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 -> How would you Vote on a Slot Limit? |
| Message Subject: How would you Vote on a Slot Limit? | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok lets see where this group of people stand and take a poll. If a slot limit was proposed for the same lake groups that the 50” limit was proposed on back in 2003 would you vote yes or no. Basically 10% of Oneida/Vilas lakes, all with trophy potential and natural reproduction. Just to give something to vote on, the existing minimum would stay at 34” but there would be a protected slot from 43” to 51”. Thanks Nail A pig! Mike | ||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Definitely vote yes for the slot! I like the way you are thinking Mike. I fish a few lakes for walleys that have slot limits, and I feel they have improved the fishery immensely! If the slot is between 15-18 goes back for walleyes, guess what size fish you catch. I would rather fish these lakes all day long and catch slotters the whole time than fish a lake without a slot and catch 50 14" walleyes when the size limit is 15". Hopefully the same would happen with muskies. | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | 100% onboard with this one.....Vilas is notorious for not wanting any regulations that tell tourists they can't take or do something, I'm suprised the size limit isn't 28" up there. Sooner or later they'll get the hint that true trophy potential can only be reached with conservation, a good biological plan and firm regs....hopefully it's sooner. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | NO! slot equals=Harvest! Thanx but NO Thanx! These are Muskys not bass and walleyes! | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| i agree, i think we're better off emphasizing the differences between walleye and muskies, not trying to make them look similar. i prefer the "lake-hopping" technique to raising limits. one at at time, and eventually you've got sea-change. the short-term benefits of a slot (ie., growing nice fish into trophies) would stand in the way of long-term efforts to get solid limits in place. | |||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | i voted yes!! id rather se the overall size limit changed.but that didnt work, and man they gotta do somthing, and if that something is a slot limit im all for it!!!! i wish to heck, they could cut a deal with chief yukamuck to cut the spearing totals in half too, i know they will never do away with it all together, but somthin has gotta change in the northwoods!!!!! | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The problem with not allowing a harvest is that it wont pass up there...never. The 50" limit (which is basically no harvest) was slammed down bad. A slot would allow anglers something. Believe me, I'm all for CPR, but I'm also for a guy keeping a legal if he wants. Slot limits work with the other species, why would'nt it work with Musky? | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| I'm for the proposed slot because it protects those big fish for one more inch than a 50" limit. I think that's more important than protecting any number of 36 inch fish. I'm not concerned with educating folks or "lake - hopping" size limits. There's no reason not to do the right thing for the fishery everywhere and as soon as possible. The non-believers will be "educated" after it works. Bob | |||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yes, slots do mean harvest to those who harvest. Since the 50" size limit didn't pass, evidently there are those who want to harvest. So now we go from wanting none to very, very little harvest to the harvesting of anything over the minimum size limit (usually 34" or 40"). Since we will never eliminate harvesting, lets try and control it. Hence the slot. The slot does not promote harvesting, but it does help eliminate some of the harvesting that is happening. In all essence, it is protecting the fish population that are prime breeders if the slot is done correctly. Anyway we can shrink the amount of harvesting the better. I would take a slot over a no slot. Just another example of how well slots work is Lake of the Woods and a Pike slot. From what I hear a few years ago there weren't a lot of big pike, but now look. With the slot in place there are a lot of pike in the upper 30's and 40's. I hear that the slot for the pike was one of the best things that could have happen. Perhaps someone from LOTW could pipe in hear and let us know what they think of the slot. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Keep pounding away for higher limits, seems like everyone wants to give up and just take a slot. I say leave it alone then ! It took Reefhawg and others 4/5 years for the 45" on the Wisconsin River, now thats forever! A HUGE step! I refuse to settle for a slot, and some I talked to said with a slower growing trophy fish(MUSKY) a slot leaves you a big chance of ending up year classes short on those systems. Then what, wait another 8/12 years and start all over again???? I cannot see anything good coming out of a slot and feel that will be a big step BACKWARDS for us Musky fisherman and the musky`s! PATIENCE IS A VERTUE!! LETS NOT CUT OUR OWN NOSES OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Size limits are proven to increase number of fish under a size limit, not over it. (Wi DNR has done numerous studies - Bass and Muskies both showed this result) Slot limits are proven to increase numbers of fish within the slot. (Admittedly no proof on Muskies, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't be the case here too) My question is whether this change is proposed to increase numbers of Muskies or numbers of Big Muskies? If it's for Big Muskies, I'm for the slot - unless you tell me the size limit is going further (say - 54") than the slot at 51". | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Some protection is better than none, hence my yes vote. Going to school at UWSP for natural resources, we were constantly told to think out of the box, not sit on our laurels, make change for good of all that will be met with some resistance, and hold steadfast to virtues of our conservation forefathers. I am for higher size limits, as most already know, but not really in favor of size limits that would allow fish to 'stack up' under the limit either, hence my opposition to total CPR or exorbitant limits like 54+. i am of the school of Conservation, not preservation, and feel harvest to some extent is neccessary for all game species of which muskies are one of. I worked with local DNR managers, and did much research before proposing 45" for the river here. My opinion is that the lakes up north would benefit from 45" limits immediately, and may be more acceptable to public than 50". We would already be seeing bigger fish today if 45" would have been proposed 4 years ago, and most here know that a fish over 45" becomes more difficult for non musky anglers to capture making the survivability potential to even larger sizes more real. I feel we should continue our pursuit for higher limits in northern counties, and possibly adjust the upper size to better suit the public. Trust me, 45" would be more readily acceptable, and will begin helping many of our fisheries immediatly. But, if we cannot make any headway going about it that way, I would support a slot limit on an experimental basis. Someone had to experiment with higher size limits, as we did with size limits on pike, seasons for bass, etc. etc. No, muskies are not Bass, or pike, or walleyes(thank goodness) but they too need to be managed for all of the public whether we like it or not, and we will not know if some of these management tools work unless they are tried. Bass, and walleyes are much easier to catch and an argument can be made that a slot would actually work better for muskies than walleyes. We have a slot on the WI river now, with the size limit at 15" and the slot of no keep from 20-28". If walleyes cannot make it to the slot, how will they be protected, if they are caught so easily? well, low and behold, some do make it, and us trophy hunters can be satisfied in the end. It may not ever be what it used to be due to pressure, but better? I think so. Last I checked, one could not go out and catch a stringer of muskies at will. Muskies are not readily caught like walleyes. If that were the case, we would see lakes with fish just stacked at 33", just like many 15" size limit walleye waters with fish stacked at 14.5". If they were that easy to capture, there would be very very few fish in the 40+" range now in our WI waters. The pressure is there, as everyone here knows. So how do any muskies survive? They are muskies, and even the best of us get schooled by them even in so called 'numbers' waters in optimum conditions at times. The size limit is already 34" correct? People can already kill fish from 34-? at their own will, so why not make a move to protect some of these fish? It would not put them into the same class as walleyes. It would not promote keeping any more fish, as the size limit is already at 34" and harvest of any fish of that size is already acceptable under WI statutes. The majority of kept muskies already falls in the 34-38" range, and allowing harvest of fish in that size range would not change things from the way they already are. It would simply put protection on the precious larger fish that we can't afford to lose and take so long to develope. If it was proven that year classes were missing(a valid argument worth studying), the conclusion would end the experiment. I have an idea that this would work where upper limits were shot down, but could also be totally wrong. Not doing anything is much worse than finding out we were wrong and having to simply go back to what we were doing, which is complaining about the 34" limit. Muskies are a renewable resource, and systems can be brought to health in short order, as exhibited by many newer musky waters in WI, and the newly stocked systems in MN and other states. As a last note I come from a family that growing up in the middle 70's, I got to watch my dad keep muskies that were over the 30" limit. We would party our rear ends off at the resort if we caught a good fish. Dad started to release fish on his own around 1984, and he hasn't kept one since. Things are so much better numbers wise in our lakes now, to the point that I'd bet many systems have higher densities than ever in modern fishing history. I am not sure some of the musky anglers here realize the extent of the harvest that used to take place regarding muskies. Even without special regulations we are so far advanced, from just a couple short decades ago, primarily due to Catch and release as promoted by musky clubs, and pioneering publications such as Musky Hunter. we are simply trying to fine tune our system nowadays, and make it even better. If none these regulations work, or are accepted, please just remind yourself once in awhile of the fine times we do live in. Some lakes are still rebounding from days of overharvest, while some have stagnated due to pressure, and incidental harvest. One thing to remember is to keep an open mind, and realize that we are all here for the better good(is that a term?) of musky fishing, and wouldn't be voicing opinions if we were not trying to make things better for ourselves and our children. Jason D. Schillinger Edited by Reef Hawg 12/17/2004 5:35 PM | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Can`t go there~ What about missing year classes, see it tons on walleye slots! Where has this worked on muskys?? What about years of preaching CPR?? There is no way I will ever vote for a slot, its proven that a high no-harvest limit is the way to get big fish, I beleive that has been proven. make it a slot and see the diaster unfold! | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Actually the missing year classes on walleyes are because of size limits like 15". Year classes above 15" become missing as is what happened on the river and many lakes up north. Slots are created to bring back those missing classes. we cannot compare the two species though, as muskies would not see losses in year classes with their catch rates and the bag limit at 1 fish. I am not doubting that high size limits will be helpful, and hopefully the public as a whole will take to them. But, if they do not, something else can help. It is just nice that we have so much diversity in lakes in WI upon which to experiment with different regulations to see what really does work. But, unluckily we all get to vote on DNR issues. We should not be allowed to vote on it, but we are. Hopefully some day, we will have a system in place for our managers to manage. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Jason, you just said it, its because the way the slots are. #*^@ near every eye dude knows the DNR should have lowered that 15" and is complaining about it. There in lies the problem, they know its wrong and are not doing anything about it. You want all the states musky`s in that situation? You worked so hard and so long on the 45" river, get a slot and thats gone, all those headaches for not! You know we agree to disagree all the time, that is what makes good friends, I am just surprized you would even take the chance of losing that 45" you and others fought so hard for????? I for one feel if Wisconsin as a whole takes the slot limit approach, we will be the laughing stock of the musky community period, and for myself being born and raised here, I would tend to agree! | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I am for higher limits first and foremost, and feel that is the best management tool. Would rather have them, and will keep working towards them, and only them till it is exhausted, or we get them into place over the board. I am not however, for sitting around when we can't get them passed. The problem on the river here is a totally different situation. The fishery has already been devestated due to overharvest, and fish are having a hard time getting into the slot. Luckily the musky population is not in those dire straits. a slot is not meant to repair, but help a good thing stay good, and improve. The walleye problem on the WI should have been addressed 20 years ago before it became a problem. If the slot on the river for the eyes would have been put into place in 1985 when my friend Brian(kronny) and his brother proposed it and the dnr laughed at them, the walleye situation would be alot better today. the slot would not allow as many fish on a certain lake to be kept that are currently being kept today. Edited by Reef Hawg 12/18/2004 7:15 AM | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20211 Location: oswego, il | I voted no on the slot for the lakes you mentioned. I don't think those are the lakes a slot would be most beneficial for, nor what a slot on muskies was intended for. As far as the numbers listed, I have never heard them kicked around before. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Todd, I just pulled those numbers out of the air to give something to take a poll on. I have never heard or seen any official numbers, as far as Iknow there is no offical plan. This is all speculation on a possible proposal to try and get some change done. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Spent the last couple days analyzing nearly 7000 Muskie catch records from Lake of the Woods (1987-2004). THE RESULTS WERE VERY INTERESTING!!!! (catch data taken from Red Wing Lodge website - the numbers of muskies produced on LOTW is staggering!) Amazing facts based on the nearly 7000 catches analyzed: Number 1: It seems that after the 54” size limit went into effect, there has not been an increase in the number of 50” fish caught. (the number of fish in the 45 - 50 inch range and 50 plus fish did increase greatly under the initial 48" size limit increase) Number 2: There has actually been a reduction in the number of 45 –50 inch fish caught since the 54” size limit went into effect. Number 3: There has been a Huge increase in the number of fish in the 30 – 40 inch range. Number 4: Even with the larger size Limits, 50 Inch muskies continue to be a smaller and smaller percentage of the Muskie fishery. What appears to be happening is that after Years of Harvesting only the larger fish on LOTW, that the genetics have piled up in favor of fish that take a long time to reach 40 inches, and possibly never reach 50 inches let alone 54 inches. As early as 1948 Robert Page Lincoln had noted the Muskies getting smaller in size on LOTW commenting: “When we first fished here 25 to 30 years ago (1918-1923) the species were very numerous and the taking of a 35 or 40 pounder was not considered unusual.” (I’ll acknowledge that there is the possibility of huge year classes coming through on LOTW – but I don’t know that to be the case as the fish are not yet progressing into the larger sizes.) It’s pretty simple – Muskies live to be 20 years old – Some much longer . By age 10 even most quality males should be 40 inches while most females should be 40 inches by age 7 and getting close to 50 inches by age 12. (The fish I would use grow faster than I have indicated here.) Eliminating harvest of the large females, I’d expect a 50/50 balance of Male to Female fish. Utilizing growth as indicated above, a healthy population of Muskies would have 25% of the population over 50 inches, 41% between 40 and 50 inches and 33% of the population between 25 and 40 inches. I have not included fish that are ages 3 years or less in this analysis. Before you shoot holes in this – Please note that the numbers match up well with what we see in Minnesota’s fisheries where female Muskies can and do average over 48 inches and males averaging close to 42 inches. Minnesota has done a great job we should all learn from, but even in Minnesota care must be taken – especially when it’s been noted that some Minnesota brood lakes now have 50 inch fish notably absent – due to over-harvest. It's interesting to note that in Minnesota there are no minimum size limits on any fish other than Muskies. They want you to keep the smallest fish. This is the size structure we should aim for in Wisconsin. It’s possible if we Stock the Right fish (via Selective Breeding or some other means) and balance that with a slot limit to allow harvest of the slower growing fish that have been documented. Not all Muskies grow to 40 inches, but we can stock Muskies that all grow to 40 inches if we want to. We need to choose wisely on the fish we stock and also choose wisely on the fish we protect. I'm more in favor of the slot limit everyday. I'd be in favor of a 42-54 inch slot on half our lakes with a 50 inch size limit on the other half. | |||
| GregM |
| ||
Posts: 1189 Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | MRoberts and Bob, good info, sparks my curiosity. With whatever the slot range ends up being....43-51 OR 43-54 OR whatever...., what would be the harvest requirements? with walleyes, you can keep so many under the slot (small fish), with usually one over the slot (a big one). Obviously we only want ONE muskie to be legally harvested (like it is now). IF a slot were put in place and the local current minimum length limit is 34", would one from 34" to (whatever, 41 or 43 or?) be allowed OR one over the high end? Or are you suggesting that ONLY one fish per day between the lenth of 34" and the lower slot length could be harvested, NONE over the high end.........make sense? thx much. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Bob, you have no basis to come to those conclusions. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, My feelings exactly. Catch logs from a resort, though interesting, do not necessarily indicate recruitment, overall populations, or ratio year class to year class. Although the information is interesting, it's far from conclusive and probably misleading for so many reasons they are too numerous to list at this point. The statement that genetics have 'piled up' in favor of genetically inferior fish is quite a conclusion, one that I am reasonably sure the Ministry would question. One needs be careful not to conduct 'research' with the intent to prove a point, no matter how noble the point might be. Bob has made a case for a slot limit harvest on LOTW, which isn't the issue and so far hasn't been the focus of the MNR up there, either. A concern: The reason behind the management technique is to ENCOURAGE harvest of the fish in the kill slot and FORBID harvest of fish smaller and larger. If that isn't our intent, the technique should not be considered. Announcing to the public that small muskies in half our lakes need to be kept isn't, in my very humble opinion, a good idea. In fact, if the encouraged harvest of the muskies in the slot is not part of the management goal then a slot limit shouldn't be in place. I don't feel there is ANY actual evidence that a 50" overall limit on certain waters as encouraged by our DNR would not work. Unfortunately, the areas where a similar limit is in place are limited, usually are totally self sustaining and generally speaking may not be comparable to our waters here, and do not have a long enough base line of information as to effect to reach any absolute scientific conclusion as the regulation is reasonably new. There also is no evidence that a slot limit would or would not not work; my question from the beginning is: If the management people in Canada and the US felt a slot would protect the muskie fishery, why is there none in place anywhere? I can personally speak to the fishing on Wabigoon, where the lake was closed to kill for several years , and then set at 54". Have I seen more monster fish? Yes. Is there an increase in numbers, overall? Yes. What does this mean for the future of the trophy fishery there? My opinion, it should be pretty good. Do I know for a fact there are more trophy fish there than ever? No. Just my observation a couple weeks a year. | ||
| marine_1 |
| ||
Posts: 699 Location: Hugo, MN | I think that raising the min to 40" would do much for the resource. Then supplement that by emphasizing catch and release. I can't believe that many musky fisherman over the age of 8 would get very excited about keeping a 34" fish. | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Marine-1, talk to Vilas co musky guides, you'll see it's not the 8 year olds who get excited about the 34", it's the lawyer or dentist looking for his first fish for the office wall. No matter which guide it is, they all promote CPR, but they all tell the story of clients agreeing to CPR and then catching a fish and keeping it. I don't blame folks for getting excited about catching a fish, especially thier first, because to them it looks huge. If I had the opportunity to do Vilas co guides brochures, I'd have pics of 34" and 45" and 50" all next to one another, then folks could listen to what the guide says and realize how small a 34" actually is. When I was new to this sport, if I visited a guide's booth and he had mounts of all three sizes and said..."Hey, this is what you could get", I'd see that a 34" isn't worth the mount. | ||
| dogboy |
| ||
Posts: 723 | Its tuff to say what a slot would do for our fishery, everyone looks at the fact you need big fish to produce little fish, but if those little fish are being yanked out when they reach the limit, how will they ever get big? I look at lake winnebago, I grew up on there for 14 yrs, and there used to be a size limit on walleyes of 15". Eversince they dropped it to no size limit, the quality of the fishery has gone up. ever year you do see a prevailing year class, but will catch a wide variety of sizes. when the 15" limit was in effect we would struggle to catch a keeper walleye, now it seems that we'll readily take home a 14" fish rather than a 20" just for a better eating fish. I know there still isn't a true 30" size class out on bago, but it seems now that filling a limit isn't a problem at all. I don't know how you could do the same with muskies though, you and I both know that everyone has there own opinion as to whats right for size limits and what is a trophy fish. But eventhough I won't keep a trophy, and will have a replica made, there might be a chance where someday you accidentally kill one and instead of being able to keep it, you have to watch it sink to bottom. I guess under no circumstance what so ever will the system be perfect, but as Jason said I would rather not sit back and complain about a 34" limit, but have some action take place to atleast try to better our fishery. I myself would love to see higher limits, I have seen what has transpired in the great lakes spotted stocking and just cannot believe the effect of a 50inch limit. someday it will be a world class fishery, but it takes time, and with other lakes it will take time to see results also, so lets get the ball rolling if people really want to see some big fish. | ||
| Boro |
| ||
Posts: 132 Location: Elkhart, IN | Mike, You should consider starting another poll thread to see who would vote for a 50" limit. Then compare the two polls. If the slot gets it's butt kicked I would think you can expect it to do much worse in actual voting. My guess is most here would be in favor of a 50" limit. We all saw where that went in the actual vote. I have always liked the idea of a slot. The comments that no fish will make it to the slot because they will all be kept is complete rubbish. Are there fish over 34" now? Of course there are. Maybe a slot should be proposed for one or two lakes only, the same with a 45" and 50" limit. Let the DNR decide the details for the slot. We will never know if a slot will work unless it's tried. We can all speculate and discuss what we feel will happen, but, we will never truly know unless it is tried. Brian | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Brian, I think amongst this hard core group of musky anglers the 50” limit would beat a slot 10 to 1. Heck I would choose the 50” limit. My feeling on the slot is it is a compromise between what we have now and what we want 50+” minimums. I feel a slot would do better amongst non hard-core musky angles because it allows “Little Johnnie” and “Joe Keepem” the chance to keep a few now and then, while still protecting more fish. Being able to keep some fish was the major concern of the people voting against the limit at the Oneida meeting. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | some facts: The 50 inch proposal was voted on in wisconsin and was beaten badly. It would be again voted down. The limit is now 34 on most wisconsin lakes. If we impose a 2% value on every inch up to 50 inches it protects 68% of those fish. If we add a protected slot of 40 to 50 inches that increases to 88% of the fish up to 50 inches. Now those of you whose cup is half empty let me say this. Instead of looking at slot limits and saying it encourages harvest. Look at it and say it helps promote how important those fish are and the more we can protect and release the better for the fishery. Some of you preach education is the answer and its part of it. This can be a great tool to use in musky education. Can anyone honestly say they would prefer to keep the limit as is instead of prtecting another 20% of the fish? I hope not. Happy Holidays to all and to all a very musky new year Don Pfeiffer | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why has everyone totally given up on larger size limits in Wisconsin? The DNR supported the concept on a group of lakes here, so they feel it's a good idea to try it. Why didn't it pass? The public wasn't properly informed, plain and simple. On the waters this was proposed, the 50" limit would be a great experiment. So it was voted down. Many other good ideas have been voted down, and later voted in as the public is educated to the need, positive economic impact, and other immediate and long term benefits. That is the process when you're trying to sell a concept that is broadly misunderstood, it takes some time to get the benefits out there in front of everyone. This isn't a dead concept unless we decide it is because we didn't succeed the first try. Giving up that easily just plain isn't normal behavior for most Muskie anglers. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Steve, You know why there are no slots in place for musky> NO ONE has pushed for it befor. It has been on the shelf. Now that the anglers see the value in it since it has been brought to light it should be tried. It cannot be said it will not work when most of the people I talk to feel it could work. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| 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 © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |