Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Show me where bigger size limits has worked in wis |
| Message Subject: Show me where bigger size limits has worked in wis | |||
 |
| ||
| I have fished several lakes in wisconsin that have had higher size limits for years now and I don't see any more big fish then befor. I believe we do not have the strain of muskie needed for a bigger size limit and not enough big water. Lets see what happens to the spotted in the bay of green bay and the lake winnebago system. I just have seen no proof that a bigger size limit will change anything here. I think maybe maybe a slight change to 38 would save a few more for spawning but thats it. I think for what we have in wisconsin we should be happy to have what we do and know they are working on makeing it better, lets be thankful they are takeing there time to do it. For someone my age I may not see a big improvement. In light of what happened New York I am just darn happy I can go out and fish at all and will be happy catching any size muskies. Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Don, I agree that the "Strain" being stocked has alot to do with it. But I have one question. Why not have a higher limit? 34" cannot do anything but help the fishery in my opinion. | |||
|
| ||
| I think the stock fish are better breed in minnesota. End of story.If you think about it, yes raising the limit to lets say 40 inches, it will help more fish reach that size but in the end all your going to see is more dead 40 inchers. Think about this how many muskies are kept in wisconsin, with the way people are releasing fish now we should have seen a better outcome by now but we havent. I agree the size limit should be raised but that is just for personal reason. I mean look some deer grow up to be huge and some will not it is all in genetics. I mean I am an adult I will not get taller but I can gain weight. Do fish just keep growing and growing. NO eventually they can only get so big. Well later Jim | |||
|
| ||
| Two Sisters lake.(answer to first question) | |||
|
| ||
| Don, I think the spotted fish in Green Bay and Winnebago Chain will grow HUGE... not because they are spotted fish, but because they live in an ENORMOUS house with MASSIVE amounts of FOOD. So that is probably not a good place for us to make any definitive conclusions about Wisconsin's musky program. There probably is something to the "strain" of fish... as one may have better genetics for obtaining larger sizes (HAS ANYONE PROVEN THIS YET?) but I do not believe that is why Wisconsin appears to have a lesser quality musky fishery than Minnesota. Look how many GIANTS are pulled from tiny lakes in WI. The "fish bowl" theory didn't apply in those situations. The fish obviously had the right genetics (strain) too. So how did it get so big in such a small lake? I'm guessing it had the opportunity (probably from lack of fishing pressure) to grow that big and the right environmental conditions (most likely food). Are higher size limits the answer? Probably not. I believe higher size limits should be selectively issued based on a lot of factors and be lake specific. This would be a HUGE task for the DNR. Bottom line, I still believe it comes down to the SIZE of the water to be managed. With today's fishing pressure... I believe larger bodies of water are "easier" to manage as a trophy fishery. Does that mean all of us fishing the smaller lakes in Wisconsin need to be content with catching smaller fish? I hope not. I don't think anyone has the answer to Wisconsin's "problem"... but we will never find the answer if we don't look for it. This is a good topic that we all should continue talking about. We all have our own beliefs... but ultimately the DNR will have to make a decision based on sound scientific evidence that their program will accomplish what "we" want. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| This has been eating at me for some time. Many years ago I took a tour of the hatchery in Woodruff and was told be the DNR person that when harvesting eggs they don't mess around with taking eggs from the really big fish because they are hard to handle. This could be an answer to this problem. I would think they would only take eggs from the biggest fish. | |||
|
| ||
| [:0] | |||
|
| ||
| If higher size limit is not the answer,then what do you think will work?Is it eggs from the biggest fish?,new different strain?,stocking forage?[8)] | |||
|
| ||
| Steve and jim good points and lots of good feedback. I do believe that part of is the genetics and that the eggs taken should be harvested from big fish. This way you have esyablished that some good strain is there. yes the size of the pond will help I am sure. I look for great great things from the bay of green bay, big green lake and the winnebago system. Two sisters I happen fish and a friend fishes it often. I cannot sy say I am impressed by seeing anymore big fish ther then I did years back. I will say only been there twice this year. Again look at the Bone lake study and note: Average size of fish increased for first several years then started to decline. Again show me the some data that proves it works. Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Is there data that says it does not work? Yes, I have heard some examples but I think it will take more time. Increased fishing pressure has to be taken into consideration for the future. It's only going to get worse. I am for higher size limits but not smaller fish. I think alot of us think that way. Sure we need a balance but we also have alot more to learn. There may be other factors besides genetics and forage. How about longevity? Behavior? Some lakes don't grow big fish yet there seems to be plenty for them to eat. | |||
|
| ||
| I believe stocking density also plays an important role. I would be willing to bet that Bone Lake, receiving 1 fish per acre on a yearly basis suffers from too many fish for the amount of forage. I think it is policy in Minnesota to stock no more than 1 fish for every two acres, and in Iowa they are having some very very good results stocking at something like one fish for every 5-7 acres. It all depends on what one wants from the lake. If they wanted Bone to have more fish 40" and over, I think the best policy would be to keep the 40" length limit and stock fewer fish. Bone has enough structure to produce some bigger fish if there were a high enough percentage of released fish and the right stocking density. Just my humble opinion. | |||
|
| ||
| Don: Your question leads down many roads, and is an offshoot of discussions about fish size in a lot of places. I'm probably going to regret "going there again", but Dr. Bernard Lebeau provided good evidence in his Doctoral Thesis that there is indeed two SPECIES (not "strains") of muskies. Some fisheries scientists agree, many do not (and some who disagree have NOT even read his thesis!). As an angler, I DON'T CARE whethere or not there are two species or not, but one thing I can assure you is that there are indeed two different animals out there in muskies skin! A study in two Minnesota lakes where four different "stocks" of muskies were stocked, i.e., Leech Lake; Shoepack; Minocqua and Lac Couderay (the fish used by the Spooner, WI hatchery), PROVED that the Leech Lake fish grew longer AND heavier in the same lake in the same time frame. Leech Lake fish that were stocked in a western Wisconsin lake grew to 54 inches and 38 pounds IN 10 YEARS! Leech Lake muskies are Mississippi River fish, the source 10,000 years ago of all Wisconsin fish. Evolution and speration has brought it to where it is today. Because of this, the Wisconsin DNR has a policy to not mix genetic strains from different watersheds. While this is an understandable position, I submit that if a few select lakes were chosen to be potential trophy fisheries and "spotted" (Leech Lake) muskies were stocked and it didn't work out, it could be "fixed" by once again stocking Couderay strain fish, which are used in ALL western Wisconsin lakes anyway. Whether it be due to"fact" or "perception", many anglers today are bypassing Wisconsin for "greener" (larger fish) pastures. Hope this doesn't "muddy the water" too much. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell www.larryramsell.com | |||
|
| ||
| bone lake | |||
|
| ||
| Against my better judgement I am going to throw some numbers out here. A couple of years ago I compiled some data from the Muskies Inc. log. I compared some Wisconsin lakes with 40 inch limits to lakes with 34 inch limits the numbers shook out like this. First, the way the Muskies Inc log works is they have the total number of fish registered from a body of water and then the numbers of fish caught in 5 inch increments. I converted this to percentage of fish over that 5 inch increment. I tried to compare as best I could 14 lakes of equal size and water type in Vilas and Oneida county. The problem is that most of the 40" project lakes are more obscure so the sample size for these bodies of water is much lower. The sample size is the number of fish registered. Here are the averages for the 14 lakes. 14 lakes @40" 19,757 acres, 1413 sample size, 66%>35", 31%>40", 10%>45" 14 lakes @34" 32,102 acres, 4795 sample size, 57%>35", 19%>40", 5%>45" According to these numbers when you catch a fish on a lake with a 40" size limit 1 out of 10 could be over 45, and 3 out of 10 should be over 40. On a lake with a 34 inch limit 1 out of 20 could be over 45, and 2 out of 10 could be over 40. Is that the proof? To me it is. Missing from these statistics is catch rate. (Fish per hour) But I can say from my experience fishing lakes of equal water type from both sample groups I seem to see about the same number on each. Also someone, I believe Wags, brought up a point that some Muskie Inc. members may not register fish if they are below the legal limit on a body of water, thus further skewing this type of comparison. I don’t know if this is the case or not, but most of the people I know who register fish in the Muskie Inc. contests register all fish over 30 inches. What I would like to see is the DNR put some 40 inch limits on some more popular lakes and see what kind of effect that has on the size distribution. A lake like Pelican, the Minocqua Chain, or the Three Lakes Chain would be perfect. A 40 inch limit on these bodies of water sure wouldn’t add to the fishing pressure it is already tremendous. Waters like this would give a much better insight into what a 40 inch limit could do for Wisconsin waters. I still ask how is it that Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan, can all have 40" or higher size limits on most of their lakes, yet the same size limit would destroy the Wisconsin fishery? Could someone please explain THAT to me. I contend that it is not a factor of lake biology that is different between us and our neighboring states it is HUMAN MENTALITY. One more statistic just to fire more people up: Big Chip @34" 15,300 acres, 3812 sample size, 55%>35", 21%>40", 4%>45" Cass Lake@(I think 48" or 50") 15,000 acres, 1040 sample size, 79%>35, 52%>40", 23%>45" If you won a trip that gave you the choice between the two which would you choose? If you where planning a week of musky fishing coming from, say Chicago, would you stop in Hayward or drive the extra 6 or 7 hours to Cass. In my mind, there is no reason the Chip can’t produce the same numbers as Cass. Nail a Pig Mike | |||
|
| ||
| actual numbers are hard to argue against- thankyou mike... are there other factors to explain why cass is so much more productive than the chip? forage base/fishing pressure/lake type, etc. ? i guess everyone's question lately is does the size limit have the biggest effect on fish growth? my vote would have to be no... too many other variables involved. i don't think higher limits would hurt- but the change would be almost un-noticeable... zach sanders | |||
|
| ||
| Mike, great info. I know you and I have talked about it many times in the boat together... but now we will see what many more think about it. I'd like to stress the fact that I think the data Mike uses is simply a start towards demonstrating the differences in management philosophies. How do we make it a priority with the DNR? A "civilian" like Mike shouldn't have to spend the time researching this matter with limited data when the DNR has much more and accurate data readily available to them. Perhaps if MN and WI Dept. of Natural Resources teamed up and compared notes they could learn even more. I would think Lake Study data captured by trained scientists could provide even BETTER insight than what Mike shared with us. Great Topic. Let's keep it goin' jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Larry and Mike thanks, mike your figure have to be considered rough at best for there are many variables. First one being the honesty of fishermen. I belive many would say it was 45 intead of actually 42 but that same angler will say 36 if it was 36. Also on the lakes with the hoger size limits anglers are possably targeting bigger fish over deeper water so they are not catching the smaller ones as they once were. Now guys don't jump om on for me saying that anglers strech the the truth as you all many do. I don't mean to call anyone liars but rather say they a quick measurement and give themselves the benifit of doubt. Now think of this why not slot size size limits? Protect the fish from 44 to 50 inches but once they hit 5o an angler would have the choice of of keeping one if he wants to. many fish that reach 50 maybe nearing the end of there life cycle anyway (not sure on that but a guess). It would alsogive those mature fish between 42 and 50 some more spawning years. A friend of mine recently visited this site, he is a non angler. he said why don't you all stop argueing and quit fishing muskies for 10 years and let them all grow or fish without hooks. Damn he had me thinking on that one. Guys thanks for all the input great to hear from you all, Don Pfeiffer By the way if I quit for 10 years I'd be too old start again, but my wife would be thrilled. | |||
|
| ||
| So Don, Now that you have some numbers to play with. Just like my past post from last week Can we make a difference? Since I have lived up here in the Northwoods this past season along with enjoying this part of the country since I was 3 years old. I have seen the Musky Fishing at it''s best from when I was small because there were not many Musky anglers then. Then watched it decline a bit and now since Muskies Inc along with all us avid anglers teaching others proper handling & release methods I have been able to see it increase for the better. My question is how can we as one help are fishery better? How can we get larger size limits ? A size limit of 40". I Moved to the Northwoods to enjoy the fishing as many of you do when you come here twice a year. Now that I moved from IL to Wisconsin to enjoy the life of fishing and farming I am spending more time in Minnesota because they have a great fishery. Now something is wrong with that picture, I don''t want to sell and move to Minnesota I would like to try and make our home water fishery a better place. What can we do as one to make this a better State to compare with Minnesota or Mich, for our Musky fishing. If it takes resort owners to talk to lets do it, if it takes the DNR lets do it. I have not ever attended a dnr meeting but will in the future. Maybe some of you Guys & Gals can shead some light on this for me. What can we do to improve the Wisconsin Fishery, I would like to catch fish like this one shown below on our own waters. Go To www.anglerschoice.net/pics/54.jpg [:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| I'm in favor of more and bigger muskies but you guys are still doing the apples and oranges thing. Cass and the Chip are not alike. Leech strain and WI strain are not alike. | |||
|
| ||
| FirstSixFeet, So are you implying that the far superior SPOTTED strain can grow bigger, fatter, stronger, and quicker than the tiny, skinny, weak, and slow growing CLEAR/BARRED strain (oops, sorry Larry... I meant Species not strain) founded in Wisconsin? If so, then shouldn't catching a 40 inch Wisconsin fish be viewed as just as big of an accomplishment as catching a 50 incher from Minnesota? Should I be more proud of a 50 incher caught in Wisconsin than one caught out of state? I apologize for intentionally stirring the pot... but I just don't believe the primary issue with WI producing "smaller" fish is genetics. I've seen some phenomenal fish swimming the water over here. If there is a superior "species" would it be unethical to displace an existing species for the benefit of the sportsman????? This is a complex issue that will require lots of consideration to resolve. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| FirstSixFeet, First off 99% of my original post was comparing Vilas/Oneida county lakes to Vilas/Oneida county lakes. That is very much apples to apples. I threw the Cass Chip thing out there to stir the pot some and it appear to have worked. But since we have evolved more into that, 200 years ago a fish could swim(if it could jump a couple of falls) from what is now Cass Lake to what is now the Chip. These lakes and river system evolved under roughly the same environmental conditions. If they where managed the same my guess is they would produce roughly the same results, not counting fishing pressure. It is not an apples to oranges comparison, it’s more of a Macintosh to Red Delicious comparison. As Jason pointed out Wisconsin fish can grow big, therefor with proper management the fishing can get better. But lets discount big fish from the equation. Why wouldn’t a 40 inch limit make fishing better in Wisconsin? What are people afraid of? Don, I really like the slot limit idea and it seems to make good biological sense, but try and sell that theory to a lake association. I can’t even sell it to my none nutso fishing buddies. It isn’t even an option and makes no sense to people who just want to go fishing. Also Don, just as many guys should be lying on the 34" lakes as on the 40" lakes. They should balance each other out. Nail a Pig Mike | |||
|
| ||
| MR if you drop the Chip Cass comparison you are much closer to working in the apple range, but that MN WI thing just doesn't float. And I don't remember denoting superiority to Leech strain fish. If they grow faster, longer, bigger that just is a genetic thrust. Leech vs. Shoepac, just different. And I am fully in favor of stocking 60% female hybrid muskyXmusky crosses in all landlocked unconnected lakes and waterways. Raise the size limit to 50". After all the state bird is protected, right? And Jason, er ah...I have always counted my WI 40" fish equal to MN 50", doesn't, like, everybody?? And those two falls were pretty significant I think...[;)] | |||
|
| ||
| Mike, a caution about using MI numbers; I believe them to contain numbers of fish that were registered BEFORE size limits were increased. jlong: Yes, you SHOULD be prouder of a Wisconsin 50 incher, as they are just plain "rarer"! I spend the majority of my time fishing in Wisconsin, but in the past 12 years I have caught only one 16 over 50 inches in Wisconsin! Are and have there been some giants in Wisconsin? You bet! Looking back at history, the Hayward area has produced ALL of the 60-70 pound muskies recorded in the state. Here is some "food for thought": From 1900 to 1933, Mississippi River winter rescue (of muskies) were transported to the Hayward area and stocked. ALL OF HAYWARDS 60+ POUND FISH WERE OF AN AGE THAT "COULD HAVE BEEN" A RESULT THEREOF!!! There have been none since..... Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell www.larryramsell.com | |||
|
| ||
| I feel great about all the feedback on this post. Would still like to see more feedback on the slot size limit. Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Larry, I love the info you always seem to find and share. If this species thing is so legitimate... got any ideas why the WI DNR hasn't invested any more time and effort to incorporating it into their existing musky programs? If we are gonna continue to stock our lakes.... it wouldn't be hard to stock the "right" kind, would it? Their has to be more to it than that. Is there an ethical question of "wiping out an inferior species" by such a stocking program? And one last thing. I have only broken the 50 inch mark twice... and both of those fish live in Wisconsin. Does that mean if I spent more time in Ontario or MN I'd have 20 fish over 50??? Now there's a thought...... jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Larry, You are correct that with the Muskies Inc. numbers I was not able to remove the fish caught before the 40 inch size limits went into effect. That would remove one more possible error in the statistics. Muskies Inc. has all those numbers in a data base I wish it was more redly accessible. I have a question regarding the hypothesis that the 60 pounders where Mississippi River Fish. If that is the case, and it could be, how come Minn. never produced a 60 pounder in that same time frame. Lets look at 55 pounders and up. From your 50 pound club in the 1999 Musky Hunter’s Almanc. There was six 55#+ fish caught in Wisconsin all between 1939 and 1954, and all from the Hayward Area. Three between ‘39 and ‘42 and three between ‘49 and ‘54. The last three are the 67-8, 69-11 and 70-0. Now according to the list Minn. has 6 fish breaking the 50 pound mark. Three of the six fall in roughly the same year classes as the Wisconsin big three. 1946-- 50-12, 1951-– 50-0, and 1957-– (The Minn. State Record) 54-0. Are these the same Genetics that grew the big Wisconsin fish? If so with Minnesota’s bigger lakes, larger forage base and less pressure(which are some of the reasons people are saying Minn. is growing bigger fish now), why didn’t they grow the 60+ pounders. This question isn’t just for Larry, but anyone who may have insight into this. For those interested Wisconsin has 24 fish in Larry’s 50 pound club with the last two coming in ‘83 and ‘89. Minnesota’s last two came both in ‘96. Even with fishing pressure increasing, things look promising for Minn. waters, do the size limits have anything to do with this? Firstsixfeet, I would be curious to see why you feel a Wi, Minn comparison is apples to oranges. What do you feel the differences are? Why can’t we look to our neighboring states for examples on how to do it right? Nail a Pig! Mike | |||
|
| ||
| MR I think the comparisons are interesting but primarily are illustrating differences between the waters compared. The primary reasons I feel most of side by side comparisons don't work have already been discussed or mentioned in prior threads. First you start off with fish that have 2 separate genetic capabilites, that nearly obliterates any comparison from its beginning. Additional problems are encountered when you compare what is largely still a pioneer population(not matured yet)to populations that have been in place for 25-75 years. You have MN a state that traditionally has not had much musky fishing available and thus a smaller "crew" attacking that population opposed to WI, a state that has promoted the heck out of Musky for resort trade, vacation trade and boasting a couple of Musky Capitols. WI has historically born the brunt of musky fishing pressure and still does and probably will continue to for several more years deservedly so, it has an immense number of musky fishing opportunities, and they are fished, hard and regularly. The Indian spearing thing is another variable that is in place and is not something that can be changed but does have an impact on the population of larger fish. The water by water comparison also rarely works, you would have to look at the ecosystems and size of the body of water and find them similar before even starting to adjust all the other factors. Not an easy thing to do. I doubt you could find a body of water in WI similar to Minnetonka. And try and find any water that really has similar dynamics to the Chippewa Flowage. Tough deal. The size limit comparison will probably be more valid when studied within strains rather than between strains, but it really doesn't seem to take much figuring to think that 40" size limits maintains mature fish up until they hit 40", and no I don't understand why WI hasn't gone to a statewide 40" limit or close to it. WI is unlikely to change strains of fish on other than a very limited basis. If they do then maybe some comparisons can be made. The thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that WI musky fishing probably is the same or better than it ever has been right now. These lakes in MN and their new musky fishery is something to be excited about, and enjoyed. I'd love to get over there and fish some of the lakes. It's a great new opportunity for fisherman. | |||
|
| ||
| First6, I agree with you, it is really difficult to draw any conclusions at this point. | |||
|
| ||
| OK guys here goes. I hate to stir the pot any more than it has already been stirred but, I live in western WI just a stones throw from the MN border. I am extremly familiar with both Deer and Bone Lake. Both of which now have 40 inch size limits. I do not have any hard data but from my experience on these bodies of water it seems to me that not only are there more fish in the 40 inch range they look to be much heavier as well. The only explaination I have for this is that I think the local pressure by the "fish killers" is way down. I think that this is due to the fact that they can no longer keep those easier to catch 34 inchers. Just a couple of years ago on a nice weekend day in the fall, such as today, you would see up to 20 to 25 boats on the water at one time. I have personally seen as many as 17 boats speed trolling at one time in the fall on Deer Lake. Today we were out for 7 hours caught a 35 incher, a 41 incher and lost 1 nice fish on jigs. We also caught a 38 incher on a jerk bait. We only saw 2 trollers and 2 boats dragging suckers. 4 or 5 other boats were fishing jerk baits or jigs. There was actually parking spots left in the parking lot. Without all the fishing pressure I believe that these fish are not being caught as often as they once were. Leading to a much healthier fish population. Enough from my soapbox for now. Mike Let 'em go Let 'em grow Mike's Sure Catch Guide Service [email protected] | |||
|
| ||
| I got a letter off to the D.N.R. today asking about slot size limits. I think what that those of you that want a 50 inch size limit are really looking out for your own wishes. I don't think your looking at the overall good of musky fishing for all of those who enjoy the sport. That does include the angler that wants to keel whatever he considers a trophy. Until we have more figures we won't know what to expect and until we have tried all methods in search of finding one that works. it bothers me to see some of you not even wiling to give slot limits a try. A closed mind is a dangerous mind, anyway it goes something like that Thanks for the feedbeek. Jeff we are doing it--------catch and release Don Pfeiffer. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |