Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Success at the Spring Hearings |
| Message Subject: Success at the Spring Hearings | |||
 |
| ||
| I have never fished a Muskie tourny but I have fished some local walleye tournys and what has always puzzeled me is that since tournys are always catch, keep alive and then released, why they don't allow all fish to be keeped up to the required bag limit. It is my understanding that size limits are put in place to protect the fishery. I do think exceptions should be made for tournys since it is the intention to release the fish anyways. Just my thoughts on the subjected. Cory | |||
|
| ||
| I would like to say I could have not put my name on my post but I chose to as I stand up for what I think and hope that those of you whom know me may start to think that I am not thinking backwards but rather wanting to explore all options carefully, I feel we are all jumping into this because its what some want so bad. I to would like bigger fish but I am willing to wait and do the research and do whats right. Ther is no need to rush into this. I just keep thinking about the turtle beating the hare. We need more options explored and more research gathered, I have seen none except the Bone lake study and that was not impressive. I will be happy to discuss in this chat or on msn with any of you, add me, [email protected] I know my stance is not popular with some of you but feel if you step back and think about it you may start to agree with me Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| I don't exactly understand where you are coming from on this Don. Granted that a 40" statewide limit would make some waters catch and release waters, the general facts are that most waters in the state will raise fish to and beyond 40". I realize some have put forth that PETA would have a foothold if muskies were stocked on a catch, thrill, and release basis, but even those lakes with a history of rare 40" fish, almost all put out 40" fish occasionally. I think even non muskie fisherman understand that musky are the top of the food chain in most lakes and the thrill that goes with them. I don't think that it is elitist to protect your largest, most exciting, and proven to be long lived and slow maturity game fish until in what most cases is only middle age for them. There are some concerns that the musky not stocked in certain waters would be "lost" however there are many waters that are understocked now that could use the additional numbers, efforts should be made to expand the musky stocking to new waters and perhaps limit it in the heavily stocked waters. I mean, heck, how many more fish can you put in Bone anyway? Do many fear that the change in stocking could affect their pet water's population? Is that part of the resistance on the part of the alliance and some of the group here? | |||
|
| ||
| I don't feel going to a 40 inch size limit would be "jumping into anything" We have been at 34" for years and 32" before that and a 6" jump would only help the fishery. All of the surounding states have larger size limit's and no one is complaining about a 40, 42 or 48 inch size limit over there. | |||
|
| ||
| GUYS READ MY POST OK!!! I am not against bigger size limits. AGAIN I am not against bigger size limits!!!!!!!!!!!! I just don't think this is is totally the right answer. On the smaller lakes it is not going to work I believe and will end up doing more harm then good. I also think if your real agenda is to give the fish a chance to spawn more, you would think about slot size limit. Why protect am immature female when a slot would protect 40 to 48 inch mature females, to me that makes sense. Agian all your doing is forceing those who keep muskies to keep bigger ones ( the ones we want there for spawning) The people that keep them will always keep them so let them have the smaller ones. Guys this is not rocket science. Open your minds up to exploring other options on a trial basis and lets see what happens. Guys it won't hurt anything to try the slot limit. If we want to make a better fishery we have to be open to new things and try them. If we do not we will never advance to a better fishery. I am just want to open up your minds to the facts and to realize that just making a bigger size limit is not the only answer. Maybe the bigger size limits on some lakes and maybe a slot on others. I believe each lake has to be dealt with on its own. Not all lakes are equal in there makeup and there what works on one will not on the next. This is so frustrating, just think about it, bigger spawners mean more eggs!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully biiger spawners mean better genes to pass on!!!!!!! What is there not to like about a slot limit (on some lakes for a trial period? Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Don, you say you aren't against bigger statewide size limits but then you turn around and argue against it. What is your main fear that you think larger size limits will do more harm than good on smaller lakes? I don't see your point here and don't think you have one that is valid scientifically. If you do please state it. The ideal thing with slot limits would be for the female to reach 40" and proceed to 48" in from 2-7 years and then once again be available to be killed by whomever. However the problem with this as I view it is that Joe Kill will look at this as a tactical decision, hey I can kill this 36" musky and drag it around, cook it, whatever-or I can release it and hope to get one over 48", hmmm, now what should I do? Bird in the hand or bird in the theoretical bush? So then the females that don't get picked off early have a chance to grow through the slot provided that angling pressure or spearing doesn't get them on the way through. However, the males that make it into the slot will now be stockpiled probably for the rest of their lives(good idea?). Consider also while you ponder this, that most of WI waters are stocked anyway, with many having minimal or no natural reproduction. So what if they spawn in these lakes, they have little to add to the population. Couderay, once a great natural fishery, no or very minimal natural reproduction, the Chip, also once a musky factory, but now another so so lake that has been severely impacted by northern pike, neither will benefit heavily from a slot limit. Tell us the lakes or type of lakes where you feel this will be beneficial and where the problem of early angler kill will not occur and will not increase with a slot limit? My guess is that anglers will actually increase their take under slot limit regulations, and hey I might be wrong, but that's my thinking. Most slot limit regs have been successful in large population, less desirable game fish that have a wide base population. I don't think that we are comparing apples and apples when we think of bass or walleye slots and hoping to see similar results or even positive results with a musky slot. I am not closed minded, I just don't feel there is any science there that makes me excited about the idea. If you are aware of something please let us know about it. | |||
|
| ||
| Don....I understand the point you are trying to make although don't necessarily agree with it. Most agree the majority of musky harvest are from those who aren't musky fisherman but catch them incidentally or on a "once in a blue moon" guided trip. These people will generally keep any musky they catch--providing it is legal size. If the limit is 34" then that's what they keep. If it is 40" then that is what they keep. But there are far fewer 40" for them to catch and keep...the fish under 40" they catch will be released. Someone in this category is not very likely to catch a 36" and release it (if the limit stays as is) thinking they might catch a larger one. So overall musky harvest is decreased in this category of nonmusky fisherman if you raise the minimum. Yes, if they happen to catch a 45" fish they will probably kill it but they would do exactly the same thing if the limit was 34"....it's just that now a larger segment of the musky population is off limits to them. Slot limits might be interesting to try but I don't believe they work very well on low density fish like musky. Most of the slots limits are with fish farther down the predatory scale, much more numerous and smaller. Just Another Opinion, BrianW [:bigsmile:] | |||
|
| ||
| Just want to say that a lot of valid points have been brought up.Thanks to everybody who got out there and let their voices be heard,special thanks to our neighbors to the west that came over and let their views on higher limits be known.The fact of the matter is we have stood up to make the great state of Wisconsin as a whole a better fishery. Pat yourself on the back[:bigsmile:] | |||
|
| ||
| One way to manage the lakes that have a very large population of Muskies 35 inch and under is to have a Slot Limit.Protect fish from 40 to 45 inches with a manditory total release of that Slot Size.Then there will still be a little thining of fish under 40 inches,but the ones that do get to 40" will be protected to 45".Then after a few years of creel and tagging studies one can determine if the mean size is increaseing or not.If the size indeed does increase,then you can raise the Slot Limit to 42" to 47".I'm not suggesting that this will work on all of the small Musky fisheries,because some are just so over populated with small fish and don't have the forage base to support bigger fish.But again a Slot Limit may change the balance between small and large fish if managed right. Capt. Larry | |||
|
| ||
| I almost forgot,congrads on the Size Limit changes that were past,just goes to show its a long road but if you stand together on an issue,you can get some results.The changes don't happen over night,here on the Niagara River the Niagara Musky Assoc. Inc. its members,members of Muskies Canada,Tagging Studies,Diary Studies and DEC Creel Studies,have all played a part in each size increase.We went from a 31"size limit,to 37" size limit,to 44" size limit,to the new 48" size limit for the Upper Niagara River and 54" size limit for Lake Erie that will change on October 1st of this year.Each increase took countless hours of collecting data and presenting it in a manner that it was hard for them not to side in our favor.So don't give up the pursuit,each little step will get you closer to that goal. Capt. Larry | |||
|
| ||
| Let me put it this way. The reason increasing the size limit over the years by 2 inches at a time has worked because the fish have still a growth rate to about 40 inches. At 40 inches it slows and as it gets bigger we find even fewer 44's or bigger. As I stated we have to protect the big adult female spawners. Sure I am open yo slots on only lakes where natural reproduction. It only makes sense to. I agree on the fact that we have to use other means on lakes where there is not. My point is I am against a statewide size of 40. It covers way too much water. What I am saying is it has to be on a lake to lake basis. This means some lakes will have a 40 inch limit, some a 36, some a 45 and others a slot. I am and I repeat not against bigger size limits just a statewide saying this is how it is. Every lake is different and it has to be dealt with that way. God I hope I am making myself clear on this. I will work on that list of lakes but it will take me some time so don't expect it tomorrow ok. If you give me your e_mail I will send to you, mine is [email protected] I really think many of you read my intentions here the wrong way. Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Larry, Thank you, well put. I feel very strongly that the slot size thing can and would work. I just have to get others to pen their eyes to give it a try. Don Pfeiffer | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |