|
|
Posts: 79
| I cast 99% of the time and only chose to troll when I am desperate or its to cold to cast. That being said, in the fall it would be nice to hang sucker over the side of the boat while casting. I like that idea because there are times when casting or trolling doesn't seem to get them to bite, but they are more than willing to chase a bait to the boat, and if I can get them moving and then they see an easy meal right in front of them, everyone could possibly boat more fish. I have thought about it a little bit and was looking for more input from others that might have more knowledge about this topic. Personally I would only use the second rod in the fall because it presents a good option of catching more fish, but I don't see it working as well in the summer times. I could be way off, and I have been in the past, on the water and off. Wisconsin anglers can already do this and I would also like to hear from them to see if they have had success doing it and if they have an argument against it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| I love being able to use more than one rod, especially when trolling. I normally cast, but have heard from many guys who have had fish follow their lure only to change completely and take the sucker. Heck, maybe I should catch some bluegills or perch or walleyes and rig them on quick-strike rigs throughout the season and suspend them from bobbers near the boat as I cast. I'd make sure and use a little trick that my Dad taught me when we would catch tiny perch and use them for wallete bait on North Twin. To make sure they stand out from any other near-by perch, you cut off the top half of their tail so they can only swim up, and even that's a struggle, and also cut off their front fins so they can't be elusive.
Oh yeah, one rod.....rather be able to troll with two. But you can only cast with one anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| It works. We've caught a few fish here and there that we raised on lures, that turned off the lure and ate suckers we hade out, and a few more that ate a sucker trailing half a cast from the boat. But it's not as effective as you might think - you waste a lot of time farting around with suckers and sucker rods that would otherwise be spent casting, and you miss the occasional fish on suckers because you were finishing a cast.
I could see some benefit to a 2 line rule for this purpose, but it would also mean that 4 guys in a pontoon could troll 8 lines. Not sure it would be worth the trade off.
Edited by esoxaddict 10/28/2012 10:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: Wakefield, MI | In the fall I always have a rod hanging a sucker while casting. In the last 3 weeks we've caught 5 on suckers, 3 of them in the mid 40's and the other 2 were high 30's. Never had a follower take the sucker yet but I keep waiting for that one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1289
Location: WI | Multiple lines for trolling is awesome. Great way to find a pattern, or keep one hot bait out and experiment with others at the same time. Also allows you to cover shallow and deep sides of a break at the same time. I've been using 3 lines in WI lately and it's really chaotic and messy when you get a fish. 2 is fine.
Can't you use 2 lines while ice fishing in MN? Makes no sense to me why you couldn't for the whole season then.
Edited by JKahler 10/28/2012 11:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
| Jeez, the Minnesota fishery ain't broke. Don't try to fix it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Ebenezer - 10/28/2012 11:53 PM
Jeez, the Minnesota fishery ain't broke. Don't try to fix it!
It ain't broke. Yet. But you are reaping the benefits of relatively new fisheries in a lot of places. You've got the first few year classes of fish, after 10 - 15 years, which came up up in a system of abundant forage, with no danger of predation, and no competition for that forage, in a system where what is now the apex predator was largely absent. And you have this happening in lake ecosystems that were realtively unheard of 10 - 15 years ago, and now are fished HARD.
It ainlt broke, and it's not likely to be broke in the near future. But 10 - 20 years down the road, it's not going to bewat it is now unless you do everything you possibly can to preserve that. |
|
| |
|
| fact is the two line proposal was part of the game and fish bill a couple years ago in MN that got shot down, rightfully so, after a certain lawmaker tried to slip in special regs for the lake his cabin is on. i agree two lines would be nice in the fall and would also be a benefit to a quickly expanding segment of catfish anglers, among others.
i don't remember all the details of the two line provision but i think it involved an extra endorsement on the license. personally it took me a bit to warm up to the idea of two lines but i'd support it next time around and i hope the initiative comes around again soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| I completely agree that Minnesota's fisherie is not broken, and I have no intentions of changing that. Being a muskie angler and releasing every muskie I catch, I just havent seen a down side to allowing this, other than having people keep more fish than the law allows, which is happening anyway. Would it come down to having more DNR presence on these precious waters we all call home, probably. Then again there are alot of people who cannot boat a fish of any species with one rod, does a second rod really increase their chances? I find it interesting that some people feel Wisonsin's waters are inferior to Minnesota's, when the it is a way different situation regarding lake size and forage. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I would definitely prefer to fish 2 lines in fall as well as whenever I decide to troll. However, I follow the law regardless of my preference. I want to cast for Musky in May also, so I go to WI. That is just the way it is. We do have a good thing going in MN. Also, I think part of maintaining our fishery is setting a good example and a big part of that is following the law, whether we like it or not.
That being said, the argument against 2 lines that I have issues with is the 1 about how they effect the fishery. I know there have been studies done that try to argue that 2 lines means double the harvest. Is that really true? Do you catch 2x as many fish trolling 2 cranks vs. 1 for musky? Is the deadstick sucker + casted lure double the effectiveness of just casting or just hanging bait? Some folks deadstick pounders, does that double the harvest? I just do not see how it can be so. The combination presentation is more effective at creating opportuniites to catch fish, so yes you will have more chances to put more in the boat. However, it is the fish handling IMO that determines Musky survival. How would this be different if you had 2 guys in the boat manning a sucker and a casting presentation respectively? Does anyone think having 4 lines out is going to catch 4x as many fish? That is the part of the arugment that just doesn't seem to hold water for me.
I know this topic can become a flame fest, so my statements above are not meant to refute or dissagree with anyone. I just do not get the position on 1 rod vs 2 rods being some major negative force for a fishery from a logical standpoint. Maybe I'm missing some critical piece of information that would change my mind. Right now, I just do not see it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
Location: McFarland | Caught several this fall that were raised on baits and then blasted suckers. This 45.25" is from last Wednesday that followed a cowgirl and then went straight to the sucker. It's fun stuff watching a nice fish line up a sucker and then blast it, and if it's a small fish you can always go and take the sucker out of harms way. 
Attachments
----------------
 sucker.jpg (95KB - 209 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Some interesting reading...
See Muskie Treat's posts....
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=64...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Thanks for the link, that was very educational. I agree with the sentiments about the long term aspects of the fishery. Without a published study it is hard to really say what is the best course of action, but I understand why people would err on the side of caution given how successful the DNR has been here in MN.
I can see why the topic is so incediary. You have the creel study Treats is citing, but without it being published there is no truly "conclusive" result. Thus you have an argument that pits selfish desires of individual anglers (which I advocated above) vs. caution about what might happen to the fishery. It ends up being opinion vs. opinion which really isn't productive.
IMO, the best approach would be to get better information. I like the 2 line thing, but I would not trade that in exchange for a declining fishery. To me that makes an approach of caution the best course of action.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| What a beautiful fish!BTW
I read the old post, and I like the number of rods option. 2 for 1 angler, 3 for 2 etc.
I don't know why, where or when trolling got such a bad rep. There are those who still think that all you do is drive around and you catch a bunch of fish. From my experience, it's just not so. It's just another technique that must be mastered and perfected. Since 99% of us release all of our fish, I don't see any down side to running more than one rod other than it increases your chances to catch fish.
Since I've been plagued with back problems, I've been trolling more. This year I got a Disabled Fishing License which allows me to troll any lake in Wisconsin.......but I can only use an electric motor! Does anyone make an electric motor that will get me up to 3 mph for 8-10 hours? How about a battery that will last that long. I know, off subject. I don't see any down side to fishing with two lines, or multiple lines as stated in the old post. MN allows trolling, but limits you to 1 rod. WI doesn't allow trolling, but lets you fish multiple rods. Because this is first and foremost a muskie site, the opinions go in that direction. What about one guy in the boat with 2 slip-bobbers out for walleyes, or bluegills or crappies? Doesn't seem out of line, does it? Or how about having one slip-bobber out while casting a jig? During most of the fishing season, we are casting and wouldn't have any other rods out, but when you are searching for or targeting suspended fish, trolling is the best option and having 2 lures in the water ups your odds to find fish, but that doesn't mean that the kill rate will go up. We can use under-water cameras and any kind of electronic devices we want that definitely ups your success rate, so why the fear of using more than one rod? I haven't heard one valid reason why we shouldn't be able to do it. When I fish for walleyes on The Mississippi River in early spring, I will troll with Taylor using 2 three-way rig rods in rod holders, and we will also run 2 lures each at the same time on 2 hand-line reels. That's 6 lures in the water at the same time. By the end of the day, we'll have those 6 lures narrowed down to 2 colors or shapes of lures, and we still get skunked! On days when we do catch fish, any walleye 20" or over, or resembling a female goes right back. Selective harvest. In muskie fishing, there is no harvest at all in my boat, but allowing me to use 2 lines if alone or 3 lines with a partner increases my chances of catching a fish, and as I see it, has no detrimental impact on the fishery. But it definitely increases my chances for increased excitement and fun.
Edited by Beaver 10/29/2012 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I remember this being debated heavy on the boards a dozen or so years ago. Most mn uys seemed to be fine with it and their arguement is tgat you can do whatever you want with that one line. it was a good back and forth between the different regs between the different states, especially where the laws are different depending on where you are and what you want to do. Oneline do what you want with it does not sound so badsometimes.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 553
Location: deephaven mn | JKahler - 10/28/2012 11:44 PM
Can't you use 2 lines while ice fishing in MN? Makes no sense to me why you couldn't for the whole season then.
[/QUOTE
the reason is fishing through the ice you are nearly as moblie as you are in a boat,
wisconsin allows 3 lines per ice fisherman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| Minnesota manages the musky has a 'trophy fisherie' not a numbers one,,,,treat it like a trophy,, hanging a sucker over the side while your 12 ft away up front casting a suick/crankbait/bulldawg and then responding when you hear the clicker go off is the muskie world equiz of 'bingo' reelem in,,,or target them with one sucker and use skill while you monitor the line |
|
| |
|
| Two rods is a horrible idea. We all know you just throw a sucker overboard in any location and just reel in fish until your hands bleed. Think of all the delayed mortality from muskies inhaling suckers whole quick strike rigs and all.
Sarcasm!!!!!!!!
Makes me laugh when I read about guys thinking muskies just swallow suckers whole. I have caught hundreds of muskes on suckers and have yet to see it happen, still waiting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I would selfishly enjoy trolling 2 lines. But in MN, you aren't going to get 2 line options for certain species vs other species. Many fish populations in MN are already over exploited and large panfish and walleyes in many of MN waters simply can't make it with any additional harvest. Where the real numbers may lie is uncertain, but more fish of all types would be hooked, more fish of all types would ultimately be harvested or die via that catching even with the best of intentions. I'll continue to live with 1 line. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | As Brian stated. That's the problem with allowing more than one rod. May work fine for muskie fisherman, but other species will suffer. I also have a few doubts about fishing with two lines for muskies, much as I'd like to do it. Both Minnesota and Ontario are very protective of their fish and it seems to be working. I'd let the biologists rather than politicians figure this out. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
| Here in Indiana we are allowed 3 rods per guy, we troll a lot with 5 lures out and it is still a big day if we catch ONE fish, we seldom have two fish days, and we let em' go anyway, so I think if Mn went to two rods (all year long) you guys will be fine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| some areas have 2 rods in ontario. its legal on st clair,l.ontario.l.erie. populations are excellent. like doug johnson said. let biologist iron the issue. there trained and payed for that job. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I made only one trip to Minnesota this year and a short one at that. I had an honest (and witnessed) legit 54" Supertanker take a turn and a half after my bait at boatside (the kind of fish that can require a call to your cardiologist). I fish Wisconsin waters twice a week and saw a very similar fish THREE YEARS AGO! I hate the Vikings (naturally) but simply must give credit where credit is due to a fishery that a lot of folks have clearly given a #*^@ about...AND IT SHOWS! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | MN and NW Ontario allow muskie angling with 1 line. WI allows 3.
Multiple line sucker fishing for muskies has been a "tradition" in WI
Many WI anglers go to MN and NW Ontario to catch their trophy muskies.
Very few MN or NW Ontario anglers come to WI inland lakes for their trophy muskies.
Coincidence??? I think not.
MN biologists should be concerned about the fish not the fishermen.
Stay with one line. You have a great fishery now. Don't mess with it!
John Aschenbrenner
Wisconsin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| This is such a foolish conclusion. 3 lines result in WI not having the trophy fish that MN and NW Ontario have. Hogwash.
Minnesota's muskie waters grew up with Catch and Release. They are relatively new, compared to WI. WI muskie tradition goes back a long way, and C&R was not preached or practiced until relatively recently. That, plus a DNR that doesn't care about trophy fisheries, is the reason, not 3 lines per angler. Years of taking average muskies for brood stock has lead to average sized muskies throughout WI. Lot's of other reasons, with 3 lines being quite far down the list.
I have no problem fishing one line in MN or NW Ontario. That certainly never stopped me from going there. If they were to add a second line for trolling or sucker fishing, it wouldn't cause me to go there more often.
I'd put a Green Bay tropghy Muskie against any MN or NW Ontario fish.
Edited by Shep 10/30/2012 3:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What does one line vs two or three lines have to do with a trophy fishery? I don't believe anybody if given the opportunity to utilize more than one line would say Nah I'll only use one. Whether it be trolling or dragging suckers, more baits in the water produce more fish. For those that drag suckers and you don't get any action casting all day but have an opportunity at a fish on a sucker can make your day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| if we were allowed to use 2 lines here in Minn I would have two out,,,casting for muskies and one with a slip bobber and leech for walleye and I would keep the walleye,,,wouldnt increase pressure on muskies but it would increase harvest on wallleyes ,,,how many walleye guys would do the reverse on Mile Lacs,Vermilion,leech etc,,,have a walleye rod and a sucker on the other one,,,or two rods helps you get your walleye limit faster,now lets go fish muskies for the rest of the day
Edited by happy hooker 10/30/2012 7:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1144
Location: Minnesota. | Really a healthy, nice looking fish Andy!! Way to go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Some pretty good opinions Here,....... But as one of the selfish ones I am for 2 lines in Mn.
I fish about 90% of the time by myself and would only use 2 lines for trolling for the last 2 weeks of the muskie season,......But happy hooker has a good idea..... maybe catch supper while casting for muskies ...
2 lines will NOT decimate the states fisheries.... All species included
Sheeeeeshh ! Gadzooks Batman !!!.......Whata we gonna do??
G-Bag |
|
| |
|
Posts: 163
| You CAN have 2 lines in your boat in MN... All you need to do is bring someone (with a license of course) or a kid out to enjoy the sport with you. Then if you actually catch one, you'll also have someone there to take your picture |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| I forget...which state holds the world record? and the most NFL championships?!!? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I think the 1 rod per angler is the way to go----Mn has a great musky fishery and it may very well be in part due to this rule... I wouldn't change it--and when I go to MN fishing I have no problem with it--I am mostly a caster so it really doesn't affect me----and I think everyone can live with it--- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| Just to be straight on this, it was not my opinion (nor the others I'd guess) that this one particular restriction was responsible for Minnesota's success with its musky fishery. On the contrary, I believe the size restrictions mean a whole lot more and I was truly happy to see my state go from 34" to 40" this year in what I think will prove to be a boon for bigger Wisconsin fish. It's the whole package of a lot of separate good ideas that has produced a good fishery. They just deserve some credit there and I am happy to give it. Now, with respect to the Green Bay fishery: (1) That's the one place where meaningful size restriction was introduced early on, (2) This really is "Great Lakes" water, and I (IMHO) don't really consider it "Wisconsin" water really....and (3) This fishery is likely to benefit from the lower pressure due to the natural resistance of the IL and MN folks feeling uncomfortable in this particular town---not saying why  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| happy hooker - 10/30/2012 6:48 PM
if we were allowed to use 2 lines here in Minn I would have two out,,,casting for muskies and one with a slip bobber and leech for walleye and I would keep the walleye,,,wouldnt increase pressure on muskies but it would increase harvest on wallleyes ,,,how many walleye guys would do the reverse on Mile Lacs,Vermilion,leech etc,,,have a walleye rod and a sucker on the other one,,,or two rods helps you get your walleye limit faster,now lets go fish muskies for the rest of the day
Seriously? I'm as big a walleye angler as muskie, and in the 25+ years I've been chasing muskies, I have never once had a extra line out for a walleye. Or the opposite. I've never had a sucker out while walleye fishing, hoping to catch a muskie.
The closest I ever came was prefishing a walleye tourney, and saw a big swirl near some cane beds I was pitching to. I picked up a rod that had a big jig and a plastic worm, and casted out toward it. I causght a 42" muskie. Only used one rod at a time there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| So just to make sure I understand the argument against 2 lines, it's because one feels that there will be more dead muskies from a second line? That doesn't seem to make any sense. I sure hope there is an argument that has a better foot hold than that. A second line would not kill muskies like catching one in 75+ degree water, but that doesn't seem to stop anglers from pursuing muskies, so why the nonesesnse argument against a second line that proves nothing more but more success? Also, I feel the fight would not last as long, seeing that the sucker is right at boat side, so the fight should be shorter than at the end of a cast. I do argee with multiple posts about Wisconsin's fisherie and how reaising the legal minimum will have a bigger impact than two lines. If Minnesota would start to allow two rods and then find out in a year or two that it is not a good idea, then just stop allowing it. Is that no different than what Minnesota has done towards our stocking program? I do not have all of the answers, and will not act like I do, but to not hear a decent argument against allowing a second rod leads me to believe that I may be on to something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| palerider - 10/31/2012 8:59 AM
"So just to make sure I understand the argument against 2 lines, it's because one feels that there will be more dead muskies from a second line? That doesn't seem to make any sense. I sure hope there is an argument that has a better foot hold than that."
The second line increase's the opportunity to catch fish = more fish caught...the number of fish caught is a component in angler influenced fish mortality. It would have an impact. There is no way around it.
In addition the fall influx of uneducated and under equipped once a year hang a sucker under a bobber guys is well uder way locally...let them fish two lines and they will have even better odds. Example: I passed an angler fishing off shore in a channel yesterday....big bobber dangling a sucker. Sitting on a cushion...no tools...no net in sight. What do you think the odds of a successfull release were ? I saw the same scenario on a dock.
Like it or not sucker fishing draws these types out for the easy muskie fix as they need almost no additional investment in gear...a rig a bobber and a minnow that's it.
Edited by bturg 10/31/2012 1:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| That is everyone's right to do so, and I would never take that away from anyone. This one man without a net and tools sitting on shore has a limited chance to catch a muskie, let alone 2 on separate suckers 30 feet away from one another. This is an unfair argument because the argument is now turning towards not being prepared to catch a muskie. If this person had some basic knowledge about this fish, the success rate skyrockets, and that is a different issue than having two lines in the water. If the key ingredient here is humans catching and releasing the fish properly, then we as muskie anglers, the DNR and Muskies Inc are responsible for teaching others how it should be done, regardless of how many line are being used. To eliminate all tragedies of fish dying is impossible, regardless of the law. So now the argument turns to trying to prevent them as much as possible. Well that comes from knowledge about the fish and experience, which you can only get by catching one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points.
1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing.
2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment.
3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death".
4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage.
Edited by bturg 11/1/2012 9:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
| bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM
3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death".
Interesting with all the other factors like weather, year class/stocking recruitment and everything else contributing to the natural peak/valley curve of fishing success the last couple years that pressure would be blamed as the main culprit. I think your quote a bit strong and if there is tangible evidence of pressure causing "many" lakes in Minnesota to "crash" I'd like to see it.
Everyone starts the game with insufficient knowledge and equipment and most people have to pay for their own stuff. Blaming the guy soaking in a sucker in a channel and the other "uneducated" shore anglers on a 14,000 acre lake as your main reason not to support two lines seems a little shortsighted in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points. 1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing. 2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment. 3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death". 4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage. I 100% agree with bturg. Many muskie lakes in MN are not as good as they were 5 years ago due to fishing pressure. Fishermen are getting better and technology keeps advancing. These fish don't stand a chance... Keep it at 1 line.
Edited by Baby Mallard 11/1/2012 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Junkman ,
Love your sense of humor, as I am a FIB of the worst kind, I gave up hatin' , love the "Pack", like the vikes, sometimes I even like the bears; have a yearning to hang my hat in either "hey dere" Minnesota or "cheddarhead" Wisconsin, all you's are blessed...
wishin' I was fishin' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| Baby Mallard - 11/1/2012 12:24 PM
bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points. 1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing. 2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment. 3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death". 4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage. I 100% agree with bturg. Many muskie lakes in MN are not as good as they were 5 years ago due to fishing pressure. Fishermen are getting better and technology keeps advancing. These fish don't stand a chance... Keep it at 1 line.
Could it be these lakes are no longer in the early cycles and turning into mature fisheries? Any thoughts? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Thoughts, sure some lakes are maturing and density of the top line predators evens out as things balance out...that is how nature works...on it's own. Stocking does change that dynamic , many MN lakes have a steady influx of new fish added to help balance out mortality from anglers...intentional or unintentional so those fluctuations won't flow exactly on natures own rules. For sure some lakes will be hot one year and cold the next....thats just the way it is as weather etc influences activity and also access to the fish for the average angler fishing "normal" patterns. Some years the fish just aren't available where most anglers want to fish for them...so the lake is labled "off" or "tough" that season.
A prime example of a metro lake crashing due to angling pressure is Waconia. After super strong spring tourny results two years running the word got out and the lake got hammered. Floaters were a daily occurance as anglers caught and improperly handled larger than average fish. I think it's very realistic to say the population of 40" plus fish is half of what it was 5-6 years ago. Scenario: a casual angler catch's a really large fish, maybe a deeply hooked one, the insufficient net is pulled onboard with fish inside and the angler looks at the head of by far the largest fish he has handled and freaks a bit, unhooking goes slowly but happens, even though far to much time has elapsed there is no way that fish is going back without a bunch of pictures...maybe with everyone in the boat taking turns. This is reality and it certainly happens every day, even with the best skills a few fish die...it's part of the deal. Adding lines simply increases the fish/angler encounters and adding live bait and inexperienced anglers to the formula adds in more negative factors. Thats my beef with muliple lines.
I would love to troll multiple lines when the situation was favorable for that...I'm willing to forgo it for the above reasons.
Quote:
"Everyone starts the game with insufficient knowledge and equipment and most people have to pay for their own stuff. Blaming the guy soaking in a sucker in a channel and the other "uneducated" shore anglers on a 14,000 acre lake as your main reason not to support two lines seems a little shortsighted in my opinion."
1. I NEVER said shore fisherman were the issue...I only used the one angler as one real life example of the people who fish live bait rigs in the fall as their only muskie fishing...it's easier than most other methods and and at the lowest level requires very little investment of time and muskie specific gear vs traditional methods ( you can't throw a pounder on your ugly stick spinning rod but you can float a sucker) and they are rarely geared up properly. My example is just one of the reasons to not allow it...it's not shortsighted it's my opinion...mind you there is a fair amount of fishing time and observation that goes into that forming that opinion. I'm also not talking about a specific 14,000 acre lake or basing my opinion on what I see out there...the isuue being discussed is the statewide use of mutiple lines, not just Minnetonka (14,500 acres BTW).
Reality: no one is changing any laws based on this discussion...just opinions being banter'd around on an internet board.
|
|
| |
|
| bturg, sounds like all you want to do is limit fishing opportunities for the sake of a fishery. Perhaps MN should outlaw the DCG because too many uneducated anglers are catching fish with them! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | How about allowing 2 lines but make live bait over 10" illegal?
Edited by Flambeauski 11/1/2012 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
| Flambeauski -
just how long do you think it could take for a decent fish to inhale and swallow a 9.875" sucker? I'd wager not too long... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Guest says (very bravely from his anonomous keyboard)
bturg, sounds like all you want to do is limit fishing opportunities for the sake of a fishery. Perhaps MN should outlaw the DCG because too many uneducated anglers are catching fish with them
You must not know me very well...I'm pretty fond of The Cowgirl Clan. I spend a lot of time trying to catch them (muskies) and helping others to do the same. I try to educate the uneducated so they are able to catch and handle fish well.
Some limitations ARE required to protect the fishery, history shows that to be 100% the case. States that fail to enact reasonable restrictions fail to have top quality fisheries. Seems funny to argue otherwise.
I like catching fish...as many as I can. I also feel reasonable regulations make fishing worth the effort with better quality and numbers available to chase. If it turns into a skippy fest with a handfull of last seasons fresh stockings to chase it hardly seems worth the effort.
Edited by bturg 11/1/2012 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| i won't argue a lake like waconia has been affected by pressure after the last few years, but one or two metro lakes falls way short of "many" lakes "crashing" due to pressure.
you can't just throw it out there that the number of 40" fish in waconia is half of what it was 5 years ago, you have no science to back that up.
great to argue about important issues concerning the fishery but let's keep be honest withourselves and stick to the facts. it hurts your point when you throw out unsubstantiated numbers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| I already threw it out, I don't need science to state my opinion...should we net all the fish and count them for you to be happy with generalized comments based on years of observation.
done: position explained and posted....carry on anonymous one |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Ebenezer - 11/1/2012 3:33 PM
Flambeauski -
just how long do you think it could take for a decent fish to inhale and swallow a 9.875" sucker? I'd wager not too long...
Probably not as long as it would to swallow a 4 inch chub. My point was/is, is sucker fishing the problem or is multiple lines the problem? Sounds like sucker fishing is the problem, from what Bob is saying. And when the trolling issue comes up every winter the minnesotans are quick to point out that trolling doesn't hurt the fishery. And since you can't cast 2 Supermodels at once, I assume suckers are the issue here. So make them illegal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| bturg I have a response to your posting but it will have to wait until I get some more info. Does anyone know if artificial baits can out fish live bait in the warmer months of the year? I would say they do just for the fact thta you can cover twice as much water with artificial than with a sucker. Anyone ever tried a sucker in the summer time? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Bob is talking numbers, odds, and accessabiltiy. two lines in the hands of a properly equipped and competent fisherman is probably not a marginal increase in the mortality rate for Muskies. However, you can't limit two lines to just the diehards. So more lines = more encoutners = more chances for fish to be killed. That is simple probability.
Now throw in the fact that not every angler is a diehard. Livebait is the prime example because of all the ways to catch a musky it is the least expensive gear wise and if you have the patience, probably the easiest. (No offense, I like my suckers too.) The reality is that a guy can get into all he needs to catch a musky on a sucker for maybe $50 plus the cost of the sucker. What are the odds that said guy is going to drop $100 for a musky sized net? How about $70 for a Knippex? What about another $30-50 for the appropriate gear to have even a chance at unhooking a deeply hooked fish? My guess is not very high. This situation already has a higher chance of killing the musky. What if he doesn’t know how to use his sucker rig properly or doesn’t know what a quick strike rig is? More odds against the fish. Now this guy has two suckers... what happens if one goes and he’s dealing with it and then the other one goes off. Is that guy going to set the hook early to try and save both fish? Not very likely…
Livebait by itself isn’t the problem, just like 2 lines by themselves are not the problem. The problem is what it enables. More uneducated/undergeared fisherman contacting more fish invariably = more dead fish. I don’t think you need some double blind study to believe that will pan out.
The real debate is about the risk of higher mortality vs. increased opportunity to put a fish in the net. When I first advocated for this issue I was thinking about my own catch totals. However, after reading from people wiser than me like Bob and Treats I see the wisdom of what they are saying. Over time my extra fish in the net = less fish for everyone overall due to our buddy in the example above. If more encounters are your goal, maybe you should do what BTurg does for all of us and try to help educate the uneducated.
As an aside: I highly doubt Bob is advocating that only the select few get to fish for Muskies. I’m a prime example of that. He took my completely uneducated rear end and after 3 years has almost turned me into a semi competent angler. If he really didn’t want more people fishing for them why would he do that? Also, when you cast your saltwater reel think to yourself how much BTurg doesn’t want you to catch a fish.
Edited by Brad P 11/1/2012 4:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Reality: no one is changing any laws based on this discussion...just opinions being banter'd around on an internet board.'
OK, everyone, remember that next time anyone from any State asks for your support to stop, change, or create fisheries based law.
No disrespect intended, Just sayin'... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| None takin...getting involved at another level is what is required for legislative issues. Unfortunatly many of the regulatory changes considered are political in nature as you know...special interest bills get introduced and are voted on by a senate or house wih very little actual knowledge of the impacts vs letting the DNR do their job managing the resources. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| sworrall - 11/1/2012 7:10 PM
OK, everyone, remember that next time anyone from any State asks for your support to stop, change, or create fisheries based law.
No disrespect intended, Just sayin'...
That's quite an overreaction to a harmless (and true in this instance) statement now isn't it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 553
Location: deephaven mn | the point made that a man fishing from shore with a sucker on a light tackle rig and no release tools has potentional to effect the fishery and if he could have 2 suckers on 2 light tackle rigs he may have a larger effect. Now if you could troll 2 two baits this would make trolling a really efficient way to catch fish and i am pretty sure you would see alot more trolling in minnesota like you see in other states.
one line please! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| From what I have read on MuskieFirst, I thought MN was a trollling state and WI was the sucker state?
Here is my 2 cents as a native Minnesotan who has paid his fair share of taxes and various license fees before moving away... MN should adopt whatever regulations that insure the long-term survival of fishing waters. Would anyone want to catch however many more musky by dragging a sucker while they also cast, if it will eventually decrease the willingness of the fish to bite in the long run? Isn't that what the fishing pressure does? Simple logic would dictate that 2 lines per angler means more pressure, which may mean more catches short-term, but then in the long term means smarter fish that are less likely to bite. It's disenhearting to now specifically target muskies for 10 days in the summer and this fall (when I can make it home) and only have 7 follows and 1 miss. Whereas 10 years ago I had them hit hooked eyes and SM 3-4 many times in the same period of time on Vermilion. Allowing 2 lines also means more guys accidentally hooking musky they were not intending to hook, or have idiots who are intending to hook them on their 2 lines but are not prepared to land them appropriately. Again logic would lead one to assume there will be more mortality with that scenario. This is a musky forum with responsible fisherman, Being responsible myself, the first things I bought for my summer and fall excursions were release tools and proper tackle. After that came all the lures I rarely get to use.... As others have noted, not everyone is responsible and informed. Even if 5% of the total musky catch came from irresponsible fisherman and most of those fish die from allowing more lines in the water, that means close to 5% less fish for the next year... It adds up over time and will ruin the sport eventually. Is it worth the short term gain of boating more fish per year for 5 years if the fish then quit biting as much? Or even if the fish that bite are "ONLY" 45 inches? Remember basic evolution, "survival of the fittest". If you catch more and only the smart survive, it seems logical catch numbers will decrease over time. That's not just my opinion, but also a friend who lives and has guided on Vermilion for the past 10 years. Also remember, if the fishing isn't as good, you won't want to fish as much. Then you will have to find find another hobby... But from my short experience in this addiction, I can guarantee it will not be near as fun as being on the water relaxing while you fish for a PB that you never know when it is going to hit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | sucker fishing is a blast...and there's def. a part of me that would love to get out in MN in the fall and fish like you can is Wisconsin.
However..I think Bob is right. I do think the extra line is simply going to cause more mortality. And if anyone doesn't think pressure is not a factor in MN at present time they are kidding themselves. There just aren't enough musky lakes to meet the demand...Quality of fish aside, WI simply has way more lakes to choose from and spread out the anglers. |
|
| |
|
| So let me get this straight. Allowing the guy who sits on the dock with a sucker out while chewing on a piece of straw, the opportunity to put out one more line, is going to cause the lake more harm than the guide who absolutely pounds the same lake 80-100 days per year, with 2-3 anglers tossing affective lures in just the right places, and catches a whole lotta fish? Oh yeah thats right, allowing 2-3 lines in WI and Michigan has absolutely murdered the fisheries there.
As an aside, it's funny how when I fish MN each fall, I get to watch the different ways the locals employ the 'Derek Cheater'(sucker line out with no rod in sight, while casting)...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| I will admit that a second line from inexpereinced angelrs has a chance to lead to more mortality, that is a given. But it also should be said that humans are the main reason muskies have gotten in the waters they have and if we put them there, we can surely add more. Fishing pressure will continue to rise as we promote this fish and try to attract more people to the sport, regardless of the second line. Possible solution that will take time to develop would be more waters, which is easier said than done. Honestly, people who think the second line would be an increase in fishing pressure and mortality might be using it as a crutch to try and preserve the waters humans have created. This form of preservation could also be interpreted as a prevention of possible future muskie anglers who accidently catch one and then get hooked, just like we all did. To promote this wonderful fish, shouldn't we try to attract more anglers and in doing so also be granted to stock them in more lakes, decreasing pressure on lakes that are getting pounded right now? A second line could help this cause. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ja Rule - 11/1/2012 7:50 PM
sworrall - 11/1/2012 7:10 PM
OK, everyone, remember that next time anyone from any State asks for your support to stop, change, or create fisheries based law.
No disrespect intended, Just sayin'...
That's quite an overreaction to a harmless (and true in this instance ) statement now isn't it?
No.
The MN muskie guys have a tough time with the legislature over there deciding what's best for the fishery sometimes completely ignoring the folks who are paid to determine that. We see regular requests to make sure the law makers and DNR hear from this community in an attempt to sideline or eliminate a new reg that threatens or at least looks like it threatens the muskie and trophy pike fishery over there, or a request to expand the fishery in MN.
Then we see comments, sometimes from the very same folks who have asked for our help, that we as a community (posting to an internet message board...hmmm) are largely irrelevant to their fishery, and it's not all that uncommon a theme, actually.
DNRs across the range are aware of discussions like this one; they have computers too.
As I said..
Just sayin'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Bowling Green, Kentucky | Alright, I don't really understand this one. One rod only? I live in Kentucky. We have amazing crappie fisheries (people travel from all over to fish here even though it is not often advertised as a monster crappie state). We have, arguably the best smallmouth lake in the entire world, the best Muskie lake in the south, green river lake (an awesome Muskie fishery), the best trout fishery east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio. We have one of the premier tournament bass lakes in the nation. THERE IS NO ROD LIMIT.
We have agressive promoters of CPR for Muskie and big bass. These fisheries are only getting better. Size limits have a much greater effect on the quality of panfish, bass, and walleye fisheries than a rod limit. You would think ten crappie rods on a spider rig would have a big impact on catch rates. IT DOES. But KY Initiated a ten inch size limit and a 15 fish limit on KY Lake. What happened is the fish have to get big before they are kept. Amazing, quality fishery. People drive six hours every year to crappie fish.
I understand the biggest concern of this forum is the Muskie population. Here in KY we have no problem maintaining a quality fishery. But, y'all have many, many more fish. Y'all have cooler water, which, I assume, is a lot better with preventing delayed mortality. Does an extra rod double the chance of a Muskie being caught? No. Not everyone is even going to do it. From what I have seen, a quickset is less likely to gill hook than an easily inhaled swimbait. I just don't understand the reasoning behind the one rod vs. two rod debate. I don't see how trolling is worth the hassle with one rod. I would rather cast anyway.
Oh, and we don't have seasons either. That one puzzles me.
Tight lines,
Killroy
|
|
| |
|
| Sell licenses for 2 lines at double the cost (or more), eliminate any possession for people who buy those licenses (catch and release only). This would have very minimal impact on existing fish populations and the extra $ from the licenses can be used for stocking to make our fisheries even stronger. Problem solved. Have a good night all.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Have a good night indeed ~!........ I like your thinking .
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | DS - 11/6/2012 7:10 PM
Sell licenses for 2 lines at double the cost (or more), eliminate any possession for people who buy those licenses (catch and release only). This would have very minimal impact on existing fish populations and the extra $ from the licenses can be used for stocking to make our fisheries even stronger. Problem solved. Have a good night all.
So with the increase in lines there wouldn't be any additional fish caught? I doubt it. It's math that the more fish caught the more will die from delayed mortality, even more-so with the use of live bait which would be the point of the whole argument.
A. The DNR won't stock more muskies then they currently are no matter how much money they bring in. Trust me, I've tried.
B. It takes 15-25 years to get fish to 50+". If these fish are dying at a faster rate then there will be fewer of them to catch and everyone suffers with a lesser fishery.
Sorry guys, but sometimes less is more.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| Hey treats, is delayed mortality the only argument against this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| Well Minnesota went Democratic last nite again,,
In fact,,weve been accused many times on this site of being a state of liberals but alot of the visitors seem to want to liberalize our Muskie fisherie??
2 lines
latest openner in the U.S and thats not popular
and I cant forget the author who wrote in a national pub in the 90s,"Minnesotas policy of stocking one fish per acre assures it will never be a destination for the serious muskie angler"
everything we do is stupid and dumb and backwards,,, but yet everybody wants to come here
it works,,,
and no its not because of all the BIG water,,we have 50 inch fish coming from inner city park lakes that yuppies walk their poodles around "check the recent George Wahl tourney results" and the metro tourney history
the current state record tiger came out of a 180 acre lake,the former out of a 400 acre lake.
its working jut fine,,,,
Edited by happy hooker 11/7/2012 7:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Delayed mortality and increased harvest on walleye and panfish are the 2 main sticking points on it Pale. |
|
| |
