|
|
| http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090111/GPG0204/901110... |
|
| |
|
| Interesting read...
I suppose his conclusions may be accurate enough, providing that the data they've gathered is accurate. But then by allowing the harvest of 50" fish, aren't we decreasing the chances of capturing more data on larger fish?
Sounds like something of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. After another 10 years of harvesting 50" fish, there won't be many fish greater than 50" swimming around out there. Then we'll all look at each and say "Darn, I guess those guys were right! Them thar muskies really DON'T get bigger than 50" out there in Green Bay."
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | For those that may not have seen this, Mr. Rowe talked at the Titletown MI chapter meeting a few months back, and I recorded it. I posted four videos in the "videos" section of the site, and the first one is here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1247
The others are right on the same page. It was a very nice talk, and explains his position somewhat.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/11/2009 8:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8807
| Guest - 1/13/2009 11:37 AM
The picture is clearly not real. Look at the shadows. Why people photoshop fish picutures is something I will never understand. Maybe the story is true maybe, maybe not.
I don't think the fish is photoshopped. But the woman's head sure is. Makes you wonder what sort of facial expression she had trying to hold up that fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 223
Location: Minn. | If I remember right, her husband did photoshop her face. She did catch the fish. |
|
| |
|
| he sent me a copy of the original picture, there was just some minor tweaking to her for the sake of being able to better enjoy the picture of the huge muskie she caught.
i'm glad to hear that WI will be getting 3 brood stock lakes started using disease-free fish from Georgian Bay. that's a huge step toward long-term stocking viability.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I think the story needs some fact checking though...
Brood stock for the original effort came from southeastern Lake Huron in the Detroit River area of Michigan. That isn't accurate at all: - Lake Huron isn't connected to the Detroit River - most of the original fish were from Indian River (also not connected to the Detroit River) but is in the same watershed as Lake Huron - there were some eggs from Lake St Clair taken in a subsequent year - St Clair is connected to the Detroit River and to Lake Huron via the St Clair River Makes me wonder... what else isn't accurate or what other quotes are not used in context? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I'm going to be somewhat frank here and say that I just don't get it. At the end of the 4th video (Thank you tbetka) you can see Dave Rowe almost kinda bristle, change his posture and give a long pause, even verbally acknowledging the camera's presence, when confronted with answering the 54" thing. I don't get it. I don't get why this, at least from observing the video, whole size limit change is so hard for him to talk about.
I'm no biologist, so I can't come at it from that standpoint. But as an angler who lives here and is interested and concerned about this awesome fishery, I just don't see a down side to it. I do not see why the DNR or any member of the DNR community et al, has any issue with it. I don't see why they have to do anything if this were implemented, and can't see where they have to compromise on anything or stand to lose or to get less of something they may be getting now.
It seems that this would in fact help the Bay show us all what it's got, which would seem to help their cause. Numbers people don't like unknowns and variables. One of many, many unknowns about the Bay's muskies is the $64,000 question, which is.........how big can they get?
Allowing the harvest of 50" fish is certainly not doing any favors in terms of getting that question answered.
My opinion is that for a large, non-food, predatory, apex predator, we should NEVER legislate for angler's bagging opportunities. If you want to keep one for the wall, fine. But I don't think, and I'd guess most frequenters of the Bay would agree, that 50" is all these fish can do. So to harvest below potential seems unwise. In what currently is a system that 99.9% of the fish exist because of stocking, why we don't protect what few fish we have, in light of all the current challenges, kinda baffles me.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Make no mistake about it. David Rowe is not in favor of the 54" limit. But it sounds as though he has put his support behind the wishes of the anglers who have worked to get this resolution on the ballot. Not sure if I would classify his support as enthusiatic, however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I think you're right on, Shep. My question is why.
This size limit thing is absolutely, positively no skin off their teeth. Its not like they need to do a single thing differently than what they're doing. When the DNR et al talks about this, they seem to make it out to be this huge monkey wrench and that EVERYTHING will need to be changed....meetings need to be held, questions need to be asked, decisions need to be made.
For what? Other than the big fish will be protected and they'll have more and bigger fish (hopefully) to collect eggs from, (which should only do the DNR good ini their endeavors) what affect does this have on them? Not one thing, from what I can see. Obviously, I"m no biologist, so maybe this IS a huge deal, but I don't think so, and I think its been made to be way, WAY more than it is. I guess my final point on this is that if they truly have nothing to gain or lose, and are truly indifferent, which evidently they're not for some strange reason.....why even voice an opinion? Step aside and let the people speak, like we already have, and get behind it since we pay your salaries. I'm not picking on David Rowe here, I'm talking about everyone from the creel clerks right on up the food chain. So it supposedly has no biological need. SO WHAT? Its what 'we' want. And it doesn't take a thing away from what you're doing. It doesn't add any work. Am I the only one who can't seem to wrap his arms around this?
OK, I"m off my soapbox now. I would like to make one prediction though. And that is that the bay stocking and fish densities will look very much different in 15-25 years than what they do now. Stocking will be done to target areas with optimum spawning potential, and the big local GB area bite will still be there to a limited extent, but mostly it will be a thing of the past. Areas like Sturg and Lil' Sturg, LBDN, Peshtigo, Marinette, etc., will be the new focus. Which I think will ultimately be good for the fish and us, in the long run. If all goes well, a self sustaining population will be developed in several areas, one that is augmented by stocking, and with the ever-shrinking budgets, days of running up and down the shipping channel outside the mouth of the Fox will be a great story to tell our kids and little more.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
| I really don't get it either. I like Rowe and Kevin, and I'm not sure where kevin stands on the limit, but the resistance must be comming down from someone on top. Maybe even setting a precident for northern WI which is not what the DNR wants due to pressure from lodges and guides. The problem with the bay is it has a lot of walleye guys who try muskies fishing for the first time. If they get a 50" it will most likely be kept.
Hopefully it will get changed. Thanks for posting this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32910
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The stance taken on a 54" limit on the BOGB has nothing at all to do with the rest of the state, guides, resorts, or lake Associations. I hope for the sake of the fishery and our desire to see how big those fish can get that the 54" limit is approved. IMO it will be activism like that of the folks who have worked so tirelessly so far that gets that done. |
|
| |
|
| I'd like to see the 54" limit. and also the removal of trolling in the river proper! Too many Walleye guys catching big skis when "trolling for eyes" in April. As it becomes popular and a destination place for many, more and more people are trolling in the spring with Musky nets in the boat! It has definately increased in the past 2 years alone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| What's with all the anonymous posters on this thread?
Unlogged, since I can't PM you, I've a little riddle for you: Which is worse, to fish there cuz you'll use a big net, or bringing a big net cuz you fish there?
Prepared or unprepared. Regardless of intent, which would you rather an angler be?
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32910
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Anonymous posters are fine anywhere on MuskieFIRST. I like your riddle. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | a 50 inch fish will fit in a walleye net,I know a guy who has done it.Maybe they have the big net so they can easily handle the fish and get a pic and then release it.When I walleye fish on petenwell or castle rock I have my musky net with me just incase I hook one and don`t get bite off,that way I can net the fish in a big net,not hand land it or try to put it in my walleye net. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | With the large number of boats on the BOGB, there must be some natural reproduction going on in at least one of them!
A 54" limit only make good sense, versus existing limit. However, if you really want to get big ones, make it 60" or do what the Ontario MNR did with Lac Seul, i.e., make it release only.
Al |
|
| |
|
| When thinking about this issue it really surprises me that the DNR is actually opposing a higher size limit. When you think back in history the DNR was set up to conserve the resource from violaters who wanted to take game. I think our fishing society is at a great moment when we are actually the ones promoting the higher size limit. Sad that the DNR opposes but a good sign anyway. Private funds are funding the stocking and the State says they don't want a higher limit because it may hinder sales of liscenses? Sad really.
Rowe suggests he will need to prove without a reasonable doubt that a higher limit will help the fishery using data. This was a very sad comment because a higher size limit will obviously help larger females reproduce. When science says you need to document something in order for it to be true, science has reached too far and has an alternative motive. Why try to dismiss something that is obvious? That was the only part of the video's I did not agree with. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Saying you need documented science to prove a higher limit will help/improve the fishery is a cop-out.
What defines help or improve? That is subjective, and you can find many already documented examples that could fit many categories of helping or improving.
If the improvement is to provide more fish in the 50- 54" range fro catching or spawning, than make the reg change to a 54" limit, document the results of the population change and use that for your study, if it doesn't help go back to 50".
Might be able to get a Grad student or 2 to help fund/work on it to save the DNR money.
How can they pass that scenario up?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| john skarie - 1/20/2009 4:54 PM
Saying you need documented science to prove a higher limit will help/improve the fishery is a cop-out.
What defines help or improve? That is subjective, and you can find many already documented examples that could fit many categories of helping or improving.
I agree completely. It has been extremely well documented in a number of species that as size increases so does egg production. A 61 cm red snapper can produce as many eggs as 212 42cm snapper. That is just one example.
Might be able to get a Grad student or 2 to help fund/work on it to save the DNR money.
Depending on what has transpired with funding, Jim Diana at the University of Michigan is looking to have a grad student(s) work on a project that focuses on natural reproduction in Green Bay.
I respect Rowe's opinion and respect even more his willingness to accommodate the fishermen's needs. I think, sometimes, that often goes either unnoticed by the general public or does not factor in to the decision making.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32910
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Esox50,
Thank you for a well thought out and well presented perspective. |
|
| |
|
| Is the catch and release only season with barbless hooks still starting the first weekend in May and does that affect Green Bay and the Fox River? |
|
| |
|
| the c&r season will be repealed.
thanks to the work of a ton of guides and musky fisherman.
who stood against the certain eagle river guides and resort and bait shop owners who pushed this.
we should hear official vote soon.
dannboy |
|
| |
