Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> slot limits |
| Message Subject: slot limits | |||
Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
| After being beat up for suggesting this awhile back I have not given up on it. I ask you to read the commentary in the Nov. 5 issue of the Wisconsin Outdoor News. Its by Dave Neuswanger D.N.R. team leader for the upper chippewa basin. What it says is basically what I have been saying all along. The difference is he suggests 36 to 48 and on some lakes where this would be (NOT ALL) that the limit be for a legal be 28. He addresses the problem of abundant fish in the commentary. If you want bigger muskies in wisconsin this is the right step to take. They however also need to stop taking eggs from small fish and take from bigger females only. Hatchery raised fish from eggs have a much higher survival rate and pocess the genes to get big if taken from big females. This only makes sense if you'll take the time to study it The view on the egss was mine and not in the commentary. Don Pfeiffer | |||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Don, You need to jump on the 'Genetics' thread under Musky Research. Sean | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20255 Location: oswego, il | Don, at first I was against this. After thinking about it, I think it has some good things to it but does have some drawbacks. I think it will work for a lake that has a good population of muskies that are not reaching their max size potential but not a lake that is. A lake like bone, butternut or the tiger cat it would be good but a lake like grindstone it would not. I think it has a good chance of appealing to the meathunters that have to vote on this since they understand a slot limit. the crawback there is it may give them more incentive to keep one on a slot lake and that may have a worse effect as it may promote too much harvest. One thing for sure and nobody can deny, a slot of say 36-44" is alot better than a 34" size limit. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The other thing a slot limit would do is pacify those who want to be able to insure at least some kind of selective harvest, and allow us to get the 50" plus top end done. Maybe. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| I think a slot limit is a great idea. My only concern with the slot limit is that we won't put the slot limit High enough. The benefit of slot limits is that it allows you to protect the fish you want to have in the lake. A slot limit would need to allow protection of the largest females so that they can continue to breed, and also keep them in the lake so that we can fish for and hopefully catch them. Personally I'd like to see a 42" to 54" slot limit in Wisconsin - as a starting point. If fish larger than 54" are caught we should continue to move the slot up. This could be done on a lake to lake basis, but we should push for it to happen across the board. We need to speak up to change our management goals. We need to aim high. Our goal should be to create a self-sustaining population of Muskies with fish reaching the 60 inch mark on occasion. Slot limit's will help us do this, as long as we are stocking fish capable of growing to the upper edge of the slot. | |||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | I will disagree, as if you put a slot on ski`s hence you just classify them like walleyes and bass as a mainly eating harvest fish. After all this crap for years and years of a zilloin different opinions it seems TO ME that the best approach right now is to keep up the CPR education and the more and more of PRIVATE CLUBS doing a majority of very successful stocking(Wi.) is working pretty good, things with a slot will only make the whole situation ALLOT WORSE! 50" above hwy.10 accross the board or just leave well enough alone. Why cause more headaches and confusion, I know a ton that will not back a slot, myself included! Edited by The Handyman 12/7/2004 12:32 PM | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Handyman. I think if you read the whole thread on genetics under pro prospectives you will under slots better. Also a great thread at musky hunter about slots and genetics. Think you have to agree what we are doing now is not working and on the lakes where they made it 45 or 50 inches I have seen no research on it as of yet. I do know that I fish some of these lakes and I don't think I see any change at all with the higher limits. Keep in mind the goal of slots is to produce not just a better and healthier fishery but also a trophy one. Don pfeiffer | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | The slotson walleyes seem to be working in Canada, are they working in WI on the smaller waters? I could see trying it in one of the systems with a current limit of 28" to see if the overall density could be lowered, and size structure increased. Go from there I guess. There is alot of truth spoken when you say we can't just do nothing. Size structure is in muskies is a problem in WI when comparing to other states, and maybe top end size limits are not the answer. MN does not have 50" limits and look at the fish they produce. I feel it has more to do with strain, and even more so, local genetics. A lake that used to priduce 50's and does not anymore, may not be helped with a top end limit. These lakes may be too far gone, genetics wise for the reasons Don stated, and may need to be nurtured back to health. If the slot thing happens, it needs to happen county, state, or regionwide as one lake will only concentrate 'harvestors' and we will not see desired results. | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | What difference would slotting the fish make, when everybody is letting them go anyway. I like what is being done in Green Bay and I wish Wisconsin would try doing something different for our bigger waters. The fish that were originally stocked in the Chippewa Flowage came from the Mississippi. A lot of our lakes have too many muskies in them. I fish in the Madison area a lot and Lake Wingra is an example of a lake that the fish are not growing. The DNR thinks this lake is a "crowned jewel" it is not. They net fish every spring and brag about how many muskies are in it. They should transport these netted fish to Monona and Waubesa, bigger lakes that have bigger fish. Everybody would like huge fish, but some lakes aren't capable of producing huge fish. Overpopulating lakes makes for small(stunted) fish. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | We really don`t know what would happen if all northern Wi. was at 50". How can it hurt being forced to let a 4`er go????????? We can`t even compare MN. to Wi. the point is moote. I still can`t see how labeling musky a slot fish and creating it for harvest is any good at all, period!!! To me it seems there goes the "TROPHY STATUS" that many seem to strive for, for the musky and put it in the same catagory as slot fish! I just cannot be convinced that this is the best thing for the overall Wisconsin Musky fishery. There has to be a betterway??????????????????????? Edited by The Handyman 12/7/2004 4:21 PM | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Not to argue, as I basically agree with you that placing a slot on muskies would allow people to harvest more smaller fish and that is a frightening concept to think about if it did not work as planned, but as I stated earlier there are already lakes at 28" and those would be good ones to try it on as it would actually protect more fish on the lake than the current limit. You can compare MN lakes of the same size and type to similar waters in WI from a sheer production standpoint and see why things are so blatently different. They have a different strain of fish that attains bigger sizes quicker, yes, but many WI lakes of the that used to do the same and are not now. Why is that? I am not sure size limits would help some of those lakes as much as a better gene pool would. Don't get me wrong, I am for higher limits accross the board, but it seems that the public is not responding to it, and we need to keep searching for ways of improving the resource while keeping locals happy(which we need to do if we are going to use the Conservation Congress process instead of allowing managers to manage). Maybe it is time to do more intensive research on the fish that we stock and see why more fish are not attaining the sizes they should. I know spearing does not help, but this occurs in MN too. Now is a great time to explore ways of improving things! Here is one vote for getting the Mississippi(or leach lake as some know it) strain stocked in WI on select waters. WI did an experiment with them aleady and they attained sizes up to 54" in 10 years. Why not try it again???? I know the DNR is worried about the strains becomming crossed, but isn't the WI strain that is being stocked already somewhat diluted for reasons stated above? I also agree with Don that eggs taken from bigger fish would be a key to get the WI strain back on track. Couldn't eggs be taken from some larger fish on some naturally sustained lakes in WI so one could be sure of good genetics in the new fry?? Jeff, we need ice!!!!!!!! Edited by Reef Hawg 12/8/2004 6:30 AM | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | The slot would help lakes that are overpopulated, if people were keeping fish. Raising size limits doesn't make fish bigger in fact on a lot of lakes it could make the fish smaller. I don't want to sound like a guy that keeps fish, in twenty years of Musky fishing I have kept zero fish.But, I think a lot of people go overboard on preaching release only. A lot of our lakes need a selective harvest to become healthier. A universal 50" limit would be harmful to a lot of lakes. I would like the DNR to stock some type of riverine strain into our bigger bodies of water. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I think a slot limit would be a political tool first and a biological tool second. Not that it is a bad thing, as I think it could work as a political tool. First take these factors into consideration: We couldn’t get a 50” limit passed on 10 % +/- of Vilas/Oneida County lakes, because people didn’t want to give up the thought of someone keeping there first fish, a long with a few other simple reasons. Second it would’t be a blanket slot on all lakes, lakes with current special regs like 45” and 50” limits should be left alone, don’t go back words on those lakes. I don’t think any more fish would be kept under a slot limit than are being kept now with the limit at 34 inches. Musky fishermen aren’t going to keep more fish, and incidental catches will still be the same. There will still be a good and growing Catch and Release ethic among many fishermen. What the slot does is protect the fish once they reach a larger size. So you would have all the same people keeping fish in the lower slot that currently keep them. But once the fish grow above the slot they become protected. We would effectively be protecting our best breeders and that is how the idea should be sold. Little Jonnie can still keep his first musky, we protect the breeders to save money on potential stocking and people can still keep a trophy fish. This is far better than what we have now which is a state minimum of 34 inches and could be a very good first step politically. My guess is even then it still wouldn’t get much public support, unless it was sold very well. Muskie Inc, and other clubs should pool their money and hire a marketing company to address the next big push for better musky regs. in WI. This may be the only way to get progress, the masses need to be convinced. Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 12/8/2004 10:45 AM | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Don and I basically had a long discussion of slot limits a while back. I went over several specific reasons for not having slot limits at that time. Handyman comes close to covering my number 1 reason-that slots are potentially a big problem, and their effect on the education effort that has been in place for years. Bytor and others seem to have an odd elitist view of the fishery that I certainly don't share. I have never been on a musky lake that I felt had TOO MANY FISH. I have fished Wingra, Teal, and a couple other fisheries with good populations and cannot say that when catching multiple muskies I bitched about the size of the same. I have fished Bone, and Butternut, and consider both of them to be interesting gems in the AMERICAN CROWN JEWELS OF MUSKY FISHING, a crown which I still fully believe resides in the WI MUSKY FISHERY, NOT MN AND NOT CANADA. You will have to do some significant research to prove to me that you can maintain numbers in a fishery and also put out a large proportion of trophy size fish. Bone lake is cited several times in those arguing size. Bone lake is probably one of the few fisheries in WI which is maintaining maximum density of mature fish per acre. Bone lake is an awesome body of water to be on when the bite is hot. It is an awesome body of water to be on anytime in search of a musky. It has reached a point of self limitation for fish numbers if I read my research correctly, and the mature population is the limiting factor on the survival of young fish. If I remember what I have been told in the past, more fish into this system resulted in no increase in the adult population, ie they became expensive fish food. We can look at several other systems in WI and see the same type of fishery. Weeds, cover and diminished water clarity all seem to maximize populations possibly at the expense of the genetic ability to express growth, ie more muskies but not maximum size, not neccessarily in very large systems with multiple habitat and forage choices, much more so in limited acreages and simpler habitat systems. The research proposed on Butternut lake is very interesting from several perspectives and much more palatable since they plan to lower the population through relocation, with hopefully no large mortality figure. However, IMO this research should be a limited study and not in of itself the basis for slot limit proposals nor the findings generalized in any way to extend to the rest of the state. Somehow Don has taken the research idea and used it as proof of his view of slot limits being a good thing. I do not think that viewpoint is warranted in any way, and don't feel that Don should be attempting to confuse people in this way. There is no reason at this point in time to support the idea that this research will prove slot limits have any value, or might suggest they have a value to the WI fishery. That is probably why they call it RESEARCH and not fact. A very simple fact that I am sure the research people are aware of, but Don may not be, is that Musky are not significant predators of their own population until the young become fingerling, to yearling size. Before that, the many other parts of the biomass eat and eat musky young. This research may set the stage for a population crash in Butternut lake, a population which is maximized at this time but supported by many spawning fish, the sudden decline in adult numbers may cause an even larger decline in recruitment than what is expected. There is also the chance that the decline in adult and subadult populations may offer the opportunity for a massive year class moving from fry stage toward adulthood. No one really knows. There is the definite possibilty and full likelihood that musky fishing action in Butternut lake will decline significantly due to the research. You probably cannot change population numbers the way it is proposed without having a major effect on the fishing action in the lake. No proof of that on my side, and again, that is why they call it RESEARCH. If you examine benefits of slot limits I see them slanted heavily toward commercial consumers of the resource such as Don and others trying to make a buck from musky fishing. I also see a benefit for meat fisherman, and of course the "look what I caught" fisherman who drags his catch home and then wraps it in newspaper for... I do not see a major benefit to myself having less muskies but a greater chance of a 50" occasional fish in the boat. If someone wants numbers of 50" fish, WI is probably never going to be the destination of choice. Indian spearing itself may be enough to limit the top end of the resource in many waters. Slot limits, in my view, will generally decline catch opportunities in many waters, with a limited increase of fish on the top end as payback for this overall decline. While I can be persuaded to maximize size potential of the population, I am not of the opinion that less opportunites for encountering a fish on the end of the line is a reasonable exchange for that(one of the potential costs of slot limits). Size is nice, but fisherman should discriminate between slot limits and genetic effect because they are not one and the same. There are clearly some parameters that can overlap between the two effects but until there is some research done I think it is premature to get overly excited about the questionable and limited(my view)benefits of slot limits. | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | "Bytor and others seem to have an odd elitist view of the fishery that I certainly don't share. I have never been on a musky lake that I felt had TOO MANY FISH." How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist. Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource. I do believe that the DNR started using Bone lake fish for their stocking program because the fish in that lake used to have an exceptional growth rate. While I would not classify current Bone lake fish as stunted, the fish are now showing an average to below average growth rate. The DNR puts a lot of fish back in the lake, to "replace the eggs they take out" , this is what I was told at the boat landing by DNR personnel as they were throwing a tremendous amount of muskies into the lake. The fact that the fish are growing slower has nothing to do with the genetics and everything to do with the fact that they are overpopulating the lake. While it is a lot easier to throw small lakes, like Wingra or the Tiger Cat Flowage out of balance, The same thing is slowly happenning in Bone. I have never fished Butternut Lake but I applaud what they are doing, I feel it will improve their fishery. "I also see a benefit for meat fisherman, and of course the "look what I caught" fisherman who drags his catch home and then wraps it in newspaper for..." Where are these guys at???? Zero percent of the Musky fisherman I know do this. I am going back to the river Styx, now. Don, thanks for starting this thread. I find it very interesting | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Are we talking Butternut in Price??? Is it overpopulated??? Boy, I must just be bad at catching numbers of muskies, as I thought that was one WI fishery that had nearly everything, good size and fair numbers. I think it would be a shame to do anything like that there. Just my $.02. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| With regards to Bone Lake - I don't believe there is any evidence that the length of fish decreased when the number of Muskies increased. There was a SLIGHT reduction in weight of the Bone lake fish, but the average weight was still above average for Wisconsin fish. THE GROWTH RATE IN LENGTH REMAINS AMONG THE FASTEST IN THE STATE WITH THE DENSE POPULATION THAT exists today. I have done a lot of research on this and can find no reduction in length of Muskies based on numbers of Muskies per acre. We can have numbers and size at the same time if we stock fish that have the genetics to grow big, stock them at the same rate we do today in wisconsin (2 per acre in Bone) and stock them in Lakes without Pike. Slot limits keep muskies with good genetics in the lake, while allowing the removal of fish with poor genetics. This my friends is a wonderful thing, and something we need to get done. I do not like slot limits as a means to reduce population numbers, I like slot limits because they can protect the largest fish while giving Meatheads something to eat instead of forcing them to eat trophies. (There is a lot of related info on the Genetics thread that I won't throw into this conversation) | |||
| husky_jerk |
| ||
Posts: 305 Location: Illinois | Any system that is more specific and scientific instead of county wide would be a step in the right direction. Having 20 year old fish that are 32 inches is a prime example why a slot limit or selective harvest might work. I don't think a slot limit of 36-40 inch musky would hurt the Tiger Cat at all. In fact, you might see bigger fish in the system if the smaller fish were harvested and there were less top line competition. Putting a state wide 50 inch limit would be great for many lakes but there are exceptions. The regs should be specific to the body of water and it's characteristics and needs. Handyman, the people who are thumping muskies are the casual fisherman who are going to keep what they believe the law allows. I would rather protect the large prime spawners than the 35 inch males. When you talk about putting musky in the same class as walleye and bass I don't cringe. It seems that slot limits have worked for some species but not others. There are plenty of lakes they shouldn't touch but how could an experimental slot limit hurt a high density body of water? | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | HJ, you don`t think a 35" is a prime spawner. I will also disagree about who is keeping fish, I have seen a couple dozen fish under say 45" kept by musky fisherman for what purpose I don`t know and also why are the wardens constantly checking livewells in Vilas county and not even looking at liscences most of the time? Because of overbagging and under limit. Who are you people kidding,? yourselfs? For an overall trophy state the way things stand now is to stop all harvest untill 50". Look at alot of walleyes that are 1 over 28" or Smallies that are 1 over 18". I feel we need to stop harvest of muskys and not condone it with a stupid slot limit! Anglers need to open there eyes, there are alot more fish being harvested then most think. Most are just not talking about it. We as a whole need to wake up and smell the coffee! Where has a musky slot worked elsewhere? Canada, MN., MI???? You tell me! | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Bytor says, "How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist. Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource. I think the comment about the 20 year old fish is also elitist. Some genetics in muskydom are not big fish genetics. When you label them like this you are expressing a view that such genetics are "bad". Very elitist, imo. Different, and perhaps not what trophy fisherman seek, but if you truly appreciate fish and what they are, you would probably not come to this conclusion. Bio diversity is always in style as far as I am concerned. As for you never coming into contact with "meat fisherman" or "show and tell" fisherman, maybe you need to leave the river Styx long enough to get an eyeful of the real world out here!;-) | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Guest - 12/8/2004 7:22 PM Bytor says, "How does having a view that too many top line predators in a lake is bad for the fishery, elitist. Having twenty year old fish that are 32 inches long (Tiger Cat Flowage) is a tremendous waste of a resource. I think the comment about the 20 year old fish is also elitist. Some genetics in muskydom are not big fish genetics. When you label them like this you are expressing a view that such genetics are "bad". Very elitist, imo. Different, and perhaps not what trophy fisherman seek, but if you truly appreciate fish and what they are, you would probably not come to this conclusion. Bio diversity is always in style as far as I am concerned. As for you never coming into contact with "meat fisherman" or "show and tell" fisherman, maybe you need to leave the river Styx long enough to get an eyeful of the real world out here!;-) btw this is my response, forgot to sign in, sorry. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I really think this all boils down to politics. I don’t think a slot limit is the best option to grow trophy fish. But I do think it has the best chance of being implemented using the screwy way the State of Wisconsin goes about implementing regulations. For example lakes take 5 popular North Eastern Wisconsin lake/lakegroups: Lake Minocqua and Kawagesaga – 1575 acres, Lake Tomahawk - 3600 acres, Pelican – 3500 acres, North and South Twin Lake – 3430 acres, Wisconsin River and Boom Lake flowage – 2200 acres. All of these bodies of water have a 34 inch limit, have excellent forage base and a history of big fish. All but Pelican where on the list for the 50” limit a couple of years ago, all got soundly defeated. There are a few people saying that the slot would be detrimental to the fishery, could you explain how a protective slot from say 44 to 50 would be worse than a 34 inches limit. I think it’s a good first step on the way to maybe someday seeing trophy minimums. It’s better than doing nothing. Like I said before I think a slot actually has a chance of getting public support, a 50” limit will take a long time, if ever. This isn’t about convincing musky fishermen, it’s about convincing the general public. But don’t kid yourself there are still a bunch of musky fishermen that would who have no problem killing a 48 incher for a mount, they don’t read these boards, but I bet there are more of them than there are of us. The other thing to keep in mind is, this idea should not be sold as an attempt at weeding out the small fish from the population, it should be sold as, leaving the opportunity for people to keep incidental catches and while protecting the best breeders along with the potential of growing musky to trophy size. Sold this way, I don’t think it would increase the amount of fish being kept, no more than are currently being kept with the 34” limit. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Beaver |
| ||
Posts: 4266 | I won't even consider a slot limit until the NA's are required to abide by a size limit and a number reduction. How many big fish wind up with a piece of steel through their skull while they are trying to pass on their genetics. Granted not every lake can produce big fish and may be overrun by small fish. Let those lakes get speared and leave the true trophy waters off of the list of lakes that get speared. They can put all kinds of limits on lakes, the truth remains that the majority of us on this board and others don't need to worry about them because we release all of our fish anyway. How does MN handle their fishery? That State seems to have it's act together. Maybe we could follow their lead. You got beat up over this? I must have been hibernating.  Beav Edited by Beaver 12/9/2004 10:27 AM | ||
| husky jerk |
| ||
| Handyman, I think a 35 inch fish can spawn but it is the 45 inch fish I am more concerned with. Like MRoberts said, the 50 inch size limit was soundly defeated. There has to be some room for compromise. I think one of the biggest mistakes we make as musky fisherman is to put our fishery above all others. Instead, we need to work alongside and with the rest of the fishing community when discussing size limits. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Beav, the spearing argument can be made about any more restrictive limit. And it was made by many of the people against the 50” limit a couple of years ago. The fact is as it stands right now we can’t do anything about it, maybe if we show we are willing to be more conservation minded, we will be in a better negotiating position. The other thing to consider is that we on this board are a small number of the total musky fishermen out there and an even smaller total fishermen in general. I don’t remember the exact numbers but I believe that someone on the Genitic thread posted that Muskies Inc. data shows that the overall release rate is in the high 90 percent range, while the release rate for fish over 45 inches is only in the 70% range or something like that. That tells me that even among a group like Muskies Inc. people are still keep a fair number of fish that would end up in a slot and therefore be protected. I would wonder how many muskies are caught by general fishermen compared to musky fishermen, considering there are 6+ million Fishermen in the state and only about 100,000 of them are actual musky fishermen. That 100,000 may be high, but think about it. This why we need to increase the minimum limit or do something like a slot, that is also why they think we are elitist. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| GregM |
| ||
Posts: 1189 Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | The amount of musky fihserman in Wis is HUGE....I talk to fisherman everyday in the boat biz. The amount of "occassional" musky fisherman is staggering, they all want a piece of the action. The amount of kept fish if ever stated on an internet thread would put most of us hardcore "preaching to the choir, know what we are doing,very SMALL portion of the total musky fishing community" people into convulsions. A LOT of people keep their first legal and dont neccessarily continue on with the musky bug...they cought a huge fish, incidentaly or on purpose and it was too big to eat so they mounted it. I am torn on this issue. One side of me (like Mroberts) is FOR slots for his same reasons. The other side is (like handyman) AGAINST slots thinking it could encourage people to harvest. granted they are harvesting smaller fish.....but how do we know they wont grow to be 50? | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| With regards to the thought that too many Muskies will reduce the length of Muskies in a lake - it should be noted that Lake Webster in Indiana reportedly has two muskies per acre and has produced 5 50 inch fish in recent years, while Bone lake with "only" 1 muskie per acre has produced only two 50 inchers since Muskies Inc.began registering fish. (All information is from MI records.) I also believe Webster is smaller than Bone - so much for needing big lakes. Bottom line is we have too many small fish and too few big fish. We need to do everything we can to get more balance, the way to do this is to protect the big girls(and Big Boys). Slot limits may allow us to get more people on board than just a high size limit. I'm all for having some action lakes, but think that's a small percentage of the lakes in Wisconsin (maybe 25%) I'm convinced we can have action lakes with big fish if we stock fish that can grow big and protect them when they get big. By the DNR's own survey - most Muskie fisherman believe a trophy is a minimum of 50" long. If that is the case - WHY do we have no size limit's in the state that protect 50" fish? The DNR understands that the best way to get more fish of a certain size is to protect them AFTER they reach that size - not before. Nothing will change if we don't change the management of the resource. | |||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Ditto to what Mike Roberts said. I don't think the slot limit is the optimum solution for a trophy management plan, at least not as seen through the eyes of the hardcore musky fisherman. The thought of voting for something that includes such language as "the harvestable size range of muskies" turns the stomach a bit. But........as Mike said, we are playing politics and our side is not in the majority. It does a fairly good job of combatting the Little Johnnie's first fish argument. A slot limit protecting some of our bigger fish is better than having a free for all on anything over 34". Appease the masses and we may make some progress, no matter how small you may view it. | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | MRoberts has an excellent point. I think if most of us had our way the limits would be set on a lake specific basis. We know that isn't going to happen. We also already know that there is nowhere near enough support for setting high size limits across the board or for that matter even on a limited basis. The idea of a slot limit is right now possibly the only thing that MIGHT get a chance at going through the process. Frankly, I think even that is pretty remote. I don't like to sound negative but from what I've experienced a large percentage of "sportsmen" in Wisconsin view any type of regulation as the government taking away their God given right to do whatever the heck they want. Lets face it, there are a whole ton of people out there who don't have any concept or regard for the idea of conservation. I wish I would have counted how many people who hunted this year and said that they couldn't find any decent bucks to shoot so they nailed a little spiker just to fill their tag.! See, people just don't get it that if you let something live it may grow into something bigger later on. Sorry guys, I know that I'm preaching to the choir here and although we have different concepts of how to get there I think we all want the same thing: a better musky fishery in the state of Wisconsin. Keep up the thoughts and keep talking about it. Maybe we'll get there someday. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| This conversation is running many different directions and I think some clarifications need to be made. Slot limits, to me, don't make sense for any water that does not have natural reproduction and good year class promotion most every year, or water that is used to produce broodstock. Bone lake would qualify since it is used to produce broodstock, but am not really sure those fish reproduce at any significant level, nor do I think they were native in that lake? Might be wrong. A lake like Wingra which is supported through stocking, would not make sense for slot limits imo. It supports good survival of young musky and size might be limited somewhat by the same parameters that support good survival of the young. Thus it is a good action lake and probably will never be a good trophy lake regardless of slot limits. It would just have less catchable musky. If someone WANTS less fish in the lake then it would make more sense just to stock less. That of course would decrease encounters, and would probably decrease pressure as a secondary effect, which actually might increase longevity of some fish. The lakes that do support good natural reproduction COULD be enrolled into slot limit programs, however as pointed out before there is no guarantee that good natural reproduction and the ultimate size of fish produced, go hand in hand. Would populations respond to slots the way we would like or in some totally unexpected direction? Don't know myself. Musky unfortunately do not have the massive populations of other fish and due to this fact reproductive failure can have tremendous repercussions, short and long term. Tiger Cat, Callahan, Teal Lake, Ballard, Irving muskies, would we be able to genetically manipulate them to a larger fish with excellent reproduction? What do you think? Dark water, lots of weeds, limited soft rayed forage, a warm water fishery? Is it environment doing the sorting or simply polluted genetics that have occurred since man became a factor in sorting populations? Has anybody looked at these fish in prime big fish environments? What happens to them there? Now these might be interesting lakes to experiment on, but starting on a large scale basis with no prior study would never make any sense. Many populations are manipulated by us rather than nature. Webster has been brought up, as have Wingra and Bone lake. All three lakes have been stocked to maximum carrying capacity. Webster, whom someone cited for growth, has I believe Ohio/KY strain fish in it? but regardless of strain, has a large population of shad. And those 50's? They may not be so common in the next 10 years, sorry to say. Pioneer populations always perform at the maximum of their genetic capability due to low stress and disease levels and maximum growth opportunities. Hard to compare apples and oranges. Lots of factors go into maximizing growth and almost anyplace that has abundant quality forage will grow big muskies if they have time and good water quality. Wingra, with some water quality problems and a maximum depth of less than 12 feet over all but a few acres is never going to be putting out numbers of 50 inch fish, but can offer SPECTACULAR FISHING FOR SMALLER FISH AT TIMES. Comparing Webster and Bone is once again apples and oranges. Comparing Webster in the future to Webster in the past will also not be a fair comparison. Good fishing has population, and growth costs to the resource. I think everyone needs to answer the question as to WHY we would have slot limits? #1 Is it to increase the genetic incidence of large fish in the breeding pool? #2 Is it to make the big fish available through more seasons? #3 Is it to "de-stress" abundant populations, allowing for more rapid growth of the remainder? My answer would be that it seems obvious that #1 and #3 don't make any sense at all for populations maintained primarily by stocking, and #2 could be more easily implemented by simply raising the size limit. So, to me #2 never makes any sense, only leaving #1 and #3 as options, and then only on waters either supported primarily or totally by natural reproduction, or waters forming the reproductive stock for hatcheries(brood fish lake). Now we kind of have arrived at the question of a 20 year old 32 inch fish(probably male) in Tiger Cat flowage, and does the state of WI want to spend a lot of time and money trying to change this fishery, and another question, is this fishery broken? My guess would be NO to both questions. Theoretical history is interesting but not neccessarily truth, and fish populations today may not actually be a picture of what they once were. I think however that these "lost gene theorists" are as much on unproven ground as are those they accuse of not even knowing there is a problem. Hard deal to sort out. Quite a different fishery historically than what exists now. And though we might have all these fantasies about what the fishery COULD BE, it might just be that, a fantasy. Super fish have never been common, even in undiscovered populations. Extremely hard job I think to grow superfish in the face of fishing pressure. I really think there are a lot of questions unanswered in this whole equation and don't really think that slot limits are going to answer them. Also I am unsure that there IS a genetic problem. NOBODY has actually even been able to document anything that would support that yet. As far as stocking strains, hey, lets go with the biggest, cheapest to raise and easiest to maintain, but when we start changing genetics of the natural reproduction we have to take a long look before leaping. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |