Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> slot limits |
| Message Subject: slot limits | |||
JohnMD |
| ||
Posts: 1769 Location: Algonquin, ILL | Here's a thought, how about seasonal slot limits? Just for arguments sake let's say there's a State wide 36 in Minimum but from Opening Day and 4 weeks after the size limit is 54 then the limit drops back to 36, in the fall let's say Sep 1 thru the rest of the season the Min goes back up to 54. This would protect most of the Late Spawners, During the summer months Joe Weekender can still catch and hopefully release a 36 incher ( This would Keep the Resorts Happy ), And the Fall would be PIGGY time Keep in mind that all this talk about size / slot limits does not really apply to the majority of those on this board as the majority here practice CPR it's the Joe Weekender and Bob Vacationers that really keep most of the fish they catch and as long as they do so within the law there's not much that can be done other than educate them and change the law Just a Thought Edited by JohnMD 12/15/2004 9:03 AM | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I didn’t know if I should post this in the slot discussion of the Mission Statement discussion so I posted it both places. The major problem is that, in Wisconsin the DNR does not make lake management decisions! If they did we would currently have 10 percent of the Vilas/Oneida county lakes with trophy limits of 50”. By the way the 50” limit on Namekagon has shown improvement. The lake was sample netted before the limit and it showed an average size of 38” +/-. Eight years after the increase the average size fish was at 43” +/-. These limits work if place on the right Wisconsin lakes. Anyway, in reality it doesn’t matter how the DNR feel about, slot limits or size limits, about the only thing the paid experts can do is place emergency bag limits on lakes. That is the crux of the problem. What does this mean for us? In my opinion, it means we need a grass roots political movement that can convince a state full of people, who feel they are over regulated and under represented that more restrictive limits on musky will be good for the state and fishermen. So what can we do, other than argue about it between our selves? What is the current DNR plan? Are there any changes being addressed at the up coming Spring Hearings? These are questions that I think Steve should be asking the DNR when he interviews them. What can we do, to help put control of the lakes where it needs to be, in the hands of the experts. Can this be done, or does State legislation prohibit it. The mission statement is a good idea and something friends and I have talked about, (taking the management decisions out of the spring hearings) but is it possible or even legal. These are question I would like to see answers to. If major sweeping changes are not possible we need to consider the island hopping strategy, take one lake at a time and get some progress done. If this is the case where and how do we start? Some have already started, thank you Ken Jackson and Jason for getting changes going on the Little Saint, and the Wisconsin River. Maybe the first logical place to start is the Wisconsin River and keep working our way north. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | jOHN MD, Interesting take you have there, I have to pnder that awhile. Thanks for the post. MrRoberts also thanking you for the information on Namekagon. Thats the first I have heard about that. The D.N.R. did not even give me that. Where did you get it? I would also like to say a slot will not encourage people to keep fish. Those that release still will and those that are takers still will keep them. The diffference is they will have a much smaller window of opportunity to keep fish with a slot in place. Also I never said this is for all lakes. It is NOT for all lakes but selected lakes. Maybe the lakes where no slot is in place the limit can be raised to to to as much as 40. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Where on earth do you get these ideas Don? How can you put slots in place, explain them, AND NOT ENCOURAGE KILL? Clearly, slots by their nature encourage kill, and this is my overriding objection to them, that they reverse years of education done by Muskies Inc., the same education that has benefitted us all as musky fisherman. | |||
| muskyboy |
| ||
Slot limits = harvest = dead muskies that would have been released if higher size limits were in place in states like WI and KY.  | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Don, I got the info for Namekagon from Mike Vogelsang a couple months after the 50” vote, I heard he had charts that showed the data at a meeting someplace. I asked for them and he sent them to me. I don’t have them here but I think I have them on my computer at home. I may have even posted them once on the Musky Hunter website way back when. FSF, from what I understand the type of slot limit being explored here is not a harvest slot but a protective slot. In conjunction with the current 34" minimum. From Steve’s huge post with info: Protected slot limit: This is a size range, or slot, in which fish must be released. For example, a 12- to 16-inch slot limit for bass means that all bass from 12 to 16 inches long must be released. Use: Protected slot limits protect medium-sized fish so they can grow to be the large fish anglers most enjoy catching. They also preserve fish that are at their most prolific spawning age. Remember currently the lakes have a 34” minimum size limit, I will ask again how does a protected slot encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum limit? If a high minimum can’t be imposed, why is a slot worse than the current 34” minimum? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Bottom line is this: currently we have a 34 inch limit on most lakes. This means anything over 34 can be harvested. If you leave the limit at 34 and impose a slot of 40 to 50 inches the fish that fall in that range have to be RELEASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THATS PROTECTING MORE FISH NOT ENCOURAGING HARVEST!!!!!!!! That equals more fish being put back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats not hard to understand!!!!!!!!!!!!! PUTTING BACK MORE FISH THEN WE ARE PRESENTLY DOING IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!! When the slot has been in force for a time and it is working and people are catching more quaility fish it will be easy to pursuade them to increase the top end to 54 inches which will will even protect more more fish. Fsf what don't you you understand about PROTECTING MORE FISH. How about sending me your e_mail address so we can discuss this off board, mine is [email protected] I really have nothing else to add to the arguements and facts given here by myself and others. I know the d.n.r is looking at this and I believe they are smart enough to make the right choices. That being polotics does not get in the way. I don't want to post on this again, its all been said. Use my e-mail if you wish to discuss it. I do answer them. That hopefully is my final word on it here. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| MikeHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 2427 Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Do you think there are 34-40 inch muskies caught, or 40-50 inch muskies? | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| MR, the only thing clear about what is being proposed is that you and other slot limit supporters seem to not be on the same page. Pfeiffer alludes to comments about a fish manager recognizing "overabundant" fish, also he clearly states it will cull out some of the smaller fish. Now to me, any slot proposal working from this base by its nature will have to encourage kill. Tell me how it won't when it is explained to the public. Also keep in mind that musky fisherman are the minority, and in some lakes smaller fish may actually be encountrered more frequently by incidental fisherman than by musky fisherman, particularly those under the slot. This equates to kill. No two ways about it. People also overestimate at times the altruism of musky fisherman. There are a whole lot of them out there that are NOT members of MI and would be perfectly willing to take fish home(might already), if the sin of keeping small fish was not only forgiven but encouraged(slots). Bob, another perpetrator, states that their are too many small fish and not enough big fish(not sure how anyone can reach this conclusion about muskies but that is what he says). Anyone emplacing slots, holding that view, would be encouraging kill imo. Do you disagree? I earlier went over the 3 conditions in which slots might be emplaced and noted that there would never be a reason to emplace slots on populations supported by stocking. No sense at all, do you not agree with that? So this brings us to what you consider the proposal to be, a "protective slot". I have already put forth my belief that it would be extremely elitist AND a difficult sell, to tell other anglers, well you can keep a little one if you want but after they get decent sized you have to throw them all back until they are monsters(so us musky fisherman can enjoy them while your chances of capturing a fish decrease with each years growth, until landing one out of the slot will take much good fortune if not a minor miracle). Bob, came up with the wild idea of putting this in place all over the state. Now if you can sell THAT to the general populace by gosh you are a heckuva salesman. So then, if you put into effect a protective slot, where would you do it? It would have to be in a lake with abundant natural reproduction, and for it to have ANY meanigful results you would HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL OF MUSKIES BELOW THE SLOT. If you don't do this, and encourage release, nothing has changed and there is no purpose in putting the slot limits, in other than a back door raise in the size limits. We have already discussed that and the problems that entails. My contention is still that a 40" size limit is a much more effective method of maintaining fish and increasing the big fish in the system, without stockpiling males beyond maturity, on most waters that have good growth potential. So let's say you place slots somewhere in the state, on a system with good natural reproduction that does not produce meaningful numbers of large fish(the only place I see much value for slots, if there is ANY VALUE FOR SLOTS). Next, and implicit in the placement of slots, you HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL. There is no purpose in putting slots in place to eliminate smaller fish(either due to overabundance or due to bad genetics)if you do not utilize them to take the targeted sizes out of the system. That is simply the fact of it. This imo will have a trickle down, ripple effect through the occasional, and accidental musky catchers, that it is alright, and in fact GOOD, to knock off a smaller musky(these will be the fisherman on other lakes). It will HELP THE RESOURCE! If you think differently I just do not think you have held conversations with enough "guys at the dock". What you are claiming to be the desired slot, "protected slot", when emplaced, makes no sense unless you ARE trying to thin overabundant populations(never saw one of those myself) or are trying shape the genetics of the population. To put the protective slots in place for primarily musky specialist's enjoyment, while excluding most of the fishing public from utilizing the resource, is going to be a very tough sell, both to the public, and I don't see the managers being in favor of it, or very willing to propose it. Good way to get your tail handed to you in the winter meetings and have ALL your REASONABLE proposals met with skepticism and rejection. Think about it and tell me where my projections are off here. I don't think you will disagree if you view it in this light. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Don, frankly I don't see any point in an email discussion with you about this, and I think it is beneficial to the discussion to continue it in a public forum. Paricularly when dealing with what I feel are missguided views by some. Please read my response to MRoberts above and maybe you will understand my objections. Since I don't agree with slots as a "backdoor" size limit restriction and would only want research done for population or genetic purposes, I have a very limited view on what slots will or will not do. If emplaced for the only purposes I think are valid, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENCOURAGE KILL. No two ways about that. If you encourage kill, there is NO WAY you will have MORE muskies. Encouraging kill can work against the resource very easily and work against the 30 year education effort by MI. Many fisherman have only a limited or peripheral knowledge of management issues, and probably even less knowledge of what is important to special interest groups like ours. They understand simple things though, and tend to carry that simple knowledge with them. In this case, slots say, it is ok to KILL small muskies, and in fact it is GOOD to kill them. They will be thinking that next time they catch a 34" fish by accident while out for walleye. Bonk! Your view that slot limits are protecting more fish and not encouraging harvest, comes about through leaving a few links out of the chain of logic. Your statements are completly unsupported, and require others to ignore the probable and predictable pitfalls involved with emplacing such regulations. You have claimed in other arguments, and some of your codefendents also claim that 90-95% of all muskies are released anyway so slots won't have that much effect. Now you state that anything 34" can be harvested-as if it is a problem(and I have always contended that it is). You cannot propose multiple viewpoints to support your arguments depending on which one seems to offer the best proof at the time. You need to be consistent in your views. Slot limits have to: Encourage kill of small fish. Have some purpose other than to exclude certain seqments of the fishing public from enjoying the resource the way they would like to(of course all legislation does this to some extent, but in this case regs would be tilted very heavily to the desires of a special interest group, us!). and even if you are on the good drugs, when fish are killed at 28-40", it does not in any way equal protecting more fish... | |||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | A 40" to 50" slot sounds nice to me,but would not have the effect some think it would. The average size Muskie that is harvested in Wi. is only 37 inches long. And as long as we have members sitting on the Conservation Congress that blame "TROPHY" management as a reason for declining license sales,they would not even recomend it to the D.N.R. even if you could get it to pass at the spring hearings. btw..Muskie fishermen/women are the minority at these meetings. The reason I think education is the key is that we still have huge sport fishing councils that are anti Muskie, and the average joe fisherman still views a Muskie as a Wolf that gobbles up all his favorite fish. Just my 2cents .Howie. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF, For me it’s simple, call it a back door if you want, but I will call it a comprimise. 2 years ago a 50” minimum was tried on 10% of Vilas/Oneida County lakes. Why is putting a slot limit on the fish more elitist. Especially considering that the main augments used against the 50” limit where, tourists and young fishermen not being able to keep there first fish. I don’t dream of a statewide slot, or a statewide 40” minimum or a statewide 50”. It would be hard to get a slot on the same 10% of the lakes asked for in ’03. All I am saying is something should be tried. I don’t believe you have to encourage harvest to implement a slot, you do, but I think it could be sold exactly as it is, a compromise that allows fish from 34 to whatever to be kept exactly as they currently are, but then protects the older breeding stock. Plus it gives people desiring it, a better chance at a trophy fish as determined by DNR surveys. The same people keeping fish now will be able to keep them with a slot, you said so yourself, that “musky fisherman are the minority, and in some lakes smaller fish may actually be encountered more frequently by incidental fisherman than by musky fisherman, particularly those under the slot.” If these fishermen choose to keep a fish with a 34” limit they will still be able to keep a fish with the slot limit, but remember not everyone of these fishermen kill all the musky the catch and a slot wouldn’t change that either. But the bigger fish are protected from people with the largest fish on the wall mentality. Every time they break there personal best they mount it or eat it. There are many people out there like that, but I think they are the minority. This would affect them. Making these people put the fish back isn’t anymore elitist than thrying to impose a high minimum, I firmly believe that. In fact I think it is far less elitist as it is keeping all fishermen more in mind. After all these decision on Genetics I also now believe that a slot may have the added benefit of weeding out slow growing fish, without promoting increased harvest. I explained this theory once before but will reiterate. With say an overall 90% release rate, on average a fish should be able to be caught 9 times before it is kept. Hopefully with a protected slot the fish could make the slot before it was kept, but slow growing, or small high end fish would eventually be removed before reaching the slot. Remember still overall the release rate is 90% the fast growing fish will make that slot easier and therefore breed on. The big thing here is a compromise to get something done. I have come to the opinion that something is better than nothing. To quote Dick Pearson: “If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.” This applies to fishing techniques as well as management techniques. I’m not saying this is the best option out there, but I feel it is our best shot at some positive change. The key is NOT to ENCOURAGE KILL, and I believe it can be done. It is keeping the status quo on small fish and protecting the large fish. C&R education would still be necessary and should be encouraged as the best option, but it is not mandated on all fish. Look at any of the A1 or A2 lakes in Appendix 2 of the DNRs Muskellunge Management Update, (linked above) for a place to start. These are lakes, with natural reproduction, that have had stocking suspended for up to 10 years. Some lakes in this group include, Lake Tomahawk Chain, Rhinelander Flowage/Boom, Pelican, Plum, Butternut, Crescent. In my Opinion Slot limits: DO NOT Encourage kill of small fish, but they would allow it to continue as is. They could have multiple purposes, including protecting breeding stock while creating a trophy fishery as well as the added benefit of possible weeding out genetically small fish, WITHOUT ENCOURAGING MORE HARVEST. They are no more exclude certain segment of the fishing public than any other proposed, stricter, musky regulation, in fact they are friendlier to other segments of the fishing public. Are not better suited, than high minimum length limits at creating trophy fisheries, but are more politically accessible. I hope that clarifies my position on this subject, I know there are people out there that come down on this issue pretty mush the same place I do. They just want to see something better, anything as long as it isn’t more destructive than constructive. I haven’t seen any PROOF that a slot would be destructive. It was done on the Fox River in Green Bay with Walleye, strictly to create a trophy population of walleye, not to decrease the total population. I have buddies that go there every spring and catch 10 pound walleyes. I know Musky aren’t walleye, but my guess is it could work the same way. I agree that this discussion should remain on the board as it is good debate, even though there is probably limited people viewing it at this juncture as it is just to much to read from start to finish. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks - I'll concede that I need to tone it down it a bit, but I tend to get emotional over these topics. I'd like to point out that while I tend to be disgruntled towards the "DNR", it's actually the policies and restrictions put in place by the Conservation Congress that have me upset. If we could put everything in the hands of the DNR personnel that should be making these decisions I'd be a very happy person. The fact that a change in Muskie management needs to be approved by the Bluegill Fisherman and Squirrel hunters in the state does not sit well with me - or any of us I'm sure. If the information on the size increase in Namekagon is accurate - it needs to get publicity, and we'd all like to see the details (was there an increase in 50" fish is one question I have). There is so much inaccurate information out there it's difficult to sort through it all. Mr. Worrall got me riled up a couple threads back when I felt he was spreading some inaccurate information and I have not been able to get over it. (I need to get over it.) I realize Steve as well as the rest of us want the same thing, and appreciate everyone's opinion. We'll all need to work together to get anything done. (Steve - nice job quoting me with out including the next line that pointed to the problem being the Conservation Congress and not the DNR. It's not just me - no hard feelings - ok?) Mike said it well in his reply to FSF, so I see no need to reply to some of the above comments. Friends are telling me I'll (we'll) be better off if I say less here, and work towards something that will actually help. I'm going to try that for a while. But I'll be watching. Whatever happens don't settle for less than we need to get done. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| MR This ought to be real interesting. You could not sell 40" size limit, or 50" size limit and now you hope to ok the kill of small musky but quash the kill of anything remotely close to trophy fish. You are really going to have a difficult time selling and educating fisherman, to avoid giving them the message that it is ok to kill small musky, and in fact it may be good, and then at the same time tell them "well if you catch any kind of a decent fish 40" up to 50" you have to put it back". Now you can try and sell this as protecting the large brood fish, but I read it as an elitist and selfish monopolization of the resource(being the devil's advocate here). You may THINK you can put forth that message, but I believe it is of itself, conflicting information, and cannot be expected not to impact populations of catchable fish in a negative way. The second point is that ALL OF THIS IS THEORETICAL, particularly the genetics part. You realize of course that ALL fish are vulnerable in the lower section of the slot and there is no sort for growth or genetics other than your supposed longer exposure of the slow growing genetics. That would of course assume that they really do exist in the population, and breed this problem into the genetic base. But?...how do you know that one component of the slow growing genetics is not made up of females that mature at under 45 inches, and under your system could grow into slot protection and stay there for 20 years?? Tell me that you know that NOT to be true. Regardless, I don't mind research, but have to look at this whole idea with the suspicion that there are many assumptions being made by those purporting the value of slot limits. For all the griping going on, it is sometimes overlooked that there has been and still is, a great fishery in WI. You are basically using the same twisted argument Pfeiffer is tooting, in that you say a 90% release rate already exists, but that the slot is going to protect all these fish when this 90% release rate already exists. How can it be both? Before WI goes too far with this, it needs to be proven that a problem exists, and as I pointed out before, for all the fuss and indignation, no one really has ANY EMPIRICAL DATA PROVING THAT TO BE THE CASE. Frankly my same time invested in fishing northern WI would have yielded much bigger, and if not more, equal amounts of fish to what I catch down here. People often point to the 50 inch+ fish coming out of Cave Run as more proof that WI has a bad management program, and never really look at why things are the way they are, in this lake, and other lakes(and I do not consider the Cave population to be very heavily laden with 40" fish). I wish it were a simple problem with a clear solution but realistically, you guys haven't even proven that there is a problem yet. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | FSF, I know of no 40” limit that was attempted and not passed. Maybe it was brought in a few counties, but I don’t remember seeing it on the statewide ballot. When I brought up the idea of a 40” limit to the now retired Oneida county Fisheries manager about 5 years ago he called it a dumb idea because it would stack males just under 40”. I mentioned Minn. and he said “Apples and Oranges!” The 50” limit didn’t pass because the majority of people wanted to keep fish. This will also be a problem with a slot limt or any other future attempts at more stringent regs. I’ll ask AGAIN, how is it any more elitist than asking for high minimums? Of course it is THEORETICAL, regarding musky, but it has and does work with other fish. If it is never tried it will always be theoretical. You make a good point about a 45” female, this type of thing is why I have tried to stay away from mentioning the actual numbers that would be in the slot. I have used some numbers to try and clarify some points, but this is something the biologists would have to do. But I agree if the slot is set two low you risk small females reproducing indefinitely. One thing to think about though with this genetic stuff is that these same issues would be in other species where slot limits have been used. And given the fact that these other species have higher numbers would this type of stuff show up easier. I used the 90% figure to make a point, I don’t know the release rate including all fishermen. The DNR does have a number on this from survey information and creel numbers. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the way things are now the majority of the fish being kept are the bigger fish caught. If we want to catch more bigger fish, fish over 50” and beyond those fish have to be protected. This simple problem in Wisconsin is the shear number of people fishing. This needs to be taken into consideration. History shows that the lakes in Wisconsin can produce trophy fish, they just need to be allowed to grow big. I have never said the fishing in Wisconsin is bad, I just believe it has the potential to be better. I have seen that potential, by living here I get a chance to explore many lake. My biggest Wisconsin fish came from a small 100 acre +\- lake and we have seen many more there that size. Until my trip to LOTW this year the largest fish I have ever seen was in a small sub 200 acre lake in Northern Wisconsin. What makes these lakes different is they don’t get fished. So the big fish don’t get kept. I will also ask the following again, What makes a slot worse than the current 34” limit. Why not try it on a few lakes like the ones I listed above? Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 12/16/2004 10:49 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | (Steve - nice job quoting me with out including the next line that pointed to the problem being the Conservation Congress and not the DNR. It's not just me - no hard feelings - ok?) Bob, With all due respect, you said what you said. The next statement did say that you feel much is the fault of the CC system, but if I was a Fisheries manager in Wisconsin and read your statement, I know what I'd think. You can't blast someone and then say, 'Well gee, I guess it isn't ALL your fault' and expect the resulting interpretation to be positive. You then let the Conservation Congress folks dedicated enough to show up and vote (activists, as well) have it, which will endear THEM to our cause too, I'm sure. Don't politics just plain suck? I guess I was and am trying to indicate a foul when I see one as a 'player/referee' here. Doesn't mean you don't play the game well, heck even Jordan fouled another player now and again. 'Friends are telling me I'll (we'll) be better off if I say less here, and work towards something that will actually help. I'm going to try that for a while. But I'll be watching. Whatever happens don't settle for less than we need to get done.' I challenge you to tell me what you might do that WILL get something done without the cooperation and support of the Muskie angling community. This forum represents a very large crosssection of the very community from which you seek support. We don't have to agree on everything, we need to refine the debate until we CAN agree on a forward moving agenda. Like it or not, Sir, not everyone will agree with you as you press forward with your agenda. Many will not be as polite as most here have been, so this is probably a great place to test your approach, refine it, and develop a delivery technique that will acquire the desired results from your audience. Where else will you obtain an audience as large as this, with as focused a desire to obtain what you offer? If you think discussing your agenda here is not effective, you are mistaken. It's part of my job here to attempt to refine conversation, challenge what I feel need be, now and again try to steer the direction of a conversation back to subject and perhaps even offer correction when one forgets one's manners, as is going to happen now and again in any good open debate. (Slamr reminds me quite often when I am behaving a bit untoward, causing me to edit, edit, edit) Of course there are no hard feelings, I'm after the same thing as you. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve - everything's cool. I stand by everything I've said(although maybe I could have said them differently) - including my thoughts on your creative edit. (foul!) I think if you look at my short history of posts I've both praised and shot down the DNR for doing different things. I'll probably keep doing that. I felt a need to point out that things I sometimes point at the DNR (like size limits) are not under their control - yet they get the blame from many people .(Including me -I guess) If you want MuskieFirst to be different - I'd like to see a library of Muskie related studies. I've got many I can provide and many more I'd like to find. This would be a great service to many of us. In particular I'd like to see the study by Johnson (1971) that found genetic growth differences in 3 different Wisconsin lakes 30 plus years ago. It'd be nice to be able to reference these things, and let other readers go take a look and make decisions on their own. In regards t o the Johnson study - was that the first reference in Wisconsin to different Genetic growth differences among lakes. Was anything changed as a result? when was the first change based on Genetic growth differences made? So many questions..... And finally - I disagree with anyone who say's we need to focus on "education" and other tiny increases in Muskie Management. I think that's been our focus for the last 10 years and hasn't gotten us much. We need to take the control and hand it to the DNR who should be responsible and held accountable for our Fisheries. The education of the non-believers will come when our existing good fisheries become THE destination for trophy Muskie hunters as well as those who just want to catch a Muskie. I'm hoping to be back sometime before the new year with some things for us to work on to get things changed. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| (I'm sure your all thinking I said I wasn't going to post anymore) Mr. Worrall and FSF - certainly you two agree that there are genetic growth difference among different fish and lakes in Wisconsin? Please let me know, as I do not feel it needs to be proven, I think most of us accept it as fact. If you need more evidence, I can provide it. If we agree that there are genetic growth differences, than wouldn't a slot limit be a good way to tilt the odds in favor of larger fish where those fish co-exist? Wouldn't a 50" limit still encourage harvest of only the largest fish? Wouldn’t it be likely that in places like the Eagle River chain we’d have both slow growing fish and also the potential of Huge 60”class fish that undoubtedly were in places like Lac Vieux Desert, the headwaters of the Wisconsin River? (Documented 60” fish mounted from Lac Vieux Desert – yes. I’ve seen the mount. Pictures in the compendium page 149 60” from 1982 and a 58.5” from 1968 on page 154.) Interesting that these came before C&R and not after. Before 50” or even 40" size limits also. Remember all the big fish the Burmek’s killed during the "12 days"? It happened, they were all killed, verified and weighed. Now people say “it didn’t really happen – because we’d catch them now too”. It’s not happening now because they killed them all!!! And we continue to kill the large one's today. Wisconsin likely has more documented 60" fish than anywhere, yet we pretend the whiskey was just better. All you people who don’t believe these fish existed are just plain wrong. They were around and they were common. Man came and killed them. Now they are Gone. We still kill big ones and let small ones go, so we get more small fish. The biggest fish remain Gone – or at least very, very few, while small fish are more abundant than ever. This is where a slot can help. We can have big fish back, and have them back soon. One of my thoughts is to get the DNR to issue an “Emergency Catch and Release only regulation on Muskellunge to Prevent the Extinction of Large Muskies.” This measure would require all muskies in the state between 45” and 55” to be released – EVERYWHERE., yes everywhere. The wording could be changed to be positive - perhaps from "Prevent Extinction" to "Increase the Numbers". Can’t beat the Conservation Congress? Find a way to go around it. If we can't protect them all, let's protect the right ones, the BIG ones. | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "And finally - I disagree with anyone who say's we need to focus on "education" and other tiny increases in Muskie Management. I think that's been our focus for the last 10 years and hasn't gotten us much. We need to take the control and hand it to the DNR who should be responsible and held accountable for our Fisheries." So....how are YOU going to get the DNR to take responsibility for what YOU think they should do? What have YOU DONE other than yell on a message board to get this accomplished. As much as I love a good debate, right now you're passing the buck. Yell and scream, then blame someone, then give them responsibility. Thats a really good way to get things accomplished. And btw, you just said we should stop focusing on education, read what you wrote again, then think if thats a good way to approach this. Instead of educating the masses, you advocate that we force those who you have criticized over and over again to now do what you've said they dont do already. I personally disagree with the slot limit for no other reason than this: IT WONT PASS. Right or wrong, yelling for something that the masses (who you dont want to educate) won't understand and thusly won't support, basically amounts to yelling in the wind. All the time and energy you spend on here yelling for something that WONT HAPPEN is wasted energy. Rather you had put together a flyer to pass out at a walleye show to educate them on how muskies HELP an ecosystem......SOMETHING more than yelling at the wind. | ||
| 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 |