Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> 54 inch limit on bay |
| Message Subject: 54 inch limit on bay | |||
Hoop |
| ||
| edit to post in 3..2..1.. | |||
| brad b |
| ||
| "You are absolutely incorrect about the new C&R Muskie season." No, I am not. I said that it was personal feelings on the topic allowed that terrible law to be passed. That IS accurate. The route the GBMC has choosen to persue this has NOT been the same shady, underhanded tactic used to pass the spring C/R season, but that does not change the fact that it is still little more than personal preference on the topic that is pushing this - not a biological need of the system. And I completely agree with you that the Spring Hearings are little more than a conduit for personal preference in fish and game management. And I think we also can agree that more than popular vote should be considered when establishing new fish and game laws. On the rest, we will not agree. No hard feelings I hope. Take care. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Brad B, Context. You probably shouldn't compare what was done with the new season regs and what the Coalition is attempting to do using the same adverds and adjectives, for the very reasons you posted above. Obviously more than 'popular vote' IS considered. Keep in mind, that sword cuts both ways. Of course there's no hard feelings, we just agree to disagree, something even my wife and I find constructive on occasion.... Sled, That term has been used while discussing a population of Muskies by folks like Casselman to define/describe (basically) the maximum potential growth ( In his presentations I watched at the symposium, he described that expected potential in weight, not length) of adult muskies in any one system during the recent symposium. He also made it very clear in his symposium presentation that the fish needed to be allowed to grow old enough to realize that potential, and that in some systems that is pretty darned old. I believe the term was used during the panel discussion as well. Since the term as it was used by Dr. Casselman at the symposium seemed to directly reference the 'outside' potential weight of oldest and largest muskies in the system, I would guess that the percentage of the total population those fish represent would be very small considering the reported double digit % mortality in any given year class each and every year. Think about that impact on surviving numbers from any one year class a bit, if one starts with 4000 at stocking and the fish live to 20 years. Add 7% angler related mortality, a total number on the Bay that isn't yet known because not enough study data including creel surveys are at hand. Increase the angling pressure in a compressed area as much or more by a percentage basis as what has happened on the Bay to date, and I feel this area and the Muskies in it stand to be overfished. If I'm wrong, I'd at least like to offer our DNR the money and time to prove me wrong instead of being proven right by the potentially very real decline of the trophy class fish there, and perhaps the population in total. At any point, if the expected maximum growth is 56" at 55 pounds , or 58" ??? weight in the Bay (something we may never know at this rate), I'd like to see a few get there before getting knocked on the head. If a significant number are harvested at 50", which I firmly believe will happen as the popularity of that water grows, we will be left with a fishery where a 'big fish' will be 48" to 50". I personally think the same scenario (to a degree) will occur on Mille Lacs and Vermilion if those fish are not further protected, but that's me and I worry alot. What if the overall numbers of Muskies on the Bay is reliant on stocking? Why is it the argument used over and over here against this move wasn't used against the proposed and approved new size limit on Pelican or the 50" limits elsewhere in the state where the expected top end fish will be 52 or so??? Ohhhh...that's right, it was. I have a couple references to look to if one wants to see reactions of fisheries folks elsewhere to the mere prospect of overfishing and unacceptable harvest numbers of large specimens. Wabigoon and Lac Seul come to mind, as do the rest of the 54" waters in Ontario. Why 54"? Why close Lac Seul to harvest altogether? Listen to what Dr. Casselman and many of the other scientists presenting at the Symposium has to say and it should make some sense. So there's the context. Hooper, have you watched the Symposium video, read the papers, and purchased the book? I strongly suggest you do all of those things....and what are you going to edit when you finish counting? | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | i'm glad to see the clarification of the term and it's support from the Casselman studies at the symposium. it always made common sense to me and applies to most populations of species unless there is a significant skewing (ie: the baby boomers). when stated by Casselman and Worrall one response ... when stated by poor ole Sled ... it's a free-for-all .... lol makes me wonder what the agenda really is? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think the stated agenda is anything but what you see. My agenda matches to a large degree with the rest of the Coalition, but my personally desired end goals may not match everyone else's, much like my chosen methods of communicating what I hope to see happen on the Bay might not match everyone's. I had a 'context reference' for my use of the term that helped make what I was trying to say clear, not sure if the term is used in any studies but is was in that context at the Symposium, I believe. Even though I might not be using the term exactly as it should be, that's sometimes all one needs on a Monday.... Poor old Sled?? HAAAAAAAhahahahahaaaa...I don't think so, you are perfectly able to maneuver about the course of any debate. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | brad b said: "The route the GBMC has choosen to persue this has NOT been the same shady, underhanded tactic used to pass the spring C/R season, but that does not change the fact that it is still little more than personal preference on the topic that is pushing this - not a biological need of the system." I beg to differ and "biological need" is indeed present. I think perhaps the one most important facts that has been missed throughout this discussion is that when the Green Bay project began, it was one of RESTORATION. For that to happen, muskies of ALL sizes need to be protected...and studied. If RESTORATION is an obtainable goal, ALL SIZES of fish present in the system IS IMPORTANT for that RESTORATION to be complete and viable. Continued "cropping" of the largest fish in the system could result in a population of fish that eventually will all be under even the current 50 inch size limit. This was NOT intended to be a "put and take" fishery. It may end up being such, BUT WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL "ALL" FISH THERE HAVE BEEN PROTECTED FOR A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME AND STUDIES COMPLETED! My vote is for the closure moratorium until we find out. At the very least, the proposed 54 inch size limit would buy some more time until we know for sure. Let's give that fishery a chance to be one that is self sustaining and WORLD CLASS! | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Very good point Larry, I believe that is the KEY to the entire argument. Also someone who knows the history of Wabigoon and Lac Suel should write that history down and explain what the Ministry did to protect Lac Suel when it looked like it was going down the same road as Wabigoon. These are remote lakes in the Canadian wilderness and they where worried enough about Lac Suel to enact special regulations after what happened on Wabigoon. They were not a reborn population in a Metropolitan Area, relatively close to the Midwestern heart of musky fishing. A trip to Green bay is less than 5 hours away for how many fishermen, that may be searching for there first 50” fish to mount on the wall. I believe these facts should be pointed out to the powers that be, as they do a pretty good job of showing the need, and they show the fact, this is not unprecedented. I read the entire proposal last night, GREAT JOB to the authors!!!!!!! Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |