|
|
Posts: 8773
| You've been at the forefront of a lot of this. Why do you think imposing a high size limit is the answer? Is it simply because it's too difficult to implement slot limits, or manage lakes on a case by case basis? Is angler harvest as big of a detriment as some would make it out to be? What about delayed mortality? I'd be interested in your views on what the problems are and what the best solutions would be and why. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Personally I think that it's the only way to protect these fish within the tools that are available that are economically cost effective, politically reasonable, realistic and enforceable.
Slot limits in MN simply don't apply to our fishery. Even in the lakes that have the most natural reproduction (probably Cass) ALL MN Leech Lake strain fisheries are low density. To harvest any fish is counter productive to the limited stocking our DNR and local clubs do.
There are many fish in the 48-52" range that are being kept from both MN and out of state people. It's my belief that this new regulation is going to affect this range of fish the most. In our waters the fish above 48" probably only represents 10% of the population so any degradation of that demographic of fish is going to be significant. So will some of these fish that are being kept at 51" going to turn into 55"ers? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll never know if we don't try.
Managing lakes on a lake-by-lake basis could be done I guess, but name me a lake in MN that isn't putting out 50"+ fish? Heck even sewers like Eagle in the metro kick out mid-50's! But in all actuality it's probably the same 1-2 fish over and over and over and over and over again. It's amazing to me that we can CPR these fish as many times as we do and that they still come back kicking.
Take Minnetonka for example. It's managed for about 1500 fish +/- if you look at the stocking records and the DNR models. If 10% (pretty realistic) of the fish are 48"+ you're looking at 150 fish total. Not counting delayed and natural mortality into account even 15 fish harvested (10% harvest rate) is pretty significant. This is one of the biggest muskie lakes in the state, now imagine some of our smaller lakes that may have 5 fish over that mark. Even taking one of those is a 20% reduction!
Is the 54,55,56" limit going to dramatically improve our fisheries? Maybe, but probably not dramatically. People said that it wouldn't do anything when it went up to 40", and then 48" and I think we have all seen improvements. At the end of the day it's a small step of many that the anglers of MN are trying to do to keep the fishery at a high level for everyone to enjoy. Like many say, you'll never catch a 56"er when it gets bonked at 53".
Edited by Muskie Treats 12/11/2012 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8773
| Interesting, Shawn. Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Shawn,
Thank You for all of your hard work on improving our muskie fishery.
You stepped up years ago when someone called you out. You got involved - BIG TIME and I cannot thank you enough for all that you and others have done.
I understand the raising of the size limit. You have supplied this board with inteligent fact filled answers that even I can understand.
I don't want to forget to thank all of the others that work behind the scene that have improved our fisheries. DNR, MMPA, MI chapters and mebers for all they have done to help out.
Thank You
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8773
| One can't say enough about the guys like Shawn who are out there every day making our fisheries the best they can be. It's easy to forget that just becasue we hold these fish in high regard and wouldn't even consider keeping one that could be safely released that others do not feel the same. Managing fisheries in a way that makes everyone happy and maintains a healthy balanced ecosystem at the same time is no easy task. If the guys that do this for a living and have done the research think higher size limits are the best answer, there's no reason for us to disagree with them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Muskie Treats - 12/11/2012 10:51 PM
Like many say, you'll never catch a 56"er when it gets bonked at 53".
Simple enough for me! Thanks for weighing in on this Mr. Kellett. |
|
| |
|
| so i missed most of the thread that got pulled. What is the status? Is MN going to attempt a higher size limit for 2013? at what minimum? 54?
That would be awesome for the lakes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1207
Location: Pigeon Forge TN. | A big thank you from me too Shawn. I have seen many young musky killed off and it breaks my heart to see a beautiful trophy fish go to pot like that . Letting them go always means a bigger fish to come and future fishing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 921
Location: Apollo, PA | None of my business, but your right Shawn, if you dont raise it, many will be killed. Or just make some waters totally C&R |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'so i missed most of the thread that got pulled.'
Log in, then you'll be able to find it.
The original thread is still onsite, we just placed it where anonymous folks can't post to it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 549
Location: deephaven mn | thanks Kellet, i'd like to thank John Underhill as well, he is determined, focused and on task as well and has put alot of time and effort into making minnesota a better place to fish |
|
| |
|
| When the size limit went from 40 to 48 I was skeptical and thought that most of the fish being kept over 40 were being kept by amatuers and likely would have died from overhandling anyway. I have now changed mind completely.
To Shawn's point; I know of one small lake that with the 48 inch size limit one day a boat of two individuals caught a 48 and a 52 and kept both of them. They ate them both. They target the lake often for muskies. I also know of numerous others in the low 50" range kept. Now it is difficult to find those 50s cause they are gone.
I also know of another lake that numerous high 40s to low 50s have been kept by avid musky fishermen. A higher size limit would protect those fish as well.
The kept fish in my opinion are more detrimental to the quality of fishing for all then the occasional post release mortality. Simply said if a person would like to have a chance for a 50-52 they have to be there in sufficient numbers first. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Thanks everyone for the kind words. Truth be told that now days there are many more people working to improve the muskie fishery here in MN then there were anytime I can remember. Guys like Underhill, Aaron, Kevin, Keith and Pat O, and dozens more are working toward keeping MN's muskie fishery on-track and hold our DNR and legislators accountable on issues that affect all of our fishery.
My wish is that even more people get involved to any extent that they can. Not everyone is cut out to take the praise and punishment that being in the public eye dishes out, but we also need people who are good with various tasks who have a passion for making their fishery better. If anyone out there is serious about doing what they can (MI member or not) talk to me, Underhill, Aaron, etc and we'll help find a place that you can contribute in a way that is right for you.
Thanks again and let the countdown to the 2013 season begin!
Shawn |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| metro lakes would benefit the most from this,,we have a large population of imigrants who fish and they come from a culture where fish are food, if its legal size its getting kept,, |
|
| |
|
| I like 54 because it is a good number for a linebacker |
|
| |
|
Posts: 175
Location: Tonka, MN | Never have even thought of keeping one. The regulations are critical, even though novice people pay not regard. We need to pay more attention to "them". These regulations are for the novice angler and have no bearing in the "die hards". We all love these fish and want to watch em grow so I am all for it! In my opinion, raising the limit will have no affect but I will support is 100%! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/14/2012 3:50 PM
I like 54 because it is a good number for a linebacker
Bad for delayed mortality though..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | Personally,I think the raising of the size limit achieves two things.First it establishes muskie as a sport fish that is protected.Secondly,I think all these lakes are trying to become the next world record destination. Its good busines and it fits the trend of conservation. Not sure how fishing is perceived by the younger generation in other parts,but here in my home area,fishing is definetly on the decline.For sport or food.
Edited by Tim R 12/15/2012 7:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Pointerpride102 - 12/15/2012 12:06 AM
Guest - 12/14/2012 3:50 PM
I like 54 because it is a good number for a linebacker
Bad for delayed mortality though.....
I don't get the statement, please explain. I would think any fish reguardless of size has a better chance to survive when released vs being kept. Is that not the case ?
Edited by bturg 12/15/2012 9:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The problem with "54" is that once they get to that number they're dead...just like the linebacker.  |
|
| |
