|
|
Posts: 101
| Steve;
I have never met a muskie whether I caught or saw it caught that I didn't enjoy!
Fishing in Minnesota is still pretty good with different lakes coming online to take pressure off the proven ones. Possibility is still there for MN to get better. My son and and I both got 50"+ fish 2 weeks ago with Musky Stalker and he had 2 more 50"+ fish in his boat 7 hours before we were able to make it up there.
As in MN and just about every where there are a number of trophy fish that will never be heard about or seen. I personally know a number of 53 - 55" fish that will never be touted because guys want their fish spots protected from pressure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I have to agree with the thread in general---ther are lots of 48+ inch fish caught in both MN and Wi that are not reported---I know of several in the last couple years including a 55" from a small (under 400 acre) Wi lake that will never make any noise on the internet. It has to be that way--most of those smaller WI lakes could not take any more presssure than they already recieve. I applaud these anglers for their efforts to keep their lakes/spots from the increased fishing they would recieve. I also think some of these large fish will never make a PICTURE PAGE due to the few who will want to judge their size, or the way the fish was held, was it netted or kept out of the water to long---Ther is sometimes alot of BS that goes with posting a Picture so again I know many who just will not do it. I say good job to those anglers and I have done the same thing myself---as much as we all think we know what goes on out there on the Lakes--there is much that is being covered up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8746
| I'll agree that muskie fishing in WI is better than it's probably ever been, but as long as there is a statewide 34" size limit the opportunities for quality muskie fishing are going to be VERY limited.
There are small lakes that don't get a lot of pressure putting out quality fish. If word got out on those lakes it would be over, as a 200 - 500 acre lake can only support a relatively small # of fish. ANY amount of angling pressure can be a detriment. The people who fish these lakes know that and keep quiet with good reason.
There are also some lakes where higher size limits have been implemented. Those will continue to improve, but only to a point, as the publicity surrounding those lakes draws a great many anglers.
It's my hope that the day will come where WI finally implents an intelligent management strategy, and then we can see once and for all what kind of quality fishing is possible in Wisconsin. It will never be MN. The lakes aren't the same size, the forage is different, water chemistry is different.... But it certainly could be a lot better.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32834
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Intelligent management strategy? That one has been beat to death, and every time it's agreed that many WI waters that are sterile, put and take fisheries don't grow 'em any larger than low 40's, and that rarely. Unless the goal is to lose support from those of us who want to occasionally harvest a muskie and as a result stop stocking the sterile, poor growth rate waters(like Spider in Oneida, for example), your idea of 'intelligent' may need some more thought. Better to have some 34" waters that MIGHT produce a 42 and see the occasional harvest there than leave the waters with trophy potential at 40. Or less.
It will take the same kind of pressure exerted on the PUBLIC to get and keep Pelican at 50 to get new waters past the CC here. I'd advocate getting the waters with honest trophy potential protected and leaving the numbers lakes at a lower limit for those who insist. Some lakes simply won't support a trophy population due to water chemistry and forage.
The waters that have shown any trophy potential at all are already under restrictive size limits or are on the way there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8746
| Steve, I'd agree with lower size limits on "sterile" put and take fisheries. No reason not to on a population of fish that will not grow to trophy size and do no reproduce. But how many lakes out there really DO have trophy potential that will never be realized due to angler harvest? If it's rare to find a 45" fish on a lake with a 40" size limit, is that because of the lake ecosystem, or because fish are getting bonked and hung on the wall once they reach 40"?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'm curious as to what exactly is meant by "water chemistry" that won't support trophy fish.
Could someone be more specific about what is different about those waters than others?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32834
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure.
I'd look up the classifications of lake age first so one can understand impact from outside sources on each water body one is investigating.
http://www.mlswa.org/lkclassif1.htm
This was covered in excellent detail during the 'it's the fish' debate. Many Wisconsin lakes are extremely sterile due to water source and the makeup of the 'bottom' of the lake, and won't grow 'big' fish of any specie even with near zero fishing pressure...even 'sunnies', as MN folks call them. Poorly buffered, acidic waters don't support the necessary 'food chain' to grow big fish...hence the major concerns about acid rain where the waters are already poorly buffered. What happened to many lakes in the East is a classic example; beautiful clear waters devoid of any nutrients, and the fish are not just 'stunted', they are gone.
Most systems in N WI fed by moving water or that are moving water in the form of a flowage or river seem to do quite well, but even then some have sterile enough conditions the average fish even with almost no fishing pressure is small by comparison.
Many Wisconsin lakes are seepage and drainage lakes that actually have so much mercury from natural occurring heavy metals leeching into the water from Acid rain that these little 50 to 300 acre lakes require a fish consumption advisory posted if there's a public landing. Some are so sterile there are almost no fish at all.
The opposite 'problem' can occur in lakes that are well balanced before man's influence; because of pollution over fertile conditions can exist, and algae, weed growth, oxygen levels, and more are problematic. One sees that sort of thing in the fertile, aged waters and man made waters in southern and western WI.
http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/aquatic/sextant/chemistry.htm
Some lakes here are VERY sterile and support only small perch and not much more. A 5" perch is rare. Take one that's a couple years old and 2" long out, put it in an aquarium, and keep the water balanced and the perch fed, and POOF, it grows like mad.
Wisconsin has a ton of waters that are regularly stocked and do not produce big fish of any specie, nor is there any natural reproduction of some of the gamefish stocked. They are essentially 'put and take' waters, and they are what they are. Stopping harvest by placing such restrictive limits that none CAN be harvested means stopping stocking because harvest is the very idea.
Very rudimentary, but hopefully correct enough and succinct enough to get the idea across. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Thank You. Interesting info.
JS |
|
| |
