|
|
Posts: 3156
| Miinnesota guys if you get the chance go over to fishingminnesota.com in the muskie section and check it out, Outdoor news wants feedback Outdoornews is a pretty influential publication in our state
hopefully I didnt violate any of this websites policys directing traffic but its an important issue
Edited by happy hooker 2/1/2013 4:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | Great thread. Love the idea. I gave my input. |
|
| |
|
| You guys should read the ridiculous response some anti fool wrote in the letters to the editor section of the new Outdoor News. Some people... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I'll have to pick a copy up. My thought is, what would the cost associated be with some kind of subsidy on replicas over 50" to ensure the big ones live another day. It seems like something muskies inc or the dnr might want to consider as part of their management plan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | OMG really...
So, you're saying that there should be a monetary incentive for you to put a big fish back into the water so it can get bigger and you can enjoy it again?
Really...
Aren't we taxed enough????
Doesn't MI spend enough to stock our lakes???
Now you need money from a non-profit organization (which you probably don't even belong to) in order to release a 50" fish???
Really?
I feel like gouging my eyes out after reading this last post and wonder if I've been wasting my time over the last decade... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I'm just saying if replicas and skin mounts were closer in cost you'd see more fish released. I personally have no desire to keep a fish no matter how big. I'd just like to know the economics of that versus stocking. And I bet you don't throw a fit when the DNR throws money at putting more fish in. Again, I don't know all the numbers, but it is my understanding that some of the fish that are stocked can cost as much as $10-$20 a piece. How many of those fish ever live to see 50"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | It'd definitely a thought....can't bash the idea as it is an idea.
questions in regards to it as well...
How does the catch get verified and who will need to be hired to deal with it? How do the $$ get back to you? Who's going to watch over the funding?
If the money were there to do it, it would be an incentive, but I have a gut feeling that the cost associated with doing something like this would be quite high as compared to the money that would be generated.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The cost of a replica vs skin mount is about $1-2 and inch if you're talking a good fish mount. I would hazard to guess that most people who bonk a fish to get them mounted throw them away once they see the $500+ price tag. A size limit of 56" would eliminate that waste and get people to start thinking bigger (both of themselves and the fishes maximum size.)
I do know all the numbers concerning costs and mortality as I'm the one that negotiates the private stocking for the TC Chapter of MI which does the most private stockings of muskies in the state. I also know all the numbers when it comes to the DNR and MI budget and the thought of either entity giving away free money to some dude who decided to release a 50" fish is ridiculous.
For the record I would guess that around 2-3% of all fingerlings stocked have a chance to make 50". That's why it's so important to raise the limit. So you can either protect the resource or give away Muskies Inc Foodstamps.
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/1/2013 6:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | We want to accomplish the same thing. I'm just thinking outside the box and saying that I would guess a relatively small subsidy to get that fish back in the water might be cheaper than trying to grow another one to replace it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Thats cool! 25 years ago that 50 inch is big fish so today it is nothing! More 50 inch plus than ever before and big thanks to catch and release! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | VMS, The details would obviously have to be worked out, and if the government was involved, it may very well prove to be too costly. Just trying to think outside the box on ways to ensure we can continue to catch these beasts for years to come. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 307
| The logistics alone of trying to pull off a subsidy like that would be enormous. How do you "verify" that you released a 50"? A picture on a tape measure? DNR verification? If the subsidy is worth anything people WILL cheat. It's not that tough or expensive to go to a sign shop and have a "shrunken" 60" ruler printed to give it the appearance of being longer than it is.
Not counting all the political on taxation reasons why it shouldn't be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I completely hear you on that Plunker. Just a thought. That being said, I personally wouldn't even take the subsidy and I'm sure most people on the forum don't need incentive to release these fish. It would be nice if the casual fisherman had some kind of motivation to put a trophy back in the water. It always sucks when you see some walleye fisherman with a hog in the boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'm definitely not knocking your thought as sometimes thinking outside the box as you have done here can get something good on the table, and...has a good potential of working. Brainstorming is always a good thing to do.
I say let's keep thinking about additional options as well...good things come from sometimes very simple thoughts..
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
Location: deephaven mn | here is the incentive, not money bigger fish! if you let a 50 go it will grow next year 51,in two years 53 etc.etc.
its all ready proven it will eat a bait, let it go and catch it again next year or catch the other eater that someone else let go
incentive! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | As good as the fisheries in MN are now, I think it could be short-lived if we don't make some changes. We have a sport that seems to be rapidly increasing in popularity, as well as an ever increasing influx of people making this a destination and many forums like this getting the word out. I'm 100% for an increase in the size limit and frankly wouldn't care if they made it 70". I'm sure there will be some kind of kick back about increasing the restrictions. I'm just wondering if there aren't other ways we can achieve the same desired result. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I agree 100% kap, but unfortunately many fish are still removed. I'm more worried about the end result than the means I guess. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | we already do this, at least in my chapter of Muskies Inc.
Capital City chapter (in Madison, WI) gives away 2 free replicas every year. we do a random drawing for our members, one entry for each fish 45" or longer that was released and registered in the Lunge Log. it's specifically intended to encourage both using the Lunge Log and releasing large fish. as our chapter's release coordinator i get to draw the names at our meeting on February 11th. if someone wins a replica in our chapter once every 20 years, their membership costs are essentially free.
join Muskies Inc, select Chapter 08 and you can be in our drawing next year!
but that's a separate issue from whether or not folks should get behind high release limits in MN...they should. it's a world-class fishery that took a ton of investment to create over the last 35+ years. preserving it increases opportunities for everyone to catch large muskies and attracts millions of dollars to the state every year.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 307
| Nothing wrong with ideas. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: WI | The Lake Superior Chapter of Muskies Inc has a free replica for the biggest fish in our club every year. Since you're in Duluth Ammoman16, have you considered joining? I'll be working the M.I. table at the Duluth Sport Show at the DECC on friday Feb 15th, or you can come to our meeting of Feb 12th at Mr D's in west Duluth to hear Greg Thomas speak.
We've discussed the MN size limits at our meetings. If you want to get involved it's easy to do! I think our club recommended going with what the DNR finds suitable, but most thought 54" was a good start to mirror Canada. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I've been a member of the local chapter. I didn't renew last year (a complete lapse on my part). I hope I'm not being taken wrong thinking that I need incentive to release fish. I've never kept a musky and can't imagine that I ever would. I'd like to see others release more fish. How many fingerlings is one 50 returned to the waters worth? That's all I'm asking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Nolan - 2/1/2013 5:30 PM
You guys should read the ridiculous response some anti fool wrote in the letters to the editor section of the new Outdoor News. Some people... are you talking about the darkhouse guy that wanted to eat the 48 inchers? I got to meet him in the meetings in Waterville to try and get Tetonka stocked and his big concern was he couldn't eat them. Boy he's one hungry fella. Funny I really don't get why the MDAA is fighting this or why they care. |
|
| |
|
| I was originally against moving Minnesota's minimum from 40" to 48" feeling that many of the kept fish in that range were a result of newbies and non musky anglers accidently catching them and they would likely die from overhandling anyway.
I was really enlightened over the past few years when I have seen a number of waters I fish have high numbers of 48 to 52s kept because they were "legal" not mounted, but eaten or smoked. Another crop of those were carted off to the taxidermist with the thought "I'm mounting my first 50". Two of the lakes that has been regularly occuring on are not near the fishery they were a few years back because the over 48s have had a high harvest rate. 56 would've protected those fish so that everyone reading this post could that fishes those lakes would have a better chance of catching a 50. Sad that is no longer the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| I wanted to chime in on this. I myself will not keep a musky but that is of my own doing. I have no problem if someone wants to keep a fish, it could be the biggest fish they will ever get and i will admit for a person like that to be able to bring it home and show people means a lot. I understand the need for catch and release, but i think people are getting so wrapped up in this have to have bigger and better society we are in. How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. The are just as hard to find for an average hunter as a 50" muskie to an average fisherman. I know i am going to get blasted as you can get a replica made, but we still need to remember that after all is said and done it is just a fish, and not the most important thing in the world. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. The are just as hard to find for an average hunter as a 50" muskie to an average fisherman.
weird...i know someone hunting private but unfenced land in southern WI that let a couple of 150" class deer walk this fall while filming a television show because they weren't yet big enough to take - if you let them go they get bigger, see?
regardless, it's completely apples to oranges. a trophy deer that's 4-7 years old is much easier to replace than a trophy muskie that's 20-30 years old. and of course, there's scads more deer since they're not an apex predator.
show off the pictures or the videos. or the replica, i've never had anyone visit my house and suggest the muskie on my wall is inadequate because it's synthetic instead of skin. mostly they say, "wow, that looks great." funny stuff.
Edited by lambeau 2/2/2013 10:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | My opinions on this is we should absolutely raise the limit to 56". However, I believe that one of the many reasons we all fish for muskies is to be "THAT GUY" that caught the state record or the world record. Obviously not everyone is going to thump a fish even if it did fall under one of those categories. But unless you have actually caught a state/world record you can't tell me what you would or would not do with the fish. If I caught a state record I am 99% sure I would release the fish. On the other hand, I'll just be honest and say that I don't know if I could release a world record... And I'm talking WORLD RECORD. Meaning HUGE. A "TRUE" world record fish is more than likely towards the end of it's life anyway, and to have that title or accomplishment under my belt would be something that I am not sure I could pass up. Before anyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that I would 100% kill it either. I spend a lot of time with these fish, stocking, rearing, doing what I can to better the fishery. It would be hard to pass it up, but harder to kill it. I'm not sure what I would do. To be fair, I am a big musky activist. I spend a ton of time with my local chapter stocking fish, fundraising to get more fish in current waters as well as the possibility of getting new waters. that is just the beginning. CPR is just as important to me as it is to the next guy. But we all need something to shoot for. We all need goals, this just happens to be one of mine (as I'm sure it is for some other guys).
To help myself and other anglers accomplish their goals of breaking state, world, or personal records, there is no reason why the limit shouldn't be increased. All it is going to do is guarantee that you will have more and better shots at big fish down the line. It will keep more large fish in the water and give more anglers the chance to achieve their fishing dreams.
IMHO. If everyone out there (meaning all the musky nuts) seriously wanted to C&R every fish they caught. Instead of extending the size limit, people would be pushing for them to be STRICTLY catch and release. Which I am not opposed to. But if there is going to be an increase, it should be a large increase that is actually going to do some good for our state and the musky fishery. Because anything above 56" is getting darn close to that state/world record status. It also means that unless the fish is a genetic freak, it more than likely only has a few years left on it's life span. Not saying it is a reason to kill it, but it puts a different spin on the decision prior to making it. Records were meant to be broken, someone some where will break it (not without speculation of course).
There is no reason not to raise the limit. I will be pushing the size increase as well as most here in MN should. It does nothing but help you to further accomplish your goals, and a sense of knowing that the big gurls are lurking under the surface is just more reason for me to be on the water. (not like there is not enough already).
So say what you want, but there is NO reason that the limit should not be increased.
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/2/2013 10:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | bigred2198 - 2/2/2013 8:07 AM
How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference.
There's a huge difference. It took 4-5 years to make that buck but a 50" muskie takes 12-15 years. You can have 3 year classes of that buck for every 50" muskie. That 50" muskie can also live and be enjoyed for an additional 5-10 years as well where that buck is likely dead by 7-8 tops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer. also muskie treat, for the average guy who doesn't get much time to hunt and is not in a prime big deer area a 150 deer is a once in a lifetime deer, as is 50" muskie. Some areas it might be 10-20 years to create a 150 deer, they do not hide behind every bush. Like i said i have no plans on ever keeping any of the muskies i catch, but we need to work together with all groups instead of all the bickering between, the muskie, northern, walleye bass, and the other fishing groups. I am not a walleye guy but they have a stamp to help their fishery, i think that a muskie stamp would go a long way as well to help cover the cost of stocking and muskie management. The idea i think has been brought up already, but should be pushed again. With the amount of money we spend on muskie gear, a $10 stamp would almost cover the cost of one stocked fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| I am all for it. I may keep some walleye or crappy for eating, but I pretty much CPR everything anyway. I can get my heavy metal daily allowance from something other than a 50 inch fish that has lived in polluted waters and eaten other polluted fish for 20 plus years. Nor do I need the ego boost of having the fish I caught on my wall, a replica will work just fine. Let em grow! Even if it only has 1 year left of life, it may spawn and add more "big genetic" fish to the system for later. Looking at this and other threads, I don't think many on MF would keep a musky of any size. So, with that in mind, I think the debate should focus on how to get the other anglers to not harvest them. If I was a walleye or bass fisherman, with no plan to fish for musky, why would I buy a musky stamp anyway? Alternatively, I know people who will bonk a musky simply because they think they eat all their walleye and bass. Regardless of the increased size limit, there needs to be some type of PR campaign to increase the awareness of anglers in order to protect musky fisheries. Without that, we are just yakking to the same audience and spinning wheels. I'm sure Muskies Inc is working on that, as they have done a good job working with various DNR's to get the fishery to the point it is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Last I knew, LAX charged the same for replica's as for skin mounts for the very reason to promote catch and release! |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer.
and that is exactly the point. they can limit harvest and they get bigger deer.
if you raise the limit on muskies ("highly managed") you'll get bigger muskies.
get it? got it? good.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Fat-Ski, a wr could be a 55 incher depending on the girth. Ex. Lazarus+Barbosas 58lbs--. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| lambeau - 2/2/2013 1:55 PM
in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer.
and that is exactly the point. they can limit harvest and they get bigger deer.
if you raise the limit on muskies ("highly managed" ) you'll get bigger muskies.
get it? got it? good.
Last time i checked all the lakes are public and not just for a few select to use as they see fit to get what they want. what is with the get it, got it, good remark. Are you not able to have a civil chat with such a tort remark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | ski - 2/2/2013 2:16 PM
Fat-Ski, a wr could be a 55 incher depending on the girth. Ex. Lazarus+Barbosas 58lbs--.
-----
I understand that, but the increased size limit (if accomplished) will further concrete accurate assessments of potential state and world record class fish. In short, there is no reason not to raise the limit |
|
| |
|
| The low information walleye crowd who are convinced the Muskie is wrecking their wallet fishery will be thrilled with a new 56" limit. They are going to catch bonk and release even more. Something to think about.
One more thing, how does this affect stocking? I mean why stock as often if the limit is 56" these fish will live forever. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Last time i checked all the lakes are public and not just for a few select to use as they see fit to get what they want. what is with the get it, got it, good remark. Are you not able to have a civil chat with such a tort remark.
wow. a 56" limit would mean essentially all the fish are released...kinda like well-managed private hunting land: they get to keep growing.
muskies are a trophy species; if you want something to tug your line fish for pike or smallmouth or bluegills, they're plenty fun on light gear. but if you want big, you've got to let the fish get big, and size limits are clearly one of the best ways to increase the percentage of very large fish being released.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for? |
|
| |
|
| At first I was put off by the arrogance of 56" size limit. I thought 54" would still make it reasonable. The PR on this endeavor has been poor so far, but I agree with the size, but hope for more reasonable presentation. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Ben still lot of 54 being caught, 56" is kind of that the next level of fish that is just not be caught be alot of fisherman and truly is a special fish. I know that at 53 is going to be very special to alot of people. But alot of fish being harvest in the 50-55 range. Kind of like a 130-150 buck compared to a 170 class.
Troyz
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What's been poor so far? It's a recommendation and hasn't progressed beyond that. There is no "plan" as of yet to present, only the idea and a recommendation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for?
well, let's be realistic, Mike. people get told what to fish for all the time. you work for a DNR that does it: who is the Utah Wildlife Board to say that i can't take home a cutthroat trout if i want to?
"big red" is saying that people should be allowed to keep a big muskie, something that more and more places are starting to disallow, or at least think about preventing.
for example, if you're on Lake of the Woods with a 54" size limit you pretty much can't do what he says should be allowed. Ontario is in effect saying: "muskies are a trophy species, if you want to keep a fish, try one of our lovely pike or walleyes."
- 1986 limit raised from 28" (36% harvest rate) to 40"
- 1992 limit raised from 40" to 48"
- 2001 limit raised from 48" to 54"
that progression looks almost identical to the path that MN is on right now, and for exactly the same reasons: evolving attitudes towards viewing muskies as a catch-and-release trophy species.
and there's good evidence that it's working. since the 54" limit went into place on Lake of the Woods, the average muskie catch size for my chapter of Muskies Inc has gone up by 4 inches. let me say that again, our average catch size has increased by 4" in 11 years just since changing from a 48" limit to a 54" limit (with a sizable n of over 500 releases). that increased average reflects more fish being caught on the upper end of the range. anecdotally, friends of mine who have lived and fish up there for decades report more very large muskies in the 52"+ range than ever before. this is all at the same time that LotW is experiencing more angling pressure than ever due to the increasing popularity of the sport.
Minnesota has the opportunity to do the same thing, with fisheries that can and do produce muskies of trophy caliber.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2013 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 2/3/2013 1:07 AM
What's been poor so far? It's a recommendation and hasn't progressed beyond that. There is no "plan" as of yet to present, only the idea and a recommendation.
The two threads I have seen on it thus far have been more divisive than educational, that is all. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | lambeau - 2/3/2013 7:48 AM
Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for?
well, let's be realistic, Mike. people get told what to fish for all the time. you work for a DNR that does it: who is the Utah Wildlife Board to say that i can't take home a cutthroat trout if i want to?
"big red" is saying that people should be allowed to keep a big muskie, something that more and more places are starting to disallow, or at least think about preventing.
for example, if you're on Lake of the Woods with a 54" size limit you pretty much can't do what he says should be allowed. Ontario is in effect saying: "muskies are a trophy species, if you want to keep a fish, try one of our lovely pike or walleyes."
- 1986 limit raised from 28" (36% harvest rate ) to 40"
- 1992 limit raised from 40" to 48"
- 2001 limit raised from 48" to 54"
that progression looks almost identical to the path that MN is on right now, and for exactly the same reasons: evolving attitudes towards viewing muskies as a catch-and-release trophy species.
and there's good evidence that it's working. since the 54" limit went into place on Lake of the Woods, the average muskie catch size for my chapter of Muskies Inc has gone up by 4 inches. let me say that again, our average catch size has increased by 4" in 11 years just since changing from a 48" limit to a 54" limit (with a sizable n of over 500 releases ). that increased average reflects more fish being caught on the upper end of the range. anecdotally, friends of mine who have lived and fish up there for decades report more very large muskies in the 52"+ range than ever before. this is all at the same time that LotW is experiencing more angling pressure than ever due to the increasing popularity of the sport.
Minnesota has the opportunity to do the same thing, with fisheries that can and do produce muskies of trophy caliber.
That's all well and good but not remotely related to what you posted.
You essentially, in so many words, told someone to go fish for something other than muskies because his views weren't in line with yours.
Where we manage for big cutthroat, we do so for biological reasons. Usually Utah chub pop number reduction. Studies have shown that cutts of larger size have the ability to reduce chub numbers. Do the anglers benefit from higher size limits? No doubt, but the fishery wasn't created for giant trophy cutthroat.
At a time when license sales continue to fall, it seems anglers should be promoting the sport not pouting because there aren't 58 inches around every piece of cabbage. It isn't that I don't support higher limits, it's the way some go about pushing for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Let me be really clear:,,,, I'm FOR increasing the size limit to 54 inches in "the state where nothing is allowed",...Minnesota
I hope I didn't confuse anyone,.....Bigger IS better. How can I help ?
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | That's all well and good but not remotely related to what you posted.
i think it's related in the sense that we're all told what to do all the time...and it's often based on someone else's views. the Ontario MNR made a decision that is different than some people's views - and 10 years later we're seeing the results in Ontario in ways that should inform the discussion on size limits in Minnesota.
You essentially, in so many words, told someone to go fish for something other than muskies because his views weren't in line with yours.
well, to be clear, "big red" wasn't saying he wanted to harvest muskies himself, but was advocating that others be allowed to do so. it's a version of the "little Johnny" argument and it's a distortion of the value of muskies as a trophy sport fish.
and absolutely i stand by my suggestion that those folks whose goal is to harvest fish should find a different species to target. they'll have more/easier opportunities to reach their goal with other species and they won't harm the muskie fishery in the process.
in the past 10 years members of my Muskies Inc chapter have caught 243 muskies 45" or larger (the legal limit) on local waters. imagine the condition our fishery would be in today if they'd all been harvested! it's an easy slide back to the 80s if we adopt laissez-faire attitudes about the harvest resiliency of muskies.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2013 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
| You can put the limit to 58 or even 60 inches. Fact is that the majority of muskellunge DO NOT have the genetics to reach 54 let alone 56inches. There are over 350,000,000 people in the USA, only a very small percentage reach 6'6 or even 7ft for that matter. I find it concerning that one group feels that they have the right to dictate what everyone else must do. I also wonder if anyone is taking into consideration what effect this is going to have on the forage base. On large lakes like Nipeeing or Huron for example it would have a minimal effect, on a smaller lake once your predator numbers get so great the forage numbers will feel the pressure. Lake St.Clair has larger muskie then ever before. A few years back it was hit hard with a vhs outbreak. Muskie numbers went down, the forage had a chance to really increase and look at the results. I fish the Kawartha lakes, years ago they held healthy populations of 25lb fish and above, many in the 40lb class. Now because of an extreme view of catch and release numbers are at an all time high, the only problem is that walleye and sucker numbers and average size have dropped dramatically and it's much more difficult to come by those 25lb class fish and above when compared to 30yrs ago. Bottom line is that a lake can only support so many top predators and (only my opinion) some of these smaller trophy waters will start showing the end results, and quite possibly we may change some of our views in the next ten to fifteen years. For the record in all my years every muskie I have ever landed was released but one. Should someone decide to keep a muskellunge it is their choice to make and as long as they obey the laws not my place to judge.
regards John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | John K - 2/3/2013 5:57 PM
You can put the limit to 58 or even 60 inches. Fact is that the majority of muskellunge DO NOT have the genetics to reach 54 let alone 56inches. There are over 350,000,000 people in the USA, only a very small percentage reach 6'6 or even 7ft for that matter. I find it concerning that one group feels that they have the right to dictate what everyone else must do. I also wonder if anyone is taking into consideration what effect this is going to have on the forage base. On large lakes like Nipeeing or Huron for example it would have a minimal effect, on a smaller lake once your predator numbers get so great the forage numbers will feel the pressure. Lake St.Clair has larger muskie then ever before. A few years back it was hit hard with a vhs outbreak. Muskie numbers went down, the forage had a chance to really increase and look at the results. I fish the Kawartha lakes, years ago they held healthy populations of 25lb fish and above, many in the 40lb class. Now because of an extreme view of catch and release numbers are at an all time high, the only problem is that walleye and sucker numbers and average size have dropped dramatically and it's much more difficult to come by those 25lb class fish and above when compared to 30yrs ago. Bottom line is that a lake can only support so many top predators and (only my opinion) some of these smaller trophy waters will start showing the end results, and quite possibly we may change some of our views in the next ten to fifteen years. For the record in all my years every muskie I have ever landed was released but one. Should someone decide to keep a muskellunge it is their choice to make and as long as they obey the laws not my place to judge.
regards John
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that if we take more big fish out of the lake, we'll have more big fish in the lake? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | 56 inch min is better than catch and release only! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | Is there a good way to show support for this? MMPA usually has some sort of link to send out to government officials so we can show our support. I'm all for it, though I think it will take a lot of effort to get it to go forth. Seems like there are a lot of people bummed out about this too. I read in Outdoor News letter to editor today that the guy is so bummed that he will keep and eat every legal musky he catches now. Hopefully he isn't a very good fisherman.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2058
| Maybe start with a few lakes to get traction? It would nice to at least see the big pond and V protected to at least 54". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Ben, there isn't a proposal yet and this thread wasn't started by those that had the input from the DNR.
Right now the DNR is reviewing this recommendation and will come back with their own. I doubt that they will come back with 56", but who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Kirby Budrow - 2/3/2013 8:42 PM
Is there a good way to show support for this? MMPA usually has some sort of link to send out to government officials so we can show our support. I'm all for it, though I think it will take a lot of effort to get it to go forth. Seems like there are a lot of people bummed out about this too. I read in Outdoor News letter to editor today that the guy is so bummed that he will keep and eat every legal musky he catches now. Hopefully he isn't a very good fisherman.... But with that said I think this should show why its time. Also the guy that was so concerned about over population you have no clue how Mn manages it's fisheries. First off how did these natural lakes ever get along before humans harvested fish? Second the stocked lakes get surveyed every three years to see what the density is so if it's too high or to low the dnr will adjust but it will take 17 years give or take to replace those big fish that bring so many to this sport and state. There is and hasn't been a problem with muskies eating all the forage in Mn and this will not create a problem here. Our dnr does too good of a job managing our muskie fisheries.
Edited by DLC 2/3/2013 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | John K: I don't buy the fact that forage will be impacted with a higher size limit on muskies in MN. Muskies are stocked at such a low density that it wont have a negative impact. Again the majority of lakes in MN are stocked and rely on being stocked at a low density to have a fishable population. That being said MN won't be overrun with small fish. The larger fish will be protected and released to be caught again. I am not saying go fish for another species if you are looking to keep one. It will just have to be a big one.
Kirby: Right now there isn't a voter voice set up nor is there any type of legislation written concerning size limits. We gave the DNR a suggestion. That's all it is. There might possibly be a call to action in the future.
There is very little if any opposition that we have heard.
IAJustin: The DNR wants a blanket size limit for the entire state. They don't want seperate sizes on different lakes. We have one catch and release lake right now but that is part of an intense series of studies for muskies. We have also talked about some type of "Master Angler" award for muskies caught and released. Still not really sure what that would consist of. I am sure we will explore into this more this weekend.
PointerPride: Muskie fishing in MN is the only avenue of angling that is continuing to grow. (Fulton study)
The MN muskie program was created to produce angling opportunity to catch trophy muskies. No lake in the state is managed for numbers. Opinions of the definition of "trophy" by muskie anglers have changed once many lakes peaked and larger fish were caught. I understand that the perception of what defines a trophy muskie varies greatly among muskie angler and non muskie anglers. I am guessing the DNR is leaning towards the side of anglers that come to MN to strictly angle for muskies. Not from a biological standpoint but from a economical standpoint. I understand that biologists don't have a degree in economics but it is easy to see what happens to a local economy when large muskies are present.
BenR: There is not a PR campaign with the 56in minimum. We have suggested it to the DNR and they are reviewing size limits among other things at the internal muskie/pike meetings.
Edited by kevin cochran 2/3/2013 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The MN DNR is funded by all anglers and the licenses they purchase. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 117
|
+1 for raising the limit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Pointerpride102 - 2/3/2013 11:00 PM
The MN DNR is funded by all anglers and the licenses they purchase. True, hence the reason they propose it to them. Then a dnr technical committee looks at it and dnr biologists and fisheries managers see if it feasible. Then the last step is public support. At least those involved are good enough people to let the masses know what is in the works. Better then some fishing orgs. |
|
| |
|
| I like it and think it's also good for other states who are currently having trouble getting higher limits accepted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Some musky can grow bigger than 56 inch then its 56 inch min and some lakes cant then lower limited. If someone is not happy with 56 inch min then fish other musky lake! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| This is a very rough “yellow pad” financial critique of the position that the “average Joe” who catches a 50” should be allowed to keep the fish for his wall. Consider Lake Minnetonka. An aggressive estimate of its adult population is 1500 fish, of which perhaps 10% are above 50”. (My guess is that <1% of the population is over 54”) Consider the following:
12 years – time it takes for a Fish to hit 50
1500 – avg. number of Fingerlings stocked each year (this number can vary widely depending on hatchery success and funding)
$14 – avg. cost per finglering
3% - aggressive estimate of fingerling survival rate (to 50%)
These numbers are estimations/approximations and are not exact. I just wanted to run the figures to point out the cost of a trophy fish. Using the above, it costs $21K today to produce the potential for 45 50” in 12 years. In that respect, you would be replenishing roughly 1/3 the population of the 50” class fish, or ~$467 per 50”. (Don’t forget the 12 year growing time)
Currently, if MI doesn’t pick up the slack, the Fingerling buy can be much lower. If you look at Tonka, there have been years where the stocking has been greater, but also years it has been far lower. This is also why the private hunting land comparison is not valid. Stocking fish in many MN waters is a cooperative effort between the DNR and clubs like MI, however use of resources is 100% available to the public. HUGE difference.
Now some might say, hey $467 isn’t that expensive, we can stock them every year and allow bonking. Now consider that is one 50” per 100 acres. (lots of assumptions there). How many acres of Musky water does the MN DNR manage? Many of the MN waters are over 3,000 acres. Tonka is over 14K, Vermillion is over 40K, ML is 130K. Sure, some of the very large basin lakes are going to have a lower fish per acre, but the point is that in order for MN to have a trophy fishery across its current 80 or so stocked lakes it requires a very significant cash commitment to keep the pipeline of 50s rolling. The DNR already does not have enough $$$ to achieve this, hence the efforts of local MI chapters to cover the gap. Increasing the size limit would mean, among other things, more efficacy for the dollars already being spent and perhaps create room for more lakes to be stocked in the future. I also think that 2-3% is a far lower number when you change 50 to 55.
Bottom line is this: Huge sums of money are being spent so anglers, including the “average joe”, can have a reasonable chance to catch a 50. Given that Graphite Replicas are available which allow an angler to mount the fish without killing it, is it too much to ask for the angler to spend a few extra dollars for a replica vs. a skin mount? I do not think it is. IMO, the real fight in MN is about getting more waters stocked to fish. (Which is very expensive and very difficult.) That means we need more financial resources. Part of that is doing things to make sure that our current investments are achieving the best bang for the buck in terms of the fishery. A 56” limit would have relatively low cost to the “liberties” enjoyed by current anglers (give the prevalence of CPR) while helping ensure the bounty of MN continues into the future.
As an aside: The North Metro Chapter also gives away a mount to the annual big fish in the club. There is also a mount rewarded to the biggest youth fish.
Edited by Brad P 2/4/2013 9:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Brad,
Very well stated!!!
Treats,
Do you have any links to the muskie stamp discussions/explanation with why there is not one in MN. I understand the reasoning why there isn't one- but many on here are new to muskie fishing and may be unaware of the past discussions.
Thanks
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 34
| Well said Brad, best posting on this subject |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Thanks guys. I'm just trying to apply some logic to this.
In running those numbers, the thing that jumped out to me is that it is easy for a regular fisherman, like me, to look at this on a fish by fish basis or a lake by lake basis. The one lake/one fish arguments against this attitude have been stated, basically that if there are a 150 trophies in Tonka then it doesn’t take much over a 6 month season to wipe out or severally damage the very limited resource. Even if you are replenishing at a rate of 45 per year, that is a very tight margin of error to avoid damaging the trophy population without sound CPR practices. (I know that is simplifying it.)
The thing that changed for me with the numbers was to look at the cost across the whole state. If the DNR is already low on funds and needs MI’s help plus we pile on bonked fish, then we are on borrowed time. In short, where is the money going to come from to replace our 50s? That is the big issue to me. Yes, Average Joe pays taxes and/or buys an out state license and completely deserves his shot at that trophy. But the cost of keeping that fish is prohibitive given the low fingerling survivability rate and the cost of stocking them, let alone the 12 year growth period.
It would be one thing if a skin mount was the only option, but in the era or replicas it isn’t. So the question to me on the topic really comes down to this:
Is the difference in cost for the Replica vs. the Skin Mount more important than the potential harm to the fishery and cost to the stocking program (12 years and $467). IMO, the answer is No.
I think the biggest challenge the MN fishery faces is education. In the metro sucker fishing is exploding and the cost of equipment to soak a minnow is extremely cheap compared to other forms of musky fishing. This presents a challenge in that the preferred tools to release a large musky probably cost 3-4x as much as the gear needed to soak the minnow. (The stocked fish costs 9-10x as much) Is a casual shore angler going to invest in the proper tools? The economics say not likely. So how do Musky enthusiasts educate this growing segment in order to prevent higher mortality rates and great damage to a fragile resource? That is a huge challenge. I do not think a 56” limit is a solution to this issue, but it does do some good: It will provide a legal means of incenting said angler to release fish <56”. Assuming the angler knows the rules, they will at least be thinking “release” when they catch their trophy. Right now they do not “have” to think that way at all. Hardly a total solution, but it is a start and much better than nothing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | No idea Sorgy.
The main problem points as I see them is 1. It equates to a "harvest stamp". Who's going to get one except to harvest a muskie. 2. The logistics of both managing the stamp and tracking the harvested fish would be cost prohibitive. 3. What are we getting for our money? I'm not a fan of how the money from the walleye stamp is being used at all. It's covering their regular stocking when in fact it was supposed to provide supplemental stockings above and beyond the normal plan. 4. When only a few people who want to harvest a muskie buy the stamp and we have 5000 sold we lose all credibility when it comes to getting new waters/stumping for any conservation issue.
IMOP, there's not a single good reason to have it and I fight with many others over this and will till I die or stop caring. MI and the HCB Fund provide more then enough supplemental funds for anything the DNR has ever requested. We aren't getting new lakes at anything short of a snails pace. All the added revenue gained (probably a neg flow due to Gov't inefficiencies) would probably be used to give us the program we currently have. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | Brad I think you hit on some very good reasons why the protection of true trophy fish is needed. I think that keeping this whole discussion in the context that our muskie waters in MN are for the most part currently managed as a trophy fisheries (with the exception of the tiger lakes in the metro) and that is something that I would like to see continued as would a large number of muskie fisherman I would contend, then the increased size limit makes a lot of sense. Given the number of different MN lakes that show up in the lunge log every year with 50"+ fish caught out of them the genetics and forage seem to be in place to continue to grow trophy caliber fish, so why not protect a 52" trophy fish so that it has a chance to be a 54" trophy fish the next time someone is lucky enough to catch it.
I also agree with Treats that if a muskie stamps becomes a reality it woud likely be used as a way to fill the gap that would have been created by decreased funding to muskie related programs, so we have to be careful what we ask for. If there is a stamp or anything else that is created that will positively impact stocking new waters then sign me up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3156
| I want the 56,,but I know there will be some after effects,,
has a life long Minnesotan I know how my fellow Minnesota bass,walleye,panfish fisherman think
they "WILL" raise the point that less muskies per acre should be stocked in current lakes now that 99% will be released,,Weve already heard this point brought up on local fishing shows like 'fan outdoors' and "Bear facts and fishtales"-muskie anglers release all their fish why stock has many,,,, even the smallmouth on Mile lacs are getting the same treatmeant-its a released species they will take over the lake,,,
With the DNR budget strained this less stocking may get a look. One executive Minn DNR rep told me that even if the public opinion seems wrong compared to our opinion on an issue we DO have to listen to their concerns
I hope we are SURE that delayed hook mortality isnt higher then we want to believe it is because if stocking numbers go down we could have less of a muskie fisherie. I hope we get some assurance that stocking quotas in the future wont change if the 56 gets passed |
|
| |
|
| A couple of years ago, I was having lunch at Bayview Lodge on Lake Vermilion. Waitress asked if we were fishing. We said 'yes, musky fishing'. She replied that a guy from out of state came in a couple of days earlier showing off a photo of a musky he caught and kept and the fish was bigger than the guys 6 year old, who was in the photo for a size comparison. She told me the next day, he caught and kept another fish from the same exact spot, which was even bigger than the first. She was amazed. "Isn't that incredible?". Sorry, but that left me feeling a little sick even though perfectly legal. But laws evolve everyday for a reason and I think the musky laws in MN should change to reflect our modern times and a valuable slow growing public resource.
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | This discussion has really taken a postitive turn.
Great Job to all that are fighting this fight. There are alot of you guys- To many to count to thank.
Brad P- you have some very solid discussion items that are vey well communicated - great job
Hooker,
Your point about delayed mortality is a really big one. It emphasizes the reasoning behind educating people on how to correctly handle and release fish, not fishing ourselves when water temps are high and also Brad P's point on educating the Sucker fishermen around the state and elsewhere.
Thank You for this solid discussion
Keep it up
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 2/2/2013 10:58 AM bigred2198 - 2/2/2013 8:07 AM
How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. There's a huge difference. It took 4-5 years to make that buck but a 50" muskie takes 12-15 years. You can have 3 year classes of that buck for every 50" muskie. That 50" muskie can also live and be enjoyed for an additional 5-10 years as well where that buck is likely dead by 7-8 tops.
How many of you would let a 150" buck walk on PUBLIC land? We fish public waters right? So, because I release a fish enables someone else the opportunity to catch (and hopefully) and release it as well. But I would be willing to bet that 90% of you would shoot a 150" buck if it were on public land because most everyone else on public land would.
Private land? Completely different story.
Back to the musky talk...
To me 56" limit essentially makes it catch and release only. It stops just shy of it, but its close.
I dont think setting a "statewide" limit at 56" is a good idea for ALL lakes. I could see some lakes like Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Leech, etc get a 56" limit, but other lakes have something in the range of 48 to 54 would be more appropriate.
I think angling pressure and capabilities for the lake to produce a fish of those calibers should be the main consideration for setting the limit.
We already have differentiation for Shoepac lakes. I think we should consider similar rules here.
Not all lakes will produce fish to and beyond 56". Far more are not capable of doing it than can. I would never keep a musky in the first place, but I wouldnt get completely bent out of shape if we had reasonable limits in place that would protect our fisheries and allow the potential for keeping a giant if someone so chose. A giant on one lake may be an up an comer on another. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Captain I follow your reasoning, but I do not agree. Here are my thoughts:
Given that Graphite Replicas are available there are only 3 reasons I can see to keep a fish under the proposed 56" restriction:
1.) The angler wants to eat the fish
2.) The angler wants to save money by getting a skin mount vs. the more expensive replica or prefers the skin over the replica
3.) The angler has an abnormally girthy fish in the 54-55" class that might compete for a record
For item 1, there is no recourse, the right would be lost. However, I think those who are concerned about losing this right are in a very small minority.
Item 2 seems to be an issue for some. I think the regulation is fair given the costs of the stocking the fish. At the end of the day the regulation is essentially asking an angler to pay the difference in cost between a skin mount and a replica. My opinion is that it is a fair price to pay in order to help sustain the trophy potential of the fishery. It would be much different if there were no alternative to a skin mount. Then it would be a situation where you cannot have a mount without a rare fish which would be a bum deal. However, with replicas you can get any fish mounted as long as you take a picture, so you are not losing the opportunity for a mount, it is just more expensive. Again, I think the additional cost is fair given the benefit to the fishery.
Item 3 I can see a point being made. Case in point would be the 2nd Hammernick fish this fall which was shy of 56" but had a legitimate shot at breaking the state record. Kudos to the angler for releasing that fish, but I can see a case for a very upset angler being legally forced to release a record breaking fish. In that respect I could see going to 55" vs. 56" and still maintain the spirit of the regulation, I'll defer to people who know more about fish size than I do on that one.
These are just my opinions on the subject.
Edited by Brad P 2/6/2013 1:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Brad P, You forgot one other obvious answer to keeping a fish under 56.
4) Angler wants to bonk any musky he/she catches because they hate them
Tongue in cheek a little bit, but you know there will be people grandstanding about not allowing anyone to keep any muskies and what that means to other fish. It happens all the time.
As mentioned by others MN Musky fishing was established to allow a "Trophy" fishing opportunity. Nowhere in the long range plans does it talk about numbers.
So, to me it boils down to what is considered a trophy then and that I feel varies by lake.
I dont know what the cost differences are between skin mounts versus replicas, but there are a LOT of people that want "their fish" on the wall and now some reproduction. I guess that is #5 now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 125
Location: Barnesville MN | Brad P #6 reason. You catch a big fish say 53-55" and you try to release it but it dies on you. do you just leave it floating or do you keep it illegaly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| #5 still comes down to the same type of question as the Replica vs. Skin Mount thing, IMO. It is different framing, ie “they want their fish” but it is still ultimately a question of one angler vs. the fishery as a whole. Is it is worth killing a 12+ yr old stocked trophy so somebody can have “their fish” on the wall vs. a replica? I get that someone might take that view, but I do not find it persuasive. It is still basically a question of selfishness, IMO. Yes, you have that right, but at what cost to the fishery we all enjoy?
I generally do not like taking the utilitarian view at the expense of liberty since it is almost always a bad trade. However, in this case I can see a strong reason to limit the freedom of anglers, ie skin mounts vs. replicas, when it has such obvious benefits to everyone who uses the resource. “Their fish” could be 50 people’s fish over the course of its lifetime and the individual in question will still have the option of the replica for their memory of that fish. That is simply more effective use of the resource overall.
#4 is pretty much ridiculous, which is how I think you meant it. The important thing there is to recognize that while a size limit change will alter how law-abiding anglers handle the fish, poachers are another story entirely. That is an enforcement concern.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| 2labradors - 2/6/2013 3:55 PM
Brad P #6 reason. You catch a big fish say 53-55" and you try to release it but it dies on you. do you just leave it floating or do you keep it illegaly.
I get what you are saying, but at that point does the reg really matter? This is a red herring IMO. Look at the corroloary, are you really going to advcate against the size limit on the basis of this argument:
Someone has a bad day and a 53" dies on them during CPR, therefore we shouldn't protect the entire fishery so they can keep their floater.
Also, if you put an exception in for a fish that died while attempting release wouldn't that create an incentive to just bonk the fish and then when you bring it in say "hey sorry, it died in the net..."
IMO, you jsut take the licks on this. It is better than having bad policy with a bunch of caveats that all lead to unitended consequences. That is the same problem with having different size limits on different lakes. What if you fish 20 different lakes, are you going to remember which one is 42, which is 48 and which is 56? Simpler is better, it makes it easier to communicate to all anglers and get them thinking more about releasing and protecting muskies which is the whole point. Add a bunch of If this, maybe that, and the base message gets lost in the confusion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 125
Location: Barnesville MN | Brad, I agree with the 56" inch limit and fish die I just know how peeed off some people get when they see a big fish floating dead. Also I don't see a real serious problem with different size limits on different lakes. There are slot limits for walleyes, crappies etc,on different lakes that I fish, but it would sure be alot easier if it was all the same. |
|
| |
|
| Brad P - 2/6/2013 3:59 PM
#4 is pretty much ridiculous, which is how I think you meant it. The important thing there is to recognize that while a size limit change will alter how law-abiding anglers handle the fish, poachers are another story entirely. That is an enforcement concern.
Brad, you are right it was intended to be ridiculous, BUT there are people I know personally who openly comment like this and are completely serious. Thankfully they are not equiped to fish for muskies or have any relative skills so they are not very successful, BUT, they have killed pretty much every legal fish they have caught. Granted at one point that was fish 40" plus, now its 48", but the fact of the matter is it is done and no, they do not do it for the sake of eating it (though the fish are consumed) that isnt their intent.
I would stop short of saying these folks break laws in doing this meaning, i dont think they keep sub-legal fish, so a higher limit would protect more fish, BUT, my point was there will be negative feedback by walleye, panfish and other anglers in essentially making muskies catch and release and they will likely push for lower stocking numbers since the fish will not be harvested.
I do agree with your thoughts however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I do not know if those with baseless opinions are persuadable or even if it is worth trying. The thread about the Hey Day of MN being over is similar in some respects: Are there really less fish or has pressure changed the game? I think our friends in the fishing community that chase other species are perhaps falling victim to the same mindset. They like catching their beloved fish in one way and do not want to broaden their skillset. The fish get pressured and adapt, the angler doesn't adapt and then decides to blame Muskies or some other conveinent bogeyman that can't fight back. (My father in law does this, he will only fish for Walleyes with a spinner rig, which doesn't work well for him in Todd County MN, so he drives 9 hours to Sakaweah (sp?) in ND because his tactics work there. I admit to finding this funny, since Miltona is 35 miles from his house, but he is a good guy so I don't say anything to him.)
If I could figure out how to fix this problem I'd have a heck of future in politics.
Edited by Brad P 2/7/2013 12:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| BradP
No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize.
Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish):
#1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them.
#2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught.
That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN.
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| I had walleye guys tell me the same thing about the muskies eating all the walleye then told them my buddy cought over 40 the other night so they must just suck. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I am not going to go into specifics... But I know for a fact that there is a bait store in the Metro MN area, where one of the workers is an avid panfisherman. He has expressed his personal hatred for muskies to me before he knew my stance on them. He also expressed to me that he tells all of his customers to kill every muskie they catch and he does the same, because they are eating all of his panfish. Well, after disclosing some of this to me, I expressed who I was and what I try to do for the sport. We had a friendly debate over muskies and because I could back up some stuff with facts, he had no argument. I don't go to that bait shop very often unless I have to for whatever reason.
But I believe 100% that there are many different types of people out there that are blatently miss-informed about muskies and their habits. A lot of those people already formulated an opinion that is dam near impossible to change. However, we need to try because that crap is stepping over the line. I don't like carp all that much, but I don't try and catch em jsut so I can slit their throats. Some people just deserve a few knuckle sandwiches from time to time. EDUCATION goes a long way. We just need to continue to educate these people in hopes that they don't kill all of our fish. because as we all know, there are people out there that do and will
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/7/2013 4:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| My statement that it is ridiculous has more to do wit the behavior being obnoxious that to the truth of hte existance of the mentality.
In terms of the size limit restriction, it would only help. With that law in place, any of these guys bonking a fish under 56" would be considered poaching. Obviously this becomes an enfocement issue, and that is a whole other set of problems, but in terms of hte proposed limit, I would think that case #4 would only support the case for the stricter restriction.
Education is the key on folks that have the mentality you guys are describing. Not much else you can do. |
|
| |
|
| Use T.I.P (Turn In Poachers) when you see/hear guys abusing our natural resources. Write down their license plate # if you don't know their name. My buddy just turned a guy in for bragging about all the crappies he had caught/kept that day. CO showed up to his house and sure enough there was 60 uncleaned crappies that he kept that day. Point is quite a few of these guys that break the law are often not very smart and like to brag about what they have done. At the very least it will give CO's names of people in their area that are linked to such abuse. TIP works. |
|
| |
|
| 123 - 2/7/2013 3:38 PM
BradP
No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize.
Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish):
#1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them.
#2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught.
That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN.
Brian
I absolutely believe this is the #1 cause for decreased populations in some of those lakes in minnesota. Combined with spearing and netting these are problems that can not be controlled. I have witnessed muskie in whitefish nets and heard the net owners complain that the muskie are tearing there nets up and eating there whitefish and tulibee. I have seen them muskie floating with a knife wound in their stomach and a net ring around their nose. I have heard the comments from walleye guys and cabin owners. They hate the muskie and 100% blame them for decrased walleye population.
I have heard the cabin owners cuss at them for scaring there kids while hiding under docks.
The only thing that is saving these lakes is the big muskie can usually break those little walleye lines.
I bet those walley guys, cabin owners, whitefish netters, and panfisherman will not be in favor of any 56" size limit. Might as well put walleye eating sharks in their lakes and then try to tell them they will just be eating suckers and wont bite your kids.
Edited by 4amuskie 2/8/2013 10:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| This arguement is lame.I was at the dnr round table and no one said a word when this was discussed. In fact most walleye guys that know anything realise the the muskie lakes provide the best walleye fishing. And we have the proof. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | You may feel it's lame but it's a fact that many of the uneducated non-muskie fisherman out there hold this view. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The discussion is relevant in terms of protecting the fish, but it is not really relevant to the 56” size limit proposal beyond what has already been stated. To recap:
If limit is enacted, bonking a fish <56” will be considered poaching. As far as this discussion is concerned that should be the end of it.
Not trying to dismiss the concern, it is a valid concern, but this thread is about the 56” size limit, and as far as that is concerned the above is pretty much all that needs to be said with regard to this topic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Has a harvest tag already been discussed? Countless times I suppose. I know it's kind of off-topic, but I've never heard what other musky fishermen think of this.
$100 (for example) tag must be purchased prior to keeping a fish, 50" minimum length, limit one per angler per year. C&R permitted with just the state fishing license. Much like big-game saltwater fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | That might be a good option. I can't imagine many would be sold, and I'm sure it would eliminate pretty much any chance of a new record though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| ammoman16 - 2/8/2013 11:54 AM
That might be a good option. I can't imagine many would be sold, and I'm sure it would eliminate pretty much any chance of a new record though.
Why? I think most people would buy the tag who are [being honest with themselves and legitimately] after a state/world record.
One [of probably many] flaw is that it might make someone MORE likely to keep a low 50 than if they didn't have the tag. Let's say Jo intends to keep a musky someday for the wall. And let's say Jo catches a 52" this year under the current laws. It's legal, but he thinks he'll catch a bigger one someday, so he let's her go. Next year Jo has to buy a $100 tag, and does, because he's confident he'll get a big one. He get's another 52" but keeps it because (A) he spent the money on the tag, and (B) he doesn't think it's likely that he'll catch bigger in that season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I would think that would be better option if it was done in conjunction with a raised limit. That said, I'd be shocked if even 25% of musky fisherman bought the tag. I think most go out with the intent on C&R and would like to tell themselves they would release a record fish so they wouldn't even buy the tag. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | One of the many problems with a musky stamp. The only people that are going to buy one are those that 'plan' on catching and keeping musky for whatever reason. The stamp would not be a situation where "you have to buy a stamp in order to fish for them legally". You might as well have to buy a seperate license just for musky fishing. Which would never pass.
I am not the best one to way in on a topic such as this, but "MuskieTreats" has all sorts of info about this topic (some of which whave been discussed on this thread) and very valid points to why it is a bad idea. I have heard a ton of them, but now that I am on the spot of course I can't think of any. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | 123 - 2/7/2013 3:38 PM
BradP
No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize.
Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish):
#1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them.
#2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught.
That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN.
Brian
Putting a 56" limit on muskies (or C&R only) is going to do as much to stop these losers from slitting throats as much as banning guns is going to keep the bad guys from shooting people.
I don't know what the whole stamp proposal is, but why not sell a yearly possesion tag? You could only keep a fish above 50" (or some other arbitrary number) with your tag, but once your tag is filled, you're ineligible for another one for 5 years. That way a guy could keep one fish, whether it's because he wants to get it mounted, couldn't revive it, he wants to eat it, etc. every 5 years.
Most or all of the money could go to stocking.
Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 1:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The assumption on stamps and stockings is that all the additional funds will indeed go to stocking. However, we are talking about government. Exactly what guarrantee is there that the additional funds will be used for additional stocking? Or will they be used to continue current efforts so funds currently committed to Musky Stocking can be re-allocated elsewhere. Keep in mind the Walleye stamp lost money it's first few years. You are better off donating to the MMPA or your local MI club, IMO.
On the 56" limit and bonking/poaching. I covered that. It obviously will not stop someone who is willing to break the law from killing fish. My point is that is an enforcement issue and isn't a reason, in of itself, to not support the limit. Would you like for there to be no size limit because a few jackwagons are going to criminally kill fish? Maybe we shouldn't have a closed season since a few dinks do not follow that law also? Once again, the corrolary to the position is just silly.
I can see how the arguments are logically similar to gun control, but, and I'm sorry, only an idiot would equivocate losing the right to keep a fish with losing the right to protect your family and private property. Protecting a mostly man made fishing resource is not the same as the 2nd amendment. The arguments might be similar in abstract, but morally they are so far apart it is ridiculous to even mention them in the same sentence.
Edited by Brad P 2/8/2013 2:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | Brad P - 2/8/2013 1:59 PM
I can see how the arguments are logically similar to gun control, but, and I'm sorry, only an idiot would equivocate losing the right to keep a fish with losing the right to protect your family and private property. Protecting a mostly man made fishing resource is not the same as the 2nd amendment. The arguments might be similar in abstract, but morally they are so far apart it is ridiculous to even mention them in the same sentence.
I never meant to equate the two, I was simply using an example to further illustrate your point. I fully agree that it's an enforcement issue. Guys who want to kill muskies or keep unlimited crappies/walleyes/sunnies are going to do so regardless of the regulations. It's up to the CO's to catch them and up to law abiding sportsmen to provide the tips to the CO's.
Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 2:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 1:22 PM
One of the many problems with a musky stamp. The only people that are going to buy one are those that 'plan' on catching and keeping musky for whatever reason. The stamp would not be a situation where "you have to buy a stamp in order to fish for them legally". You might as well have to buy a seperate license just for musky fishing. Which would never pass.
I am not the best one to way in on a topic such as this, but "MuskieTreats" has all sorts of info about this topic (some of which whave been discussed on this thread) and very valid points to why it is a bad idea. I have heard a ton of them, but now that I am on the spot of course I can't think of any.
Are you saying that a stamp or a tag is a bad idea? You're blending two different ideas together - stamps and tags. I'm talking about a possession tag, like someone else just brought up after me. You wouldn't have to buy two separate licenses. You can fish C&R with your MN fishing license. If you intend to keep one, you must buy a tag, and the fish must be a certain size to keep. I want to add that you would register the fish when bagged, like a big game animal.
Secondly, you're right that the only people who'd buy a tag (not stamp) are those who intend to keep one. That is not a problem with the idea; that's exactly the point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Im not saying that you would have to buy a seperate licesne I am saying it would be like buying a seperate license, or just make it so in order to fish for muskies you can only do so with this tag/stamp/ or seperate licesnse.
OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect.
Do I think tags/stamps are a bad idea... Yes, I have heard both side of the argument and I chose a side. The side I chose does not involve ever having a stamp/tag. Again like I stated previously, There are far better people to weigh in on this topic. People that have been back and forth on this for many years. Hopefully one of them will pipe up and explain in better detail than I am capable of doing at this time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 3:27 PM
OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect.
The daily limit of one fish would be erased. In order to keep any fish at all, you would first have to have the tag. Once your tag is filled and registered, you're done keeping muskies for the year. Without the tag, you can C&R all season long to your heart's content.
One fish per year is a helluva lot better than one fish per day.
Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 3:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| "I bet those walley guys, cabin owners, whitefish netters, and panfisherman will not be in favor of any 56" size limit. Might as well put walleye eating sharks in their lakes and then try to tell them they will just be eating suckers and wont bite your kids."
haha, i am hearing the music to jaws!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| Very good discussion and debate, apart from a bit of name calling and wording, this has been a very well written and thought out forum. Instead of bashing each other people are taking the time to think about the response they are writing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | lhprop1 - 2/8/2013 3:34 PM
FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 3:27 PM
OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect.
The daily limit of one fish would be erased. In order to keep any fish at all, you would first have to have the tag. Once your tag is filled and registered, you're done keeping muskies for the year. Without the tag, you can C&R all season long to your heart's content.
One fish per year is a helluva lot better than one fish per day.
-----------
I agree with the point of "one a year is better than one a day" That I can understand. But if someone out there wants to keep one, even if they used their tag.. they probably will. Like Brad P said. This would have to go back to enforcement. But because it would change from one a day to one a year. There would be a ton of push back from anglers of all kinds... not just multi speices guys, but some of the musky fisherman would push back just as hard. there would also have to be other benefits for the tag/stamp for it to pass.
You can't have a higher keep limit and a tag, its one or the other. and I think that going for a tag/stamp in the case of MN would be us taking steps in the wrong direction. It should be more important to us to have a raised size limit then it should be for a tag/stamp to be implimented, I know it is to me. A raised size limit would all but eliminate which fish are able to be kept. With the exception of the things already discussed on this thread. With the tag, you could keep whatever you want, as long as it was within the terms of the tag right? ok, well there in lies the issue. would the stamp keep ability be lower, higher or the same as the raised size limit. And if it were different, how do you enforce that, how would you know if someone had already kept there fish or not and from what lake. You would need to check every musky boat coming in and out of every lake to see if they caught? how big? get official measurments and weights? have they already registered a fish this year? do they even have a tag? was it caught legaly? Was the tag used by the angler who caught the fish, and not the other guy in the boat that already caught and registered a fish this seaason? There are just too many loopholes in the tag/stamp idea for it to ever REALLY work.
This is a debate I wish I could have in person right now. typing all of this with one hand (not to mention, my wrong hand) is driving me nuts. Have an forearm injury, so if I type with my right hand, my fingers go numb. no beuno...
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/8/2013 4:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| The problem with a tag is it could possibly open up muskies in Mn to other forms of harvest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | DLC - 2/8/2013 4:11 PM
The problem with a tag is it could possibly open up muskies in Mn to other forms of harvest.
--------
Another great point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I just do not buy the tag bit. Two reasons, first, why does someone want to keep a fish, we've been through that ad nauseum in here so I won't repeat my views on that.
My other issue has to do with the fundraising aspect. The idea is noble on the surface, but you have to ask who ultimately is in control of the created financial resource and how will it be allocated? In this case it is a government entity, the MN DNR. I see two important issues that arise:
1.) What is the guarrantee that the new funds will be soley used for Muskies?
2,) What is the guarrantee that the existing funds already allocated to Muskies will be maintained and grown?
Item 2 is the deal breaker for me. Leave alone all the issues of Government as a resrouce allocator, there is no guarrantee or protection that the tag funds won't just be considered a replacement for the exsiting musky funds so the DNR can reallocate it's budget for some other area. This is why I think we are far better providing funds to the MMPA or local MI chapter. Then you know the funds are going to be used for the fish.
It is also worth noting that mortality is not only sad in harming a fishery, it is also quite expense. The 50s we create today are costing roughly $467 based on my armchair math. If that 50 is taken in 12 years when it reaches size, it will cost the Future Value of $467. Even with 2% inflation, that number will be around ~$600. We cannot afford to assume that the stocking budget will increase in kind over that time period.
Edited by Brad P 2/8/2013 4:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | I can maybe shed some light on the tag issue. I have been involved with this and have talked extensively with other members of the MN Muskie Alliance as well as the MN DNR.
Tags encourage harvest plain and simple. One of our fears is the possibility that soft water harvest would be transferred to other means of harvest. This is a real possiblity with the political power of the MN Darkhouse.
The tag discussion has been discussed and it has no support amongst the group. There is not a problem in MN with anglers taking multiple fish throughout a season. If this was an issue a tag would be more appealing. However, there is a problem with anglers taking fish that are biologically in their prime. This is the reason behind a higher size limit suggestion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What everyone doesn't get in the tag discussion is this: How do you register it?
It works with sturgeon because it's a local area with a very short season.
It works with hunting because again, it's a very short season.
It costs money to maintain the registration of any sporting activity and I'm sorry to say that it would be flat out cost prohibitive to try to implement this with muskies. So essentially we'd be spending a lot of money to encourage harvest and have a negative balance in the muskie fund to stock more lakes.
Can we PLEASE drop the stamp talk now? The muskie anglers that know the details about it and the DNR BOTH want nothing to do with it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I think the stamp idea is a valid one and don't think it should be just dismissed. It's only cost prohibitive if the cost of the stamp to the angler makes it such. The idea of a stamp would make it illegal for most walleye fisherman to "bonk" a fish, regardless of size. Most of us musky guys have no issue dropping $25 on a bait, so I don't think this needs to necessarily be a $5 or $10 stamp. I for one, wouldn't hesitate to drop $50 on one. I typically target muskies no less than about 50 times a year. $1 a trip is pretty minimal in my opinion. On top of the benefit of less fish being harvested, there would likely be additional funds generated to put back into the sport. Even if existing funding was cut and these funds just got us back to where we currently are today, we would be miles ahead with the lower harvest rate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | People won't buy it unless it's manditory. Those that DO buy it wouldn't cover the administrative costs associated with it. PLEASE believe me! We've worked the numbers with the DNR for the last 6-7 years on this. The administrative costs alone to just manage a stamp (not including registration) is around $50k. Now include registration stations, the tag's themselves, enforcement, etc and you're probably in the $100-$250 range. Remember, this is Gov't we're talking about.
So again, why do we want to mess with a stamp when just raising the limit solves the problem for a small fraction of the cost. Why spend 6 figures ANNUALLY on something that has a simple, inexpensive solution? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I didn't say anything about tags or registration. I said stamp. There's a big difference. There doesn't need to be a physical stamp other than something printed on your current license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | 1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license.
2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000.
3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think.
4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution.
5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that.
All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively.
I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works.
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/9/2013 9:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Agree 110% with Treats on this one Boys,....He's the Pro on this kind of stuff, He has spent hundreds of hrs. with the dnr and knows the NUMBERS,....That's good enough for me,......Now let's raise the limit to 56" and maybe get a few more lakes stocked with muskies.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I also agree with Treats and Top H20 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | Muskie Treats - 2/9/2013 8:58 AM
1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license.
2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000.
3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think.
4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution.
5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that.
All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively.
I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works.
There is absolutely merit to this idea as there is with every idea listed so far. Maybe no one of these ideas is the right one by itself.
1. We have trout stamps because they are expensive fisheries to maintain. This directly corrolates to musky fishing. We have a lot of lakes with no natural reproduction, not to mention tigers are sterile. There has already been discussion on this topic about the expense to grow a 50" fish. Wether you believe those figures or not is up to you, but I think we can agree it is very expensive. You've got to pay to play.
2.. This wouldn't be voluntary, and frankly $50,000 is worth the price of protecting our fisheries. Even though, I believe it wouldn't cost that much to have something printed on your regular fishing license that says you can fish for musky.
3. Your target species would most likely be a judgement call by a CO. No different than if you're throwing a magnum Bulldawg on Mille Lacs in May while "pike" fishing.
4. Additional income would be a side benefit of this and not the primary goal. The primary goal is protecting and enhancing our fishery, which would be done through a reduction in harvest.
5. A stamp and a tag are two totally different things. I have been talking about a stamp that says you can fish, and not a tag that requires you to register your catch. I don't recall ever registering a laker.
New ideas from new people are never a bad thing and shouldn't be quickly dismissed as they very clearly are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| But I Shawn and others have been told by the DNR that they have no interest in a muskie stamp and Shawn's concerns were what the DNR told us. So this is kind of a dead issue. The 56 inch size limit is our best avenue to protect our fisheries.
Edited by DLC 2/9/2013 10:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| Give the money you would pay for a stamp to MI instead. Much less red tape to use your $$. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | ammoman16 - 2/9/2013 10:02 AM
Muskie Treats - 2/9/2013 8:58 AM
1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license.
2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000.
3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think.
4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution.
5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that.
All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively.
I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works.
There is absolutely merit to this idea as there is with every idea listed so far. Maybe no one of these ideas is the right one by itself.
1. We have trout stamps because they are expensive fisheries to maintain. This directly corrolates to musky fishing. We have a lot of lakes with no natural reproduction, not to mention tigers are sterile. There has already been discussion on this topic about the expense to grow a 50" fish. Wether you believe those figures or not is up to you, but I think we can agree it is very expensive. You've got to pay to play.
2.. This wouldn't be voluntary, and frankly $50,000 is worth the price of protecting our fisheries. Even though, I believe it wouldn't cost that much to have something printed on your regular fishing license that says you can fish for musky.
3. Your target species would most likely be a judgement call by a CO. No different than if you're throwing a magnum Bulldawg on Mille Lacs in May while "pike" fishing.
4. Additional income would be a side benefit of this and not the primary goal. The primary goal is protecting and enhancing our fishery, which would be done through a reduction in harvest.
5. A stamp and a tag are two totally different things. I have been talking about a stamp that says you can fish, and not a tag that requires you to register your catch. I don't recall ever registering a laker.
New ideas from new people are never a bad thing and shouldn't be quickly dismissed as they very clearly are.
-------
The ideas your coming up with aren't anything new. These people like treats who have been dealing with this stuff for many years now and have beatin this horse to death. Know that this is not a good idea for one of the many reason listed above. They have gone over this many a times with many a people and everytime they came out of talks it was determined that this was not somthing worth persuing. I think we all just need to accept and move on, unless you have some BRAND NEW version no one has ever heard or ever considered. This stamp/tag idea has been brought up more than the imfamous question.... -- "whats the best reel for double 10s"??
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/9/2013 11:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I didn't come up with them, just supporting others ideas that were posted on here. The ideas may not be new, but if people continue to say no to everything, pretty soon people will not even open there mouths anymore. Plus, the ideas themselves may not be new, but different people have different ideas on how to execute them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | These guys know. I suggest you listen to Treats when talking MN, he and the other folks who have worked hard over there to maintain the fishery know what will pass, work, and make sense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Dude, myself, couple other people that have commented here and a couple others (which I can't believe have kept their mouth shut) here are this generations inventors of "outside the box" muskie thinking when it comes to the MN fishery. When I took over the TC Chapter 01 it was the dark ages in problem solving. I peeed off so many people for not keeping an open mind to things we had a mass exodus from MI. We now have freaking think-tank sessions with many people from around the state and all different backgrounds on this stuff on a regular basis. We now have 5-6 figure budgets to tackle the muskie issues of the day. We have connections in the DNR we haven't had in decades. We've added more new muskie waters in the past decade then we had during any other time this side of the great muskie expansion in the 80's.
I've sat in meetings with the past 2 department heads of fisheries (and the local offices) as well as 2 DNR commissioners exploring new ways of protecting the resource and coming up with funds for these types of things. We've been down every known road on the stamp idea and it's not a cost effective solution for anything we're trying to accomplish. You can say "I don't think it would be that much", but I've sat through the meetings and have crunched the numbers. IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE!
What we ARE doing is working on things that DO make economical sense and pushing those. Raising money in fundraisers and donations to get political lobbyists in the MN Legislature for instance. Working with the DNR to create the Long Range Plan (where maximizing regulations is a critical component) https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/muskiepike_2020.html. Working with local Gov't agencies, stakeholders, and economic driving businesses to promote a trophy muskie fishery and it's expansion, etc, etc.
I do appreciate that you have an interest in furthering the MN muskie program, but please believe me that we have been down this road over and over again and there are MANY other avenues that are more cost beneficial which have a greater chance of improving our fishery for the amount of time and effort spent. If you would like to affect change in a real way I suggest that you join the MMPA and/or your local MI chapter. Use the information you gather through these conduits to educate yourself on the issues and if your idea truly hasn't been brought up then you'll have something meaningful to contribute to the common goal as well as a mechanism for change. Just spouting off ideas on the web doesn't accomplish anything.
An old crotchety B that goes by the name Dick Pearson once put me in my place like I'm doing to you right now. I took up his challenge around a decade ago and I think my record speaks for itself. BTW, I now count that man as a friend and my motivation to give more of myself to making a better fishery. If you're truly interested in making things better then I will look forward to meeting with you at one function or another.
Shawn Kellett
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/9/2013 10:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Now look at who's the old crochity B. Lol but treats is right we need feet on the ground not just guys that pee and moan on the Internet. I know all of you guys have good intentions but the more that get involved the better we can make our sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | LOL, I had a guy from the DNR say to me one day: "Shawn, when you get old and jaded give me a call." T-minus 7 months and 20 days til I'm 40. Just imagine what's to come!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | 40 ! YIKES !..... That's flipping Old.......NOT !
Edited by Top H2O 2/9/2013 11:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What's to come?
By my experience and ability to stay on the green side of the grass, so far...60. |
|
| |
|
| My wife and I both have Muskie C&R licenses, its called the conservation lic.Thanks to Senator Bakk.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Thanks for the info against tags. That's what I was looking for, and didn't realize it was already a dead horse. |
|
| |
Minnesota 56 inch minimum debate