Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> How would you Vote on a Slot Limit? |
| Message Subject: How would you Vote on a Slot Limit? | |||
Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | sorry cannot make wend night as I am speaking to a fishing club that. Just can't up and postpone that. Love to be in it another time. Merry xmas all......Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | In no way would I want the slots to be established on lakes that allready have higher limits . Leave them alone! I never said to change them. I would be against it 100%. Slots are for lakes with a 34 inch limit or less, yes we have a few. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Guest |
| ||
Bob - 12/22/2004 2:33 PM First Six Feet You suggest I have no basis for my conclusions on LOTW. I'd suggest that 7000 Muskies provides a substantial basis for drawing conclusions. I like that Steve agrees and than provides personal observations on Wabigoon. LOL - but Hey - I do too. I've been spending a lot of time researching these things, Most of what I've stated is based on documents by biologists, of course I've also added my interpretation of what I've read and also my own "personal observations" in 30 years of Muskie fishing. Many (not all) of the people who object to what I say have done no research on their own - but are quick to point out that I'm wrong. Biologists from all over the country are looking into these genetic issues. we must remember that Muskies are one of the least researched fish in north america. Much of what we do in Muskie management is still based on the original wrk of Art Oehmcke and Gil Hamm - God bless them both. With the advances in the popularity of our sport we need to advance more quickly. We need to look hard at what works for other fish and see if we can adapt them to our sport. I welcome any and all Information (and Objections) that can be provided, as I believe it'll give us all (including me) a better understanding of this magnificent fish. I did not "suggest" you had no basis for reaching those conclusions, I stated it clearly, and stand by that statement. You have taken anectdotal information and drawn a set of conclusions that has no proven scientific relationship. There is no hard data correlation supporting those conclusions. There is only the Bob factor. Your ideas could possibly be right, or wrong, or partially right, or partially wrong etc. But your so called conclusions are simply speculations. I could look at the same set of facts and draw up another completely different set of "conclusions" and would have no more basis than you to make them. Your growth figures sound very suspect to me and without viewing your data, your lakes and your population(n) I am reluctant to even start a discussion with you on the fish topping out at 35 inches. The thing that many of you miss when looking at research on other populations is the dissimilarity between habitat, populations, and sport fishing encounters of the studied groups vs. musky. Many of the differences are extremely significant, and it makes the data questionable, and as soon as this is pointed out, you guys want to throw 3 more studies into the mixer. Luckily I have been able to use your data to come to my own conclusions! Note my post. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | "I now have data from our MI tagging study that shows the bulk of our fish on good sized lakes with good forage are showing an abysmal growth rate that range from 0 inches over 3 years, to 1.5 inches per year. the fish I'm referencing are between 28 and 40 inches long and should still be growing rapidly at these sizes. Many appear to totally stop growing aroud 35 inches. On the bright side there are a small percentage (appx 11%) that have what I'd call a decent growth rate. (One grew from 35 to 41 inches in 2 years, another from 34 to 40.5 inches in 2 years and the 3rd grew from 30 -38 inches over 2 years.) Not phenomenal, but decent growth rates on those 3, Of course the 3 that are growing will get harvested next summer, while the other 25 that have stopped growing will be released to spawn similar growing fish for the next 10 years. ' CONCLUSIONS These lakes are obviously in the midst of a forage crash! No food, no growth. This is definitely related to the two full moons in June which totally screwed up the mayfly breeding cycle and caused an early crash of forage for the forage. Easy to understand how these fish quit growing. The few fish that were still growing exactly matches the proportion of fish that feed on surface forage, including ducklings, frogs, mice and puppies. I would say this proves that the surface forage is still present and abundant but we need the DNR TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN STOCKING THIS LAKE WITH 7-9 INCH SUCKERS TO GET THESE FISH GROWING AGAIN!!! Angler stress is obviously causing most of these fish to no longer grow once they become big enough to attack most musky baits, overutilization of the population by sports fishing is causing this growth stress on the population. I recommend we STOP fishing these lakes to protect the muskies and keep them growing safely. Crawfish populations peaking in these lakes have caused a shift in musky foraging toward large crawfish. Unfortunately the musky stomach developed over the years to digest FISH not crawfish, and this forage shift, while understandable due to the abundance of these spiny critters, has caused some gastroenterology problems in musky digestion and the packing of crawfish shells into the intestine in a half digested state has caused a growth stoppage(along with some other stoppage). No BM in the AM means no growing in the PM. This is clearly the result of a DNR plot and the indications are that the DNR PERSONEL ARE SEXING THESE MUSKY BEFORE STOCKING THEM AND GIVING OUR LAKES THE MALES AND SAVING ALL THE BIGGER FASTER GROWING FEMALES FOR THE PET LAKES OF THE GOVERNOR AND HIS CRONIES. more | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | "Spent the last couple days analyzing nearly 7000 Muskie catch records from Lake of the Woods (1987-2004). THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING!!!! (catch data taken from Red Wing Lodge website - the numbers of muskies produced on LOTW is staggering!) Amazing facts based on the nearly 7000 catches analyzed: Number 1: It seems that after the 54” size limit went into effect, there has not been an increase in the number of 50” fish caught. (the number of fish in the 45 - 50 inch range and 50 plus fish did increase greatly under the initial 48" size limit increase) Number 2: There has actually been a reduction in the number of 45 –50 inch fish caught since the 54” size limit went into effect. Number 3: There has been a Huge increase in the number of fish in the 30 – 40 inch range. Number 4: Even with the larger size Limits, 50 Inch muskies continue to be a smaller and smaller percentage of the Muskie fishery. What appears to be happening is that after Years of Harvesting only the larger fish on LOTW, that the genetics have piled up in favor of fish that take a long time to reach 40 inches, and possibly never reach 50 inches let alone 54 inches. As early as 1948 Robert Page Lincoln had noted the Muskies getting smaller in size on LOTW commenting: “When we first fished here 25 to 30 years ago (1918-1923) the species were very numerous and the taking of a 35 or 40 pounder was not considered unusual.” (I’ll acknowledge that there is the possibility of huge year classes coming through on LOTW – but I don’t know that to be the case as the fish are not yet progressing into the larger sizes.) It’s pretty simple – Muskies live to be 20 years old – Some much longer . By age 10 even most quality males should be 40 inches while most females should be 40 inches by age 7 and getting close to 50 inches by age 12. (The fish I would use grow faster than I have indicated here.) Eliminating harvest of the large females, I’d expect a 50/50 balance of Male to Female fish. Utilizing growth as indicated above, a healthy population of Muskies would have 25% of the population over 50 inches, 41% between 40 and 50 inches and 33% of the population between 25 and 40 inches. I have not included fish that are ages 3 years or less in this analysis. Before you shoot holes in this – Please note that the numbers match up well with what we see in Minnesota’s fisheries where female Muskies can and do average over 48 inches and males averaging close to 42 inches. Minnesota has done a great job we should all learn from, but even in Minnesota care must be taken – especially when it’s been noted that some Minnesota brood lakes now have 50 inch fish notably absent – due to over-harvest. It's interesting to note that in Minnesota there are no minimum size limits on any fish other than Muskies. They want you to keep the smallest fish. This is the size structure we should aim for in Wisconsin. It’s possible if we Stock the Right fish (via Selective Breeding or some other means) and balance that with a slot limit to allow harvest of the slower growing fish that have been documented. Not all Muskies grow to 40 inches, but we can stock Muskies that all grow to 40 inches if we want to. We need to choose wisely on the fish we stock and also choose wisely on the fish we protect. I'm more in favor of the slot limit everyday. I'd be in favor of a 42-54 inch slot on half our lakes with a 50 inch size limit on the other half. " Obviously these conclusions do not match my barroom biologist conclusions stated below. Explain how my conclusions have less basis in fact than yours. #1 The 54 inch size limit did little to protect the majority of 50" fish that had not already been done by the 48" size limit. Since we are reaching the upper limits of growth for most musky there may NOT be a significant increase with the added regulation of FIFTY INCH FISH, BUT IT MIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE THE SURVIVAL OF 50 INCH PLUS FISH WHICH ARE PRESENT IN VERY LOW NUMBERS EVEN IN HEALTHY POPULATIONS. OR The 48 inch size limit had a very significant and immediately positive effect on the population of big fish available in the lake. The 54 inch limit, while not significantly increasing densities of large fish, obviously has offered additional protection to "super fish" in the population. OR Raising size limits to 48 inches probably supercedes maximum growth of a large portion of the population, but has significantly raised numbers in the upper 40" range to population levels not seen in recent years. #2 Increasing angler density and angler mortality may be affecting numbers of 45-50 inch fish, in recent years, probably unrelated to the recent increase in the size limit. OR A recent population peak in the upper adult size range is beginning to encounter natural mortality and current year classes reaching maximum size are smaller classes. OR Population increases in TOTAL MUSKIES SPAWNING HAVE BEGUN TO SKEW THE PROPORTION OF MALES TO FEMALES IN THE POPULATION, RESULTING IN SLIGHTLY LOWER GROWTH STANDARD FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION DUE TO THIS INCREASED WEIGHTING OF SMALLER MALES IN THE GROUP OR The increasing pressure on the shallow water population including both angler mortality and actual physical presence in the habitat, has caused some death loss in the upper size ranges and some habitat desertion by individuals for quieter environs. #3 The additional size regulations have obviously benefitted overall reproductive success and anglers should mark their calendars for 2008 when the GREAT YEAR CLASSES NOW IN THE 30-40 INCH SIZE RANGE START TO REACH THEIR MAXIMUM SIZE, GOOD FISHING SHOULD LAST UNTIL 2012 WITH A LOT OF 50 INCH CLASS FISH AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. OR The increasing heavy pressure on these now too popular waters has resulted in every nook and cranny being investigated and fished for musky. The traditional haunts of big fish continue to occasionally produce big fish and the nooks and crannies now supply an abundance of smaller muskies that were previously ignored when the pressure was lighter. OR Good fishing spots suffer from the "12th pass syndrome" of increasingly heavy pressure. Musky schools and club outings and marked maps, along with modern gps and sonar equipment, have opened the book on this fishery in recent years. The fish have become increasing bait shy and more difficult to catch because of this pressure. Small fish have not had as many encounters as big fish, and tend to be more eager biters and show the population is abundant, but the bigger fish are not as eager to bite. OR The recent invasion and inroads of the rusty crayfish has changed the weedy environment favored by bigger fish and moved them to less easily located, subtle, secondary locations. #4 As in any fishery with an expanding population and increasing pressure and angler mortality, the largest fish, the mature in body size adults, become a decreasing proportion of the total population. This is a natural phenomenon and will not change until all dynamic forces expansion and pressure reach a mature population status and at that time there will be a stable proportion of adults to growing fish. OR Due to increasing angler contact with the trophy fish portion of the population, there will be a decreased proportion from prior history due to 2 effects, angler induced mortality, and desertion of the habitat. This can only be avoided by limiting fishing contact with the population. OR Recent die offs of a mature bulge in the population have caused trophy encounters to shrink slightly lately. Great year classes should push up the proportion of big fish in about 4-6 years. Some additional comments. Comparing fishing today to fishing in the 30's is not a realistic view. Just NO WAY YOU CAN DO THAT. It is apples and oranges. And like it or not, PRESSURE CHANGES FISHERIES, even without clubbing fish. There has been no studies indicating 50-50 populations of males to females in populations that reach maximum holding capacity of the environment. Probably better than hatchery produced populations but no evidence that high populations of musky are in a 50/50 ratio, sorry. If you know of any please correct me. All of these conclusions are as well supported theoretically as Bob's conclusions(not at all). Until we actually establish that a problem exists there is not much point in trying to make any kind of a general fix, unless it is one that has no downside. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, Thank you for bringing the syndrome we need to take care to avoid to light, you did a great job making an excellent set of points. You in for next Wednesday night? I'd really like to have you in the room for the opening discussion. Bob, how about you? You in? So far it's Norm, me, and Sean. A bit skinny if you ask me, especially in light of all the posts here on the subject. We have to give Don a 'get out of the meeting' card this time, he's going to be out of town. I will see to it we retian a transcript of everything said in there for future viewing of interested parties. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Currently have no chat capability on either computer. As a non resident of WI I don't know that my addition would be of significant meaning in the future and I have already probably said more than I need to on the subject, but I will try and make it in the chat room and throw in. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| FSF - Please go back and look at my conclusions on the LOTW. I analyzed the numbers of fish caught. It's all the data that we have and I used it. In your post, you went on and on about things like: "Raising size limits to 48 inches probably supercedes maximum growth of a large portion of the population" "#2 Increasing angler density and angler mortality may be affecting numbers of 45-50 inch fish" "A recent population peak in the upper adult size range is beginning to encounter natural mortality and current year classes reaching maximum size are smaller classes." "Population increases in TOTAL MUSKIES SPAWNING HAVE BEGUN TO SKEW THE PROPORTION OF MALES TO FEMALES IN THE POPULATION, RESULTING IN SLIGHTLY LOWER GROWTH STANDARD FOR THE OVERALL POPULATION DUE TO THIS INCREASED WEIGHTING OF SMALLER MALES IN THE GROUP " "The increasing pressure on the shallow water population including both angler mortality and actual physical presence in the habitat, has caused some death loss in the upper size ranges and some habitat desertion by individuals for quieter environs." I stopped looking at that point, but as far as I can tell none of your information is based on fact. You just made all of this up without having any data to back it up. In your post you do state some things I'd agree with and may be possible like big year classes in recent years. I was shocked at the information myself, but the NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. Since the 54 inch size limit, the catch rate of smaller Muskies has greatly increased, while the number of big fish has remained constant. This is fact, anything else including my speculation that genetics may be favoring smaller fish is just that - speculation. I'm hoping it's some fantastic year classes coming through, but we shall see. I'd like to note that many Biologists consider Angler Catch information and Creel survey's to be important Bioloical data on fish populations. Especially those with a high number of catches and over multiple years. That is what we have on LOTW. Steve - I'm suprised (and disappointed) that you were so quick to dismiss it. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| FSF - I'm thinking I'd be better off not addressing your posts. You reject any data I provide and respond with lies and untruths. I do not create the data, I work hard digging it up and I post it to better inform the interested parties. If I may ask - tell us about yourself. How long have you been fishing Muskies, what states, have you been successful? Have you any knowledge of the Muskies biology and history? | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| From Wisconsin DNR Research report 172: "An alternative explanation for the observed growth/size structure in Mud/Callahan and LCO would implicate angler harvest. Long term harvest trends by anglers targeting larger fish may cause a natural adaptive shift toward earlier maturing (and slower growing) fish in Mud/Callahan Lake." "Management options for slow growth populations might consider special size limits that would encourage harvest of smaller individuals while offering protection to larger fish in the population." "The higher survival of M/C muskellunge compared to LCO Muskellunge is of interest and to suggest a reason is speculative. Possibly M/C fish are somehow behaviorly diffrent from LCO fish, making them less vulnerable to predation." The above is what the DNR stated. I will now speculate again. If slow growing fish are indeed in all our waters due to our 105 years of stocking, those fish appear to BIOLOGISTS as better able to avoid predation. These fish are more likely to survive to adulthood according to BIOLOGISTS. Once reaching adulthood (at around 24") they are much more likely to survive as adults because they are protected their entire life by 34 inch size limits. Meanwhile the faster growing fish are more likely to be eaten as young and are more likely to be harvested as adults. I contend that every year the balance is being shifted in favor of smaller Muskies. I have seen no data that proves otherwise. Sure - every year more fish are caught. MORE SMALL FISH. Some may think this is good, I do not. I believe we have a choice. I've pointed at a number of different factors in my posts over the last few months. Please don't accuse me of waffling - as I think there are a number of factors and we need to address them all. There is no one silver bullet. In the past I thought we'd get more 50's just by releasing small fish. Then I thought we'd get more 50's by increasing minimum size limits. I came to these views with a very simplistic approach and History has shown these things alone have not worked. After realizing this wasn't working, I spent the last 3-4 years trying to figure out why. I now think I understand this. These are not my ideas - these are ideas that have proven effective in the field with Muskies and other fish. These are the ideas that Biologists in Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin have advocated. Biologists in other states have seen positive results with other large game fish when doing these same things. I believe we should stock only fish taken from Large brood stock. I believe we should Protect large, very Large and especially HUGE male and female Muskies. I believe on waters that are proven to have "slow growing Muskies" that harvest should be allowed within a size bracket that focuses harvest on those "slow growing fish." (Slot Limits) I believe forage does have an impact on the ultimate size of a Muskie - but it does not turn 50 inchers into 34 inchers or vice versa. I believe we can greatly improve our fisheries if we do all of the above. I believe we should start today. I have seen no reasonable arguments not to do all of the above. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve - can't do the chat this Wednesday night. The following Wednesday looks better. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| ChadG - thanks for the help on expaining why a slot will kill fewer fast growers than slow growers. You said it better than I would have. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Since I have no idea who I am responding to, you who signed "guest" above, I really don't feel much need to tell you anything about myself, other than I stayed at a Holiday Inn. If you feel my comments do not bear consideration, please feel free to reject them out of hand, this is after all an internet forum. I feel all my points are valid, and that I do have the knowledge and background to make them here. I would suggest you RE-read them yourself with an open mind, and remember that I am not rejecting Bob's assertions as untruths, I am simply stating that they are NOT verified by the information he presents. I would also have you remember that my many suggested cause and effect relationships, are NOT verified by Bob's or Redwing Lodge data. My point is that ANY of these assertions may, or may not be true, but without some specific experimental design and collection of data, they are ALL SPECULATION. I am illustrating SOME of the other possibilities this data could suggest. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't reject anything, I cautioned that data from one resort on a body of water like LOTW should not be used as a sole basis for the wide, sweeping assumptions being made. There are, as FSF has said so very well, simply TOO many varibles possibly effecting those numbers. I'm quite aware of the DNR's use of creel studies; my son works for the Wisconsin DNR Creeling in the Winter. My point is that though interesting and definitely worth looking over, it takes MUCH more than observation of one data source to decide a system needs a management change. I simply stated the fisheries management folks on LOTW may not agree with you, as they have access to ALL the information they use to define management on LOTW, and we might not. I certainly won't second guess the strategy there, it appears to be working just fine. I have always felt that each lake or river should be managed individually in Wisconsin, and my wish that the budget be there and public support and understanding be there for that to happen. I feel some systems would definitely benefit from a 50" plus limit, and others would not. My point is, has been, and will be that our fisheries folks have a very good handle what needs to be done, but the lack of public support, money, staff, and other necessary resources binds their hands. Bob said it, muskies are understudied; there is a good reason for that. I asked that those interested meet tonight here at 8 PM in the Chat room so we can talk about a course of action. I'll be there, and we'll see who else can be. We'll schedule another night for those who can't be there this Wednesday. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Have been on vacation so didn't see the posts about the chat. Did you guys have it, if so how did it go? Norm, Steve and anyone else, I really think we should take a page out of Jason S.'s book and take this subject to one of our favorite lakes, Pelican and see what we can get accomplished there. It may be more realistic than taking on a bunch of bodies of water. Plus it will be a good test, it has a lake association that has successfully petitioned the DNR to hault stocking, and the lake association is loaded with people that want to be able to keep anyhing they catch. If something can get done there it may be possible to do it anywhere. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mike, How do we do it??? As you might expect I would be in. The lake has a great history of putting out big fish, I think Steve wrote half of the recent history on that pond. Great natural reproduction, good size lake, good population, I think it would be a good case study. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |