|
|
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | I guess he is out there trying to find one of the muskie fisherman from the 99% that are againts the 50 inch limits. Anytime you want to answer my questions Tom go right ahead, I'll be here. Personaly I think what has been done in the past is bad for the fisheries so why blame it on a higher size limits. I think they should do like they did here in Ontario is progress with a bigger size limit one step at a time like 36-40-44- then 50. So that way they can see wich lakes are getting better with the higher limits and only raise those and leave the others where they are. Yes it takes time but who can tell me why WI is so many years behind eveyone else. A slot would be a bad idea as it takes small fish to make big ones, if you take out to many 30-40 inchers you not only take out fish that can potentialy grow to 50 plus inches but as well as been spawners. You need to set limits that allow the fish to spawn for a certain number of years before they can be harvested and 34 inch limits don't do that. I know you guys have small lakes but we have 1000 acre shallow lakes here that support 50 inchers and they're just as healthy as the fish from the BigO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Well Tom, let me first of all congratulate you on your sighting of a 70lb. fish. Not many, in all of muskydom, have had that opportunity. If Butternut can kick out this kind of fish on a regular basis I think they need to vote down the 50" size limit proposal in WI. Oh wait, once again I am confusing the issues. What does your sighting of a record fish have to do with the 50" size limit proposal?
If Butternut is felt to have too many fish, simply decrease or terminate the stocking in that lake, and the problem will take care of itself. If the problem continues after the stocking is stopped it may be discovered to be bad genetics and good natural reproduction are the cause. I am very much afraid that the slot limit thing is prone to tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
The only way I could see any kind of slot limit proposal for a lake being feasible is IF someone found a length slot during the rod and reel season in which you would find a disproportionate number of males, and that size would have to be in the upper 30's or low 40's. It is a simple thing to study growth in a lake through tagging, anectdotal angler evidence("gee I used to see a lot of 70 lbers. in this lake, and now all I catch are sub 30 inch fish")tend to be pretty unreliable sources of information. If fish are indeed found to be stunting or going through a bottleneck it MAY be caused by problems in the forage base, ie loss of suckers, walleyes perch, etc. at a critical size for growth to go forward, and may not relate to the musky population at all, but simply a low density of a forage in the neccessary size range. My guess is that big fish in Butternut could still go forward and reach very large sizes. Why? Because from your explanation there would be plenty of soft rayed forage for them to consume...stunted muskies... |
|
| |
|
| SWORRAL: An International Symposium IS in the works for 2004. You must have been too busy lately running around to shows to know what all is going on in the muskie world. Muskie's, Inc., under the guidance of Jim Bagnoli, is once again putting it together. Information has been widely publicized in MUSKIE magazine and MUSKY HUNTER magazine. Comment from Sworrall: I had heard one was in the works, but had not heard it was funded, finalized, and ready to go. There was one in the works when Steve Budnik was President , and it didn't happen because of funding. Sounds better this time, I hope. Haven't seen any press releases yet, is there one out? Running around to shows; is that a dig, or am I just reading a negative tone into this? if it is a dig, how about you working a few of those shows in the Patriot booth for me so I can sit home weekends and read Musky Hunter, OK?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Actually Butternut has produced some true monsters!!! A 54"er hangs on the wall of Bobs northern pines along with a few other 50+ers out of that lake. It used to produce alot more big fish than it does now(but it still pops a biggee now and then). Butternut sees alot of harvest, and a very high single hook usage(which really hurts). I feel more darker lakes should have been/should be considered for trophy management as well(far too many people think only the large clear systems can produce the biggees, when in fact many of the darker stained waters have been and do produce some of WI biggest fish each year). Also, if we consider a few more dark lakes next time(and I can name quite a few that would be perfect for higher regs), we would nearly eliminate the spearing argument from the equation, as it is not as widespread on the darker systems for obvious reason.
Food for thought.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/22/2003 8:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
| I am soooo very sick of hearing the line, "you can't compare Wisconsin with Minnesota or Ontario..." you're right, though, but for an entirely different reason. Minnesota and Ontario have progressive muskie regs, Wisconsin is having so trouble there. I think we should start comparing Wisconsin to Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Here we do have some similiar waters, yet, thanks to longer limits, those state's lakes produce plenty of big fish. Actually, it's the same in Iowa...
If you look at lakes where there appears to be an over-population of muskies, chances are, you will also find that they are stocked. Hmmmmm, maybe they are being over-stocked. The goal of any muskie program that has lakes with natural reproduction should be to protect the population so that stocking is not needed and the population is self sustaining.
I think this debate is showing the true colors of tournament organizers: "Gotta make my buck, then we can look at doing what might be good for the resource, but don't do anything that might make it harder for me to make a buck."
Tom Bernhardt
PS This is interesting reading, most of it has been said, but it is still encouraging to see so many that "get it." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom B. I had heard about the symposium plans, but hadn't heard it was funded or finalized. We need another, for sure. I think your comment about the tournament directors is inflammatory, not constructive. A similar statement could be made by opponents of the 50" proposal that I am an elitist who cares little for the other angler's wishes in the area, and that I am willing to effectively change several lakes in the area to catch and release only for the next 8 to 10 years at the least so I MIGHT be able to catch and release a 50" muskie to pump up my ego. In fact, I had a phone caller tell me that exactly two nights ago. That is the kind of blanket statement that serves to polarize, not bring the sides closer together, assumes alot, and is a distorted view of the people who are behind both viewpoints discussed here. Have you talked to the two tournament directors to see what their feelings are? I think Tom M has stated his here, and the money doesn't seem to be the motivator according to his commentary, or did you read something I missed? For that matter, have you talked to the DNR here to see what their views, concerns, and plans to move the 50" proposal forward are? Have you discussed the proposals with those who support them, and how they feel about the overall impact, and what that impact might do for their businesses? I submit many of those who agree with this idea are doing so for the good of their future checking accounts as well. I certainly am. Have you read the report from the DNR I have linked at the top of the message board? The stocking plans and numbers are recorded there. It may surprise you to find many of the lakes with good natural reproduction in this area are on a ten year no-stocking list. Some of those have trophy potential, but were not on the list of lakes voted upon. Many of the 'heavily stocked' waters are 'action lakes' and are managed as such. Have you read the last publication from the 1984 Symposium? Many of the stocking/angling pressure/ balances of predator and prey/prey types/male muskie population and RSD factors are covered there, and support what we have seen in Wisconsin on the darker water, shallower systems managed for muskies here, AND the deeper, clearer waters identified then as supporting a higher quality fishery. In fact, the study reported in that document was held in Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin isn't Kentucky, Illinois, or Iowa. We have far more muskie water than those states, in fact, probably more than all three put together. We have incredibly diverse muskie waters here, from the Wisconsin River and it's assorted pools, to little 100 acre dark water lakes, to Lake Michigan. The DNR needs the ability to manage each of these waters individually. The method up until quite recently was to manage all the waters as far as special restrictions applied as a Statewide program. An effort to manage them for each system's potential has started the process of change we are experiencing now and is the process we go through here. The 50" proposal was NOT voted down by tournament officials up here. There are, at the most, maybe 15 or so of those folks voting. It was rejected by the public by nearly a two to one margin, a public for the most part in my opinion who were not adequately informed about the possible impact, use issues, and future plans the DNR was presenting. This proposal surfaced late last Fall, in reality, and the necessary process to educate the public simply didn't have the time frame available. IMHO, It is narrow minded and damages the potential to ever move froward with this to focus on a small portion of the issue and fail to address the big picture. Also, just because someone might disagree with my viewpoint doesn't mean that they don't 'get it'. It may be their motivations are totally different than mine, and they see me as 'not getting it'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
| dd, I took his post as sayng c+r for all fish on specific lakes. Not just Musky. That is what I would agree with. I would not agree with making just musky c+r as that would make the system lopsided with musky having free range and other gamefish being removed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | So does anyone agree with me that 10% of the total lakes affected by the increased size limit is a very small number of lakes? The number of lakes that wouldn't be affected is 90%. So explain to me what do you mean by too many lakes were asked to raise the size limit. Give me a number that seems more justified.
Explain to me which of the lakes that we currently have a 50" size limit is currently suffering from too many small fish. Give me numbers, not Monday morning quarterback talk. Also have any of you guys that are vocal against the size limit increase truly educated in the area of musky management? Have you ever had a class in Biology or Environmental Science? What gives you the authority to say that the state biologists are wrong?
Steve Worrall had posted a great link to a pdf that the DNR of Wisconsin has compiled of Musky Management. In that pdf there's a table that explains the number of lakes that are affected by established size limits.
There's 10 lakes that have a 28" size limit that make up 1% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
***There's 576 lakes that have a 34" size limit that make up 73% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
There's 196 lakes that have a 40" size limit that make up 25% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
***There's 12 lakes that have a 45"/50" size limit that makes up 1% of the lakes in Wisconsin.
So how and the heck can you say that there's too many lakes that are affected by changing the size limits?
If it takes a musky an average of 17 - 18 years to acheive the 50" size limit. What are the odds against a musky to ever achieve this size with the current size limits?
If we have to maintain stocking fish to maintain the quality of musky fishing that we enjoy. How does the possiblity of diluting superior strain fish equal a better fishery. You're not protecting the large mature fish by having a 34" size limit. (You're actually allowing the removal of the mature fish with such a size limit). So how in turn are you going to have natural reproduction when the population is only protecting juvenile and adolescent fish? You're bottleneck is created by allowing any fish that becomes legal size(34") to be harvested. The ratio of mature fish vs the immature fish is far from perfect by having the current size limits where they are currently. Plus through low size limits you're not protecting the superior strain fish, but the opposite effect.
But my biggest question is how many lakes is too many? Especially when Wisconsin currently only has 1% of their lakes that are currently 45"/50" size limit? I'll stand off the soap box for now, but let's have a good debate here. Rebuttal my questions with intelligent and effective answers.
catch ya later,
Krappie
Edited by Krappie 4/22/2003 7:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
| Steve,
Yes, I have read all the reports, they are VERY interesting reading. The point that I was trying to make, is that the lakes that folks complain about over-populations are also on the stocking list. I have not heard anyone complain that the proposed lakes were "numbers" lakes, only that they had trophy potential. Which is the point that I was trying to make. People are complaining or worrying about a potential over-population that has not happened in any other lake that relies on natural reproduction.
While I have not talked to the Wisconsin fisheries folks, I have talked to fisheries guys from Ontario, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Kentucky. I have had several email exchanges with biologists from Wisconsin and believe that they want to do what is right for the lakes, but are handcuffed by the Conservation Congress. While I do sometimes question some biologist's thinking, I have always been satisified with the answers that I received from them. I have yet to meet a fisheries guy that has not had the best interest of any lake in mind when they work on their management plans. I would not want to be in their shoes, they get pressure from us to "do what's best for the lakes," then hear from even more people to "do what's best for the freezer."
You are right, Wisconsin does have very diverse muskie lakes, as does Minnesota, which was the point that I was trying to make. If you eliminate the 6-7 really big lakes in Minnesota, then our lakes are quite comparable with the lakes of Wisconsin, which is why comparing the 2 is quite appropriate.
All in all, I do have to admit to gaining a bit of respect for Tom McGinnis. I am sure that he knew that he would take a verbal beating for his stance and that he stood a good chance of hearing it all over again posting here and he has done a good job of explaining himself. I don't agree, but that's not a big shock.
I would also say that much of my frustration is with Muskies, Inc. members that stayed home in droves. One chapter even schedules their annual fundraiser for the same evening as the hearings (I cannot even comprehend how short-sighted that is.) A bunch of MI folks and some non MI business owners worked very hard for this and for the most part, MI folks ignored them. I could blather on and on about this, but what's the point...
I really want these management steps to take place. Why? I would LOVE to see Wisconsin be a "destination" again for muskie fishing. There are very few places left where you can go and be "immersed" in muskie culture, like you can in northern Wisconsin. For as good as the fishing is in Minnesota, there is no place with the "muskie culture" that Wisconsin has. For me, it is the one thing that Minnesota is lacking and will probably never have.
Regarding the Symposium, deposits have been paid at the host location and a sizable chunck of money has already been raised. A few have questioned the scheduling, but in order to appeal to fisheries employees, an early fall date had to be picked. Jim Bagnoli has done a heck of a job lining things up so that this symposium will be every bit as successful as the last one.
Anyways, I think, as someone else pointed out, what we have discovered is that quality fishing has a different definition, depending on who you are talking to.
Time for me to calm down.
Tom B |
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
| Forgot to add...
I read last year's report and this year's. Not only is it very interesting reading, but my impression is that the guys that worked on the plan are on the "cutting edge" of muskie management. Reading the report, then listening to people debate muskie fishing in Wisconsin, makes it seem like the report is referring to a different state.
For those that have not read the report, it is recommended reading.
Tom B |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Just a quick FYI. The Headwaters M.I. chapter has approved funding to help pay for some of our local DNR guys attend the Musky Symposium. I understand that they will be sending some folks and were very receptive to the assistance. Maybe some other clubs would consider doing something similar. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Worrall, You always bring up excellent points.Always fair. You are a Stallion!!!!Great Job! Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
| I think Iowa and Illinois have done the same. I think, not positive, but I thought the St Cloud Chapter was going to help send the Little Falls fisheries biologist.
Anyways, at the Spring Board meeting, there was lots of talk of different chapters assisting their fisheries guys. There is a lot of positive energy for this to happen.
The cool thing is that the planning committee is also trying to line up a bunch of seminars for us fishing folks. Some of the technical committee meetings will not have much of interest to the average muskie fisher folks and some of that time will be filled with "seminar" type speakers.
There should be plenty to interest professional biologists and us fisherdudes too.
Tom B |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| TomB,
Are talking about the Milwaukee Chapter? Our major fundraiser has been held on that Monday in April since it's inception. The DNR at some point in the past, moved the date, and it conflicted with our banquet. Last year, we all took a lot of heat for this. I made the decision to attend the banquet, as I felt I could see direct benefit of my efforts and donations, unlike the fiasco that is the Spring hearings. This year, our banquet was not held on the same night, so there was no conflict. So, I hope you are not accusing our MI Chapter of holding our banquet the night of the Spring Hearings.
I understand your feelings about this vote. I also understand this is a volatile topic, and for the most part, it has been civil. However, there have been a few posts from people who do not live in WI, and who do not have any knowledge of what the Spring Hearings are for. They also do not have any knowledge of the efforts put into this topic at the different clubs throughout the State. As I recall, I first heard of this size limit proposal last fall, maybe at our October Chapter meeting. The list of lakes was passed around, there was a small presentaion by our program director, and that was the last I heard it discussed until recently on the boards.
For some to say that 99% favored, or opposed, this proposal is sheer folly. Again, I say 99% of the muskie anglers didn't care enough one way or the other to even go and vote. You are frustrated by the lack of support for this by the members of MI in WI. I am a firm believer that this effort, if in favor, should have been supported, and persued, by the MI International board. They should have been discussing this at the fall meeting, and encouraged every Chapter in the State to discuss this every month, and encourage it's members to get out the vote. This didn't happen, hence the low voter turnout.
I will always have a bad feeling about the Spring Hearings, and the Conservation Congress. It is a joke. It's all politics. I wish the DNR in this state could just do it's job, and leave the politics out of it. I say, if the DNR deems it necessary for a certain lake to have a certain size limit, it should have the authority to establish this limit. I would like to see a higher statewide limit, say 38" or 40", and then allow the DNR to set lower limits on those lakes that need it, and higher limits on lakes it would manage for trophies.
Whatever happened this year, I think we should all take a deep breath, stop with the hostilities, and try to find a common ground, so that we can join TOGETHER to figure out a way to do what is best for the fishery, and the people of this State. |
|
| |
