|
|
Posts: 546
Location: MN | Wanted to pass this along to the muskie community. The 54th chapter of Muskies Inc has proposed a 55" statewide minimum size in MN. The proposal can be seen here: http://www.michapter54.com/pubfolder/PDF/MMPA%2055%20inch%20increas... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: Waconia,MN | Personally I'm all for it, let em grow I say. Catch and release get a replica and let others enjoy catching a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I don't know, 55 seems a bit extreme to me, I'd say go to 50-52, but I'm not going to keep one anyways so it doesn't really affect me.
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
Edited by dami0101 3/3/2014 1:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | dami0101 - 3/3/2014 1:47 PM
I don't know, 55 seems a bit extreme to me, I'd say go to 50-52, but I'm not going to keep one anyways so it doesn't really affect me.
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
While most of us are all for a 55-56 inch size limit and would be pumped if it would happen, I think the point of proposing a 56 inch limit is so there is some room for compromise. Shoot as high as you can and hope for something that is reasonable. At the minimum, we will get 50", and possibly more if we push for it. Lets all get on board with this regardless if it seems extreme! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| make it a 60" minimum ,,, and the result will be a 100% release rate ----- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 205
| jimjimjim - 3/3/2014 3:32 PM
make it a 60" minimum ,,, and the result will be a 100% release rate -----
Why not just make it 100% C&R? I would be more in favor of a 50". Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 161
Location: New Jersey | Catch and release only isn't so far fetched. Florida has done so with tarpon to protect the fishery and it's related tourism. I would venture to say that Minnesota muskies are along the same lines. Here are the Florida tarpon regs. http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/recreational/tarpon/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| dami0101 - 3/3/2014 1:47 PM
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
I second the STAMP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| bigdogg2278 - 3/3/2014 4:16 PM
Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R?
You could make the same argument on ANY musky you'd accidentally kill whether it's 40" or 50". I'd venture to guess the majority of fish harvested could have been released if the angler chose to or the laws required them to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: Leech Lake, Walker MN | Just do it 55
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | musky-skunk - 3/3/2014 4:47 PM
bigdogg2278 - 3/3/2014 4:16 PM
Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R?
You could make the same argument on ANY musky you'd accidentally kill whether it's 40" or 50".
Exactly.
I would love a 55 minimum. I think most of us would be super depressed if we killed a muskie, illegal or legal. If I somehow killed an illegal one I would call the C.O. and explain what happened. I would think most would let you keep it and document the convo so you don't get in trouble. I know of people who have been in similar situations and the C.O.'s are understanding and reasonable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Issue with the stamp is this:
Right now we get funding of $X in the DNR budget. If we start a stamp, we will get additional funding in the form of Stamp sales. Unfortunately, there is no guarrantee that our original $X will not be shrank by the DNR to be reallocated to other areas of their budget. The logic would be as simple as "hey they've got stamp funds, so we can cut $X and put it somewhere else".
I like the stamp idea in the sense that there is probably a huge group of folks out there who would gladly spend some $ to get a stamp to support the fishery. We need to find a better way to get those funds off the sideline. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | Why is the stamp idea being discussed? We're talking about raising the size limit.
The number of attempted failed releases with a 55" limit would be much lower than the number of intentionally kept fish if the size limit was 50. It's simple, less dead 50s. Thats what we are looking for right? If the average angler who accidentally catches a 50 may keep it if it is legal. That's exactly what we want less of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| lets all work together and try to make this happen the size limit should be 54+ mn manages for low density trophy fishery lets let them get huge. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| bcram555 - 3/3/2014 8:03 PM
Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought.
Who is to say that a fish under 55 inches couldn't reach 60 pounds?? I've seen plenty of fish in my area, from lake erie around buffalo, ny that are so girthy it makes me wonder... 47x29, 48x29.5, 49x30.5, 50x30.5, plenty of them.... Do your calculations on what a 54's girth might could possibly be. We have a 54" minimum size limit here, i wold bet someone might be pretty bummed having to release a 53.75 inch fish with a full stomach knowing full well that it might have reached that illusive, magical 60lb mark. Unlikely? maybe. Impossible? You be the judge. I am all for catch and release, but if it were me I might be thinking twice about giving it a bonk job and seeing for sure. That being said, if I lived there I would be in favor of it too as I am still in favor of the 54" minimum here, just some food for thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Who wants to start the petition? It's great that the 54th chapter is doing this, but why not do everything we can? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| bryantukkah - 3/3/2014 7:28 PM
bcram555 - 3/3/2014 8:03 PM
Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought.
Who is to say that a fish under 55 inches couldn't reach 60 pounds?? I've seen plenty of fish in my area, from lake erie around buffalo, ny that are so girthy it makes me wonder... 47x29, 48x29.5, 49x30.5, 50x30.5, plenty of them.... Do your calculations on what a 54's girth might could possibly be. We have a 54" minimum size limit here, i wold bet someone might be pretty bummed having to release a 53.75 inch fish with a full stomach knowing full well that it might have reached that illusive, magical 60lb mark. Unlikely? maybe. Impossible? You be the judge. I am all for catch and release, but if it were me I might be thinking twice about giving it a bonk job and seeing for sure. That being said, if I lived there I would be in favor of it too as I am still in favor of the 54" minimum here, just some food for thought.
Sure, a fish under 55" COULD reach 60 lbs. A fish under 50" COULD reach 60 lbs. Anything COULD happen. There's always someone looking to make an argument based on the 1 in a million exception that a guy will catch a 49x31 LOL. It's much easier if everyone acknowledges there are exceptions to most rules....the discussion will be much better and to the point.
Propose a 55" limit....settle on anything 50" and up....this is what we need to do! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| Same here I would release to catch again or for some one else .
I do the same with all Steelhead!!!
share the wealth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muskie tamer - 3/3/2014 1:41 PM
Personally I'm all for it, let em grow I say. Catch and release get a replica and let others enjoy catching a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| eightweight - 3/4/2014 10:03 AM
Same here I would release to catch again or for some one else .
I do the same with all Steelhead!!!
share the wealth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steelhead actually should be kept, that's the only reason they're there in the first place really. You're not doing anyone any favors by releasing them. I would vote to stop stocking non native trout species... Where's that petition? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| One in a million? Sounds like the odds of catching any fish of that weight regardless of length. Isn't that the topic at hand here anyways? If people weren't worried about the records, they wouldnt question the size limit. There are plenty of fish that are that fat... I would far sooner get a replica made of a 53x32 than one 5 inches longer and 5 inches skinnier. Be careful what you wish for that's all I'm saying. Here's one of your one in a million fish. If it was a couple inches longer it would/could be even fatter and I'd be hard pressed to say it would be much under 60lbs... Just one example, not by any means the only one either.
Edited by bryantukkah 3/4/2014 12:29 PM
Attachments
----------------
 image.jpg (44KB - 219 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| Here in MN, fish don't have measurements like 53x32 or 47x29...fish like that simply don't exist here. We are talking about MN here, not Buffalo, NY. Anybody else agree with that or are there a bunch of 50x30's swimming around that I'm not seeing? I realize Hamernicks client caught a 51x29 10-15 yrs ago but that's the most extreme example I can think of, and in 20 yrs of guiding 6/7 days a week, its by far the heaviest 51 inch fish that's ever been in his boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| I am all for a 55" size limit and would love to see it get passed. The best way to get a 30" girth in MN is to measure it with the floating ruler. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Metro, MN | 55 Inch or more all the way to 100% catch and release has my vote. This is good news to me |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If 100% catch and release is ever a reality, the Muskie program crashes if NR isn't reliable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | As much as I like te idea of the 55" limit and 100% catch and release I would worry that it is counterproductive. Almost all dedicated musky fisherman are c&r to begin with, but to take away the ability for them to mount that one trophy may be a big turn off for many anglers. We as a community need those anglers to help promote the sport. This in turn pushes the dnr to pump $$ into stocking programs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing they base their decision on whether to stock, or how much or how often to stock, based on an estimate of how many fish over 48" (current minimum) are kept or killed. Those aren't the fish being "replaced" by stocking efforts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| ^^^ no we don't, we have the next generation to teach the right way. Catch and release will be the norm and they wont think any different cuz it would be the law.get a replica and let it go to catch it again another day, maybe bigger.you know where she lives so you've got the best shot at catching it again, maybe.There's an old guy around here that's mounted every mid 50" fish that he catches. He's got 2-3 in his house, a couple left at his exwifes place, 2 or 3 local watering holes that he has one on each of there walls. Ive even heard the guy has gave some away, just cant stand to let those big fish go or dont own a camera i guess. But it sure would be nice if it were illegal to keep any. Seems like we'd catch on like Florida, precious resources. Bring in more money if ppl caught some and got hooked on the sport instead of goin out and getting skunked. |
|
| |
|
| I don't fish in Minnesota. I don't fish for "keepers". I don't fish for a wall mount. There are plenty of lures, rods, reels, and boat upgrades that I would far prefer to spend my money on than a real or replica fish on my wall. Isn't that why we take pictures?
I've fished on plenty of bass lakes that have suffered frm 100% c-n-r and overpopulation, but I still don't keep them. I hate eating fish. There will always be plenty of trophy harvests, incidental catches by unsuspecting pan-fishers, delayed mortality from unprepared anglers, and those looking for a mount (that their wife won't let them put on the wall anyway) to avoid the overpopulation and stunting that occurs with smaller fish, and mandatory catch and release.
Set the limit as high as you can. Enjoy your time on the water, and always be in search of that new personal best. Who cares if its a record... who cares if you could keep it if you wanted... and who cares if you want to put it on your wall.
Keep on fishin'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I'm for a 55" limit on some Mn. Lakes,... Just because they might give us 54" Some times you need to GIVE in order to GET . Personally, I'll get a Replica. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 546
Location: MN | Top H2O - 3/4/2014 11:15 PM
I'm for a 55" limit on some Mn. Lakes,... Just because they might give us 54" Some times you need to GIVE in order to GET . Personally, I'll get a Replica.
I would say that Vermilion might be one of those lakes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| If it could get raised to 52"es even that'd be great. For non-musky fishers often times legal limits indicate the size of fish that's encouraged to keep. In MN I realize education is much more advanced then places like my home state of Iowa, but still if you want people to put 50" fish back the best bet is to raise the limit above 50"es. I feel it's the thrill of catching muskies that brings people to the sport, not taking them home with them. I doubt there'd be negative effects in that regard. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 42
Location: Shoepack | sworrall - 3/4/2014 4:09 PM
If 100% catch and release is ever a reality, the Muskie program crashes if NR isn't reliable.
What does "NR" mean? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Natural Reproduction |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | The only reason I fully support a 55" live release limit is because I do not believe we can pass a 58" one!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | I'd like to see a 55" min. Like said before, if 100 c&r I think the resource might get less funding. I like the stamp idea BUT instead of pushing for a stamp, just donate to Muskies Inc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Why 55"? Just make it same a Canada max at 54"! That's a pretty hefty fish. Is this a who's got the biggest swanz contest? I agree with Steve W. 100% C&R will never work, it would be a miserable failure!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| 99% of all musky fisherman are catch and release, so why not put it at 50 inches. What are the chances of someone that doesn't fish for them catching one that big and if they do they are not going to release it properly or they are going to tire it out and stress it due to the lack of proper tackle so its not going to live anyways. It would be nice if someone accidentally has one die that they could keep it and have it mounted to give it the respect it deserves instead of letting it sink. Some fish are going to die and it sucks but there is nothing anybody can due about it.
The problem is not musky fisherman its everyone else that don't know any better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | MuskieFever - 3/5/2014 1:30 PM
I'd like to see a 55" min. Like said before, if 100 c&r I think the resource might get less funding. I like the stamp idea BUT instead of pushing for a stamp, just donate to Muskies Inc.
I think if the state offered a stamp it might be a way to indicate just how popular musky fishing is and the importance of protecting and expanding the resource. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: Tower, Lake Vermilion | Minnesota will be going to a 50 inch minimum in 2015. There is also a possibility of special regs lakes in 2016 with a 56 inch minimum. Thanks to the MMPA and it's members.
"Ace" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| Being an angler who has actually caught and released a 55 incher. I feel size limits like this should be for certain waters that are producing these giants. I have mixed emotions on the subject. I think that MI and the musky community have educated the public enough that it's more popular to photo and release than to keep and eat or mount. I think the one size fits all approach is like, not being able to musky fish Mille at night because of the walleyes. There are certain lakes and strains that won't get to 55 if they could because of genetics, habitat or overabundance as in Some Wisconsin waters I fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1308
Location: WI | aceguide - 3/5/2014 9:08 PM
Minnesota will be going to a 50 inch minimum in 2015. There is also a possibility of special regs lakes in 2016 with a 56 inch minimum. Thanks to the MMPA and it's members.
"Ace"
This is how I think it should be. Seems to make more sense. Maybe Cass, Winnie, Leech, those should be protected. V and the Pond of course. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
Location: Elk River, MN | I don't want to tank this discussion and create "Family Feud" here as I agree completely, let's raise it. The problem I have is that a couple of the waters I fish are speared annually and if "we" increase the catch size, then we should also adjust spearing numbers in order to accomplish what the end goal is; otherwise it's fruitless IMO.
Edited by dhacker 4/1/2014 8:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| Hey folks! First post here. I guess my opinion would be to raise the statewide minimum to 50 or 52 and then have a higher minimum for lakes capable of producing true giants. Some lakes in MN aren't capable of producing a 55" fish. They just don't have the prey base for it. To be honest though, I wouldn't care either way cuz I don't ever plan to keep one anyways and don't need my name in the limelight if I actually did catch a state record. Actually, get rid of state and world records IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2082
| I'd say at least 90% of all MN lakes stocked with LL strain for 15+ years (enough time to produce a 54-55" fish) have done so....leechers get long if you don't kill them.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1288
Location: Walker, MN | IAJustin - 4/1/2014 10:00 PM
I'd say at least 90% of all MN lakes stocked with LL strain for 15+ years (enough time to produce a 54-55" fish) have done so....leechers get long if you don't kill them.. That's what I was thinking, especially that first generation of adult fish with little competition for food. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Now I would like to see a ban on the single hook sucker rigs in this state like Wisconsin did...Have seen to many large fish being killed on them on the lakes that I fish and the 55 is also a great idea because it would save the number of 50 inchers that have been kept in West Central MN the last few years. One local taxidermist in Detroit Lakes had 28 caught from Detroit Lakes in one season just a few years ago... But he is the same guy brain washing local tourist coming from North Dakota that they might as well keep a 50 if the catch one because they have reached the end of the life cycle anyways...And yes most of the big ones were caught on Suckers by guys that are giving the fish a good 20 minutes before they set the hook, because you have to make sure they swallow the $12 sucker minnow from the local bait store before you set the hook... sorry about the rant.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| As for the 55 inch minimum call it what it is ! 100 0/0 catch and release! (I released my 55 ) and that was my choice, but there are some that will get mishandled or over stressed I would rather see them on top of a mantle than turtle bait.
Educate! don't beat a guy up if he keeps one (it may have been your floater!)
There are less than 10 people worldwide that are in the 55 and up category every year that are MI members, maybe 1 -4 outside MI.
So don't disguise it.
I do feel Mille, Vermillion, Leech should have higher minimum as they are high pressured and have the potential for a World Record.
I think it would be easier for the public to swallow than the one size fits all!
We just made the jump from 40 to 48!
I think 55 statewide is a reach in the wrong direction.
A DNR guy I had a conversation with today pertaining to night fishing MILLE said (the Musky fisherman are so few they aren't even part of the equation when it comes to managing a lake!)
I think it its up to us a MI members, to put the pressure on the DNR and the public to manage the true trophy potential waters in our states.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| not all of us can afford a quality replica a good replica of a 50 inch muskie your looking at almost a grand. I do catch and release but when I finnaly get a 50 plus inch muskie im getting a skin mount done as long as they keep the regs the same in WI |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Lund guy,
What is the going rate for Great Skin mounts? I had a smallmouth bass that I caught as a kid and it looks terrible. It was not done by a great taxidermist. I have considered getting a replica made of it.
Replicas have survived house fires with smoke and water damage and look great yet. Many look incredible for 20 years and will look the same in 50 years.
I think many people have that thought when they finally catch their 50" keeper. then they cram it into a undersized freezer or to the nearest taxidermist. How many guys with good intentions follow thru with a mount that may cost $500.00? Last time I checked replicas by the best in the business are $13 or so an inch with a sportshow discount. $650 for a 50 inch mount that last forever. I have not seen many great skin mounts. I did see a 60" mount done of a fish from Lac Suel before the total release was put into effect. It was incredible and a piece of world class work.
the Ministry of Natural Resources put it in place to protect these very valuable fish.
Now when I catch a true giant I would spend the $$$ needed for a World Class Mount if I so choose to keep it. I guarantee it would be more expensive than the replicas. I would have researched my taxidermist ahead of time and know who is going to do my work ahead of time.
Would you be happy saving $200 bucks for your once in a lifetime fish and have it look anything less than great?
What if you release that 50" and then catch it 3 years later when she is 54? It has happened many times. Catch and Release works. These fish are Valuable they need protection.
There are some incredible other ways of preserving your trophy. Look at some of the large blown up photographs they look incredible and are lots cheaper than traditional taxidermy.
Sorry I just don't buy the skin mount cheaper than replica argument.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| Join MI chapter 30 we draw for a free replica for members catching fish over 45 inches every year!
You may get a fifty this year and not win it and a 46 next year and win it we do your choice as long as you caught it!
www.lacrossmuskies.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
| Steve,
You hit the nail on the head with skin verses replica.
Minnesota needs this to pass, this resource brings in millions of dollars of tourism per year. Look at the expo on Friday people buying big baits for big fish. Not little baits for little fish!
Nick, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | More fish are caught over 55 then 10 a year, not everyone post on the lunge log for reasons. Why should other gather my info, of what, were and when.
Interesting info I heard tuesday, was the DNR landing creel surveys indicated 80+ muskie averaging 36lbs were killed in like 08 or 09 on Mill Lacs. that is only a percentage of what didn't swim away. Wonder were the fish are, don't need 2nd grade education to figure that out!! Huge hole in population..
Last I checked skin mount are the same price as repo, unless you are having some newby practice on a fish.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| if you take and dust a skin mount off its fine I have several fish mouns that are skin and look fine and I do my own taxidermy work because im going to school to become a taxidermist. s on a skin mount its also easier to re create pigmintation and vermiculations I have a few skin mounts that are 15 years old and look the same as the day I picked them up.Great |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| Well now that's a commendable proposal, although would like to see them all released no matter of the size. Great work MI Chapter 54 !  Was on a run to NYC. and stopped at Cabela's in Hamburg, Pa. saw some healthy looking Tiger muskies in their fish tanks More good work by a MI Chapter I believe ... MI 50. |
|
| |
