|
|
| Looks to me like Wisconsin has alot of catching up to do.. With the about the same amount of fish caught in the Hodag and the PMTT on Tonka. But with 39 fish over 40" on Tonka. And what maybe six or seven in the Hodag over 40", Heck the Hodag had more teams and used more lakes..
We have some lakes (a few) here in Wisconsin 40" size limits or larger and still cant compete with those types of numbers of large fish. I also heard of some 50"+ fish being caught prefishing Tonka.
So would a higher size limit make the difference?. People are afraid large muskies are going to eat there walleyes, but Minnesota still has the best Walleye fishery with all those large fish.
With large fish that common over there now, it almost makes me want to put a for sale sign in front of my house and move back there. Anyone over there need a Salesmen??LOL[:bigsmile:]
So what should Wisconsin do about this? We have a poor Walleye fishery and a poor Muskie fishery. In the last ten years our waters have been poor shape with numbers of quality fish. |
|
| |
|
| I think larger limits will help some. Some people say not and say some lakes are overstocked and have too many fish. Not to tick anyone off but noone has ever offered up an example of overstocking and too many fish. Only one example of raising the limit hurting and that was bone lake. That's it.
I think they have some better water too. They have some superb big bodies of water that will grow good numbers of really big fish. Maybe we should dig a few up and bring them here while they aren't looking(during a viqueens game).[:devil:] |
|
| |
|
| I think we need to get rid of the Indian spearing. They take tons of walleye and many musky each spring and who knows how much they take in the winter. I believe Minnesota doesn't have spearing and look how their fisheries are doing.
Kris Swamy |
|
| |
|
| K-Bob
Minnesota DOES have spear fishing, but Minnetonka is a metro lake and not in the ceded territory. The water is extremely fertile and has handled the angling pressure pretty well for quite a few years. Locals will tell you, however, they're noticing the changes. |
|
| |
|
| I think that the size difference in fish also correlates to the size of the water. More water (acreage) can host a higher desity of BIG fish.... MN should have an advantage. However, if there is anything WI can learn in regard better management practices from MN.... it is obvious we should follow suit. I don't know if higher size limits is the answer... but it is probably a good place to start.
Congrats to the tournament fisherman for such outstanding results. It is really neat to be able to compare results from state to state. Is this something the DNR should consider as feedback to their programs? Maybe someone should put a memo together with BOTH tourney results and mail it to the WI DNR????
jlong |
|
| |
|
| I personally don't think that a 40 inch size limit will help, because in 5 years every fish that is 40 inches will be kept by the weekend warriors. I think they should run a slot limit that anything 40-50inches must be released. That way if it is going to be kept it will either be really tiny or, a real trophie. I also think that minnesota has done a better job of knowing what types of fish are in each lake and they for the most part were bought up on catch and release and in wisconsin there still is to many old timers that keep every muskie they catch. The guy in the cabin next to me has kept every legal muskie he has ever caught and has nailed the heads on his garage, Trust me there has to be at least 200 heads on there that he as caught over the last 20 years and on the lake of only 170 acres. You just dont see the muskies in there like we use to when we were young. The only fish you see are small ones, and then you look at his garage and see some huge heads and just wonder what might of been.
Well best of luck the rest of the year.
Jim |
|
| |
|
| unfortunately the law allows the above mentioned behavior(killing 200 muskies for sport)to happen... i am by no means an elitist with C&R - but it is unreasonable that a single person should kill so many muskies-legal or not...
i think the evidence is irrefeudable that MN fish managers are managing better than the WI guys- hopefully they will take a look at the evidence and make some changes soon...
zach sanders |
|
| |
|
| I was up on Tonka this past weekend and all I can say is WOW.
Great fishery!!!!!!!!!!!
I do think that the large size of the lake has a lot to do with the size of the fish it can support, however I feel that a larger size limit here in Wisconsin would help. If there was a higher size limit on your lake Jim K. your old timer friend could not have killed so many of those muskies. I feel each lake should be looked at and then given a size limit. It would do no good to have a 40 or 48 inch size limit on a small lake that can not support a large fish fishery.
As for stopping sucker fishing, how many fish in recent years have been caught on a single hook kill rig compared to a quick strike rig. I feel that a lot more fish get hooked bad from lures that will end up dead or die from long photo shoots and keeping the fish out of the water for to long of time. This kill's more fish through out the year that a few anglers fishing a few weeks in the fall with kill rigs. |
|
| |
|
| Lets see:
1)MN has higher statewide size limits.
2)One line per person.
3)There season starts in Mid June. and ends quicker due to ice up.
4)MN has larger lakes in general Like Leech, Tonka and Vermilion. But some of the small meto and northern lakes pruduce big fish also in Minnesota.
5)And maybe is the pure blood lines, but no they are stocking Wisconsin strain??
6)It cant be that we have too many anglers that kill fish, heck my relatives from MN would grill a muskie in a mill-a-second.
So whats the problem?????
Do we need to stock baitfish in our lakes to make the grow faster and larger?.
Maybe less muskie stocked, with more baitfish stocked?? |
|
| |
|
| Basing regulations of fact rather than public sentiment would go a long way toward improving (I initially wrote fixing, but they're not in horrible shape) our fisheries. I don't know how much information sharing goes on between agencies, but some kind of symposium involving the DNR from the States and Canada would be very beneficial.
Now my opinion based solely on observations with some scientific fact:
Most anglers who have an opinion don't have enough information to make a valid decision. Leaving our size limits up for voting makes no sense at all. A better question to vote on would be "How do you want lake X to be managed?" Then let the biologists manage the lakes the best that they can with the scientific information they have available. A perfect example of this is the Chip. Flowage. The size limit question was voted on and may or may not end up becoming a reality. If the question the public voted on was "Do you want the flowage managed mainly as a trophy fishery or as a numbers lake with mostly smaller fish?" most would vote for a trophy fishery. The resort owners who boast/advertise the Chip as a place where the world record was caught and a place where their clients have a shot at a huge fish would have a much harder time not voting for a trophy fishery. Then the actual managing of the lake would be left to the biologists whom I'm fairly sure would make the limit 50". This concept makes much more sense than having the general public vote on actual size limits.
Secondly, Minnesota has bigger water than we do. My guess (and again it's only a guess based on limited scientific data) is that only a few of our lakes have great potential for numbers of big fish. The Chip, some of the other larger chains and some of the big, deep Cisco based lakes are the only ones that could handle numbers of big fish. Many other lakes probably fall into the category of good numbers of decent fish and a few big fish. Through regulation one might be able to manipulate the numbers to favor more bigger fish, but it would have to be at a lower overall density and have the right forage available for big fish.
Stocking the right strain of fish along with the right numbers of stocked fish is important too. This is an area that a symposium could be very helpful. Minnesota stocks the Leech Lake strain that apparently does very well. Wisconsin also has their own genetically superior strains that grow to bigger sizes. Are there certain instances where one strain will grow larger than another based on the makeup of a particular body of water?
Spearing and single hook kill rigs are obvious problems, but at the very least spearing is happening in both states. The single hook rigs are probably much more of a problem in WI.
For the most part we can't troll in WI. How many of the 'Tonka fish were caught trolling? Out of the top ten at 'Tonka I would almost be positive that at least the Wiley boys were trolling. Would the numbers have been different if trolling was legal here too?
|
|
| |
|
| Two comments:
Based upon experience the size of the lake has little to do with it. I have a 200 acre metro lake near my home that has the same fishing.
I beleive that Wiley''s fish was not caught trolling. To understand why trolling is not the reason you''d have to fish Tonka. Weed growth is everywhere and you can''t avoid it. For someone to troll Tonka with alot of success they would have know that lake incredibly well.
Not overstocking, higher size limits, Huge C & R ethic, and correct waters being stocked is the reasons that we are enjoying the fishing that we are. I also would like any Tonka PMTT fisherman to let us know how many short fish between 34 & 40 they caught. Not to mention the Pike population.
|
|
| |
|
| You guys are trying to compare apples and oranges here. It just doesn't work. Makes a good discussion, but not very much science involved. |
|
| |
|
| If you wan't an even more amazing comparison look at the results from the Mukies Inc International Tournament held a couple of weeks ago in Northern Minnesota. Weren't there over 100 40 inch fish caught and 7 over 50 inches??
BTW a friend of mine not associated with the PMTT Tournament pulled a 51 out of Tonka on Friday!!!!!!
The MN fishery is definitely in excellent shape.......
John B
|
|
| |
|
| That's not to mention all the fish that got burnt by everyone that pre-fished...including a 54" by Thrash Miller and his partner scored a 51" the next day. I beleive that all the larger fish are not the Leech strain but the barred version. This I am not positive of. Whomever said it's apple and oranges is correct...Just MN has bigger ones!
For now. |
|
| |
|
| Bob,
Dale Wiley caught his fish casting..
But I think you are right on the strain of muskies. Leech lake strain looks to be the better overall producer of large muskies..
Maybe the true Wisconsin strain is not too true anymore. |
|
| |
|
| I guess you don't want to compare those to the Can-Am in the Kawartas but there was some 40+ legals (36) and for sure 20+ of those were 40+ with 2 over 50. And there was but 109 anglers in this 2 day tournament. My partner and I had 5 legal equaling some 209 inches, man to think this is small fish waters for Ontario.[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Well I have a little time so I figured I would chime in with my opinion here.
I think the minimum size limit is the biggest factor in the difference in numbers for the two tourneys. I hear this apple to oranges argument all the time, but what exactly is the difference between Wisconsin Lakes and Minnesota Lakes. I understand the size of the body of water argument, but I don’t think it is a factor when you look at fish density. By the number of fishermen, to fish caught it appears the density is about the same. It’s not like you have to work harder on those big bodies of water to catch those bigger fish, which would lend me to believe that the over all density of fish is about the same. In fact you talk to some Wisconsin anglers who travel to Minn. to fish it sounds like the Minn. density may be even higher than what is found in Wi. The forage base on those lakes is almost identical to the forage base in Wisconsin. The Leech lake strain of fish could account for the larger number of fish over 50 but lets look at just legal fish.
Hodag Musky Challenge.
200 teams fishing just over 9000 acres of water caught 42 fish over the legal limit of 34 inches, for a success rate of 21%. 17 of those 42 fish were 5 inches or larger then the legal limit.
Minnitonka PMTT
150 (I believe it was a full field) teams fishing just over 14,500 acres of water caught 38 fish over the legal limit of 40 inches for a success rate of 25%. I don’t have the numbers for fish greater then 5 inches large than the legal limit. Hopefully someone can post that info.
Look at those numbers and decide for yourself if you think a 40 inch limit would make a difference here in Wisconsin. I think it would. When you look at success rates of 21 and 25 percent they are almost the same. The difference is the legal limit in Minn. is 40 not 34. But I feel the size of the water is not a factor as long as the density of fish is approximately the same and the forage base can handle that density, it doesn’t matter if the lake is 100 acres or 100,000 acres. It is fish per acre that matters.
Now it would be curious to see the Minnitonka numbes for fish 45 or better, my guess is that it will be a higher percentage of fish then the Hodag 39 or better. That is where I believe you would see a difference because of, single hook kill rigs, multiple lines, spearing and strain of fish. If there is a influence caused by those items.
BUT, as far as legal fish then proof is in the numbers, for me. A 40 INCH MINIMUM LIMIT COULD ONLY HELP WISCONSIN.
On a different note the only map I found for Minnitonka was an older one on the internet, but it looked to me like it is more of a chain of lakes then a single big open body of water like Leech or Cass. If this is the case how does it compare to say the Three lakes chain as far as open expanses of water are the bays and sub lakes bigger or about the same size. The largest lake in the Three Lakes chains 7000 acres is about 1000 acres with a couple other near that. What are the sizes of the bays on Minnitonka?
Thanks
Nail a Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| I think that wisconsin has bigger muskies and nobody wants to tell their secrets. I also think the people from Minnesota like to flaunt their stuff to much. Rember who has the world record.
This was just ment to be humorus no offense to anyone.[:)] [:praise:]
Later
Jim |
|
| |
|
| I was just making an educated guess regarding the Wiley fish being caught trolling. The point though was that sometimes the casters catch the fish, sometimes the trollers do and alot of times both have good luck. In WI we don't have that option and I really think that has to account for at least a few of the bigger fish that are caught in MN. Whatever gain in numbers of big fish caught MN gets from trolling could be offset from our sucker fishing though.
Steve, a 200 acre lake that fishes as well as 'Tonka? Lucky you.....I would keep that one to myself.
Whoever said something about the density per acre has a good point. But I think that some lakes can handle a larger density than others. A lake with more diverse structure and forage should be able to sustain more fish. Take a look at two lakes of the same size. One may have a lot of fishable shoreline, mid-lake structure, weeds, rocks, deep holes, cisco, perch, sucker, etc. while the other may be shallow with a weed edge, maybe some rocks or wood, perch and suckers. Both lakes could hold big fish, but I would have to think that the latter wouldn't have as many big fish. Maybe a more accurate guess would be a lake that fishes big has more potential. What does that 200 acre lake look like?
The bottom line though is that WI does have at the very least a handfull of lakes that should have the ability to compete with the lakes in MN. Why they don't is certainly open to debate. I for one would really like to see the MNDNR and WIDNR work together in an effort to improve what we have. |
|
| |
|
| I am bringing this back to the top, because I am curious about the size of Minnetonka and it's bays and the number of fish 45 or better caught in the PMTT.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| Mike,
On your first post you had said that Wis. had a 21% rate with Minn. a 25% rate. Keep in mind that on Tonka ONLY 40 fish were regestered. My partner and I caught 7 muskies last week end while fishing the PMTT but none over 40. We had talked many teams that did the same if not better on smaller fish. Re do the math once with only 40 inch fish from the Hodag, see what you get for a percentage then. I think this is something that the DNR in Wisconsin should be aware of. |
|
| |
|
| Bill,
You missed my point a little. I was trying to point out with a 40 inch limit and the same approximate legal catch rate between the two tourneys, the state with the 40 inch limit is much more fun for all. I know the percentage of 40 inch fish caught by Hodag teams (6%) is far lower then the PMTT fish over 40 (25%). But remember on the Hodag lakes, 40 inches is 6 inches larger then the legal limit. I still would like to know how many fish over 46 where caught last weekend at the PMTT. I would be curios to see how that number compares with the 6% over 40 from the Hodag. If they where close it could really open some eyes around here.
I know there are hole in this science, but I have done this comparison a number of times when Minn. tourneys fall on or near the same weekend as Wisconsin tourneys, the numbers always seem to play out the same way. I wish I would have kept records of the times I looked at this before.
The key in my mind is as long as the density per acre is the same the Wisconsin lakes should be able to handle the higher size limit just as the Minnesota waters do. Please someone knock a hole in this theory, so I can stop thinking about it.
This goes out to everyone, as a Wisconsin fisherman how many fish between 23 and 33 inches do you put in the boat every year. How much fun would it be if those fish where between 30 and 40, plus you would still have the same number of fish between 23 and 30. I think it would be pretty cool.
Nail a Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| Mike,
I don''t have exact #''s but 9 over 46 for sure. I''ll email Widlacki and see if there were anymore than that. So MN had a 25% rate of fish 6 inches over legal. |
|
| |
|
| I have a feeling that the genetic makeup of stocked fish may be causing some of the small-fish problem in Wisc. I posted in another thread on this board that I recently saw Tim Simonson talk about the state of the Wisconsin musky fishery at the Aug MI mtg in Milwaukee. Mr Simonson works for the WI DNR - not sure to what capacity he's directly involved with musky stocking, but he did say that at least some of the brood lakes are selected because of their high potential to produce many adult fish - regardless of size or genetics. He listed Bone Lake (Polk Co) as one of those lakes. Someone else posted on this thread about possible musky genetic/size problems on that very lake.
I'd like to see some sharing of info between the WI and MN DNR. Maybe MN musky management is doing something that the WI musky management could learn from. It sure would be nice to watch the average size of Wisc's muskies increase. How do we get both DNRs from neighboring states to figure this out?
Dave Dawson |
|
| |
|
| Time to bring this one back out of the archives. Just a couple of things to address for me and then all of the newer members can have a crack at it.
1st, in reading these threads I noticed someone mentioned that the 40" size limit has hurt Bone Lake. Must be a different Bone Lake than the one I fish in Western WI. The fishing here has never been better fo 40" plus fish. Finallystarting to see some bigger fish again. May not be quite as many numbers but then since when has Muskie fishing been strictly "how many" as opposed to "how big". I for one like to catch a couple of 40s as opposed to a few 34s. 2nd, in discussion of large vs small waters, I agree that Minnetonka is a very split up body of water. Many smaller bays and arms making up a larger overall acreage. If what we are talking about here are larger Cisco based lakes like Leech and Cass producing larger fish. Why doesn't Tomahawk produce these large fish as well. I understand that there are occasionally large fish caught in these waters as well. But I have been fishing R&Hs tournaments almost from the start and this Fall was the 1st 50" plus fish to be caught I believe. This fish did not come from one of the larger basins but out of Kawagasaga. In contrast there were 3 fish over 50" caught in the Cass lake tournament this year alone. Where do all of you think the best overall job of management is taking place. We get 74 teams for a two day tournament in Westren WI on Deer and Bone lake every year. This tournament has been held each year for over 20 years and there has never been a fish over 48" caught in the tournament. Are there some 50s around? Yes there is. Are there as many overall fish as in Mn waters? Certainly as many, maybe more. It takes 5 to 6 fish to win this tourney almost every year. Just does not seem to be a lot of trully large fish. My belief is that we in WI have been managing for numbers in stead of size for many years. If size is what matters then protect the larger fish. A 40" to 50" slot limit makes a lot of sense to me.
Let Em Go...Let Em Grow.....Mike |
|
| |
|
| Mike: I would like to make a follow-up comment to your post about Bone Lake. Seems that some folks have taken recent research about Bone Lake incorrectly. While that study did show a "decrease" in weight vs. length for Bone Lake fish, most have missed the point that even at that "decreased" weight, they are still "above" the Wisconsin average for weight vs. length! A VERY important distinction!
While the rest of the thread is very tempting to "jump in on", it is a very long and complex thing and I shall resist the temptation. I will say however, that there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation floating around out there!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
We'd love to hear of the misunderstanding and misinformation! Perhaps it can help us all better understand why it seems to be such different ways of management and catch sizes. The Wisc. hearings are soon and any info you can share would be appreciated!
|
|
| |
Well I will start the topic.. The two tourneys in