|
|
Posts: 8865
| John, you completely missed what I was trying to say here.
A greater percentage of muskies are released today, nobody can argue with that, and the fishing is better because of it.
But we've expanded the muskies range and brought muskie fishing to so many places, with so many people fishing for them, that even if one in 20 muskies on average fall victim to unsucessful release we're killing more numbers of fish than the era we love to criticize. Harvest is still a very real thing in a lot of places. Those places never had muskies before and are stocked regularly, so you don't see the effect of it, but don't pretend thousands of muskies aren't killed every year.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'm not pretending muskies aren't killed either intentionally or by delayed mortality.
I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it, and you don't have anyway to prove what you're saying is true.
To the contrary, fisheries that are improving with increasing fishing pressure doesn't lend any crediblity that we are killing more now than in the past.
Especially evident in lakes that are not nor have ever been stocked, but are seeing more anglers, and more angler hours than ever before.
JS |
|
| |
|
| the real, actual numbers are somewhat irrelevant, EA.
even with more pressure and therefore a plausible increase in delayed mortality, it's still obviously a vastly smaller percentage of fish that die at anglers hands now, and that's what matters.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| lambeau - 8/26/2008 12:51 PM
the real, actual numbers are somewhat irrelevant, EA.
even with more pressure and therefore a plausible increase in delayed mortality, it's still obviously a vastly smaller percentage of fish that die at anglers hands now, and that's what matters.
I don't disagree with that. But I do think we tend to overdramatize the past, and direct a lot of unnecessary anger towards harvest, when in reality we're killing our fair share of muskies simply by catching them. If poor C&R practices are the most significant strain on our fisheries, (emphasis on IF) than that's where we need to focus our attention.
|
|
| |
|
| EA, I agree with you, commonsense would dictate that more fish are killed now than then. JS would dictate otherwise. Lambeau is more concerned that percentage wise less are killed even if more actually individual muskies are being killed each year because there is less impact and fishing is getting better...Works for me, but with Lameau's thoughts keeping a muskie now has much less of an effect on fishing today than in earlier years...Ben
Edited by BenR 8/26/2008 5:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | BELEIVE IT OR NOT,WE ARE STILL IN THAT ERA,size limits are the only thing keeping alot of muskies in the lake.Alot of people would be keeping muskies if the size limit wasn`t so big,not the people who fish for them but the other anglers.One reason why size limits should be moved up from 34 to at least 40 in all wisconsin lakes.It`s not as bad as the photo,but a lake thats 34 and some vacationer catches a 38 on a bass lure,kept fish.I saw this happen last week when I was fishing in vilas county,can`t save them all. |
|
| |
|
| keeping a muskie now has much less of an effect on fishing today than in earlier years...
objectively, this is true. if most everyone releases all of their fish and there are more total fish in a lake, one person that keeps one fish has much less impact than it did when most people were keeping fish resulting in fewer available fish.
however, subjectively, i disagree strongly. these conditions exist because of the strength of the CPR ethic. with the exception of a very limited number of overstocked lakes with stunted fish, anything that would erode that ethic and justify keeping fish is a mistake.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | More big fish were caught back then, don't tell anyone though.
I've only been musky fishing for about 18 of my 23 years on this planet, and it surely hasn't changed that much lol..but hey that's only 18 years. I do recall seeing and catching a lot more fish when I was younger. Don't get me wrong here either and say "oh you do this you do that"...honestly not much has changed except I have better equipment and gas is way more expensive. So I don't know anymore. I just fish, have fun..enjoy it..and I get mine. Some of you guys act like you take this so seriously but I'm sure it's all about much more than muskies.
Edited by Andy 8/26/2008 7:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | The number of muskies that died last year may be more than the number of muskies that died 30 years ago, but that is completely irrelevant in terms of damage.
If 30 years ago 75% of muskies caught were killed, and today 10% are killed than we aren't "killing more muskies now", we're releasing more now.
Think about that for a second.
30 years ago 100,000 muskies caught would lead to 75,000 dead fish.
Today 10,000 would be killed.
You have to compare things on an equal playing field.
JS |
|
| |
|
| If 30 years ago 75% of muskies caught were killed, and today 10% are killed than we aren't "killing more muskies now", we're releasing more now.
that's a great, positive way to express the profound impact of CPR!
|
|
| |
|
| The impact of keeping one fish is exactly the same now as it was thirty years ago, and that impact is ONE FISH. Like Skarie said discussing the total number of anything is completely irrelevant if you're not talking percentages. Yes today more is being done to counteract the effects of loosing that one fish than thirty years ago, but the arguement being made is the same as saying that it's not as big a deal to shoot somebody in the chest today than thirty years ago because with the improved medical technologies and medical response times there is less chance he'll die. More people are dying everyday now than were thirty years ago, but guess what that's only because there are almost twice as many people on the earth. And actually I'm pretty sure that although the percentage of muskie anglers maybe higher now than before, the percentage of total anglers is on the decline. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 90
| At the end of the day all things are a process of evolution. Someone earlier said it right when they mentioned that this generation grew up in the great depression and a meal was a hard thing to come by at times, so a fish was just another meal. My grandfather just passed away this April, and I spent some time going through his photo albums, and I found many pictures from the 60's of Muskies taken in his front yard. One of my favorites is taken on the street somewhere up north for a newspaper article and is below, it was his personal best of 49" caught on Little Bearskin in Sept of 68. Catch and release and conservation are an evolved process, look around at a Bass Pro or Cabelas next time you are in one, there are hundreds of reprinted pictures of guys with a stringer full of Muskies or there is one at the Bass Pro in Bolingbrook here of one guy with 9 wild turkeys all shot on the same day. It was common practice, no one thought twice and the world evolved. Hell, when I was a kid in the early 70's I am not sure I ever rode in a carseat, and for that matter I am not even sure our car had seatbelts. Today, through an evolved society and research I am told I should have my kids in a child seat until they are 8. It's the same thing, with muskie fishing. Research improves and knowledge is gained over time and the worlds changes. Faulting a person or group of people for participating in a common practice 40 or 50 years ago is like blaming George Bush for the current economy....Oh wait that is different. Anyway, you get my point.
|
|
| |
