|
|
Posts: 300
Location: Minocqua, WI | Last week I picked up the 2012 Wisconsin regulations booklet. For each county listing, I came across a number of lakes in the northern region of the state that have instituted a 28 inch size limit on fish.
I know the entire state is going to the 40 inch limit, and some even 50.
Cool. But why the 28 inch rule? A few Oneida Co. lakes I fish a handful of times each year now have this. But what's strange is I have never caught or seen a fish of under 28 inches from any of those I've fished. They would have been legals according to the regulations from 2011 and prior. And it's not like some of these places are overpopulated with them either.
Does DNR not want fish to reside in these lakes anymore?
I couldn't find any explanation for this one in the booklet, so I'm hoping someone might be able to better fill me in. Perhaps others also. Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The DNR biologist in my area told me he was in favor of keeping some of those lakes at 34 but wasn't given that option. It was either 40 or 28, and he felt that many of those lakes wouldn't benefit from a 40" size limit. (Mineral, Squaw, b-nut) they have good reproduction and slow growing fish. Solberg was social. The lake association members couldn't get their limit of pannies. Period. He was actually in favor of a 30-40 inch protected slot on those lakes but as we know, slots aren't a tool available to the DNR on most inland lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | There are a number of lakes in Oneida that received the 28" that boggle my mind. Bearskin and Upper Gresham, two historic/relativley recent big fish producers that are not known for numbers, come to mind. If you are concerned about your local waters/lakes you fish, talk to your biologist and/or draft a proposal to make the change. I'm quite busy with said reg proposals/rule changes/quotas here, but could help with drafts if interested. Takes time to see the process through, but it's the only option.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/22/2012 12:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 300
Location: Minocqua, WI | Thanks. I did find this so I have my answer.
http://www.outdoornews.com/May-2012/New-40-inch-muskie-size-limit-i...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 925
| Wow. I find that shocking. Who in their right mind thinks a 28" musky is a trophy? I can only think of somebody that doesn't know any better keeping it to eat.
I have caught my fair share of muskies in my life but by no means would I consider myself even an above average musky angler.
That being said a 40 inch musky is barely worthy of even taking a picture. Let alone a 28".
This is embarrassing for the WI dnr.
Sorry if I offend anyone. Just an outsider looking in from MN .
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 925
| I did just read the link that Andrew posted to make sure I understood the reasoning.
Who cares if they are "slow growing" lakes?
Let them grow regardless if they will ever grow over 40". If they don't reach that that size then it essentially becomes catch and release.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32935
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's far more complicated than first glance. Some of the lakes involved need some harvest of males for a number of reasons and those fish do not reach 40", and some carry a population that's too large (as in too many fish) for the forage base. The change for 34" to 40" canned the 34" limit altogether, so there's basically a choice of no harvest and a declining structure, or allow harvest.
The DNR was trying desperately to get some fish harvested on Butternut a few years back because of the serious decline in size structure and increase in male/female ratio, and literally almost no one would. They ended up moving a sizable number to other waters. Lots of folks complained. Odd.
Note the 600 lakes that were upped to 40". Note the waters added to the 50" list.
Management of the lakes here isn't a one size fits all scenario, and never has been. Many of our lakes have zero NR and are put and take, yet carry a high size limit due to good growth and trophy potential and are kicking out 50's now. Some have been nearly unfished since the 80's decline in resort business, are full of muskies, and don't produce any over 40". Some of the lakes with a 40" limit need a 45" limit. Some may still need a 50" limit. On top of it all, we have social pressures effecting management, as the public gets to vote on every size limit change and the public may not WANT all CRR on those little lakes. Like I said...complicated and not always up to the local fisheries biologist to decide, so 'embarrassment' is way too strong a term. How embarrassing is it to have your legislature tell your DNR how to manage trophy waters over there?
Minnesota doesn't have anywhere NEAR the number of inland Muskie lakes WI does, and yet has more surface area of Muskie water than we do here. HMMM. Been discussed before in great detail.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/documents/Musky%20update_October_2010....
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_Article_Lookup.asp?id=1784
http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/2006/aug06/musky.htm |
|
| |
