Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Has anyone else read this? |
| Message Subject: Has anyone else read this? | |||
esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8788 | LOL Dave -- well said. I think a lot of us tend to forget sometimes that the people who work for the DNR, most notably the fisheries management team and the biologists actually DO THIS FOR A LIVING. i.e. they've gone to school. they are constantly evolving and learning new things, doing research, etc. and dedicating their proessional lives to making the places we fish better for us. Yet we (including myself in this) are really quick to get on here and tell them how to do their jobs because we in our infinite wisdom KNOW BETTER?? At what point do you sit back and think "you know what? These are professionals. This is their CAREER, do 'ya think maybe they know a little bit more than we do< and maybe we ought to give them a little respect, especially since they are trying to accomplish the same thing we are??" I don't know about you guys, but if my house was on fire I sure as hell wouldn't be telling the fire department how to put the fire out. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Thanks Dave, I'm sure everybody appreciates your comments and involvement here at Muskie 1st! I liked what was said on the last post, particularly the Fireman comparison. I would say we certainly don't want to tell them how to put out the fire, although I'm sure that's happened before :). However, I'm sure the Fireman would want to know if there is a chance people are still in there, and may be even the location of fluffy for a rescue. I think this is basically what Dave is looking for from us here. Great thread! | |||
| tfootstalker |
| ||
Posts: 299 Location: Nowheresville, MN | "If not, you're paying us a lot of good money for nothing" Quit being modest Dave. The profession doesn't pay SQUAT! | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | DAVE: I don't look at most of our higher size limits (or any other regulation) as tactics we've employed just so we can see what happens. We are recommending a higher size limit and other tactics for the Chippewa Flowage because we believe they will help maximize the chance of achieving our trophy fishery objective, which is to have 3-5 percent of all muskies over 50 inches long (1 percent now). Exactly, highly commendable(wish this type of vision would have been on the forefront years ago), and the very same reasons we've fought for higher size limits on certain bodies in WI for years. It is also true that when many of the regs(WI River Muskellunge and Walleye regs in addition to many in the north) were written, it was stated that they were to be reviewed after 'x' number of years of monitoring for effectiveness(for the very reason to apparently avoid a, just see what happens, type of approach). As opposed to questioning our fisheries team leaders ability to manage by asking such questions, many of us are trying to become educated in comparing certain regulation changes between different fisheries/watersheds accross the state, always looking forward. We recently voted to extend the WI River slot for walleyes into the future(not sure of the time frame, but maybe should be indefinate.?..), due to its recent positive effect on the fishery here, making alot of people happy(some, even, who voted against it 10 years ago when it went into effect for a decade, but support it now). It is probably safe to say the 34-45" jump already had a dramatic affect on the Chip, and I am not sure if this was a rule change that had such a timeline for monitoring review. One could argue for or against such timeline settings, or argue the length of the settings themselves(many even argue that some of the study times are/were too short as to realize noticable impact). I am sure questions such as these will be answered at the Sawyer County hearings next spring when these proposals come up for public vote/input, and will defer further such inquisitions for that venue where we can also thank you for taking steps to improve/maintain your local fisheries. Edited by Reef Hawg 9/22/2007 7:40 AM | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | “Because regulating the manner in which live bait is fished would be virtually unenforceable, we will recommend a statewide regulation requiring that anglers fishing for muskellunge use only one rod at a time. " That statement right there would have me voting against this in the spring hearings. With as many conservation minded anglers there is, I'd be willing to bet that the TIP lines would be quite busy if the single hook kill rigs were outlawed, and those using them had the opinion that the reg was unenforceable. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people using these kill rigs are known, and their favorite locations are not uncommon knowledge up on the Chip. Outlaw the kill rigs, and arrest those that still insist on using them. MN is a relatively young, and unpressured muskie region, as compared to WI. Sure, there are lots of big fish being caught there right now. But do you really think that the one line reg is the reason? I think low pressure, and higher size limits are more the reson. That, and everybody knows that no fish get harvested in MN, no matter the size. That only happens in WI. I'm not agreeing with Jason, either, that there are that many fish being dragged and killed because of trolling. There is a subsatntial harvet, yes, but inadvertant mortality because of trolling? More than that by casting artificials? In my own experience, I believe there is as great, or greater chance at injuring, and inadvertant mortality casting artificials. Just my opinion. I've not seen the fish dragged by baits deep in the gills on GB. I've cut why more hooks from casted baits, than with trolled baots. Again, my experiences here. My suggestion for the chip? Raise the size limit, outlaw the single hook kill rigs, enforce that regulation, and stand back and watch. No reason to allow trolling as a trade off to 1 line per angler. A quick strike in conjuction with a casted lure is a great way to spend a fall day. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Guys, I appreciate all the sincere sentiments expressed here. And please believe me when I tell you that I'm listening to your opinions, primarily because the moderators of this site keep the discussion friendly and respectful. It helps me to understand what other committed musky anglers are thinking. Most aspects of this issue have been discussed pretty thoroughly here -- the 50" size limit, one-rod rule, and legalized motor trolling on the Chippewa Flowage. (By the way, if we proceed to make a one-rod rule proposal for the Chip in 2009 or 2010, it will apply to ALL species, not just muskies.) This brings me to another point that has not been discussed. Because this is a musky fishing website, most of the discussion understandably has revolved around muskellunge. What I will now ask is that everyone take a step back and look at the big picture with respect to motor trolling. While true that it is part of a multi-pronged strategy to increase the number of large muskies in the Flowage, our recommendation to permit motor trolling on the Chippewa Flowage goes WAY beyond simply improving the musky fishery. For me, it's more about making a commonly accepted method of fishing legal for ALL species. For 23 years I helped manage some very fine fisheries in Missouri without prohibiting motor trolling. Minnesota manages some very fine fisheries without prohibiting motor trolling. In those and other states, an elderly or disabled person has more opportunity to stay active in the sport of fishing BECAUSE they are permitted to motor troll. Let me personalize this for everyone. Last week, two gentlemen came into my office at the Hayward DNR Service Center. One was elderly and had owned a cabin on the Chippewa Flowage for 40 years. He came into my office to ask WHEN we might propose to open the Flowage to motor trolling. Without knowing if he was for or against motor trolling, I told him probably at the 2009 or 2010 spring hearings of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. As it turns out, he had reached the point in his life where he could no longer cast a big lure hour after hour without hurting his shoulder too much. (We'll all be there ourselves one day, I presume.) After hearing of our plans, he smiled and shook my hand and wished me the best of luck; because if our proposal is approved, he believes he will be able to fish with artificial lures for muskies and other species on his home water again. Another younger gentleman buying a license overheard our conversation. He seemed less friendly, and I was concerned that he might argue against motor trolling. But I learned quickly that his sub-surface resentment was directed at the fact that motor trolling was ever made illegal on the Flowage in the first place. This younger gentleman had been the victim of some repetitive stress injury a few years ago that made it virtually impossible for him to cast. But he can hold a rod and crank a reel handle. He strongly resented the fact that motor trolling was not legal, even though, technically, disabled people in Wisconsin can obtain an exemption that allows them to troll. But he was a proud young man who did not like the "disabled" label and did not feel that he should need to go to someone with his hat in his hand to get special permission to fish in a manner that is legal is most places in the United States. I really could not defend the current ban on motor trolling. All I could do was promise to try my best to change it. And that's exactly what I intend to do. It's not all about muskies, and it's not all about those of us who are lucky enough to have our health and physical capabilities intact. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 10/5/2007 1:33 PM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Isn't it curious that the Minnesota DNR has not alienated their musky anglers by restricting them to one rod only and allowing them to motor troll? Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 10/15/2007 6:27 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8788 | Reef Hawg, Management strategies need to be practical in order to be effective. Sure, if we could just stop the use of single hook rigs we wouldn't need to limit the number of lines, but how do you propose you actually DO that? Inspect every boat, every tackle box? Outlawing the sale of single hook rigs is not going to do it. As long as people can still buy hooks, they can use them for muskies without any real chance of getting caught. The "best" management strategy is useless without the cooperation of the public and the ability of our conservation officers to actually catch people who chose to disobey the law. You can tell from across the lake if someone is using two lines, how do you tell if they are using a single hook sucker rig? even if you KNOW they are doing it, how do you catch them at it? The way I see it is that it's not POSSIBLE to stop those who are killing fish, because it's not possible to catch them. But if you implement a one-line-per-angler rule, you can eliminate the problem by going through the back door. If one line is all you are allowed, chances are most anglers aren't going to have a sucker over the side of the boat. Any who do will certainly be paying closer attention to that rod. It may not be the way you or I want it to be done, but the end result will be more muskies living to fight another day. | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | EA, that argument is one that is used quite fruitlessly in many legal battles. Ignorance for the law is simply not acceptable. Using seatbelts is a law. Does everyone abide?? Nope, but it sure has saved alot of lives. Outlawing single hook use, vs. reducing WI to a one line limit would be less practical?? Outlaw single hook rigs, and get to the root of the problem. Ask other states how they enforce the same law. The cessation of sales of such in WI, for the most part, has already been done without the law. Hard pressed to find single swallow rigs in most local bait shops anymore. When I see them, I make mention of the outdated/known fish killing practice, and most are very receptive. Again, the single hook users are in the minority, but the majority of whom are causing the damage. Single hook users also, often only use one rod to begin with, in which a one line limit would not stop. It would just prohibit the responsible from employing a safe and fun method of catching fish, contrary to the poorly founded belief that use of a quick-set in conjunction with a cast artificial, only sets the stage for a Muskies' death sentance. Edited by Reef Hawg 10/15/2007 3:13 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8788 | RH you missed my point. It's not ignorance of the law, or even blatent disregard for it that will be the problem, it's that outlawing single hook rigs is not practical. We all KNOW they kill a significant amount of fish, but the problem is that even if you outlaw them, it will still be nearly impossible to catch anyone who chooses to disobey the law. I suspect that the way other states enforce the law is that they DON'T, because they CAN'T. You said it yourself -- the cessation of sales has already been done for the most part. Making a law that can't be enforced isn't going to change the number of fish being killed. | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | The point is, the clowns killing fish with single hook rigs are for the most part, using that as their sole strategy of catching a fish now, be it unnattended bank poles, sitting on the bank watching them, or drifting accross the lake with the setup. I think it can be argued that FEW anglers are casting artificials while position fishing, and dragging a single hooked kill rig. I would have no problem reeling my line in to show the Conservation warden my legal quick set. The rule change is in the works now for WI. Are you proposing we abandon it?? Edited by Reef Hawg 10/15/2007 3:52 PM | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2753 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | I'm really confused! I can understand the MN one-fisherman one-rod rule- same in Canada. But how exactly can we regulate/control single hook kill rig's? How do you define a "single hook kill rig"? or is it a particular method of fishing the rig that should be illegal? Just an antedotal story from last week. Had to go to WI Dells to get broadband access on my laptop air card (I needed to download a couple of +meg files- no they were not p0rn) . Naturally a good spot for a good signal is the west side parking lot right by the dam. So what the hey- there's some muskies in the mighty WI River, so I throw in my new KT rod's and a handful of new lures I want to test & head down to the Dells. Park the car get the laptop up & running start down loads. Grab rods & lures, lock car and start walking down the "big ramp". Get down to water edge & there are 3 guy's fishing to my left - 9 rod's. all have a bell sinker & 18" leader with a 6-7" sucker on a single hook. By the amount of gear, coolers, etc. They are there for the duration. I start trying out my new lures. 5 minutes later here comes a rental pontoon with two more guy's. Pontoon cut's right in front of me (less than 50') drives up on the rocks/sand (more rock than sand) right where the guys are fishing. Oh yeah the pontoon ran over at least two of the other guys lines. One of the bank fisherman jumps on board the pontoon. His poles are still in the water. Pontoon takes off does a spin around the pool & comes back- They are laughing having a good time- I realize the bank guy's are all roaring drunk, and yes they were not speaking any English. The only sober guy seemed to be the one driving the pontoon. Even then he wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. So was the guy who got on the pontoon fishing illegally? My gut says yes. But.............??? Hey, given the rig they were using, they could be fishing for cat's, pike, muskies, sturgeon, or whatever! I'm pretty certain if they caught a fish it wasn't going to be swimming away after they finished unhooking it. Given their state of intoxication I decided it was best to leave as I couldn't really see trying to dissuade them from keeping a muskie if they managed to catch one...... Al Edited by ESOX Maniac 10/15/2007 6:12 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8788 | ESOX Maniac - 10/15/2007 6:08 PM ...But how exactly can we regulate/control single hook kill rig's? How do you define a "single hook kill rig"? or is it a particular method of fishing the rig that should be illegal? Al It's not just writing the law that's complicated, it's enforcing it that becomes a nightmare. The shore-sitters would be an easy target, but catching someone in a boat? Forget it. "Hey, here comes the warden, cut that line."... | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | You can do what you want to the Chip, but try and tamper with the rest of the State, and you'll not get your one line regs up there. ALso, try to sell that one rod per angler rule to the crappie and panfish guys up there, and you'll be stomped down. Just my opinion. I'm on Reef Hawgs side here. We make laws every day that are unenforceable. Guns laws come to mind. It's already against the law for a felon to possess a firearm, but here we go, trying to outlaw all sorts of automatic weapons, and "assault" rifles, and handguns. Funny, but all the people using these guns for bad deeds are pretty much criminals. Why do the law abiding always have to give up our rights because the bad guys don't get caught. And when they do get caught, there's no penalty. Outlaw the single hook rigs. As I said, the guys using them are well known, as are the areas they fish. Catch one, and make an example of him, and the others will get the message. As for the MN not alienating the anglers with the one rod rule? That's been there for a long time, for all species. Not like they changed it just for the muskie guys. | ||
| muskymeyer |
| ||
Posts: 691 Location: nationwide | As a shorefisher of the flowage I am almost to the point of being offended, but do realize the ignorance to the intracacies and evolution of rigs we currently use. As far as the regulation changes to a 50 inch size limit, one rod per angler and motor trolling I support Dave wholly in getting these changes passed. I would also support a "outlaw single hook rigs" regulation as well, but doubt one would pass due to the difficulty in enforcement. I will still shorefish, even if limited to one rod per angler, and trolling will allow for the kids to watch their portable dvd players while "fishing". Corey Meyer | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | Corey, why are you offended? If you are not using single hook kill rigs, and not allowing a fish 30 minutes or more before setting the hook in it's gullet, or spreading out so far you have to make watchman like rounds, then I don't know why you would be offended. It's my opinion, but I don't think allowing trolling in exchange for one rod per angler isn't going to go over. Just as well. I'd like to hear from Ty Sennett, Dave Dorazio, and some of the other guides in the area. I bet they're not too interested in giving up a quick strike rig while casting. While I can sit all day with sucker rod in hand with Howie, I expect that. But up there, I want to cast, and have a sucker down for follows. | ||
| muskymeyer |
| ||
Posts: 691 Location: nationwide | Offended in the rolled up ball the term" shorefishing" was being used as. Corey Meyer | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | It just occurred to me that a "single line live bait restriction" could be added to current fishing regulations statewide without having to rewrite the rulebook, or fight on a lake to lake basis like the DNR is currently having to do the Chippewa flowage. It's my opinion this would be more conducive toward promoting catch and release (for all species) and would eliminate the problematic three line live bait situation without much of a skirmish. As far as ethical muskie fishermen are concerned, the long-standing tradition of casting an artificial while simultaneously floating a sucker would remain intact while a door would simultaneously swing wide open for the consideration to move to forward trolling statewide. It was just a thought I had... Happy holidays everyone! | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |