|
|
| I really don't understand where the resentment or opposition to a longer season comes in here. On lakes south of Hwy 10, it is usually rare to have lakes safely iced over before x-mas. Moreover, none of the lakes south of hwy 10 have successful natural reproduction. What is the possible problem with extending the season? The past several years we've had favorable weather conditions in Madison in December during which I've been scratching my head thinking, "what's the reason again why its illegal to go muskie fishing right now?"
As I understand it, the Nov 30 closing date in S. WI is completely arbitrary and is not grounded in any soundable policy argument or rationale. The main counterargument of enforcement problems on behalf of the DNR wardens is completely without merit due to the fact that the same dividing line for an earlier opening season has already been established. If wardens are able to enforce an earlier open season south of 10, why wouldn't they be able to enforce a later closing season south of hwy 10? The other counterargument that I really don't understand is when guys say that the fish need to be given a break from angling. What? And northerns, walleyes, bass, and panfish don't? Why would non-naturally reproducing muskies need to be given a break more so than any other fish species? If harvest isn't a problem during all the other months of year, why would the least-fished month of December present a problem? Another very weak counterargument is that this later closing date will allow ice angling for muskies. Again, the current closing date already allows for ice angling for muskies on most northern wisconsin waters prior to Nov 30, and last I checked this hasn't been a huge cause of concern or caused major population collapse. So why would it be a huge cause of concern southern wisconsin waters where there often isn't safe ice by the end of December anyway? Maybe there'd be a week or two of ice fishing for muskies. So what? That's what's happening in Northern Wisconsin already, and I don't believe that the sky is falling.
The idea of discrimination between anglers north of 10 vs. south of 10 is ridiculous. There is nothing keeping anybody from driving a couple hours to the south if you want to go muskie fishing.
If there are any good reasons to close the muskie season south of highway 10 on November 30, I'm all ears. I'd really be interested in hearing them.
If you can't tell, I'd strongly support a longer season in southern wisconsin.
Matt DeVos
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | lambeau - 11/1/2006 12:03 PM
Alot of states don't close at all.
most of those states don't have viable natural reproduction for muskies.
i sure as heck wouldn't want an open season on muskies up north during the spawn!
We don't have the best naturally reproducing population either. Without stocking here, we'd be finished. Just because fish are spawning doesn't mean you'll be catching...these aren't walleye. Or we could leave the season open and protect the spawn. Leave it closed from May 1 to May 15. remember, boundry waters open in mid-may, not Memorial Day weekend.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/1/2006 2:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| It makes no sense to make a distinction between the lakes with 'natural' reproduction and 'stocked' lakes, as that would be an enforcement nightmare to have different closing dates on lakes that are right next to each other not to mention there are many lakes that fit both (and neither) of those categories.
Another matter entirely is how each lake's closing date is determined. Wisconsin has approximately 800 musky waters. About 18% of those (around 140) are sustained through natural reproduction alone. That leaves somewhere around 660 waters that may have some sporadic (or unknown) natural reproduction but may or may not also get stocked. The WDNR actively stocks about 220 lakes. That leaves a whole pile of musky waters (at least 440 lakes) that don't fit either finite category. How do you set different closing dates when the majority of the states musky waters are not completely sustained by natural reproduction and don't get stocked?
The date is fine where it is. It's reasonable and is easy to enforce.
Edited by esoxcpr 11/1/2006 4:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I personally would like to see the southern half extended to Dec 15th. We already have 2 opening dates in the spring...why not 2 in the fall.
Monona/Waubesa rarely freeze before Dec 1st...now I can go out there and cast regular dawgs for pike and probably tangle with a musky but why do they make us even say we are fishing for pike?
Dec 15th below highway 10 would be easy and allow more fishing time for southern waters...just think of all the influx of money into WI from the Flatlanders buying suckers at Dorn Hardware!!!! lol  |
|
| |
|
| Esoxcpr,
Who is suggesting a different closing dates between stocked vs. non-stocked lakes? I certainly wasn't. The distinction being proposed is between lakes south of hwy 10, and north of hwy 10 because it is warmer in southern wisconsin than northern wisconsin and therefore lakes don't freeze over as early on in the year.
Discussion regarding stocked and non-stocked lakes is only relevant because other states, with lakes that are totally dependent upon stocking, have open seasons year round. Meanwhile, historically and presently, the closed season in Wisconsin (and other states) is due, in large part, to protect spawning fish. Because protection of spawning fish is not a concern in lakes south of hwy 10 in Wisconsin (no natural reproduction), the concern over protecting spawning fish is not applicable.
Why is the date fine where it is at? You say that its reasonable. What are those reasons? Ease of enforement is not a good argument in my mind. If we're concerned about ease of enforcement, why do we have an earlier open season in Wisconsin lakes that are south of hwy 10?
I am all for governmental and agency regulations that are based on a discernable policy or rationale. But I am not a big fan of governmental or agency regulations that limit a sportsman's opportunities for absolutely no good reason. In that regard, I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this proposal, especially since there are already regulations in place that allow for an earlier muskie season based on the hwy 10 dividing line.
Again, anybody. What is the policy explanation for an earlier open season south of hwy 10, but not a later closed season?
Matt DeVos
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | If the law stated that you may not angle for muskies through a hole in the ice, where would the grey area be? Why would this be any more difficult to enforce than a November 30th closing date?
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
|
Enforcement is easy when divided by a highway. No problem there it is either open or closed.
Spawning musky are vulnerable and a tempting target for snagging, and from what I hear are pretty stupid when going about the act. Just because fish don't reproduce successfully, doesn't mean they don't spawn. There may be certain chemical conditions that might prevent it I guess, but in most lakes they do seem to have sex and shed their eggs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: Sherry, WI | Not that I'd head south to fish muskies after November, but considering the reproductive status of the waters in question, the population support mechanism, and pre-defined boundary already applied to Esox species, I would wholeheartedly support an extension of the southern Wisconsin season. Heck, let's go for 31 January so we can be compromised back to 31 December! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Beav. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Hey everybody, the question on the April Conservation Congress Hearing ballot will ask if you are in favor of keeping the muskie season open until December 31st south of HWY 10.
Not till the lakes freeze up, not let's shoot for a longer season so we can scale it back to the 12/31, not till Dec 15th, or not year round.
That will be the question, so let's hear if you are in favor or not & why - not that what you would like to see. If it gets defeated, then that will be the time to offer alternate ideas for the 2008 Spring Hearings.
|
|
| |
|
| I have to agree with Matt Devos and others on this issue...why would anyone who fishes muskies think below Hiway 10 until Dec 31st would be a bad idea?
There are many days in Dec that the lakes in Madison are wide open, and it's 40 degees and sunny..it's not "discriminating" against the northern half of the state or the anglers at all in my mind.
It would be nice to legally fish for them in Dec.
Our lakes down here are stocked, we have a 45" size limit in Madison to protect the fish, and I think most other lakes below hiway 10 are stocked as well....For Beaver and others who disagree, why do you disagree, is it a "just because I do" reason or something scientifically based that you think having one more month of an open season will hurt the fishery?
Just curios why musky anglers would oppose more opportunities to fish in their own state....instead they make us fish for pike or travel south to IL/IA or IN in Dec ....
|
|
| |
|
| my understanding of fish management practices in WI is that unless there is a biological reason for the DNR to make a certain rule, then the DNR defers to the desire of the public - to the desire of the consumers. a good example of this is higher size limits on certain lakes (Petenwell, Pelican, Madison Chain, etc.): it happened because people want to be able to catch big fish, not because the DNR set it higher for any biological reasons.
that's the one (and only, imho) good thing about the Conservation Congress System, it allows the consumers to make decisions about their use of their resources.
there is no biological reason to have the season close south of Hwy 10 (that i'm aware of) on November 30th, therefore, if the consumers -- us -- want to have it open to be able to fish, then we should vote in favor of it. the fish won't be harmed and it will increase fishing opportunities for those who wish to do so.
i'm voting YES.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Now THAT made sense. I guess looking at it from that perspective, I'd then vote yes. Lambeau for Governor!! |
|
| |
|
| Mike, you nailed it.
But I'll confess that I'm still surprised about those who are, or were, in opposition. I'd really like to see/hear any logical explanations as to why folks think this proposal is a bad idea. It seems that some of the opposition is as Brad says, opposed for no reason other than "I don't like it", and I think that's strange given the fact that this proposal is increasing muskie angling opportunities for everyone at no cognizable detriment to the resource.
Best,
Matt DeVos |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Personally, I'd like to see the season stay open until water freezes. Statewide. Up north freezes up, you have down south, down south freezes up, you have the river systems, the rivers freeze up...game over until the openers.
Right now the big thing is enforcement after the Musky season closes. Guys get nabbed trolling 18" suckers on Pewaukee lake every year. Leave the season open until ice up...WHAAALA, end of problem. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Gander Mt Guide, that's not the question that will be before us come April. I also don't think from an enforcemant standpoint, that the DNR would go along with a season has a floating season.
I would think the only down side to have a muskie season remains open until Dec 31st south of HWY 10 is the possibility of ice anglers keeping a legal muskie as we know some (I said some) ice anglers keep everything that is legal to keep.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | G.Guide..
I was at the WI muskie committee meeting this spring the first time it was brought up. We talked about doing "until ice up" as an option. And EVERYONE agreed that would be a nightmare from a monitoring standpoint. You think the trolling suckers rule is gray...you can just imagine what ice up would do....plus, this would be an ever changing state, one day open, next day partially closed...etc....
The last thing I want in this state is a rule that is as gray and as hard to police as the trolling/sucker rule.
Great way to word it by the way Lambeau!
Cory
Vote yes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | what's gray about not being able to launch a boat? You can or you can't...that's the beauty. It doesn't need monitoring. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| The only legitimate reason I could see for keeping the Nov 30 closed season date intact for the entire state would be to avoid the influx of anglers from the Northern half of the State during the last month of the season, especially in the areas just south of 10.
But I don't think that would have a significant impact on the fisheries.
I know I'm going to open up a can of worms here, but I'd like to see the opener extended for the Southern half of the state to match the N WI opening date. I understand that there's no natural reproduction, but that's only because the eggs don't survive. The fish still spawn, and in cold years especially the fish are still recovering from the spawn when the season opens. Don't know if there's any studies on this but I'd bet a fish that has recently spawned is a lot easier to kill.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Hey Gander -- you might not be able to get a boat in the water, but that doesn't mean you can't fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Same as now....I'll easily be ice fishing before Nov. 30. Think the Nov closing date now stops guys from using suckers or large shiners through the ice?
Ice is a sure way to end the open water season without the need for enforcement. Warden drives by a lake, sees boats, it'd be ok to be musky fishing. As is now. The season closes Nov 30 and guys are still musky fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | "muskie season open until December 31st south of HWY 10", NICE!  Now if we could do something about that trolling rule. lol
Jerry Borst
Spoonplugger/Instructor |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Gander Mt Guide says "Ice is a sure way to end the open water season without the need for enforcement. Warden drives by a lake, sees boats, it'd be ok to be musky fishing. As is now. The season closes Nov 30 and guys are still musky fishing."
Then I have a question.
Q: A bay freezes over and folks are fishing on the ice. But the main lake has boats fishing for muskies. Is that muskie season open or closed?
It can happen here on Lake Monona where a small bay (Monona Bay) freezes early and the main lake is wide open, especially if there is a lot of wind after the bay ices over.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | muskie! nut - 11/3/2006 5:19 PM
Then I have a question.
Q: A bay freezes over and folks are fishing on the ice. But the main lake has boats fishing for muskies. Is that muskie season open or closed?
It can happen here on Lake Monona where a small bay (Monona Bay) freezes early and the main lake is wide open, especially if there is a lot of wind after the bay ices over.
I'm completely with GMG on this one. What's the purpose of a November 30th or December 31st closing date? Is it to not allow ice fishing for muskies? If not, what's the reason?
To answer the above question...if you have to fish through a hole in the ice, it's not legal to fish muskies. If you don't have to fish through a hole in the ice, it's legal to fish muskies. Why would this be difficult to enforce? Seems pretty cut and dried to me. It definitely would not be any more difficult than the "I'm fishing for pike, not muskies" before the season opens issue.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | How can the same body of water be off limits to one angler and not the other???? Either its open or closed. And why is an angler not able to fish for a muskie and the other is???? Just because he has a boat, he's allowed for fish for them????
As for your question about closing date, "why is it Nov 30", I don't know and don't have a clue why it closes on Nov 30th now. Maybe we can ask someone from the WDNR? |
|
| |
