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 -> Does wisconsin need a bigger size limit??? |
| Message Subject: Does wisconsin need a bigger size limit??? | |||
jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | I think there is too much investments in the "big musky good, small musky bad" school of thought and I don't think it is fair to fisherman and their many goals, nor to the resource itself. good point | ||
| Mr Musky |
| ||
| Wow sure some interesting debates going on here!! Well I have my personal opion on a talked about lake allready. We used to fish Wildcat in Boulder Jct every opening weekend since I was 17 and old enough to drive and get into into the Boulder Beer Bar this was back in 95' but we'd always go to Wildcat have a blast see a bunch of fish and catch a bunch. One of the first time's up there we walked into the Boulder Beer Bar after fishing all day and the locals said well how'd ya do? we said 12. they said 12 what? we said musky's. We got laughed right out of the BBB and back to the campground in about 2.2 now we were just being honest!! The biggest was 35 inches!! The majority were 28 to 30. Now 7 years went by and it was 2002 or something and i was reading this new book called Time on the water by Bill Gardner. A guy who quit his job to fish everyday for a whole season in Boulder Jct. Well instead of telling you about the book you should defintitely check it out but my suprise was that he was fishing that lake (Wildcat) back in 1980 and those fish were the same size and considered to be dinks back then!! How can a lake for that many years still produce dink muskys!!!!!!!! You'd think a few of them would grow up a fuzz!! I'd like to see a bunch of smaller fish harvested in the hopes that a few fish maker over 40 which I have never seen or heard of out there!! My Two Cents Mr Musky | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Managing Muskies, A GOAL ORIENTED SELECTIVE HARVEST APPROACH. http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.30.2007/1213/Managing.M... Thanks for the article sir!! | ||
| millsie |
| ||
Posts: 189 Location: Barrington, Il | Excellent article. It should have its own thread. I would love to see this article in the newspapers in Vilas and Onieda Counties. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Very good article and I hope everyone at this site reads it. I won't add to it but to say Amen its time has come and slots are on the way sometime in the near future. Pfeiff | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Bad plan, imo. No "compelling reason" to do this. Multiple waters and mgmt plans and mature fish sizes available to anglers. I think this is pointed directly at the one fish one management "goal" school of fish regs, and Dave is tinkering with something that is not broken in an attempt to "fix" it by adding more 38" fish to the mix at unknown expense to the resource and the reproductive status of the fish, and basically doing it with no knowledge that the increased kill is actually going to result in a discernable increase in 38" fish. What shows in the net is not neccessarily what shows up at boatside. WE have just supplied tremendous ammo to No More Musky groups, and Joe Blow has been assuaged of any reluctance to kill a juvenile, yet legal musky, since he will now report, "Well, I read how there were too many musky and they needed to be thinned out." Welcome to the new era of Musky Kill. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Dave, Great article and great plan! When do you plan on proposing the regualtion changes. Welcome to the new era of Musky Kill on waters that need it. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | it makes sense that managing the fisheries to accomodate the users (and remember the users are varied in approach, interests and results) but to do it in a way that will guide people to waters that will accomplish their goals and do it in a way that is productive makes all the sense in the world to me. folks who want to harvest should tend toward harvest lakes and take the ones that meets management goals rather than the ones needing to stay and then those c&r trophy hunters will have their waters too. improvement takes on many hats and it all depends on the perspective you are viewing it from. i applaud Dave for looking at the whole with the interest to improve management where and when it applies. i know i've stated this before, but i've experienced waters where slot management applied and the results are impressive. over time improvement will happen, but until then those educated with the ability to "improve" will be shot at by people who know all. of course all fish strike in the first six feet too ... and of course i mean this in the nicest possible way ... | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Well, gee, I guess if I "knew all" I would not have to qualify my remarks with such words as "imo", and such terms as "I think". I'm still waiting for the "compelling reason" to do this. I question it's existence. Dave hasn't put forth the compelling reason argument imo, and I find it hard to point to a healthy, vibrant musky fishery with excellent reproduction, and a lake filled with healthy fish, as needing "fixing". "Improvement" of such a population is in the eyes of the beholder, I don't see it written in stone somewhere. Some might consider that, rather than attempting to post little zingers. Is there some golden rule of musky management in terms of population, growth rate and maximum size, I am not aware of??? IF there is such a rule please direct me to it. Do we kill muskies until the bass population booms and the largemouth fingerlings do the rest of it for us? Will we reach true happiness with a skinny 46-48 inch fish and an occasional encounter with muskies out in the boat? Is there something wrong with frequent encounters with smaller fish, that will be corrected by infrequent or rare encounters with larger fish? It is not a question whether the population dynamics on these lakes can be changed, or whether heavy musky harvest can change them. They can. I won't even argue that. The real question is whether or not this is a good thing, and whether or not it is something even worth doing as a part of the big picture of musky management. I don't think it is, and in fact think it is a bad thing, and fixes something that isn't anywhere near being broke. But that is just my opinion and I don't know that. You guys might consider Canada and their approach to the same set of variables. There are a number of lakes up there with heavy populations of small musky(of course their equilibrium point in terms of size is bigger than the lakes we are talking about in northern WI, but relative to the musky fishing in Canada, they are small fish lakes), they are not attempting to correct the population and size profile in those lakes from what I understand(unfortunately I have never got to go there and fish but maybe someday). These lakes have reached an equilibrium point. Dave's plan will attempt to change that equilibrium, and throw the lake out of balance and hope to reach a new equilibrium that most consumers somehow feel is a better endpoint. I don't think that everybody has considered the Law Of Unforeseen Consequences. At this point in time, everyone still has time to take this into consideration, and avoid the unwelcome discoveries so often associated with that law. I also think Dave is badly underestimating the backlash and negative education effect that this regulations and information are going to create. But I just think it, in the nicest possible way.... Edited by firstsixfeet 6/6/2007 6:32 PM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | might be time to at least consider the figure 8 though ... you might just be surprised and get ate at the boat ... metaphorically speaking of course. the fisheries biologists aren't just random people out there hoping to upset a good thing, but employed with credentials to manage fisheries to their potential based upon the value provided to the overall use of the waters which includes some people without the same attitudes of our own and until that changes i expect that they are doing enough research with enough education and experience to do things with a thoughout plan and not haphazardly. you seem to be interested in a lake with multiple male populations that are easier to catch ... that's fine and suits what you want, it just doesn't suit the agenda of the wdnr based on their goals as set by the state ... to me, i'd like to see a slot on every lake, but that's also based on my limited experience of success somewhere else ... chances are a person leading the effort with the education and experience behind him will make a better call than the one i would make with passion. your passion is not being criticized here but not unlike the lynch mob that tried and seemed to finally fail the inferior strain argument, the management of our natural resources is best left to the experts and is nothing but silly coming from passionate observers ... the point is skewed from that perspective and is self-serving at best. there's a fish under the boat that followed you in ... and there's a good chance it will eat. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Hey Guys (firstsixfeet and jonnysled).... It's not my wish to create tension between two good guys on this forum. Over the past couple years, you have both asked excellent, probing questions and have done so with respect for my opinion and the opinions of others. Hopefully we can find some common ground here. I think one of the things firstsixfeet needs to know is that I am not driving the agenda for the waters where slot limits are under consideration by my staff. Local anglers with a strong stake in those fisheries are telling us during 4-hour planning sessions what they want in the way of species, numbers, and sizes. We are hearing there IS SIGNIFICANT VALUE in some of these "numbers" fisheries. Nobody is telling us they want to see density reduced on such waters from 1.5 per acre to 0.2 per acre so that average size caught can increase from 28 inches (and nothing over 40) to 38 inches (and some up to 50). That would be too great a sacrifice of numbers for size. But they ARE telling us that catching one fish after another under 30 inches long, day in and day out, is not meeting their expectations. They want somewhat fewer and somewhat larger muskies in their idealized "numbers" fishery. Now, high numbers of very small fish might meet the expectations of a few folks, including firstsixfeet; and he certainly is entitled to his preferences on such waters. I just hope that he will understand that I must listen to the preferences and desires of the MAJORITY, and then plan our management strategies in response to that majority interest provided we are not "fighting Mother Nature" by trying to create unrealistic fish community structures. I think my professional biologists are in the best position to judge the latter. Please keep in mind, too, that it's not all about muskies (a dangerous thing to say here, I realize!). Our management must consider other species and angler interests as well. In some cases, there are SO many small, hungry, slow-growing muskellunge that we may be seeing adverse effects on other, more important, species in the fish community. The same thing can happen when ANY species is over-protected and becomes over-populated. A case in point is largemouth bass, which we have protected to the point where they may be adversely affecting both walleye AND musky recruitment in some waters. Bottom line is that we are trying to be responsive to the majority interest and are looking at the big picture with respect to what is possible and desirable. Will appreciate everyone giving that approach a chance to work. Thanks guys. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | good points Dave and the ones i am learning to support. the view from this pc is that although we all have selfish interests based on our own enjoyment of the water ... we do share it with those that don't agree with us and have representation that your department is accountable to. the reality is that there are harvestors in the musky world and i would think that under some of the proposed management strategies .. at least the way i read them, there will be places their interests could be best suited and other waters that suit catch and release anglers, but that it might be developed in such a way that selected harvest can be targeted in a way that protects potential spawners from harvest. it has proven itself in other geographies as you and i have discussed and if applied properly should benefit the whole given the current laws and limits. i spoke with some local walleye anglers here last night and it was interesting to hear them crying for similar measures to protect certain fish and be in a better position down the road. the cynicism is all meant tongue-in-cheek fsf and i hope it comes in jest. the other words are merely a "counterpoint" view. i'm a bit more protective, supportive of the dnr than most .... maybe because many are my neighbors and friends with kids that play with mine ... these people are intelligent and hard-working and deserve the respect for doing a very difficult job because they love to do it. sled ... out | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8776 | I think we need to take a very close look at our idea of what is and isn't "broken" so to speak... For many of the lakes in question, we dealing with a fishery that has reached its current state by human intervention, and not any sort of natural equilibrium between species. The DNR of today is a lot different from the DNR of 10 20 or 30 years ago. They now are facing the task of FIXING some of what has been done in the past, and trying to build a healthy and balanced ecosystem for ALL fish species. To some, a lake full of 30 inchers might not be "broken" but that doesn't change the fact that there is little resemblance to "balance" OR "equilibrium". Personally, I'd never go as far as to accuse the people who actually do that stuff for a living of making poor decisions -- if anybody knows what decisions need to be made, its the DNR biologists, and not the armchair biologists with their own interests at the forefront. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Compelling reasons you ask for! I think if you have read the post and seen that its all about making a better muskie fishery on some lakes you'd see the compelling reason. When catch and release first started it was hard to convince anglers to do so. Here years later it has become the thing to do with a success rate I never thought possable. Anglers can and will respond to slot limits with some caution. They will become more educated and it will become more successfull. When I first started talking slots here a long time ago I was really blasted by most of you. Now that the d.n.r has come out and is finally thinking of doing it things are in starting to change. Thanks to Dave for for his articles and response to your questions. I guess that by repeating the good points for slots over and over again some of you have begun to realize it will work. Education of anglers is such a big factor in it working. Without the efforts of the anglers it will be doomed to failure. As anglers we need to embrace new management tools and give them our support. Years back if we did not give catch and release a chance to work where would we be today? We have to give slots a try as a management tool the same way we did that. Bigger size limits is not the only answer and Lambeau sized it up very well. Wisconsin leads the way I feel in its management of muskies. Its unfortunate that for some people its never enough or fast enough. Pfeiff | ||
| 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 © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |