Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> 50"limit for Wi. |
| Message Subject: 50"limit for Wi. | |||
H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | I know the 50" state wide limit did not pass last time, and my resort friends will get scared...but is this a dead issue or is there a plan to bring it up again at the April meetings?. It just seems to me (and alot of my friends) that this is the one best single thing we can do for the state of Muskie fishing in Wi. | ||
| Steve Van Lieshout |
| ||
Posts: 1916 Location: Greenfield, WI | In direct pointed discussions with the DNR, the DNR will not allow it. They claim that not every lake can grow 50" muskies. If it would be considered, almost all stocking would be eliminated. Edited by Steve Van Lieshout 2/24/2004 8:54 PM | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | I would think most lakes can..and if they cant maybe they should not be managed for Muskies..but alot of lakes, over 90% of them probably could. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The key here is 'trophy' potential. The 50" proposal was designed to address a few lakes. There was never any intent to pass this for all waters. Management for muskies in Wisconson is diverse, from small lakes which will never produce trophy fish in any number to lakes that have tremendous potential. Eventually there will be another attempt to create 'trophy only' waters, but in a more limited and therefore more potentially acceptable fashion. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20248 Location: oswego, il | It was not a statewide 50 that did not pass but a 50" linit on a few not all trophy class waters up north. To get a limit like this passed you have to get the walleye and panfish anglers to vote for it too. There is the other thinking too that says any limit increase is a regulation and liberal thinking, I don't want it. The best bet with this conservation congress is to get the votes from every county to count, not just the county the regulation is for. Everybody buys a license, they deserve a say and southern counties vote for these increases. | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | Thanks Steve, I thought it was a state wide 50" effort.. | ||
| stripe55 |
| ||
Posts: 15 | As a Wi resident this issue has puzzled me considerably. Resident musky anglers certainly support it and all of my aquaintences who fish other species primarily support higher size limits, so where is the opposition? I hear through anecdotal sources that resort owners are genrally the chief barrier to this , but really, are they that out of touch? Are your non-musky fishing resort going friends threatening to fish elsewhere if they potentialy can't keep every 36" musky? Perhaps our great pals at the DNR aren't that interested in the increased cost of maintaining records (creel survey, netting, shocking ect.) with all the budget limits. Perhaps our native friends lack of a way to spear and release has some impact on the issue, but the more I think along these lines I can,t help but remembering the stories of northern Wi resort and tavern owners being the major outlet for speared trophy muskies so..... this just leaves me feeling like going to Canada or Mi. Do any of you guys from northern Wi have any more input? Am I way off base? Am I at the ballpark? I would love to hear from you guide/resort owner types for your opinions. Thank you | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not only are you out of the Ball Park, you are bordering on unacceptable debate. Accusations like yours are too widely spoken, based on "I hear", and not substantiated or acceptable. My son works on the DNR crews you so negatively describe. One of his direct superiors was a STRONG supporter of the initiative. The budget problems the DNR has at this time are economy related. Not interested?? I showed him your comment, and he reacted with a sentence I won't repeat. The issue of Native American spearing was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. I accept the laws they affirm, and don't think the Court will reverse the rulings. This had NOTHING to do with the defeat of the initiative. It was voted down resoundingly by the public, in short because of lack of time for the proper support to be garnered, and pure misunderstanding. The comment about resort owners here is unfounded, inaccurate, and deserves only this: You owe the hard working resort owners who have struggled through a terrible economy and are still in business here an apology. By the way, I am one of the 'guide types'. You have my response. Are you way off base? Yes. | ||
| stripe55 |
| ||
Posts: 15 | Steve, I'am not sure if I related my feelings on this in a way that you could understand in this format. I too have several friends working for the DNR, but they work in the field. They often relate to me the differences they have with the number crunchers and those that have a promotion or political point of view. What I was trying to say was even as a resident who tries to stay informed, there is little solid info to form a sound opinion on, at least in Green Bay. This is why I posed the question to actual residents of the areas most affected. As far as resort owners and Natives, all I know is what is published in the press and the sporting press. I was asking, I would like some FACTS reguarding the issue, and would appreciate some benefit of doubt on my previous post. I am quite aware the the people that make their living in the north have had to live day in and day out with all of these issues and my heart is with them. While Green Bay is only 100-200 miles away, alot of info gets spun one way or the other by the time we get it here. So, that said, any info from guide/resort owner types is appreciated. Thank you | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7077 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Here's the cold truth: the issue was up last year and was soundly defeated. Throwing the blame game on resort owners, FIBS, guides, and the DNR does nothing to change the fact that when the issue was up for a vote, it was defeated. If others want to put this issue back up to the hearings, then please organize it as you will. MuskieFIRST will NOT be a forum to lay blame for the failure of a sensitive issue that occured last year. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | stripe, Nothing personal, but your post wasn't worded very positively, and actually laid into some folks pretty hard. Read what you posted and you will see why I answered as I did. I gave you facts.I live in the area where several of the lakes would have been approved. This was a hotly debated issue last Spring, so I called the local Fisheries manager, and the head honcho in Madison and got their perspective. I also talked to many who were at the meetings, and tempers ran high. The general concensus was this would have passed if the PR folks for the DNR and the supporting sportsmen and women had had sufficient time to present the facts. This was literally rammed through, and you can see the results. I think the DNR website has the details still. | ||
| stripe55 |
| ||
Posts: 15 | Steve, you are correct. Your point of view certainly comes from a more direct connection(the area you live and your line of work) to that whole process. My only involvement was standing in our crowded auditorium, listening to the proposal and voting. My newness to this web stuff is no excuse for not being more considerate. My apologies to the offended. I do spend some time in the northwoods, mostly the NE quarter of the state, and I must say no two people give real solid input, positive or negative on this issue. Whether I'm at a bait store or a tavern, resort or campground, I can't draw a solid conclusion, and that was what I was trying to get at originally. It's too important to give up but it is like too many other things outdoor related that is pitting people against each other that by rights should have a mutual intrest. I am on pins here'cause I am at the site for the technical stuff, so safely assume I won't touch anything political here again. Sorry for touching anybodys nerves. Thanks | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | bottom line, there was a vote, not enough musky hunters showed up to vote for it, and too many were against it. only people that can be blamed were the ones who are for it but didnt show up to vote. | ||
|
| ||
| In Clark county at last years spring hearing a letter was read from the chamber of commerce up there stating they, along with resort owners did not support the proposal and stongly urged everyone to vote against it. This is a fact and as a result in clark county the vote was 50 no and 1 yes. They did not say specific resort owners who were against it as I know there were a few for it. If the letter had read the opposite I think the vote would have gone in favor, in clark county at least. I know some of the other counties had people reporting that this letter was also read at thier meetings and had a negative impact. Jason Malone | |||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| As someone born in WI who still fishes there often I pray the 50 inch limit passes on all waters or at least class A waters. I love that the MNR has made the top trophy lakes in Canada 54 inch! | |||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The ANTI's were alot more dedicated to getting thier No's than we were for getting Yes's! because they pushed harder, they won. Northern Highlands Sports in Boulder Junction had a Petition for NO right on their counter and as soon as you went to buy anything they were all over you to sign it...I have'nt been in there since nor will I ever go back. Make your $$$$ heard loud and clear...Do not patronize bait shops, Resorts or Guides who dont support you're thinking on CPR and size limits! A 50" on all Wisconsin lakes is'nt going to happen, hell they cant even establish a statewide size limit now. The proposal last year included about 35 lakes if memory served and alot of them were under 700 acres. Maybe what needs to be done is to push for the larger lakes first and use them as a case study. People need hard numbers and PROOF that the 50" will work. Edited by Gander Mt Guide 2/25/2004 10:10 AM | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | Steve,ToddM and Slmr..thanks for the good info but all I realy wanted to know is if any such proposal was coming up again this spring so I could help support it. I believe alot of the cpr guys want it, but just were not heard for alot of reasons including us not showing up. It is not my intention to dig up old wounds, but to support size increases because they are needed... | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| it takes a _ton_ of effort to accomplish this kind of change. think of the time/effort it took to promote CPR just to the _dedicated_ musky fishers. when people are hoping to put a trophy on the wall, they do make choices based on rumors they hear, etc., and that impacts the pocket books of resort owners, businesses, etc. for example, last fall i netted a fat 46" girl for my brother-in-law. he's someone who very occassionally fishes musky, but mostly walleye. i had to all but force him to get some video, some pics, and release it. _every_ time i see him, he brings up how he wishes he'd kept that fish to have it mounted - and there's at least a small amount of resentment towards me and my CPR ways. a composite mount just won't cut it for him - he caught that fish so he sees it as "his" and wants to have it on his wall. i share my perspective, but he just isn't all that interested in hearing it. this is just ONE person. but, i do believe that over time if we keep plugging away at all those "one persons" all of us know, it'll have an impact similar to the way CPR thinking slowly spread. the issues are inextricably linked - limits are just a way to formalize it. i think that framing it more in terms of seeing CPR as an opportunity to improve the fishery (and the associated economic impact) rather than limits as the state legislating against people's "rights" will be a more cooperative approach. when you think of heading up to a lake for an annual musky trip, where do you go? does the chance at a true trophy play a factor? of course it does...once the local community members see a $$$ benefit to having a trophy fishery in their backyard, they'll get on board. trying to force it on them against what they view as their best interests right now will just keep that kind of resentment burning. for what it's worth... | |||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | To put it in a nutshell. Many of the local chambers of commerce and related businesses like resorts are fearful that if a lake has a 50" limit that will adversly affect their business because vacationers will go elsewhere. Last year a statement was published by the Haywared area resort owners that the higher size limit did NOT have any negative impact on their business. This was totally ignored by their Vilas and Oneida counterparts. Most guides in the area are pro-release but some (not all) have the attitude that if a client wants to keep a fish they will not challenge him/her on it. Some guides still use single hook sucker rigs to gut hook fish and while they claim to release a "healthy fish" the studies done so far indicate a significant amount of delayed mortality on gut hooked fish. This issue will continue to be debated but as long as the decision rests with the public and the DNR is not allowed to implement measures to protect the fishery it will be a long hard fight. As was stated above proposals for more stringent regs have a far better chance of passing if it is done on a statewide basis. The northern counties are still dominated by people who prefer for things to remain status quo and will continue to organize strong opposition to progressive management. Yes, I live in Vilas County for anyone who wonders. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One of the problems is that the DNR admits the proposal, if implemented, would take us into uncharted territory. The fisheries folks actually are not sure what would happen with the populations in the effected waters. Of course, we will NEVER know if it isn't tried, but in order to pass as an 'experiment', the scope of the project will probably need to be scaled down considerably. I figure the two sides on this issue are not that far apart in their views. We need alot more time to educate the folks effected as to the design, impact, and overall scope of the project if undertaken. One way to ASSURE we never get close enough in our views to get this passed is to go with the 'boycott this or that', name calling negative campaign I have seen some promote. | ||
| magfishing |
| ||
Posts: 15 | What is Muskies Inc. chapter in the Boulder Junction/Vilas county view on this? | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | I hate getting into this again but I doubt you'll ever see a statewide 50 in wisconsin and I think thats good. We have over 800 muskie lakes in the state and they are not all equal, meaning not all are suited for such a limit. Yes the limit would work on some lakes and it would be nice to have more trophy lakes. However they have to hand picked and converted to trophy lakes in small numbers to ever get passed. In my talks with the d.n.r. and and other groups pro and con I get the feeling that if a dozen lakes were switched to 50 at a time it would pass. Don't forget we have lakes now that have higher limits. We have to please everyone in such an undertaking and cannot be greedy as musky anglers or we will never get anywhere with bigger limits. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | Originally written by magfishing on 2004-02-25 3:26 PM What is Muskies Inc. chapter in the Boulder Junction/Vilas county view on this? That would be the Headwaters Chapter and the chapter as a group supported the proposal. I suppose some individual members may have had opposing views. The biggest problem is that not enough got out to vote. | ||
| matt_obrien50 |
| ||
Posts: 74 Location: MIlton Ontario Canada | I really shouldn't be getting involved in this discussion seeing that I have never fished any lakes down there before but I can't see any reason not to have a 50 inch size limit at least n the trophy sized lakes. If the muskies in and certain lake have potential to reach 50 inches plus then they should definatley be 50 inch minimum lakes at the least if not more. All lakes should be looked at seperately to determine they're minimum catch and keep limits. In Ontario waters the MNR has done a really good job in determining which lakes should have 48 inch or 54 inch size limits and in smaller numbers lakes 34 or even 36 inches. Bottom line I can't even imagine Georgian Bay having anything less then a 54 inch size limit cause it lets the fish grow to their fullest potential. I think the higher the minimum size limit goes on any particular lake anywhere in North America the better it is for the muskie fishery. Most Muskie anglers are catch and release anglers anyways so I can't see why they would'nt be all for the increased size limits? Who would honestly want to keep a muskie any smaller? I guess if they are eating them or someting but I definatly wouldn't want a 40 incher up on my wall at home I would be embaressed to have something like that on my wall. Anyways I obviously don't know what the problem is down there anyways just my 2 cents worth and I would support the 50 inch size limit if I was down there forsure no questions asked. Edited by matt_obrien50 2/25/2004 8:45 PM | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20248 Location: oswego, il | Does anybody remember when canada limited the amount of fish you could take back home with you? I do. I remember alot of people screaming about it too and many said they would not go back. They did and the fishing is better now then it was back in the 70's when you could bring a bunch home. | ||
| MiserMike |
| ||
Posts: 57 Location: Racine WI | Originally written by Gander Mt Guide on 2004-02-25 10:06 AM A 50" on all Wisconsin lakes is'nt going to happen, hell they cant even establish a statewide size limit now. The proposal last year included about 35 lakes if memory served and alot of them were under 700 acres. Maybe what needs to be done is to push for the larger lakes first and use them as a case study. People need hard numbers and PROOF that the 50" will work. "50 inches will work" on SOME waters, and I might support pushing for "the larger lakes first" but not as a wedge for a universal rule. Sorry to be blunt, but a statewide 50" limit makes as much sense as a statewide 55mph -- including residential neighborhoods and school zones. The DNR-bashers ignore the complexity of management strategies in their focus on (admittedly existing) political and career considerations. Dump your two-inch goldfish in a lake, and he grows into a two-footer. That's why the DNR forbids goldfish as bait, and no one attributes evil motives to that ruling. There are trophy lakes, and numbers lakes, and only limited leverage is available through regulation. This issue reminds me of the old days when everyone took a more-is-better attitude toward fish stocking. Took a long time for everyone to realize stocking more of a species might actually harm the fishery, even for that species. Sorry I snapped. | ||
| MiserMike |
| ||
Posts: 57 Location: Racine WI | When the fifty-inch idea was proposed, I said, "GREAT!" After I thought about it, I became less enthusiastic. Like most muskie fishermen,I'll never keep a muskie, so it changes nothing for us. Am I correct in thinking the trophy-fish-only limit is mostly intended to insure the survival of the "accidental" muskies caught by newbies and panfishermen? While I agree that even a little muskie is a big fish in that novice's eyes, and might be taken back to show off at the resort, and essentially wasted, and that, yes a 50" limit might prevent that, I still have to ask a few questions: 1)What are the chances of a fish living through this scenario: The fish is inexpertly played to exhaustion on too-light tackle, in midsummer temperatures, then clumsily boated and unhooked with great difficulty by a guy lacking appropriate tools. Thus he tears fins and wipes off the slime coat in the bottom of the boat. This takes long enough for eyes and gills to dry out, and then the fish is marvelled at for quite awhile before being "released" with no idea of how to resuscitate it. If it goes belly up, and many will, it might as well be kept. 2)How often is the occasional/inexperienced/amateur angler going to be tempted by this once-in-a-lifetime fish, and conceal and keep it in spite of it's being "undersized"? The idea of a four-foot-long fish being "too small" is one we've had time to mentally and emotionally cultivate; the non-muskie-fisherman has not. I remember fighting the WDNR about legal snagging of river-run chinook "to harvest the othering program started. (Hell, I still have the letters I wrote.) I said then that it would erode fishing ethics, and once legal the law could be revoked, but some snagging would continue because the temptation to take big fish by ANY means would be too great for some UNsportsmen to resist -- and I firmly believe that happened. 3) Do we want more muskie fishermen, as well as more muskies? Sure we do -- it gives us clout. If you're an old-timer, ask yourself how many less of us would have become muskie fishermen if we STARTED OUT in expectation of never catching one we could keep. The 50" limit puts the bar awfully high for a first-timer. And now, the BIG question: 4) What if, when he brings that chance-caught but still legal 36" muskie to the resort to show off, he is met, not with praise, but disapproval? Not contempt (for a first-time offender) but sorrow and explanation. Resort owners and long-time repeat guests can establish a culture of catch and release. It's already successful; we just need to extend it to even the first-time fisherman on a family vacation. How about spoken or written comments near every skin mount in every lodge: "That was back before we knew better..." Legally-mandated behavior does not change anything -- education does. School bussing for integration gets nowhere until the classroom culture is changed by a sincere shift in values and attitudes. The thought of a stone-dead 48" fish being returned to the water belly-up disgusts me, and the idea of a law that would demand that makes me uncomfortable, because it fosters a disrespect for that law, for all law. In this as in all things, I hate to depend on laws. I'd rather put my faith in people. They just need to be shown the way, and that comes by stages, not in one stroke of the legislator's pen. Okay, let the beatings begin. I can take it. | ||
| Essox2 |
| ||
Posts: 16 Location: Fond Du lac WI | I think all lakes sizes should increase to 40 and the ones that are already 40 should then go to 50 would resolve most of this. I too never keep my fish I had one mounted 10 years ago and i am done.(unless world record). I have seen plenty of amature musky fisher persons keep a 36 inch musky because they can.. even after I try to explain in real nice terms the impact that it might have on that lake. And have seen a few wallyeye guys keep smaller size musky, So there are plenty that do keep ther fish. ,most of us here do not and that is great but do not be fooled by that, plenty others do. Increasing that size is not a bad idea just something that needs to maybe go slow an inch a year till you hit 45 or something. | ||
| MiserMike |
| ||
Posts: 57 Location: Racine WI | Originally written by Essox2 on 2004-02-26 11:27 AM Increasing that size is not a bad idea just something that needs to maybe go slow an inch a year till you hit 45 or something. "Easy does it" size increases sound less painful -- it's how WI went from 18 to 21 drinking age -- but there's a downside too. A sad truth about fishing regulations is that too many people who fish only occasionally don't keep current with the rules, or are too darn dumb to handle anything more complicated than a statewide, forty-year-old, absolute law. Telling a walleye from a perch taxes their abilities -- don't even mention sauger! The idea of tailoring regs to the body of water, or adjusting to changing conditions is good science (look at deer hunting regs), but (unfortunately)tactical-management regs are poor psychology and worse marketing. "Those people" get confused or irritated, decide fishing is too complicated, and just say the heck with it, and either keep anything they manage to catch, or worse yet take their vacation dollars elsewhere, either to another state or another activity. While it's frustrating to have a boatload of worm-drowners drive up on top of your hot muskie spot, heave the anchor in, tip over their steel Coleman cooler, and kick their boombox to bleeding-eardrum levels, REMEMBER: they count toward the total number of "fishermen," and the bigger that number the more attention is paid by political interests. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |