|
|
| Have you ever stuck a pig out of 100 acres or do you have to have big waters to catch big fish? | |
| | |
| Jason,
My personal best (51") actually came from a small lake near Hayward - part of the Tiger Cat Flowage. Everything I had ever been told about the Tiger Cat was that it was a numbers lake with tons of small fish. I was fishing it because a buddy of mine had just bought a cottage on the lake and I was visiting. Naturally, I was absolutely floored with what happened.
Small lakes can produce big fish but there probably won't be very many. It all depends on the layout of the lake and the forage base. If everything is right, it could produce some huge fish. I used to fish a trout based lake that was only a couple of hundred acres. This lake had all the makings of a perfect lake - it just wasn't very big. The fish didn't seem to mind though.............. | |
| | |
| I would have to agree with Jason,
there are many small lakes that I
have fished that produce 50" fish.
The main advantage to fishing big water is the sheer numbers of big
fish. My home waters on Vermilion
are enormous, 40,000 acers of some
of the finest muskie habitat. The
muskies here....may swim for years before they encounter an angler.
Lake Vermilion has the forage and
the habitat to support thousands
of trophy sized fish, small lakes
just don't have that capacity.[:)] | |
| | |
| Jason: I posted to a "similar" thread (Don Piffer's thread on Wisc. size limits not helping) on the general discussion board that could be continued here in regard to lake size.
Here too I beleive that the fish therin (species if you will, or "strain" if you will not) has a great bearing on maximum size. For instance, referring to Scott Jenkins 51 incher from the Tiger Cat Flowage, if memory serves, that fish was a Couderay fish that had been stocked in TC.
Without going into a long speil about "why", natural muskie lakes that have/had NO pike in them "evolved" differently than waters where both co-existed. These "lacustrine" stocks of muskies "generally" have a MAXIMUM size in the 40 pound range (a trophy in the mind of most), although generally the "average" maximum is more in the 25 to 30 pound range. So, when a 40 pound fish is taken from a 100 acre pond, it begs the question you pose. Look at the lake history, and I'll wager that it is not NORMAL for those small lakes to pump out that size fish on a regular basis.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
| Adding to Larry's comments: If you want a lake to pump out BIG fish on "a regular basis" you need MORE big fish. Yes, a small lake can produce some hawgs... but like Larry says, that is not the norm. I'm not a strong believer in the species explanation... but rather of the statistics.
The more acreage you have, the more fish you can have in the system. Now concentrate some of those fish in a good fishing area... and you now have the opportunity to pump out BIG fish "on a regular basis". Take one out of a big system... and it is not "felt" as quickly (there are others available to take her place). Take a big girl from a 100 acre lake and it will be a few years before another one is available to be taken again (need to "grow" another one). Thus, big fish ain't coming out of that little honey hole on a regular basis... despite its ability to grow them. It just grows them "one at a time" so to speak rather than 10 at a time like a BIG lake can.
The other point I'd like to clarify. I do NOT believe that skewing the population of muskies in a system to include a higher percentage of BIG fish is the answer (this can be a touchy statement considering all the discussions on higher size limits). A healthy size distribution will suffice... and you need acreage to increase the numbers of BIG fish at the top of the bell curve. If a lake can only hold 100 muskies... I say there should only be 2 50 inchers rather than 20. This equates to 2% of the population being true "trophy" status rather than 20%. I remind you, I am NOT a biologist... but I think that is the way mother nature intended the ecosystem to naturally occur.
Big fish are rare (low percentage of the overall population) and maybe we need to accept that. Catch and release is the best way I know to NOT disturb the ecosystem. Leave the 2% trophy population in the lake for everyone to enjoy.
I'll probably have different opinion tomorrow... but those are my thoughts today.
jlong | |
| | |
| Big lake vs small lake.
Bigger lakes can hold big fish and more of them just as it can hold bigger bait fish and more of them. Your chances on a larger lake of hooking into a "trophy" class fish would seem to be better at certain times becuase multiple fish will be using the same areas, chasing the same schools, etc.. I think if you were to drain a 100 Acre lake a 1000 acre lake and a 10,000 acre lake you would find close to the same percentage of fish in each size class. The wild card in this would be fishing pressure and Catch and Release ethic on the lake.
To expand on that and go to a different but related subject:
I agree that strain may have alot to do with size but I also think that the reason Wisc. has fallen behind on size is catch and release, kill rigs and multiple lines. But that of course is just my opinion.
What will happen in Canada with a 54" limit? Will all the walleyes disappear because all you have is monster muskies around? Noone will go to canada because you can't keep a fish if it is 53" and 35" around. Sorry I know of NOONE that isn't going to Canada because of the size limits. In fact I know of more people that are going to Canada because of the higher limits. Hey Wisconsin resort owners are you listening?
Now that I have asked for the wrath of Wisconsin fish police I must say this is my opinion and only a opinion it is not a proven fact only what I have observed. | |
| |
|
Pro's "What is your theory on lake size vs muskie