|
|
Posts: 125
Location: North Saint Paul, MN | What is the size limit to keep a muskie out of Minnetonka? It's 48" right?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
Location: Brooklyn Park | 60" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 60"? You WISH....
And so do, I bet, alot of folks... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | 40" right now, although I'm working on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
Location: Brooklyn Park | i do wish. seen too many "bass" guys at the landings with muskies they kept. Hope to see 48" as Shawn has stated but even that is not enough. IMO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Total CPR, let go all the ways any people harvesting fish will shot first then asked questioned later if they make it. Hopefully we can get this bumped up.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 125
Location: North Saint Paul, MN | I was hoping it was 48". I heard a story last night of someone who kept a 44" out of Tonka and ate it!! I was going to report them for keeping an illegal fish. I thought for some reason Tonka was at 48" already. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| That must have been some tasty meal. I would encourage them to serve it with a gravy made of bald eagle.
Actually Ross's Teal Lake Lodge used to serve muskie over 30 years ago and truthfully it was outstanding. The fish were small and tasty. Ever wonder why there is a 28" limit on the Tiger Cat? I am now at the age where the only thing good for me is lettuce so my fish consumption is crappies and small walleyes.
Tom
Edited by MuskyFlyGuy 12/12/2007 3:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 170
Location: Chicagoland | I read a post on either The Next Bite or LL that a guy said he saw two bass fisherman catch a 40, a 45, and a 48 on the same weed flat while going for smallmouth and he saw them slit their necks on the spot and throw them back in the water. He got their boat and notified the rangers and I think they may have gotten a $5000 fine. Shows how ignorant some people can be... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| That was on this website. It is important the we are all vigilant and watch out for these guys. |
|
| |
|
| Im not trying to start a fight or anything, but was it just the fact that those guys killed the fish and threw them back in the lake that got them fined or what? Those fish were all legal fish werent they so if they would have just kept them there is nothing illegal about that, right? Like what if they had kept them, but then threw them away at their homes, is that illegal then? Again not trying to start a fight I am just curious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | If a guy catches a fish thats leagle by leagle means why shouldn't he be allowed to keep it??
Now catching, killing and trowing back they should be shot.
Without taking something out of a system and adding more and more through stocking soon you won't see leagle fish, be like an old farm pond full of stunted bluegills due to noone ever harvesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3508
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Anytime a fish/animal is dumped or thrown away and not used for consumption it is called wanton waste. That is punishable on, or off the water.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan | then what about fish that are mounted? Those arent used for consumption; im not trying to be a jerk here but I think its kind of weird that one thing is semi-okay (mounting) and the other is harshly ridiculed even though in both cases fish are killed. It sounds like it comes down to intent then which is very weird; you can kill a legal fish to feed yourself, but you cant kill a legal fish and throw it in the woods which would feed animals. I know what im saying is pretty ridiculous and I believe the people deserved their fine but I am just trying to point out some loop holes or arguments that could be brought up. |
|
| |
|
| with all of the 50 to 55.5 fish caught on tonka these days, I think 60 sounds about resonable for my mounter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Treats, How would someone like me be able help to get the size limits increased? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| Heres what we need to attack on ALL Minnesota Muskie waters
This notion that its a persons givin right to harvest a legal fish
is it anymore??????
why- because thats what we have always been told over the years
The muskie is managed has a "trophy" fisherie here in Minn how often do you see the words "Minnesota muskie fisherie" without it being preceded by the title 'Trophy managed" ask a dnr rep about the muskie program and their response is that this speciies is managed has a trophy species,,pick up a brochure at the dnr and you see the words Minnesotas trophy managed muskie fisherie.
couple seasons ago an indepth article was printed in Musky Hunter magazine about the Minnesota muskie fisherie and DNR the title-"Managng Minnesotas trophys"
Trophy managed
Trophy managed
Trophy managed
its time to think on a different level when something is thought of in those terms when you have a species thats held up to this classification I think were intitled to be a little over protective and yes maybe a little eliteist!! Its not like Minnesota is starving for chances to have fish frys,,The walleyes jump in the boat on Red and on Mille lacs they practicly surrender,,Panfish in every lake,
Why not be overprotective on a fish that is best appreciated "BIG"
Muskies are too valuable and expensive to be used only once
what then is a trophy size in Minn??..who knows the bar keeps rising but better to be a little overprotective NOW then have to decide latter when we notice falloff, Minnesota is now THEE place to go and the fisherie is seeing pressure thst it has not seen before,,and when its a "Trophy designation"we get to be a little over protective in our thinking
we need a 54 minimum on all purestrain lakes
Edited by happy hooker 12/13/2007 5:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
Location: Brooklyn Park | hooker nailed it.
If the mentality of our past is catch and kill, what will our children think and do. If we say that it is OK to kill this fish but not that fish, that is a double standard
Policing is the only way. education just does not seem to work. Our society NEEDS to be policed and not just in this area.
IMO, IF we want this fish to remain a TROPHY then 100% C & R is the way to go.
WHY should it be OUR choice to keep a fish? because thats what it has been? I think that choice should be taken away from us because obviously WE can not make catch and kill work AND have a trophy fishery.
Catch and Kill is driven by ego and nothing else.
just my opinion, but they should all swim away. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I'm getting the ball rolling on the size increase right now. I'd imagine that within a 3-6 months we'll need some people to contact the DNR. When we get to that point you can bet I'll be looking for support from this site.
Also, many people contend that we should be able to keep fish over 40" and such and that we shouldn't increase the limit. I always ask them if they know why 40" is the min requirement. Nobody ever has the answer. The truth is that at one time 40" was considered a TROPHY. I don't think anyone here would say they consider 40" a trophy anymore. Heck, people are even arguing if 50" is a trophy!
Now that we see how big these fish get when we release them, we need to reestablish what a "trophy fish" is in 2008. That is one of the changes we recommended in the new Esox Management Plan. With the change in definition of what a trophy is, we'll probably see more and more increases to size limits.
Just remember, changing things the right way usually takes longer then changing things in a knee-jerk fashion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| Shawn,
Should we simultaneously be addressing the length of the open season? I feel Minnesota would benefit from an earlier opening date for both bass and Muskies.
Tom |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| Muskie Treats, lots of Tonka anglers will be behind you to get the minimum raised, you say when and where and we'll bring the masses. I've witnessed some catch and kill while putting in at Grays, it drives me nuts. All of my muskie fishin buddies will be supporting this cause, let's let them swim and get em next year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
Location: Brooklyn Park | Fly Guy, how would MN be better off with earlier seasons? not sure about that one. You will see this spring what happens to Wi lakes.
We are not hurting for visitors from other states. targeting these fish while they spawn is ludicrous. again just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| We can take tonkas loss and actually expand on it,,it was omited or overlooked when the 48' candidates were proposed last year.
why not now make it the first 54' minnimum in the state!!!!
everybody always points to the big 4 Cass,Leech,V,Millie and of course thats right but Im not so sure that a Higher size limit isnt more needed in the metro, The twin cities has seen a large number of Immigrants take up residence here no disrespect intended its just that these people come from cultures where fish are food,,regardless,,thank god for milfoil limiting the shore access but Ive seen a fair degree of harvest on city purestrains
We have 20 some lakes managed and budgeted for tigers theres no reason not to leave the 40' minimum on designated tiger waters this will allow the people who enjoy muskie fishing and the chance to harvest to be able to do their thing, Tigers on average live 7 yrs and dont reproduce so the impact of a harvested one isnt has great.Im not ready to accuse the Bass guys of anything but if that is happening a higher size limit would now have them breaking two laws undersize fish and wanton waste and they would risk twice has much penalty.
Edited by happy hooker 12/13/2007 5:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I don't see how opening either the muskie or bass season earlier will help anything. In fact I'm on the record opposing opening the bass season early. 1/2 the time bass aren't even off their nest on bass opener. Also, most of the southern states where you can fish bass all year around are getting their DNR to close the season around the spawn. Moving bass off of beds is bad, especially in a lake with as many bluegills in it as tonka/metro.
The DNR won't have 2 openers for muskies like WI. To open the whole state early will negatively affect the lakes up north. While a fish may not eat while it's spawning, it'll eat before. It's very possible that after the stress of catching a fish, it may take off and not participate in the spawn that year because of the danger associated with that location. If you extrapolate that out, it's possible that they would forgo the spawn entirely. While that's a lot of conjecture, I think it's better to error on the side of protection rather then exploitation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | To the guest. That angler in question also killed 3 fish in a day. The daily limit is 1. So he could have been busted for 2 different citations that day if they so chose to. |
|
| |
