|
|
| Folks - Here is my take on what the Wisconsin DNR should use as a guide in managing Muskies. For those in the know - is there any chance we can run something like this through the Conservation Congress? I'm serious about this - If anyone has a better "statement" please post it.
Thanks
Bob
Historically Wisconsin has produced some of the longest and heaviest Muskies on record in North America. Our management plan is to restore and maintain a fishery that produces a high number of Large Muskies with some Muskies approaching and possibly exceeding World record proportions. The end goal is to create self sustaining populations of the Largest Breeding Muskies in North America. This will provide recreational Fisheries that attract Muskie fisherman from across the continent. This plan should allow the DNR to utilize Minimum size limits, Slot limits and Genetic selection techniques that will allow us to create a fishery that allows for the greatest number of truly large Muskies (greater than 50”)in the state. The DNR should be able to use any of these tools at their discretion with the intent to create a Record Class muskie Fishery across the state. This plan should allow some harvest of record class fish and also to allow harvest as a management tool in other waters. Within this management philosophy there is also room to manage a portion (25%) of our lakes as action lakes, while still attempting to maximize size in these action lakes. Muskies are primarily a trophy fish and should be managed as such. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I would love to see the Wisconsin DNR take this on as their Muskie program!
MI groups and private donations could help fund the startup. I would think that many
resorts would step up and help create a Muskie fishery like it used to be. That
would increase the number of people coming to their resort, and as they see their books
fill up from year to year they can charge more! They will recover any donations 10X over.
The Wisconsin DNR needs to make a change. If not a total commitment to Trophy Muskies,
then some kind of change that shows they are moving forward. What they have now is not
working. They need to focus on harvesting eggs and milt from the biggest and best fish, they
need to eliminate the genetics and the programs that have Muskies reaching a maximum size
of 36" at 15 years old. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to do this without bringing
in a different strain. I know that is one item the DNR wants to keep, they want to do this
with the Wisconsin Strain. It worked in the past! This strain has produced multiple World Records!
I hope to see this given very serious consideration!
Steve Sedesky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| GREAT! In order for this to happen,Musky clubs, individuals, whoever, is going to have to donate towards stocking programs,feeding these super fish isn't cheap!
Wisconsin DNR has been trying to return the great lakes strain to the Green Bay system for quite some time now, and year after year bigger,fatter fish keep coming out.
Hats off to those boys. On the other hand, taking smaller lakes into consideration, By upping size limits, closing seasons, and broodstocking from different gene pools could eventually be on the board, but all of this takes lots of money, and dedication from more than just the DNR.
Quite a few musky clubs in our area have donated year after year now to help with the great lakes strain, and this in turn has the dnr putting more fish into our system at sizes that have a good chance of survival. These fish are explosive in growth, I recently had turned in some tags on these fish to find that a 43 and 45 inch fish were only 5.5-6.5 years old! Granted, this strain may not show the same growth in smaller lakes due to forage, capacity, and size limits. The Green bay system has a 50 inch limit so that has definately improved our odds of encountering such nice fish, but my only fear is that now these fish are reaching the keepable size, people will start taking them out. This had already happened this fall when someone took a 51 out. This may not hurt the system or it may, What the dnr is trying to find out is if these fish will reproduce on their own. and by taking a fish out that size, you remove what they have worked so hard to do and thats create a fish capable of creating thousands of others.
People really need to look into the replica thing as an alternative if they really want big fish to catch, thats all there is to it. I'm not trying to take anyones right away to harvest the fish of a lifetime, nor will I look down upon them for taking such a fish,but truth is they only get that big once, how will anyone ever break a world record if we keep taking large fish out? Start taking a look Eastward. They even have size limits of 55 inches or more. Where do you continuously hear of giants being caught?
I really think by all anglers working together, toward stocking efforts, and better informing themselves on these fish and proper handling is the only way this can be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I agree that we need to educate first and foremost! We need EVERYONE to
understand that there are options out there, they don't need to KILL the fish to
have a trophy. Take a picture, get it framed -- it will be cheaper and a lot easier
to find a place to hang it. It would also be great if the guys that do replicas would
bring their prices down? Right now replicas seem to go about $12 to $18 per inch, where
skin mounts top out around $12 to $14, with many cheaper guys doing it for about $8 per inch.
I am not asking these guys to cut their own throat -- I have my own business too -- I know they
need to make a living. If they have any room to trim their price, it would help the fish!
As far as the growth rates mentioned by Dogboy, those are consistant with these fish
no matter what size lake they are put in. As long as there is adaquate forage they will
put on the inches FAST. Girth comes from better forage, but length is cheap. As far
as all those upper 20's and low 30's are concerned, their days would be numbered! In ten
years when these Super Fish are hitting 50+ inches, they will eat those little ones.
We need more poeple letting the big ones go, and the best way to do it, is to make less of
a trick to catch such a fish. I released a 57" Monster for a few differenet reasons. First was the fact
that I didn't think it was the fish of MY lifetime! I want to catch one bigger! Second was the simple
fact that I couldn't afford to have that mounted. Third was a simple idea that I wanted someone
else to have the chance to do what I just did!
If we go through all this just to decorate more and more walls, with KILLED fish, we will never see the pot
of gold. We need more education, from every angle, we need Dad's to teach their kids, Guides to teach their
clients and KID's to teach their Parents and Grandparents! The older generation that still wants to know why
they can't go out and bring home a wash tub full of 6 pound Walleyes like they used to. Fish are a renewable
resource, but we are taking faster than Mother Nature and the DNR is putting back.
Let's all get together with a mission statement that can be passed!
Thanks,
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Bob - 12/14/2004 12:16 PM
The DNR should be able to use any of these tools at their discretion...Muskies are primarily a trophy fish and should be managed as such.
in other words, let the DNR do the job they've been professionally trained to do.
in other words, get rid of the Conservation Congress!
when i'm governor...  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I've always beleived WI takes management out of the hands of the managers, and many of our fisheries biologists here agree. However, it is the system that has been around since Aldo Leopold helped adopt it(he wanted to allow citizens a chance to make a voice in natural resource matters).
When I proposed the raising of the size limit on muskies on the WI river to 45" 4 years ago, our manager was aboard 100%, as were his superiors. They all thought it was a sound management decision. Then came the C.C. hearings(which it got voted in resoundingly at), then the DNR board(which did not hear the resolution due to the C.C. not representing it at the meeting). 4 years later, we kept at it and finnally got it on the ballot as a 'rule change' question where it passed again and will become law in 2005. Do you think i believe our proffessional managers have the skills to make decisions the public as a whole cannot?? Do you think I'd rather have our fish managers be allowed to do their jobs and have some decision making power pertaining to individual fisheries matters??? You bet!!! That is what they are hired for, and what our precious licence fees pay for.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/14/2004 3:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| A-MEN BROTHER!!!! As far as the statement of high numbers of large muskies, I think that is a fantasy. Even out east, MN. or Canada does not and never will have high #`s of large fish. Just ask the THOUSANDS that go every season and don`t getone, but at 54" say, that does up ones odds. Again as I stated several times I just can`t justify a slot with harvest as a tool for the DNR to use. Thats like saying we will kill every fish under 42" so we can have high numbers of large fish, c`mon! And if this would be implemented what will happen as we start losing year classes? Then down the road we will lose our big fish anyway. I like Dogdudes lets get the clubs(private sector) involved more and more, it comes down to cash-o-la and beleive me it will come from the private sector to get this job done. I joined a club(with Reefhawg) I think this will be my 6th season and feel helping raising,feeding,seining,releasing the little muskys every year I am at least trying to better OUR fishery. Maybe more sportsman should get involved in such activities and your whole outlook will change, I know! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I'm completely with Lambeau and Reefhawg on this. The system stinks. It's unbelievable that a rules change takes 5 years from presentation to implementation. If anyone in the business world moved that slow they would be ..out of business. The blame doesn't belong on the shoulders of the DNR; it's this crazy, tail wagging the dog, political b.s. that must be endured to make significant changes in management practices. I'm voting Lambeau for governor next time around! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| I am IN!!!! Even though I now reside in Minnesota,I learned muskies in Wisconsin.Long time.I"ll campaign for ya' on the western side!!!!!! Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Something written in stone. As you say, a muskie is trophy fish and should be managed as such.
It's high time that people who understand the high regard that we hold for this fish have a say in how the fishery is managed. I've been going to MN ever since my first trip there simply because they seem to know what they are doing when it comes to fish management. I would like to see WI take a few tips from the people west of The River when it comes to how to manage muskies.
Still gonna move there when I retire, but I'll never be a Gopher. 
Action lakes are a good way of putting it. I know many lakes that were managed that way for bass, why not muskies. The DNR used it's powers when it closed the bass season, sorry, I misspoke, they made bass fishing catch and release fishing during their spawning cycle and now the smallie fishing is flourishing "up north"...at least where I fish.....I think if they put their minds together and actually think about it, the odds of rebuilding a trophy fishery are optainable.
5 in the morning and I've been up for 2.......gonna be a bad day for my back today! Tough #*#* boss!
Well put Bob.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I didn’t know if I should post this in the slot discussion of the Mission Statement discussion so I posted it both places.
The major problem is that, in Wisconsin the DNR does not make lake management decisions! If they did we would currently have 10 percent of the Vilas/Oneida county lakes with trophy limits of 50”.
By the way the 50” limit on Namekagon has shown improvement. The lake was sample netted before the limit and it showed an average size of 38” +/-. Eight years after the increase the average size fish was at 43” +/-. These limits work if place on the right Wisconsin lakes.
Anyway, in reality it doesn’t matter how the DNR feel about, slot limits or size limits, about the only thing the paid experts can do is place emergency bag limits on lakes. That is the crux of the problem.
What does this mean for us? In my opinion, it means we need a grass roots political movement that can convince a state full of people, who feel they are over regulated and under represented that more restrictive limits on musky will be good for the state and fishermen.
So what can we do, other than argue about it between our selves? What is the current DNR plan? Are there any changes being addressed at the up coming Spring Hearings? These are questions that I think Steve should be asking the DNR when he interviews them. What can we do, to help put control of the lakes where it needs to be, in the hands of the experts. Can this be done, or does State legislation prohibit it. The mission statement is a good idea and something friends and I have talked about, (taking the management decisions out of the spring hearings) but is it possible or even legal.
These are question I would like to see answers to.
If major sweeping changes are not possible we need to consider the island hopping strategy, take one lake at a time and get some progress done. If this is the case where and how do we start? Some have already started, thank you Ken Jackson and Jason for getting changes going on the Little Saint, and the Wisconsin River. Maybe the first logical place to start is the Wisconsin River and keep working our way north.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thought this might help with writing the mission statement. If I can attach it.
Couldn't attache it but this link should work.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/pubs/muskydoc.pdf
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/15/2004 9:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
| effective lobbying of state legislators to change the system and put the management power into the hands of the management agency.
pure democracy is a good concept, but there's a good reason that we don't use it - it's too cumbersome.
a representative system balances public input/oversight with efficiency. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | very good post,thanks.
Someone mentioned I come down on the d.n.r hard and thats not my objective, I've stated with all the lakes they have to manage they need input and and have to do whats best for the majority. In all I think they have done a good job. I just think they are dropping the ball some on muskies. There job is not easy and in a way we don't help with all our demands. They are trainned for this and I do respect most of the calls they make. If I offended someone from the department I apologize as it was not meant that way. They have been good in furnishing me with information and I thank them.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| I'm in the camp that's been coming down too hard on the DNR. It's actually the whole process that stops anything from happenning - it's just easier to say "DNR" than the whole Conservation congress thing. All of the fisheries personnel that I've had discussions with seem to know what needs to be done and would like to do it, but their hands are tied. If the DNR were allowed to work with the people that utilize and respect the resources the most - Louis Spray may be in for some trouble. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Well said, sir. |
|
| |
