out 50's on a regular basis except one: Harriet. The only difference between Harriet and all the others of it's size is the fact that there's a TON of sucker fishing pressure. When we've gone out with the DNR in the spring we found several dead ski's. The one thing in common with them all is that they had sucker rigs still attached to them. I even had a friend snag some line with their bait, when they brought it up there was a muskie still attached!
Many of you are going to start flaming me on this and go right ahead. I've seen too much and had too many people tell me in confidence of the increased mortality that this style of fishing brings. This is the largest reason why I will fight multiple lines in MN until I die. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is precious little single hook sucker fishing where I fish in WI, in fact almost none. Most are very conscious of quick strike rigs, and many of the 'action' lakes see little if ANY pressure in the Fall, when suckers are used the most.
The Chip had been hit hard over the years, and other Hayward area waters as well, but that also is declining fast. Native American Treaty rights have a stronger impact, and unregulated/unaccounted for winter spearing wreaks havoc on lakes like Crescent locally...a lake that has the right stuff to kick out big fish.
It's water chemistry and forage and size limits that have just recently been increased on many waters to trophy or near trophy and recent changes that see a change from 50% or less average release rates for all muskies to near 100%. Now it's your turn to watch the 'slaughter' by the uneducated of legal fish no matter what your size limit is until it reaches the point where it's actually forced CRR, albeit lessened by limited waters and a more enlightened coming of age...for obvious reasons.
I actually was attending Nicolet in 1980 and helped a bit when Dr. Mora Gauge did the initial acidity studies on many of the lakes that are quite sterile and as a result; poor water for growing anything near a trophy. Put and take action water describes the motivation for the DNR to stock those lakes, and now with C&R so popular, they are at risk of not getting any stocking in the future and becoming pretty much barren little tiny panfish lakes, especially with the changes in what the Muskie angler wants out of the sport and the selling off of too many resorts on these little lakes when property prices hit record highs a decade ago.... and failure of more resorts when muskie anglers quit showing up to fish for 40" muskies and walleye anglers quit coming up because the limit is now 1 over 14" and one under. Hence the message to be careful what one asks for, if one values ALL the WI muskie waters we have now. No money for stocking doesn't help, either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if i were from Illinois i'd make my plans to fish Detroit Lakes, Bemidji and St. Clair (all of those lakes kick out 50's easily) ... no way would i waste my time in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a size problem. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Maybe WI should reduce the number of muskie lakes it manages and concentrate on bodies of water that have potential and chemistry to produce larger fish. Most MN waters have the potential to produce a 50+ on any cast of the day, be they large or small waters. I won't travel to fish WI waters until I have some level of confidence in producing "possible" results. A limited few waters might interest me and qualify now, there could be more though. If I want to catch sub-40in esox I'll just go pike fishing here in MN. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Just wait.
The inevitable decline in the MN trophy fishery has already begun due to what is referred to as 'new reservoir' syndrome, intense fishing pressure/angling related mortality, and trophy harvest by the folks who might not share our self righteous beliefs. The reasons that will occur were discussed in great detail over the last few years in the Research Forum... and that was before the Muskie zone DNRs went near bust due to the recession. Only hope is to protect those waters with a size limit that basically forces C&R and restock them when needed so missing year classes are a not problem if NR drops off because of habitat degradation or just a bad year.
Many waters in WI are intentionally managed as action/no NR waters and if the interest in fishing them drops enough, the stocking will stop entirely, the fish will die off, and a muskie lake goes 'poof'.
With almost no pressure at all, many of these waters won't grow what you consider big muskies...ever.
I'll miss those little sterile stocked gems, where 5 to 10 fish evenings were not unheard of. I actually enjoy fishing those action waters catching multiple fish during the trip while trying to catch the biggest muskie there...probably no bigger than mid 40" class and one out of a hundred or more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| jonnysled - 2/21/2012 6:42 PM
if i were from Illinois i'd make my plans to fish Detroit Lakes, Bemidji and St. Clair (all of those lakes kick out 50's easily) ... no way would i waste my time in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a size problem.
I wouldn't call it a problem, as the word "problem" indicates that it is something that can be fixed. You can't fix water chemistry. You can't fix lack of a suitable forage base. You can't fix a lake ecosystem that will not support even a low-density population of trophy muskies. Not ALL the lakes are like that, but a great many of them are, and will never produce 50" muskies on a regular basis no matter what sort of management strategies you implement. You could outlaw fishing all together on some of the muskie lakes in Vilas County, and 20 years down the road, you'll still be lucky to see a 45" fish there.
|
|
| |
|
| You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Guest - 2/21/2012 7:27 PM
You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please.
Finally, some one who hit it out of the Park ,....Oh you fibs can come here any time you want,.........Lol. Wis. that is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Odd sense of humor, there. Not surprising. Muskie fishermen..... |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Shawn/MuskieTreats....some people that fish in MN a lot might argue this list of lakes doesn't exactly kick out 50s on a "regular basis":
Beers in Maplewood State Park
Little Wolf
Big
Lobster
Mantrap
Shaminau
Alexander
heck maybe even Cass in the mix
I don't think the fact we on average have smaller fish or less "big" fish, say fish over 48 on most lakes is from sucker fishing...or single hook rigs... quite simply some of our lakes will never kick out the numbers of 50s your lakes do no matter the size limit... sucker fishing when done correctly with quick strikes imo doesn't hurt a lake...now of course the key thing there is you don't have a bunch of newbies out there that have no clue what they are doing only to wait too long etc / poor handling practices etc...
WI will never kick out the 50s MN does imo no matter what is done w the size limit in the state...going to 40 will help, going to higher size limits on certain bodies of water helps even more.... some lakes just simply are never going to kick out 50s ...
having spent lots of hours in both MN and WI over the last 10 yrs I've been able to see and experience a lot of things .... I don't care who you are, Musky Magician or not you are simply going to spend 5 to 10 times (or more) the hours in WI to catch fish over 50"...(inland waters only)
are there big fish in WI...sure are...but it will take you a ton more time to put them in the net over the course of a season ...thats a simple fact. fun to fish both tho, they are just different..
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Top H2O - 2/21/2012 8:37 PM
Guest - 2/21/2012 7:27 PM
You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please.
Finally, some one who hit it out of the Park ,....Oh you fibs can come here any time you want,.........Lol. Wis. that is.
Funny how you guys complain so much, when a lot of you would go bankrupt without the money we spend up there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| I have to agree with Worral and Nelson on this...some lakes simply will not be trophy lakes due to bio-mass and water conditions no matter what the harvest rate.
Size limits can and obviously do work...but they are not a "cure all".
I fish Wisconsin and Minnesota and I fish them both for different reasons. There is much more to muskie fishing than just catching 50" fish (and let's just say I have caught my fair share). Sure we all want to catch big fish or we probably wouldn't be muskie fishermen, but you can't ignore the fact that there is much more to the experience most of the time when you go muskie fishing than just catching a 50"er.
Some of the prettiest muskies I have ever seen have come out of WI waters and I find these fish highly desireable regardless of the size.
To each their own...but I guess I don't neccesarily think WI waters are "broken".
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I also agree with Nelson. Also the strains of muskies are TOTALLY different. Leech Lake muskys grow big and fast in a hurry, they hit 50" at less then 15 years. Some of our Wisconsin strains will take 20 to 30 years to hit 50" and that is if there are in the right bodies of water. 40" is a huge step for WI and I commend the efforts of all the musky clubs and all the folks that actually went out to the conservation congress hearings to vote this in!! Hopefully in the future we can get a few more of the right lakes that can produce big fish a higher size limit.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | how fitting...recieved an email a few minutes ago with pictures of an Indian who speared muskies on Lac Courte Oreilles in WI that was posting (bragging) about the 15 muskies he's speared in the last week or 2 on Facebook, two at 40 lbs and one at 38 with a mix of others...ouch. here is one of them
well within his rights I believe .??...yet another reason why WI doesn't have the big fish MN does
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 10:58 AM
Attachments
----------------
 big fish.jpg (115KB - 3365 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | What a shame |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good fish. Congrats to him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| This is an interesting observation that I will throw out there. Some of the biggest muskies I have seen by weight (live and pics) have been WI strain fish from Mille Lacs. I personally believe this strain grows significantly heavier than ther faster growing Minnesota Mississippi strain and I would like to see that strain introduced into Mille Lacs again in the future even thought that will probably never happen due to VHS.
MN might grow em long...but WI knows how to grow em fat!!
Brett Waldera
Edited by Brett Waldera 2/22/2012 11:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Bnelson -
One of the reasons I am on this website is so I can better understand things like this. I am decently new to the muskie world. Have been in it for about 3 years now. I still have quite a lot to learn about the whole process. Your right I have no idea about the WI size limits as I do not live there and don't pay as much attention as I do for my own state, however that does not mean that i am not extremely interested. Every day i become more and more obsessed with the sport and would like to get as much information packed into my brain as possible. I talk to a couple guys who do a lot of WI fishing for Skis. I thought the 40" limit was installed last year and took part last year. Maybe if your willing you would be able to shed a little light on this for me, nothing long and drawn out, but I would like to further understand the process.
Thanks! hope to hear soon
|
|
| |
|
| Lac Courte Oreilles really puts out some monsters. That one looks bigger than the one Cal Johnson pulled out of there back in 1949. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | I think the reason for the 40" limit is so the females have at least one spawn before they can be harvested. |
|
| |
|
|
Brad I think your pic actually proves WI does have the big fish, but I know what you mean.
Comparing MN and WI is the old cliche, apples to oranges in many respects.
Different lake types, different genetics, different angling communities and philosophies.
One will never be the other, and I think that is a good thing.
JS |
|
| |
|
| "MN might grow em long...but WI knows how to grow em fat!!"
Lac Courte Oreilles does both. Just visit the Moccasin Bar if you're ever in the Hayward area and see for yourself.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe muskies mature around 5 years old and 35" or so, and spawn successfully from that point forward. The idea of the 40" limit is to make sure a decent number of fish make it to 40" before harvesting takes place. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 2/22/2012 9:57 AM
Funny how you guys complain so much, when a lot of you would go bankrupt without the money we spend up there.
i love that one ...
lol |
|
| |
|
| What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| MuskyBudda - 2/22/2012 6:21 PM
What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents.
I wonder if making people buy a muskie stamp would actually encourage harvest. "I paid $20 for this stamp, I caught a muskie, and now I am going to keep it!"... It's like the salmon/trout stamp. There is nothing that says you can't fish for them, or catch them. The stamp just allows you to kill them and eat them.
My initial reaction is that it's just going to be an additional expense for muskie anglers, most of whom release all their fish anyway, and a good excuse for everyone else to harvest fish because they paid extra for the priveledge of doing so.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Bnelson - of the MN lakes you listed, there are many more 50's being caught than 50's being "reported" caught on those waters. There are some real gems on your list but I'm not going to say which ones.
I do support the increase to 40in in WI and likewise the lake specific ones that are even longer than 40. I wish the best of luck to all the WI anglers and hope they enjoy catching those fish. I enjoy the lake experience as much as the next person and fishing is not all about the catching for sure.
Steve - I likewise enjoy the pursuit of trying to catch the biggest fish in the lakes I get to enjoy, just so happens that those fish may be 57 to approaching 60in vs maybe mid 40's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
Location: Mpls., MN. | This is why Mn. is doing better with muskies then Wis. Newer open minded sport fishing (CPR) to old way of harvesting a fish with no sport in mind. If you kill something it can not reproduce naturally. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's a crock. The release rate here is in the 90's percentage wise now and has been for nearly as long as MN has had trophy muskies widely available.
Thrax,
Your waters are completely different than ours here.
You are fishing a body of water my business partner Zach worked on before there were any muskies there at all. Pretty new fishery that fortunately for the folks who live on it or fish it regularly, is HUGE by comparison to anything over here, and yet definitely one that's being effected by the pressure.
We have hundreds of Muskie lakes over here, but still have WAY fewer inland lake surface muskie water acres by a large margin than MN.
Many of our muskie waters have never seen NR, and are muskie lakes only because of stocking. Those lakes will never grow a trophy for the reasons I and others who know these waters stated above. Sure, we have some good water around here, and some of us have been working hard over the years to get them protected because they are very small, and as is the fact over here, are very low density Muskie waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | esoxaddict - 2/22/2012 6:28 PM MuskyBudda - 2/22/2012 6:21 PM What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents. I wonder if making people buy a muskie stamp would actually encourage harvest. "I paid $20 for this stamp, I caught a muskie, and now I am going to keep it!"... It's like the salmon/trout stamp. There is nothing that says you can't fish for them, or catch them. The stamp just allows you to kill them and eat them. My initial reaction is that it's just going to be an additional expense for muskie anglers, most of whom release all their fish anyway, and a good excuse for everyone else to harvest fish because they paid extra for the priveledge of doing so. It's funny you mention this because the exact same thing came to mind when Scott Kieper mentioned this in his seminar at the Milwaukee Musky Show. He briefly touched on this and I can't say for sure why the DNR wouldn't entertain this idea.
I would certainly do whatever it is that I can do to help (within reason) to assist with obtain viable size limits and helping the fish population, genetics, etc, etc... I think the musky stamp idea could prove to be a great process. Or I suppose as mentioned above, it could backfire. I would hope if you're coughing up the cash to buy a stamp specifically to target musky, you're not going go out of your way to keep the fish if caught by the angler. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | lpmusky - 2/22/2012 6:42 PM
This is why Mn. is doing better with muskies then Wis. Newer open minded sport fishing (CPR) to old way of harvesting a fish with no sport in mind. If you kill something it can not reproduce naturally.
ummm ....
and, i'd like to argue that this is well within the posting limits. it's not a bash or personal attack, it's merely the re-statement of what he's already claiming.
|
|
| |
|
| I think it would be interesting to see of all who have posted on this thread...who were muskie fishing MN in the 80's. It was a whole different world back then...and I see so many new muskie fishermen on these forums bragging about MN who really have no clue how far the state has come in 25 years.
MN is a phenomenal fishery thanks to the hard work of the MNDNR, Muskie Inc, and many muskie enthusists...but lets not forget it wasn't always this way.
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Come on Sled...might be a fact within the context of the debate, but still can't say it here. Don't need the catfight that would inevitably ensue.
Brett has a good point which I will expand upon a bit...self righteousness is a little easier when you and the waters you fish are literally born into the CRR generation. I remember this picture of Muskies caught on Leech I saw once, though...thank goodness for MI.
I remember clearly when a 45" fish on Mille Lacs was a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | For me i fish muskies for the fun not food so for me musky should be a catch and release only fish. my biggest fish is a 50x26 took a pic let it go and and went back to fishing looking for a bigger one here in minnesota the only time ive heard of any one keeping a musky is when it did not make it for one reason or another. let them go so they can grow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i learn so much from the Minnesota elite ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | BNelson - 2/22/2012 7:46 AM
Shawn/MuskieTreats....some people that fish in MN a lot might argue this list of lakes doesn't exactly kick out 50s on a "regular basis":
Beers in Maplewood State Park
Little Wolf
Big
Lobster
Mantrap
Shaminau
Alexander
heck maybe even Cass in the mix
Ummmmm, with exception of Mantrap I know of plenty of 50's caught in all those except Beer (don't know anyone who fishes it). Mantrap is still developing but I have first hand experience in 50" encounters and know of a verified 57"er caught out of there last year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I remember when the best musky fishery in Minnesota was Bone Lake. Deer was a close second. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | The MN lakes that Brad used may not produce 50s like the other trophy lakes in MN but they are there. Average female length on Cass sampled last year was 48, biggest was 54. It takes 12 years for a fish to reach 50in in Cass. Big has lots of nice fish but dont expect your truck to be at the access when you get back. Mantrap has giant fish as well.
Like Steve stated WI fish and MN fish are very different and cant be compared. Growth rates, size struture, forage base, stocking, native spearing, oh yeah and the strain of fish. He also hinted at the fact that catch and the release ethic was already established in MN before the fish were even trophy size. I think this has more merrit than how the fish is caught (quickstrike rigs). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Moltisanti - 2/22/2012 7:45 PM
I remember when the best musky fishery in Minnesota was Bone Lake. Deer was a close second.
when was that?
Hudson thinks they're the best wrestling team in Wisconsin too ... until they run into Wausau West. the state is bigger than what you can drive to from Hudson Molti ...
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so you haven't caught one on Mantrap over 50 ? just "encounters".... ?
regardless, "regular basis" is up to interpretion I guess...some get a 50 in the net every 20 or so hours on the water, some 50, some every 100, some every 200 hrs..what's "regular"?.... or there is how many fish in the net for every 50 incher...some lakes might avg a 50 for every 5 in the net, some it might be 10, some 20....again "regular basis" might mean a lot of things to a lot of different ppl....
just because "they are there" doesn't mean guys are catching them either...Kevin you fish Cass..any 50s last season ? how about Big? Little Wolf? any over 50? you know what I mean...not exactly regular basis ...yah, guys can say some lakes are loaded with 50s...then you ask them how many they have actually put in the net for the # of hours they have fished the lake and then you get "the rest of the story".... ; )
WI waters will never be like MN ...regardless of size limits...just not gonna happen...and that's fine..both are fun to fish...like Brett said, some of the prettiest fish are WI fish...I think he's won his Muskies Inc clubs Lunker of the Month the last 2 years in May...with a WI fish! ; )
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 8:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Brad ... i'm pretty sure that Kevin was purely focused on fishin big pike when he was on Cass |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Sled- I think you missed something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Yeah Brad we got 50s last year from lakes that you wouldnt call "trophy" lakes. First two came last year came from lakes that arent thought of as trophy waters.
No doubt WI has some beautiful fish. Wish they would stock a few lakes in the state with WI fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Yes Sled only after the big pike. Red Eyes and Dr. Spoons were hot last year.
Edited by kevin cochran 2/22/2012 8:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | post some pictures of your big pike sometime kevin ... we get some pretty good ones over here in Wisco too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Maybe Brett is the only one to fish in Wi. in May from his (Fargo) Club
I go to Cave Run in March and April ( for the last 8 yrs) and have caught fish that are much bigger than anyone in the MI. club in Mpls.(except last yr.) So what? Big deal.
I don't turn in my catches for some obvious reasons.
What does the Lunker of the month prove anyway?
Well, I hope that size limits do improve muskie fishing everywhere. and yes Wi. fish are sweet to look at,.....But so are these 55 inchers .
Edited by Top H2O 2/22/2012 8:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | got a nice one from Cass on my facebook page. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Weeeeellll anyway, Wisconsin has a new statewide limit (sort of, some lakes will never be anything but put and take and will 'never' carry a large size limit), many of us 'Sconnies are and have been working on new limits on our lakes and rivers with the potential to kick out the big girls while our DNR begins a new era ( a decade into the process already, for you detractors who are uninformed) of low density/big girls population management for the big fish waters with NR. There's been a study underway here for over a decade that limited or stopped stocking entirely on high trophy potential WI waters that might show NR. Good for lower density, and bigger fish, bad for numbers and on some lakes, bad for both, but it's necessary to find out. Dr. Sloss's work has redefined our DNR's strategies for diversity, and proven that the genetics here are what they have been despite the 'concern' over stocking records. Wisconsin muskies do grow big, and are heavy when they get there, but grow a bit slower...even in MN waters. Nothing wrong with the genetics, in fact the MN DNR liked 'em fine back in the day but liked the local supply of Spots better and both performed well, which in retrospect with VHS and all, has worked out. Muskie stamps are too expensive to administer and would be counterproductive from a financial standpoint, and would never make it past the CC anyhow, and harvest isn't the issue it was in the 80's to early 90's here (or in MN where there WERE Muskies back then)....and new MN fishery came of age and a new generation of muskie fishermen came with it who have the decided advantage of fishing new muskie waters for the first couple generations of muskies as they reach the upper confidence level there so they catch big fish .......and every time we have a discussion about Wisconsin's long history and the management strategies over the decades the same batch of folks over there inevitably try to hijack the thread.
Been that way since we opened this place.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| throw leechers in a mudhole in southern MN and 12 years later multiple 50" fish.....wish we could stock some leechers in IA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you catch big pike in the weeds with spoons and red-eyes? i've always found the big ones to be deep in the colder water best approached with jigs or better yet through the ice. but, you're the pike guy i guess. i'm sure you catch lots of em each year ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'throw leechers in a mudhole in southern MN and 12 years later multiple 50" fish.....wish we could stock some leechers in IA.'
There's a clear statement of a total lack of understanding of the biology of the fish and the ecosystems in which they live. My advice is to contact your fisheries manager and go visit. Scientists have a way of clearing up misconceptions pretty quickly if you can pin 'em down for a conversation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| understand perfectly and have tried we even had the money raised.............. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The reality is, the 40" limit was/is a huge step statewide, with more work to be/being done on a lake by lake basis. 40" wasn't just a number that was picked out of a hat, and was a great compromise, as mentioned above. That said, there are plenty of trophy lakes in WI big and small, producing 50" fish each and every year, that could be producing more with proper protection/education. Will they ever be as abundant as on some MN waters? Gosh no, and why I also fish MN. Who doesn't like big dumb fish. However, at least on a couple of my favorite MN waters, I think I've seen the 'best' of what I might expect. While Multiple 50" trips were the norm for many just a few short years ago, seeing nary another soul chuckin plugs, it isn't a given on as many lakes over there anymore. Of course there are plenty of MN waters still producing like that and peaking as we speak, but as mentioned above, there are alot of factors at play as to whether they'll have staying power.
While some will tongue in cheek turn this into a WI vs MN thread, others will be working on writing the next set of advisory questions for the hearings, to further protect some of our favorite trophy lakes here in WI. And, as Steve mentions, the DNR has been taking steps for years now, to privide some of the trophy/NR waters the ability to manage themselves. Some of you, like myself, are aware of local dynamics and individual trophy potentials re: the waters you fish. If there is a lake that you feel needs further protection, based on historical production, harvest culture, creel data, personal observations, etc, by all means make an effort to make a change for the better. The good(and bad) thing about WI is that you CAN do it. And while there are still some glaring examples of lakes that I'd love to see the size limit increased on, many of the historical trophy waters of WI are being protected by higher limits now(45" and 50" waters are no longer as much the exception in WI).
There are alot of lakes that really took a beating when the limit was 34" and I'm certain that the 40" limit is going to open the eyes of many who were once opposed to higher limits on their local bodies. While detrimental to some bodies, it could be a springboard for others to realize potential. Besides, many of the very kids named little 'johnny' that many once thought would be the ones slighted by higher limits, are the ones praising the protection that many trophy waters receive, and the statewide 40" provides.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/22/2012 9:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | jonnysled - 2/22/2012 8:49 PM
you catch big pike in the weeds with spoons and red-eyes? i've always found the big ones to be deep in the colder water best approached with jigs or better yet through the ice. but, you're the pike guy i guess. i'm sure you catch lots of em each year ...
We are using downriggers Sled. Ever get that email of the one pike that tried to eat the other pike? That was caught on a red-eye off a downrigger on Cass. Dont tell anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you fish em through the ice? ...
i think i got the rainy lake pike picture ...
Edited by jonnysled 2/22/2012 9:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ice? Who in their right mind would fish through a hole in the ice? That's just crazy. |
|
| |
|
|
Beers has had 50's caught in it. Rare fish there, but they have been there.
Mantrap is not just developing, it's been stocked since the early 80's if I'm not mistaken. Jerry Younk once said he felt that lake would produce the next MN record.
To my knowledge, every lake that is currently still being stocked in MN has had a 50"er caught or netted in it.
For what it's worth, I seriously doubt that sucker fishing is any more of a muskie killer than any other tactic in MN. All lures can kill fish, and suckers are the least used of any by anglers for 90% of the season, and even in the fall most guys don't use them in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Guest - 2/22/2012 9:49 PM
To my knowledge, every lake that is currently still being stocked in MN has had a 50"er caught or netted in it.
JS
Agreed, Fox is a mudhole - nothing special about that lakes ecosystem or size and it pumps out fish into the mid-50" range...leechers simply get long. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Is it fertile and highly buffered? Sounds like it. What do you know about the water chemistry there?
I bet it's not acidic and sterile. Put those fish in Spider in Oneida County and they'd not get much over 44"...ever. Bass top out there at about 13". Same strain in Pelican hits 25" and over 8#, a giant bigmouth for the North. And yes, Spider is a stocked Muskie lake and I enjoy fishing it because it's little, full of fish, and a great place to fish on a blasting cold front. Water there is coffee colored and very acidic. Vegetation ends in about 4' due to crap light penetration. I've had 9 fish days there, but the average is probably 35".
Wisconsin has some very infertile waters. Not Bay of Green Bay, though, walleyes there get big and get big pretty fast, on Pelican they top out later and smaller, and on Spider they don't reproduce or grow for squat. And there it is.
You need to study what the MN DNR discovered about the performance of the Wi strain. Those fish performed very well long term (important part of looking in to this, no bias) and grew about as long as the Leech fish did, just took a bit longer to get there, and are openly recognized as being heavier at upper confidence. Put 'spots' in George a mile from my house, and long term they'd get big, just like the Wisco fish in there now. I'd love that, but they will have to come from WI waters...now a possibility perhaps in the future.
The WI strain fish in Mille Lax did pretty well, too.
It ain't just 'the fish'. No magic bullet.
Look at Ohio strain fish and what they can do.
And I'll say it again, this is about the new size limit in WISCONSIN. Go the the research board, REAMS of discussion on the 'it's the fish' dead debate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | BNelson - 2/22/2012 6:08 PM
so you haven't caught one on Mantrap over 50 ? just "encounters".... ?
regardless, "regular basis" is up to interpretion I guess...some get a 50 in the net every 20 or so hours on the water, some 50, some every 100, some every 200 hrs..what's "regular"?.... or there is how many fish in the net for every 50 incher...some lakes might avg a 50 for every 5 in the net, some it might be 10, some 20....again "regular basis" might mean a lot of things to a lot of different ppl....
just because "they are there" doesn't mean guys are catching them either...Kevin you fish Cass..any 50s last season ? how about Big? Little Wolf? any over 50? you know what I mean...not exactly regular basis ...yah, guys can say some lakes are loaded with 50s...then you ask them how many they have actually put in the net for the # of hours they have fished the lake and then you get "the rest of the story".... ; )
WI waters will never be like MN ...regardless of size limits...just not gonna happen...and that's fine..both are fun to fish...like Brett said, some of the prettiest fish are WI fish...I think he's won his Muskies Inc clubs Lunker of the Month the last 2 years in May...with a WI fish! ; )
Considering that I've only fished Manny for about 15 hours total I think it's pretty good.
Truth be told, the best ratio of adult muskies over 50 will rarely be more then 10% of the population at best and usually in the 5% range. At the end of the day, if they aren't there people will never catch them. So the more we act to protect and enhance the better chance we'll all have of getting one. |
|
| |
|
|
I don't think anyone has ever claimed putting Leech lake fish in every lake in WI will give you 50"ers.
But every lake in WI isn't acidic and infetile. There are plenty of waters that are just as capable as anything in MN to put out big fish. Maybe concentrating on why those big fish aren't there instead of making excuses for why big fish are in MN would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure where the figure of 90% of muskies are released in WI comes from, but the stories I've heard and read would not support that at all. Maybe among hard core Muskie anglers, but not among the majority of anglers in WI.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| I'll 'm not sure where the figure of 90% of muskies are released in WI comes from, but the stories I've heard and read would not support that at all. Maybe among hard core Muskie anglers, but not among the majority of anglers in WI
The "stories" you've heard, J.S.? Come on. The 90% number comes from creel surveys and research and its actually higher than that among average fishermen. Among dedicated muskie fishermen its over 99%. The dirty little secret no one wants to admit is that this is the same in MN...people are people everywhere. We've all seen the wall at the Emmaville store (or many other bait shops near muskie lakes). The biggest difference in harvest is size limits, not some distinction in the character of fishermen. Which is exactly why raising the limit to 40" is so important. MN's limit was 40" until VERY recently and fish were harvested all the time...grandmas on Mille Lacs ate pretty well. |
|
| |
|
|
Creel surveys and research of muskie release rates are estimates at best. People also like to lie to the DNR about what they catch. That's a fact.
If 90% of the muskies in WI are released, than the rest must be transported into space up to starship enterprise.
In MN the limits were raised again, because not as many fish are released as people like to think.
If you are saying you don't need higher limits because your release rates are so high, then you either need to teach people how to handle fish better, or you need to do some serious stocking in lakes that should have higher populations and more big fish in them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if only we could be as good at it as the guys in Minnesota ... please teach us JS. we're just a bunch of lying meat-hunters.
another Wisconsin expert |
|
| |
|
| As is common sled, you miss the point and feel the need to be an antagonist.
I never claimed you guys don't know how to release. I'm just saying if your release rates are actually that high, then there is obvioulsy another problem.
What is it? Is it poor releasing? Is it not having a successful stocking program?
Are a lot more fish being killed than people know about or want to admit?
Why are lakes that should have good numbers of fish that can get big not showing that?
If all you want to do is pick a fight with someone that is interested in knowing why 2+2 doesn't add up to 4 in WI than I'm out of here.
If you can actually use your intelligence to contribute to a meaningful conversation that would be a nice change.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | can you grow the same tomato in Le Sueur as you can in Waupaca?
edit:
why don't we ever talk about stocking food??
Edited by jonnysled 2/23/2012 7:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | reality - 2/23/2012 4:54 AM
The "stories" you've heard, J.S.? Come on. The 90% number comes from creel surveys and research and its actually higher than that among average fishermen. Among dedicated muskie fishermen its over 99%. The dirty little secret no one wants to admit is that this is the same in MN...people are people everywhere. We've all seen the wall at the Emmaville store (or many other bait shops near muskie lakes). The biggest difference in harvest is size limits, not some distinction in the character of fishermen. Which is exactly why raising the limit to 40" is so important. MN's limit was 40" until VERY recently and fish were harvested all the time...grandmas on Mille Lacs ate pretty well.
A 90% overall release rate is too low to maintain a trophy muskie fishery. At that rate plus the rate of delayed mortality plus natural mortality and you probably would have a 20% mortality rate annually in many lakes with high pressure. I know in the metro here where we C&R each fish several times a year (by the numbers) the fishery would be unsustainable for anything over the length limit. So if the overall harvest rate truly is 10% then I see the problem for the lakes that have potential.
Yes, some lakes like Wild Cat and others are never going to produce big fish, but there are MANY waters in WI that have great forage. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| Jerome...I can't help but feel called to the carpet in your post. I had no intent of turning this thread into a weiner measuring contest about my catches...so you win. Please see I wasn't the one who posted the information that you felt compelled to challenge.
Hear is my point on size limits and I would hope this will make some sense to my fellow MN anglers. Why do we not have a 48" size limit on Shoepak Lake?
As stated, there is not doubt it is effective on specific waters and I highly support the higher size limit regs... but it is not a "cure all".
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
| A 90% overall release rate is too low to maintain a trophy muskie fishery. the overall release rate in Wisconsin is much higher than that, i think you're misreading the numbers. most muskies are caught be dedicated muskie fishermen who release more than 99% of the fish they catch. a much smaller percentage of fish are caught by average/multispecies anglers who still release a high percentage of the muskies they catch - but the ones they keep aren't anywhere near to 10% of the total fish caught - probably more like 1%. regardless of the percentages, higher size limits will help in WI, just like they've helped in MN...but WI won't ever become the same fishery as MN because the lakes are different and the fish are different. the fish in MN are "right" for those lakes, and the fish in WI are "right" for these lakes. different, not better or worse. LotW has unlimited size, unlimited forage, and it's extremely fertile...but it doesn't produce 54"+ fish in the same way that lakes in MN have been doing. should they start stocking LotW with Leech Lake strain fish? of course not. different, not better or worse. at the same time, the average size has been steadily increasing on LotW since they raised the size limit. the trouble with harvest is that it tends to be the largest fish, such as what occurred in Green Bay a couple years ago...or that young man in Detroit Lakes...get the size limits set appropriately high, don't overstock/overpopulate so they stunt, and let the fish reach their own natural potential.
Edited by lambeau 2/23/2012 8:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Why would leech lake fish not be right for WI? There's not eutrophic lakes very similar to French lake in southern WI? There's not 1000 acre mesotrophic lakes that could be stocked? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'But every lake in WI isn't acidic and infetile. There are plenty of waters that are just as capable as anything in MN to put out big fish. Maybe concentrating on why those big fish aren't there instead of making excuses for why big fish are in MN would be a step in the right direction.'
Hey, John, that commentary came off very badly for you, and clearly indicates you don't understand as much as you need to about the biology of the fish, watersheds, etc. OR were just being 'difficult'. Hard to tell which.
No one is making 'excuses', but a few folks ARE discussing why things REALLY are as they are in both States.
I don't care what you've 'heard', I live here and have been as involved in Wisconsin's muskie program as you have been in MN's for just as long...in fact, maybe longer(not sure) I might have missed you at the first Symposium. Were you in Indiana?
My son is a creel clerk in the winter and a fish tech in the open water period, runs a netting crew stripping muskies in the Spring, and then runs a crew stripping suckers so the muskies and walleyes have something to eat at the hatchery. He knows a little about the muskies in this part of the state.
We have Bay of Green Bay and will soon have the Winnebago system, and that is similar to much of the water over there. That's a 'New' fishery in the context it was pretty well depleted, and during the timeframe MN's lakes were being stocked with muskies, Wisconsin re-established the fishery there. I was standing on the bank when the first fish were stocked there. That water came of age, 'new reservoir' syndrome and all, and it kicked out giants and large numbers of giants and became a destination for a ridiculous number of anglers and still is. I am sure it peaked and will never be as good as it was when the anglers here hit it hard the first time. That water has a 50" limit. Some folks here are trying really hard to get it to 54"
Sound familiar?
Much of the rest of our waters offer little or no natural reproduction and were admittedly managed for high density, lower size expectations during the time when MN was just deciding to begin a new muskie program...because that is what the anglers of that time wanted. Most of the lakes that offer muskie angling here ARE very small and infertile, look at the surface acres of muskie water and the AGE of the fishery in both states. Now comes the decision in WI whether to continue to stock those action waters as the social mores change here...and I believe we will begin losing our 'action waters'.
Given the commentary about Dr. Sloss's work and our DNR Muskie management team's program that's been underway for over a decade, perhaps you need to look at context. During that same timeframe, many lakes were moved to 45" and 50" limits, something the DNR biologists who actually DO know what's needed to achieve the goal a trophy angler would like to see doesn't decide over here, the PUBLIC does. We have the CC, a double edged sword that usually cuts against big fish management practices, but sometimes works well for it, if there's concentrated activism pushing hard enough to get the vote out.
Not everyone is a serious muskie angler and over here our fishing public can vote down size limit increase proposals and kill them dead. That happened wholesale about ten years ago, which was a shame; we could have had a bunch of 50" water with a decade of management for big fish under the belt.
Trophy muskie fishing is better in WI now than it has ever been, and will continue to improve if the economy doesn't destroy our program wholesale first.
IA,
We have Leech fish stocked is some waters here that offer no natural reproduction that were stocked due to activism by MI and some very determined anglers. Everyone knows those fish should grow a little faster; the unknown is at what size those fish will peak. The Yahara might tell the story well, as that system is just now coming of age and is kicking out some pretty impressive Wisco fish. I wish more lakes in WI were stocked with Spots, I like them. Pretty fish, and IMO easier to catch for a number of reasons. And, they seem to jump more during the battle.
Stocking any other strain over the top of one that is established and reproduces well is a very bad idea and won't happen. Look at that fish that was speared in the image above, that's one of three out of LCO recently. Nothing wrong with those genetics.
|
|
| |
|
|
Steve my point about the excuses remark is that about every 6 months somebody from WI brings up a thread about size limits. They want to know why they can't be bigger like MN and Canada. Every time this discussion comes we hear about all the reasons why MN lakes grow big fish and why WI lakes don't. It's never because of the size limits or whether or not the C&R stats are different from WI. It's because MN lakes are bigger, or have different chemistry, etc. etc. That may be true on a small scale, but there are many waters in WI that are similar to lakes in Canada and MN
which aren't up to the potential they have.
I think those are "excuses' to dismiss the idea that higher limits are more effective than people think. I also believe many of my WI friends that I fish with that tell me killing muskies in WI is more common than in MN.
I really don't see any point in trying to discuss this further. It seems unless you are from WI that you can't understand anything about the fishery.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, you were and are being 'difficult'. Thanks for clearing that up.'Don't see ant any point in discussing it further' is a cop-out releasing you from responsible debate. Weak.
Most of the lakes in WI that support a naturally sustaining trophy potential are for the most part already at 45" or 50" and that doing battle within the Conservation Congress procedure.
How many MN lakes have a 50" limit? How many stocked lakes with little or no NR with a 54" limit on them exist in Ontario? How many lakes in MN are sustained by a put and take stocking program? How did the DNR generated Pike spearing ban challenge go? We all have our challenges, and we are addressing ours as MN is theirs. MN's issues are as new as many of the muskie waters there. |
|
| |
|
| Why would leech lake fish not be right for WI? There's not eutrophic lakes very similar to French lake in southern WI? There's not 1000 acre mesotrophic lakes that could be stocked? I should have been more clear: I'm referring to those areas with naturally occurring populations of muskies, primarily in the northern part of the state. the process of speciation and natural selection picked which fish are "right" for certain areas, and nature should be respected/maintained in that regard. for those lakes with no natural population and no direct connection to natural waters (primarily in southern WI as you point out), stocking the best performing strain to meet angler wishes is a great idea: for large numbers of fish, for large growing fish, whatever. in concert with the WI DNR and with the help of the Hugh Becker fund, Cap City Muskies Inc is actively stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Madison and studying them side-by-side with Wisconsin Chippewa strain muskies to see which ones perform better. they're implanted with PIT tags to study survival rates and growth rates. i've personally donated significant money to this study as have many other members of CCMI. the results are still very preliminary, but we're having difficulty recapturing and scanning many Leech strain fish, while at the same time catching more reasonable amounts of Chippewa strain fish (both by angling and netting). this year our club went so far as to have a special outing in the fall just to try and catch and scan a Leech strain fish; we got one. we're not sure why that is, maybe the nets need to be set in different locations or different times, but they aren't showing up as often at the end of fishing lines either. we'll see over the coming years what happens, my point is simply that it's not correct to assume that Leech fish will always be the best fit for every water. to JS's very correct point: since the size limit in Madison was raised to 45" we've seen an increase in the average size of fish caught every year...it's inches bigger now than before the limit was raised. members of CCMI catch thousands of fish from the chain so our sample size is more than adequate to say definitively that the higher size limit is directly contributing to larger fish...including the appearance in the past 3 years of Chippewa strain muskies exceeding 50". at the same time, WI has waaaay more lakes with 45"-50" size limits than it gets credit for...count 'em up some time and compare them to any other state.
Edited by lambeau 2/23/2012 10:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | I actually went back in the search field and found a couple of those old threads and JS is right about the fact that every 4-8 months or so, the forum inititiates a thread such as this just like clockwork.
But none of the threads in the past ever offer up a true solution to getting WI waters like MN waters (assuming it truly is much more than just water chemistry and dynamics) in which case, I suppose we really can't do much about either of those. But if it is something else, then why isn't WI putting out the size of fish that MN is supposedly putting out?
What's the constructive abilities in order to get WI there, if it truly isn't already?
I'm asking moreso as a beginner to this kind of subject as I honestly don't know the answers to do those questions...?
Thanks, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| I knew the Yahara chain got some leech fish - when was the first stocking 4-5 years ago? Does it get some leechers every year now? It will be interesting to see what happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I remember reading a five year study about Waconia. They initially planted 50% Leechers and 50% Wisco fish. I wish I could still find it. After five years, they found that Leechers only outgrew the Sconnie fish by an inch or two, carried less weight per inch, and had higher mortality rates. Maybe Dave Neuswanger posted it...can't remember.
Either way, initial stockings way outperform the supplemental stockings. When the first stockings are in the 90's and 00's with that level of science, it makes it a lot easier than trying to "fix" a lake that was initial stocked in the 50's or 60's. Hell, they were still pumping 1 fish per acre into Deer in the early 90's. Couldn't catch a 45 incher to save your life there for a long time. |
|
| |
|
| I knew the Yahara chain got some leech fish - when was the first stocking 4-5 years ago? Does it get some leechers every year now? It will be interesting to see what happens. yes...i think the first year was 2005 or 2006 maybe? it's been around 500 Leech strain every year (plus the Chippewa strain) with the exception of one time when we couldn't get any Leech fish from the supplier. like i said, the results are still very preliminary and variability in sampling is still too high, but we're curious why the Leech strain aren't showing up at this point in at least close numbers to the Chippewa strain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PSYS,
Getting the program where it is now IS the answer.
Many of the southern stocked waters are just now coming of age, Mike did a great job of describing the progress in the Madison area waters. The fish don't reproduce there, but they do get big. Leech fish were stocked there. Cool.
Pelican now has a 50" limit and ZERO stocking for a decade. Size structure is improving steadily, and the fish that naturally reproduce there are no longer competing with those that are stocked and don't reproduce. It's complicated. And the hybrids are back there, too. That lake used to kick out BIG hybrids...over 50"...before the massive stocking program by the State and Muskie clubs dramatically changed it in the 80's. Easy it was to tell the difference between the stocked and naturals, the stocked fish were barred and pretty, the Pelican Lake fish that have always been there were gold sided ugly beasts for the most part. No hybrids are stocked, that's part of the natural process between the Pelican naturals and the pike population. Also cool.
Moen is a flowage. That system isn't stocked much anymore either. The CPR ethic has taken hold there as it has across the range of the muskie by force or education, and the size structure there is steadily increasing. Big hybrids, too, which is really cool. The Guides who literally killed that system 15 years ago are now gone or adopted CPR. Good news.
Difference is, MN didn't HAVE the fisheries they do now 15 years ago, or the process would have paralleled. Like I said, I remember when it was quite common the see muskies harvested off Leech and Cass. Not so much any more. Mille Lacs and many more waters now putting out big muskies wasn't exactly a muskie angling mecca then, and therefore didn't have the culture of muskie angling CPR and Muskies Inc worked so hard to change. Not too hard to establish a strong CPR ethic on water that literally came of age as CPR did...no changes needed.
Bay of Green Bay saw harvest levels that were enough to alarm some folks, and most of that by ONE GUY. Most of the muskie anglers who fish that water are CPR guys because the water came of age in the era of CPR. I'm not sure how else I can make that point without pointing out the smug self righteousness from some quarters. Easy to proclaim 'we don't have those issues' when one never has had, and isn't dealing with the diversity of culture and waters.
Spider is a little couple hundred acre lake managed for numbers. Little skinny fish for the most part, but great action. A monster there is mid 40's. Very little if any harvest, and near zero pressure from 'uneducated' anglers. No NR.
Another little lake in the area has not been stocked since the 80's. Fertile and full of forage, and the substrate there supports NR despite strong competition from LM Bass. There's a few strong year classes of muskies doing really well there, and the lake holds a few true giants. Very few people fish it. That's the water I shot the muskie on the crib ice video on, and it's a tiny lake. I know of three caught there last year in the low 50's, all released. Some of the strangest marked yet beautiful hybrids I've ever caught came from that puddle.
Wisconsin has huge diversity in it's muskie waters, presenting quite a challenge to be managed to meet everyone's expectations. Tough to do with a one size fits all philosophy.
Moltisanti, bullseye. Well said.
I believe Illinois had the same issues with the spots they stocked in the Fox Chain. Couldn't find the buggers.
I LIKE fishing spotted muskies. I just don't live where they were recently introduced and took off extremely well...and have come of age first generation. If I did, my average fish would be much larger, making me a MUCH better muskie angler...right?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I do belive a few years back Lake Nancy over by Hayward was stocked with Leech Lakers and they grew huge fast even with a poor forage base. How does that fit into the equation? I'd love to see Winnebago stocked with Leech Lakers or more of the Great lakes strain. It sucks because of the VHS laws this isnt happening right now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Larry Ramsell wrote that piece on Nancy and I remember a huge argument ensued with the Upper Chippewa Management District about it. The management team used the "initial stocking" argument, which I tend to believe. Keep in mind, Big Round in Polk County (super low density fishery) kicked out a legit 51 pounder in 1988 which is still a line class world record. I know of a confirmed 51 X 33 caught last fall on a lake that hadn't been stocked at all until recently...it was a fish that migrated into the system. Plus, Mille Lacs Chippewa strain fish were enormous...they netted a 54 incher that was 18 years old there.
Plus, when you factor in the increased mortality of Leechers, it would be pretty inefficient to buy fish from Minnesota when you could raise them 30 miles away...when science doesn't support the fact that they truly get bigger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As it was deemed inefficient for MN to buy WI strain fish with Leech in the center of the State. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Thanks for the thorough reply, Steve.
I actually find this pretty interesting.
Is the most sought after strain typically going to be the 'skis from Leech despite the higher than average mortality rate?
Will the Leech Lake strain reproduce with other varying strains of musky that will genetically allow the fish to essentially obtain the best of both worlds? i.e., the size of the Leech Lake strain with the "standard" mortality rates and other averages of the other strains? Or have we not quite gotten that far from a research perspective? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From what I understand, outbreeding depression is considered to be more of a negative than positive possibility IF crossbreeding takes place. In the case of the hatchery fish stocked in LCO, for example, Dr. Sloss's work indicates none took place. We won't find out in WI, because the DNR will not stock Leech Lake fish over an existing population that is reproducing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I've heard every argument:
It's the strain of fish
It's spearing
It's harvest
It's delayed mortality
Research would indicate otherwise. 200 acre glacial potholes with stunted perch and panfish, and a population of stunted bass for forage, very infertile, with a limited capability for biomass will never produce large muskies. There are lakes with varying water chemistry, some are much more fertile than others. The successful ones are connected to other larger bodies of water, with a more suitable forage base. The flowages are good. You can point fingers and blame whomever you like, but a great many of these lakes are relatively unfished. I can think of one in particular that hasn't been fished in several years because the water has been too low to get a boat in the water. Even the lakes without public access are not known to produce trophy fish, and the only people fishing them are the handful that live on the lake. Not sure what everyone is arguing about. It takes the right combination of acreage, fertility, water chemistry and forage to grow big muskies. There is so much more to creating a trophy fishery than just pouring fish in the lake and putting a high size limit on it. First and foremost is that they need enough to eat. And it has to be the type of forage that they don't expend more energy chasing down and eating it than they get from the meal.
If WI had the potential to cretae the kind of fisheries we are seeing in MN today, I would think the WI guys would have gotten that done a long time ago. The DNR, the CC, the local clubs, the resort owners, the residents, and the biologists would rather see people fishin in WI. But even the WI guys are fishing in MN.
I think I said this before, but if you build it they will come. And they have. And now the MN guys are pointing fingers everywhere they can, because they would rather believe that WI is simply doing something wrong, something that can be "fixed". I guess I can see the rationale. If WI can be "fixed", then there's hope that the great unwashed masses will leave MN and go back to fishing in WI. If WI is what it is because of simple geologic and biological factors, as research would indicate, then it only means that more and more anglers will be flocking to MN, putting more pressure on lakes that are already seeing too much of it. Oh well.. I guess it will give the MN folks someone to blame over the next decade when the first year classes start dying off and the fishing returns to something a bit more realistic and we see what the MN lakes can actually sustain over the long term. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Well said addict! |
|
| |
