Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Define the Problem with the Wisconsin Musky fishery? |
| Message Subject: Define the Problem with the Wisconsin Musky fishery? | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok, I have read through the transcript from last wed. chat. Great discussion, sorry I couldn’t make it. I will try this week but it will depend on what time I play B-Ball. I think many important points where made and I thought it may be a good idea to start a thread devoted to Steve’s first bullet – Define the Problem with the Wisconsin Musky fishery? So lets hear them, what is everyone’s opinion on what the problem is with the Wisconsin Musky Fishery? I think it’s important to focus on the big picture here and not define every little issue that affects the fishery, ie. spearing, single hooks, meat hunters, etc. but what is the problem we as a group want to correct? In my opinion I see two problems, the first and this one I am convinced is a problem is LACK OF TROPHY FISH. I don’t think anyone can argue that this isn’t the case and probably the problem the majority of “musky” fishermen want addressed. The second problem that may or may not exist, and this is where we will need help from the biologist is lack of numbers. How does the Wisconsin musky fisheries stack up to our neighboring states on a fish per acre basis. I think this is important as size of lake shouldn’t matter, fish per acre should. Now some lakes have the biomass to support a larger fish per acre number but I am talking averages here. How does our fish per acre stack up. So what do the rest of you think, what are the major problems we want to correct. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | my opinion, and thats all it is, is my opinion!!! i dont expect anyone or everyone to agree with me at all. 1. spearing of musky it has got to be either a. done away with (doubtful it will happen) b. regulated somehow c. reduced somehow 2. raise the size limits. higher size limits will equal less fish killed. a size limit is not meant to set the limit to kill a fish it is set to protect fish within it. 3. educate people on cpr. this is a broad topic it goes from junior catching his 1st musky to the old school guided keeping or letting clients keep fish. a. nobody wants to stop the kid from killing his first musky saying its wrong. my son watched his first musky swim away with no ambitions of killing it and he felt great the rest of the day!! theres always photos and replicas. b. the old school guides (not all of them) are a huge problem they still use single hook rigs, they will not deter people from killing a legal musky. c. anyone wanting to keep their first musky..with the advancement of digital photos and replicas have come such a long way this makes no sense d. get tackle shops to do away with the coolers and kept fish contests and do more to promote cpr. e. teach people correct cpr techniques is there a book out yet??? f. single hook rigs vs. quick strikes...well thats a whole nother topic again just my opinions | ||
| MikeHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 2427 Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | 1. To many people killing fish 2. To many guides don't make Catch and Release manditory 3. People still using swallow rigs 4. To many people making excuses for Little Johnny, Grandpa, Suzie, ect.... for why it is alright to keep a fish I see WAY to many dead muskies when I am up there. When I see people killing 47's, 48's 50+ inchers from lakes that are 500 acres and WAY LESS, that is why the trophy fishery has gone bye bye. People need to release these fish, not just 80% of them, but the BIG FISH so they can make BIG babies. Edited by MikeHulbert 1/4/2005 9:52 AM | ||
| muskycore |
| ||
Posts: 341 | My issues. I never see DNR on the water policing. How can you regulate rules with no presence? Need a 50'' Size limit. Trolling class A lakes should be permitted. It's just another tool when casting is not possible. It's also not helped WI compared to other states recoup numbers or size. Dumb rule!!! Now that other states have better muskie fishing, maybe that will help Wisconsin recouperate it's fisheries from 40 years of fishing pressure from neighboring states and locals. It's a mix bag now with many states to choose from. | ||
| greenduck |
| ||
Posts: 354 | Just some off the wall thoughts. Is there a problem? How is it defined? The only problem I seem to consistently hear from people is that it should be EASIER for me to catch a 50" fish? Why? Why should it be easier? Isn't that part of the mystery and challenge of this sport? How fun will it be if you could obtain your goal of trophy class fishery which allows a relatively easy capture of a 50" fish? Which fish or experiences do you cherish the most? This past year for instance I was fortunate to catch a 44" Wisconsin fish with a whopping 21" girth. This was a really nice fish and I worked for two months on this Wisconsin Lake to catch her. Do I regard that experience with less fondness than the two LARGER fish I caught on LOTW this summer? I do not. Are we making an assumption that the environment can and should be maniuplated to produce these fisheries you desire? Year after year we see results which suggest that this goal is not easily obtained, if even possible at times. Lakes are individual systems with specific forage, spawing habitats, water quality, strains of fish, etc. Should those things be maniuplated so that Joe Blow can see and catch larger fish? Are any of you aware of the recent reports of the near total collapse which is occuring on Lake Michigan. Man introduced alewife, by accident, and later salmon and some trout. Now the whole system is dire straits. On top of all of this we have numerous 50"+ fish caught every year out of the Chippewa Flowage, Wisconsin River, Pewaukee Lake, Bay of Green Bay, Fox River, Pelican, etc. Clearly, having traveled the past three years to LOTW, Wisconsin's waters are much different and the quality of angling experience is as well. I'm just in favor of making cautious and slow changes when dealing with the environment. Evidence of the likelyhood of success needs to be present as well. I do realize that there are success stories out there, Shawano Lake is quickly becoming one, but there has been a lot of wasted money and efforts as well. It seems that the best musky waters in the world have one thing in common. The vast majority of them are waters which have the ability to naturally reproduce fish. There appears to be plenty of evidence at times suggesting that stocking, size limits, etc. can alter and improve fisheries at times but it isn't an automatic assumption one should make. There may be a few exceptions but the habitat must be present and protected. If this is the type of suggestion your thinking of then I strongly support it. These are just some random thoughts. It is clear that Wisconsin fishing isn't what Minnesota, Indiana, and Canada is experiencing. Each of these places are unique with their own histories, public perceptions, etc. What works for these places won't necessarily work here. Sometimes I wish it was that easy. Especially on those tough days where you wish you were in Canada versus Caldron Falls. I'm just thinking out loud here. Thank you for letting me share some of these ideas. Bill C. aka the greenduck | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | another feeling i also have is a more aggresive stocking program by the dnr. i think they are really missin the boat with musky fishing. they always seem to be one step behind everyone else where i feel they should be one step ahead. | ||
| FredJ |
| ||
Posts: 145 Location: Eau Claire, WI | Our main problem as I now see it is that we have far too little fish in the system that are capable of reaching trophy size. As short as a year ago I would have said that higher size limits would be the number one priority, but if we don’t have enough fish capable of growing to large sizes then higher size limits are mute. Bob Benson’s ideas in the genetics thread make a lot of sense to me. If we are taking our eggs for rearing from a system that has trouble producing quality sized fish then that is what we should expect from their offspring. If we could however, get eggs and milt from larger males and females then we should expect that their offspring at least have the genetic capability to reach trophy sizes. It is working in Minnesota and I cannot see why it isn’t worth a try here in Wisconsin. The problem may be where are we going to find these large fish to strip eggs and milt from? Perhaps the Wisconsin River system? | ||
| FredJ |
| ||
Posts: 145 Location: Eau Claire, WI | Another piont to be made is that changing where we harvest eggs and milt would not have to go through the conservation congress for approval. Any of you who have been to these meetings know how fast good ideas can go sour with open public input. I have lost confidenance in the Conservation Congress system. We have paid professionals in the DNR whose hands are sometimes tied by politics. | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2753 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | The problem is we (the citizens of Wisconsin) need to let the WDNR fisheries biologist's manage the fishery for the best interests of both the environment, and the fish. In the end we all will win. We pay these highly trained/skilled scientists to take care of our aquatic natural resources and then we handcuff them with politics and the " Wisconsin Conservation Congress meetings every spring". Come on this is ludicrous. Obviously the biologists don't like single hook swallow kill rigs. I suspect that everyone of them takes great pride in doing a good job, we just need to let them do it. Sure some lakes need larger size limits, conversely some need smaller. It's your choice where you want to fish based on whatever are your personal goals. I've fished LCO & Grindstone & never saw a fish. But I had a great time hunting. Why, because I think they can still produce a trophy fish. Now I have a new bag of tricks for the next trip. Sure spearing is viewed as not a good thing- but it's another method of fishing that's legal for Native American's - I think the Wisconsin Native American's care about the resources and don't deliberately set out to damage them, i.e., that would be counter to their cultural heritage of living with their environment. Historically the "white man" has really assaulted the Wisconsin environment. What happened to the northern white pine forests, forest bison, elk, etc. etc? it's time to stop using the Native Americans as an excuse. They were living in harmony with their environment long before the first whiteman set foot in this state. Pollution, political garbage and greed are the biggest offenders. In the end the WDNR- needs to be empowered to do the right thing for the entire state...... Do they need permission from us every year as to what the right things are for the coming year? I don't think so. If I had to work under the same restraints in my daily job, I would be miserable. Fortunately my manager's recognise my expertise and let me do the job they are paying me for, in the long run I add value to the company bottom line. I see this situation as a major obstacle for our DNR staff and sucessfull management of our natural resources. Do we need more DNR enforcement- without a doubt yes! However, we need to fund it. To enforce the regulations you need the staff. One way is increased license fee's. Something I think is really necessary. Look what's happening to the Muskie fishery in Illinois- Politicians raiding the sources of funding. Licensing fee's are paid by sportman to utilize the resources. Those revenues should be retained for exclusive use of the DNR to manage the resources. You get what you pay for! Just my 2 cents worth. Al Edited by ESOX Maniac 1/4/2005 11:41 AM | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | to keep it simple....the Conservation Congress, let's let the Biologists do thier job. I believe that the idea of Joe Angler having a voice is a good idea, I just feel as though the CC has too much clout. | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| WI musky management needs to be improved and we should figure out some way to help with strategy, direction, stocking support, and stocking funding working directly with the WDNR! Have higher size limits, but vary them by lake class which we already have discussed Negotiate spearing quotas or slot limits avoiding monster fish being harvested but more smaller fish being kept Let biologists, the WDNR make all decisions regarding lake and river management Educate the entire fishing community about muskies, what they really eat, and the benefits of catching and releasing all muskies Promote the trophy potential of new waters just emerging as worthwhile such as Green Bay Actively protect spawning areas from development Stock areas aggressively where natural reproduction can occur, and more aggressively where it can't | |||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2753 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | GMG- Joe angler has been heard every year in the CC, the same motivation drives these folks to participate in the CC every year, that motivation has also put us into this debate- greed. I'm tired of hearing that WI has no trophy muskie, that's crap. The folks that subscribe to that theory couldn't find a trophy fish if it was swimming in their backyard pool. Can our waters be better managed- most certainly! Right now they are being managed via the input from your average Joe Angler in the CC meetings. How many of the folks in those rooms raising their hands and voting down muskie size limit increases on specific lakes, actually fish or even fish those waters? That's the problem- Mix multiple resource issues into a meeting where the vast majority are there to guard their own special interests. Most of them were probably deer hunters. The problem with the CC is it's not working! The averge Joe Angler knows squat about management of aquatic bio-diversity. All they care about is their stringer at the end of the day. What's a trophy? Is a 50" muskie a trophy? To my 9 year old granddaughter the 27" northern pike she got & CPR'd this summer was a real trophy. She caught that while fishing on the same spot where I've caught numerous muskies, including a 44" this year. I also lost a +50" fish in the same spot. Hopefully, this year she'll tag that +50 fish and get to release another trophy. If all you fish for is "trophy + 50" muskies" and you can't find them, it's easy to blame the WDNR biologists and poor management. That's also crap, I think people with that problem need to focus their efforts on improving their own fishing skills. Hah! Fish of 10,000 casts, yes on some days and under a lot of circumstances for the vast majority of anglers that may be true. Is that the WDNR biologist's fault, my fault or the individual angler's fault? I submit it's the angler's fault. I agree with Steve Worrall and a lot of others on this forum that education is the best tool, for both improving your skills as a fisherman and protecting the resources. If you have an illness, do you go to the doctor and tell him how to treat it? That's what's happening here in Wisconsin. Ok, perhap's as a collective group we would like to see more & bigger muskies. I'm sure there a lot of other specie's anglers who would say nay to those goals. Those same idiots abuse the resources they are using and blame the poor walleye fishing or pan fishing on the muskies eating all the walleye's, etc. Why are all the walleye's they catch dinks under the legal size. I've talked to guys that catch 50 - 100 walleyes a day without catching a keeper. They keep every keeper over 15" and they fish everyday, 7 days a week.......... I know I've seen it! Where are all the keepers? In their freezers. Jeez, they think those muskies must be just gobbling down those 5 - 10 lb walleyes versus those 10- 15 inch walleyes.... . The same is true of the pan fisherman- catch a limit in the morning, come back in the afternoon get another. Then comment to me how the muskies are eating all the bluegills & crappies. These same as$hloes are also sitting in the CC meetings voting against improvements in muskie management. In my mind the CC is a waste of the taxpayers money and a disservice to the State. Ok- Now I've vented my frustrations with this whole issue - Not enough enforcement out there? A warning to the resource abuser's - "The WDNR TIPS hot line is programmed into my cell phone. Doe's anyone have information or contacts for volunteering or assisting WDNR staff with projects like spring egg collection, surveys, whatever? "We must be the change we want to see in the world" Mahatma Ghandi Al | ||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | I think what we're trying to say here is that we need to come up with a well defined plan to manage WI musky fishery to its fullest potential. I think this can be done as it has with other fisheries in the state. Look at the stream trout fishery in WI. They have a comprehensive plan to manage each section of stream to maximise the growth potential in that individual watershed. The plan even includes detailed goals for stocking and maintaining the water quality of the stream. I don't think this would be as difficult to do with the musky fishery as it was for trout, but I would like to see the DNR come up with a comprehensive plan to manage the musky resource using some of our input. The watersheds will need to be evaluated and put into different classes simiar to the trout stream catagories based on their potential to either provide an "action fishery" or a "trophy class fishery". This has already been done to some extent with the designations of Class A, B & C waters. Then there needs to be size restrictions or slot limits put in place for these different catagories so that the muskies in each class of water can begin reach their potential. I would like to see the plan include goals such as, stocking goals, quality and strain of the broodstock, watershed protection, monitoring of the progress of the fishery, public relations and education. I read in another post where the logic behind the 34" size limit was to have the limit set to where a female musky could be expected to spawn one time before being harvested. That is no longer acceptable. The size limits need to be set to allow the fisheries to reach their full potential. There are a few different classes of lakes througout the state with different size limits already in place. Lakes where muskies are overly abundant have 28" size limit (Tiger Cat), Some counties have a county wide 40" size limit (Forest), 45" in The Chip and Wi river, 50" in 3 Hayward lakes and GB. These four classes would be a good place to start and I think the slot limit idea should be tried as well. Goals like this will give us a real chance to improve the musky fishery here. I think this is an excellent post to gather ideas for fishery improvement. Grass, | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I want to make sure that my opinion is clear, I don’t believe that there are no trophy fish in Wisconsin, there are. I believe given the history and the quality of our lakes there could and should be more. Because of poor fishing practices our lakes are not living up to their potential. As Grass has stated lets get it closer to this potential. Do I think it should be easier to catch a trophy fish in Wisconsin, yes I do. (the Wisconsin DNR defines a trophy musky as being over 50”) I still enjoy every fish I catch, but why should it be easier to catch a trophy fish in Mn, or Ontario when our lakes have the potential and it is poor fishing practices that are keeping them down. For example in the last 6 years my five best fish ranged from 46 to 51 inches. All but one, a nice thick 48 ½ incher, came from LOTW. In that 6 years I spent a total of 1160 hours fishing Wisconsin waters and 340 hours fishing LOTW. I spend a lot of time every year on Wisconsin trophy water, it shouldn’t be that hard to get one here. Nail A Pig! Mike P.S. I use the term Fishing Practices a number of time, I choose that over management practices as many people tie management to the DNR when the DNR does not make the rules, the CC does. The poor fishing practices in my opinion, are the spearing, gut hooking, keeping of small fish, and other things bad for the population that have been mentioned. | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | I'm packing today to head on the road for the musky shows tomorrow. I'll try to keep an eye on this discussion as much as possible and would appreciate the opportunity to talk to any of you who are at the shows. I think overall we have a common goal of an improved musky fishery in Wisconsin however you define that. We just need to narrow down some realistic goals and a plan of action. I'm all for it and will help any way I can. If you are at any of the upcoming shows, stop and see me at the Guide's Choice Pro Shop Booth. I've already been in contact with a couple of you and want to be involved in further action on this. Thanks to all for your contributions and thoughtful comments. | ||
| Jason Smith |
| ||
| My simple answer to the question.."Define the problem with the Wisconsin Musky Fishery? There is too many people that actually think its good....lets face it the glory days are gone and it only has a spark every once in a while. If folks thought it was bad the 50" size limit on Vilas county lakes would have passed, but it did not even come close to passing. Wisconsin needs to wake up out of the History of Hayward and understand our musky fishery is getting worse every year. MN woke up..  | |||
| Beaver |
| ||
Posts: 4266 | I'd have to say that the number 1 thing for me is the "guaranteed mortality" that happens every spring. You can't release a fish that's had a piece of steel rammed through it's skull. Then there's the winter "harvest". I've seen it personally back when it first began. My Lake X, and spearers out every night for a week, even though they had their walleye quotas already. Big, fat fish over 45" and up past that. Loaded with eggs that would have hatched and died of old age by now, and no body at the landing to check them. I know we can't change it, but we have to keep trying. I'll spend a few weekends in Wisconsin, but when it comes to vacations, I'll be in MN......and not just for the muskies. I think that their DNR has their $hit together when it comes to fish management. I have an easy answer.....stop killing the fish. It's as easy as that. But until that becomes law, you won't see any strides being made. This isn't an overnight thing. I just hope that my kid has it better. Beaver | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I would have to say my biggest complaint is lack of BIG fish. I have fished a TON the past 5 years and have yet to even catch a 40 incher. I have only seen 2 fish bigger than 40" also. There is a few lakes\rivers I fish that has an unfishable population of muskies in them and the DNR told me they will not stock them because it would upset the pan fisherman. You have got to be kidding me! They can't put in a few hundred fingerlings every 5 years cause the pan fisherman will get pissed? Give me a break! My | |||
| Muskydr |
| ||
Posts: 686 Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | Please don't compare The fisheries of Minnesota and Wisconsin and the biological principles, and management practices and all of the other mumbo jumbo! You could stick every #*^@ lake in Oneida county and probably toss in a few from Vilas and you will not come up with the water footage of Mille Lacs alone. Why do I go to LOTW over 20 years or visit Minnesota now?? To better my odds at a BIG fish, simple answer!! If you really really think that slapping a 50 inch size limit on many lakes in WI is the answer, I just have to shake my head and disagree. Stock more fish, preserve more habitat, these are WAY more important than slapping a goofy high size limit, why not 54 instead of 50. Just a few thoughts......... | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Is there a problem with the WI muskie fishery? Well that depends on what your expectations are. I expect to be able to put more 50” fish in my boat than I can now so for me the answer is obviously yes there is a problem. I dug up some info that may be of interest to some people and will hopefully get more people questioning whether or not WI could do a better job of managing our muskies, especially for trophy fish. Most of this info relates to the Hayward area and NW WI where I have spent nearly all of my 20+ years of musky fishing. Most of the following info is based on Muskies Inc. records. A total of only 4 50” fish have been reported to M.I. in the last 5 years from 3 lakes in the Hayward area which have had a 50" size limit on them for more than 5 years now. Grindstone - 0. Namekagon - 2. Lac Court Oreilles - 2 There were 5 fish over 45” reported from Grindstone lake in the 9 year period from 1986 - 1994 (pre 50” size limit). In the following 10 year period from 1995 - 2004, which includes the 50” size limit that was implemented there, there has only been 4 fish over 45“ reported there. No 50” fish ever reported. There were 4 50” fish reported from Lake Namekagon in the 6 year period from 1984 - 1990 (pre 50" size limit). In the following 14 year period from 1991 - 2004, which includes the 50" size limit that was implemented there, there has only been 2 50” fish reported there. There were only 2 50” fish reported from Lac Court Oreilles in the 6 year period from 1992 - 1997. In the following 7 year period from 1998 - 2004, which includes the 50” size limit that was implemented there, again there has been only 2 50” fish reported there. So is the 50” size limit working? Does not look like it to me. High size limits make no sense and will make no difference if the fish we are stocking can’t grow that big to begin with. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Round Lake (Sawyer Co.) in the last 11 years. Last 50” fish reported was 12 years ago. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Whitefish lake in the last 16 years. No 50” fish ever reported. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Sissabagama in the last 12 years. Last 50” fish reported was 14 years ago. There has only been 6 fish over 45” reported from Lost Land / Teal Lakes in the last 12 years. Last 50” fish reported was 13 years ago. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Spider Lake in the last 18 years. Last 50” fish reported was 25 years ago. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Lake Winter in the last 8 years. No 50” fish ever reported. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Lake Hayward in the last 9 years. Last 50” fish reported was 9 years ago. The only fish over 45” ever reported from Moose Lake was 18 years ago. No 50” fish ever reported. 66% of all waters in Sawyer Co. have never had a fish over 45” reported. The only fish over 45” ever reported from Butternut Lake was 31 years ago which is also the only 50” fish ever reported from there. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from Shell Lake in the last 14 years. No 50” fish ever reported. There has only been 1 fish over 45” reported from the Eau Claire Chain of lakes (Bayfield Co) in the last 18 years. Last 50” fish reported was 18 years ago. In the last 10 years the number of fish over 45" reported from all waters in Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn counties has declined by 11% when compared to the previous 10 year period. In the last 10 years the number of 50" fish reported from all waters in Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn counties has declined by 12.5% when compared to the previous 10 year period. There has been a total of only 36 50” fish reported from all waters within Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas, Sawyer, and Washburn counties over the last 20 years combined, compared to a total of 41 50” fish reported from Lake Vermilion, MN in 2004 alone, and 37 50” fish reported from Lake Mille Lacs, MN in 2004 alone. In 2004 there was a total of 15 50" fish reported from the entire state of WI. In 2004 there were 3 lakes in MN that each had more 50” fish reported from them than all waters in WI combined. In 2003 there were 120 50" fish reported from MN. In 2003 there were only 5 50" fish reported from WI. In the 10 year period from 1986 - 1995 WI reported more 50" fish than MN…….WI - 51. MN - 37,…….but then in the following 5 year period from 1996 - 2003 MN reported more 50" fish than WI…….MN - 438. WI - 65. Why such a change? The MN DNR made some changes in the mid 80’s and it took about 10 years before the results started showing up. I believe M.I. data provides a very good representation of the status of our fisheries. I believe M.I. records are just as reliable or even more so than the surveys done by the DNR for determining the status of our fisheries. M.I. records usually provide a much larger sample size of data on actual catches from WI lakes than what the DNR uses. M.I. records are of actual fish being caught from that lake. No stories at the boat launch by pan fish and walleye fishermen about the big musky they encountered that must have went over 50” and 50lbs. In 2004 I finally decided to go to MN and see first hand what I knew was going on there for years now. In 2004 I spent most of my time musky fishing in MN, however the amount of time I did spend fishing in MN in 2004 was considerably less time than I normally have spent in a season fishing the Chippewa Flowage. In 2004 I put more fish in my boat while fishing in MN than I have ever put in my boat in any 1 season fishing the Chippewa Flowage. In 2004 the average size fish in my boat from MN waters was 43.4”. The best average size in my boat from WI in any one season was 39.8” which is also my best average size for any one season in more than 20 years of fishing on the Chippewa Flowage. I had only 2 fewer fish over 45" in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 than I have had in more than 20 years of fishing the Chippewa Flowage combined. I had 1 50" fish in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 compared to no 50" fish in my boat in over 20 years of fishing the Chippewa Flowage combined. I had only 2 fish under 40" in my boat while fishing in MN in 2004 compared to no fish over 40" in my boat while fishing in WI in 2004. I hope more people soon come to the same conclusion that a few of us have. If I am ever in my lifetime going to get to enjoy the same type of quality fishing in WI that MN has to offer, WI needs to make the right types of changes right now to improve our trophy fishing and get it up to its full potential. I don’t care who’s responsible for WI’s trophy muskie fishing not meeting my expectations. What matters most to me is if, when, and how WI is planning on improving its trophy fishing so I won’t have to keep traveling out of state to find waters that do meet my expectations. We can learn from what worked for MN to produce a lot more trophy fish. What did MN do to produce such staggering results? In the mid 80’s the MN DNR decided concentrate their efforts on collecting all eggs and milt that are used for stocking from only large fish that have the genetics to grow large and grow fast. They did studies to see what fish grows big and fast. They created brood stock lakes with protective size limits to protect those genetics and these large fish they would strip eggs and milt from to use for stocking. And now 20 years later, look at what they have. Arguably the finest trophy musky fishery anywhere on the planet. Definitely the most improved trophy musky fishery anywhere. And its not just good numbers of 50” fish either because there are tons of fish of all sizes in most of these lakes in MN. They have both great action and numbers of trophy fish all within the same lakes. What they have done has shown no evidence of any negative effects of any kind. High size limits are not even needed for MN to produce the huge number of 50” fish its producing. Only the brood stock lakes have size limits over 40”, yet nearly every lake in MN with fish that were stocked from eggs and milt taken from these large fish in these brood stock lakes, pumps out numbers of 50” fish every year regardless of the lake size, depth, forage type, location etc…..where ever they plant them they get big fast. WI could be doing the same thing and have a lot more trophy fish within 10 years if we start today. Thats what I would really like to see happen so I can enjoy the results in my lifetime. But we have to demand the necessary changes needed or the WI trophy musky fishery will either continue to decline or at best remain where it is at now. In my opinion WI’s trophy musky fishery is on the decline and has been for quite some time. The lakes we have with the designated 50” size limits are not producing more 50” fish than they historically have produced in the past. If we want 50" fish we must stock fish with the genetics capable of growing to 50”. Increasing size limits to 50” won't help if the fish being stocked are not genetically capable of growing that big to begin with. I believe this is main reason our lakes with 50” size limits are not producing more 50“ fish. I believe we would see a lot more 50” fish in WI even without these high size limits, just like MN, if we would only use fish with the genetics to grow to 50” when collecting eggs and milt for stocking. Increasing size limits and changing regulations is a tough sell and has shown little or no improvement in WI where it has happened. If we focus on the genetics of the fish being used for stocking we may not have to change any regulations to greatly improve WI‘s trophy fishing opportunities. Some people here believe its unfair to compare Lake Vermilion or Mille Lacs to WI waters because “you could stick every #*^@ lake in Oneida county and probably toss in a few from Vilas and you will not come up with the water footage of Mille Lacs alone.” OK fair enough. Then please try to explain to me why Lake Miltona MN at 5,800 acres produced more 50” fish in 2004 than the entire state of WI? Good luck! Some people here believe that If I can’t catch a 50” fish on the “quality” WI waters that I’ve spent 20 years fishing then I must be a poor fishermen. Well then John Detloff as well as some other guides must be as crappy as me and a lot of others because he has never caught a 50" fish from the Chippewa Flowage or any place in WI either. But why in 1 year on MN water that I am unfamiliar with was I able to put more fish in the boat than I could in any year from the Chippewa Flowage? Why did I catch a 50” fish in 1 year in MN but never in 20 years in WI? Why did I see more fish over 50” in 1 season in MN than I have in 20 years in WI? Why do I have only 2 fewer fish over 45” in my boat after 1 year in MN than I have in 20 years on the Chippewa Flowage? I must have just gotten lucky I guess. I can’t wait to see how lucky this crappy fishermen is next year in MN. The explanation is simple. Its genetics. Ask the MN DNR. Is there a problem with WI’s muskie management program? Well that depends on what each individual wants and desires. I want and desire WI to produce more trophy fish, more trophy fishing waters, and trophy opportunities in WI than we have today. More 50” fish, period! I do not want or desire WI to keep creating more opportunities for more dinks. If your happy catching dinks with no real good chance at a 50“ fish that’s a shame but its your choice. Here is my thinking on this. What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing without making any regulation changes or the least amount of regulation changes if they are needed? What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing with the least amount of opposition by the general public at the conservation congress hearings? What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing that would not require a vote by the general public at the conservation congress meetings? What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing that is least likely to be perceived as a negative by the anti musky and non musky fishing folks? What changes could WI make to its muskie management program that could improve our trophy fishing other than changing or raising size limits? Ok...I'm out of breath now. | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | Lockjaw, I would not put as much faith in the Muskies Inc. stats as far as Wisconsin is concerned. There are a lot of fish of all sizes that go unreported. Up until the recent reporting changes there were also an awful lot of fish that were not identified by location or only vaguely by county. I have a tough time using MI numbers as anything but annecdotal. | ||
| Steve Jonesi |
| ||
Posts: 2089 | Tradition leads to thick skulls.Thanks Todd. Steve | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Pete If I am not suppose to put much faith in the M.I. stats as far as Wisconsin is concerned does that apply only to WI? Should I apply this same reasoning and not put much faith in the M.I. stats for MN? If I do then the picture remains the same. What information should I put faith in? We and the DNR need something to go on to determine the status of our fisheries. Should I put more faith in stories that we and end up hearing 2nd and 3rd hand at the bar? Should I put more faith in the DNR creel and netting surveys that usually have only a fraction of the sample size of data from individual lakes? My own records and experience on the water over the last 20 years suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. The Hayward lakes M.I. tournament stats suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. The stats from the musky hunt tournaments held on the Chippewa Flowage suggests the M.I. stats are pretty accurate. There are definitely fish that go unreported from WI. There are definitely fish that go unreported from MN too. The percentage of fish caught that go unreported from these two states most likely is consistant. This would tell me that there are more large fish going unreported in MN than in WI. The end result is the same result we already came to. How many 50" fish do you think went unreprted in 2003 from WI? I doubt if 115 or 96% of the 50" fish went unreported in WI in 2003 which is what you would need to put WI at the same level for 50" fish as MN in 2003. Of course thats assuming that no 50" fish went unreported in MN in 2003. Not too likely. I put a lot of faith in my 20 years on the water and the results I have had which unfortunately tells the exact same story the M.I. stats tell me. M.I. stats still provides the largest sample size of data found anywhere for muskies. If I should not put any faith in the M.I. stats to determine the status of our musky fisheries then what info should I be using instead? | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| In the mid-eighties I fished an M.I. Chapter Challunge on the Chip. I did not prefish and had never fished the lake before. I caught 11 Muskies during the event. Impressed? Well of the 11, 4 were 28", 5 were 29", 1 was 30" and 1 was 31". Since the size limit was 30" at the time, it was pretty obvious to me what was going on there. Never have returned. | |||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | esox maniac made this quote, and im sorry to have to bring this up again, but too many people are shying away from the fact that the spearing is a major contributor to the poor fishing, i guess since theres nothing that can be done about it because its a legal issue people are trying to block it out. esox you stated....... "Sure spearing is viewed as not a good thing- but it's another method of fishing that's legal for Native American's - I think the Wisconsin Native American's care about the resources and don't deliberately set out to damage them, i.e., that would be counter to their cultural heritage of living with their environment. Historically the "white man" has really assaulted the Wisconsin environment. What happened to the northern white pine forests, forest bison, elk, etc. etc? it's time to stop using the Native Americans as an excuse. They were living in harmony with their environment long before the first whiteman set foot in this state. Pollution, political garbage and greed are the biggest offenders." i have a question for you....have you ever been at one of the boat ramps, or on a particular lake they are spearing at nite and actually seen what they have done??have you seen a dozen nice sized musky laying on the shore dead?? the outragous number of walleye taken? ive sen a good musky lake destroyed from spearing over the years. so much that the dnr had to do a new study to show the # of fish was greatly reduced so they would lay off the lake. im sorry for bringing up "another spearing post." but this is about wisconsin fishing and this is a problem there. i spent years on a particular body of water that they have definetly hurt. | ||
| 0723 |
| ||
Posts: 5171 | Wisconsins stocking program is pretty bad.Now on the southern lakes like Pewaukee,an Madsison chain where they stock consistantly, great fisheries.Harsh winters cold springs usually make for poor spawning years,stocking for musky is a must on some waters ever year.Does wisconsin dnr milk the eggs and bring them to a hatchery?Also too many trophy fish kept,alot of meat men in Wisconsin,cpr education is the key.0723 Edited by 0723 1/5/2005 8:05 AM | ||
| dogboy |
| ||
Posts: 723 | Right on handyman! There aren't any trophies left in wisconsin. everyone should go to canada and leave the little guys to me and handyman.  | ||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I am very cautious about getting involved in this because it is getting slightly volatile, but.... Wisconsin does have big fish in it......period. Does if have as many big fish in it as it could.....no! Are enough of the waters being managed for trophies......no! Is there a problem with catch and keep and spearing......yes. Wisconsin's fisheries are not dead, I catch a bunch of nice fish out of Wisconsin every year, do I think it could be better, absolutely. Call me greedy, call me selfish, but I think this is the biggest problem in Wisconsin. We are not optimizing our waters potential. I am not asking for a statewide push for nothing but trophy waters, but it would be nice to designate a couple of our ponds with that in mind. Here is my proposal. Instead of arguing genetics and all that other stuff, lets find some waters that are sustained through natural reproduction and see what the native strains can do. Pelican is one of those lakes. It is currently on the DO NOT stock list, and to be honest with you I am quite happy with that. The native strain fish in that lake has shown it can grow to fairly large proportions, as is evident by Steve's pet he keeps leashed to the island. Back to my point, if the DNR is not going to stock it (which by the way was supported by the Property Assoc.), let's do a better job of protecting these natural fish. Let's make sure they get a chance to successfully spawn a couple of times before they are in the harvestable (boy that hurt to type) size range. Let's guarantee that the lake can sustain itself, it will save the DNR money, hopefully increase the occurence of big fish, and genuinely make Norm happy. I use Pelican as an example just because I am very intimate with the lake. There is a wealth of lakes in WI that this example could work for. Just an idea. Edited by nwild 1/5/2005 10:06 AM | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | ya know all people are trying to do is throw out ideas and opinions, thats what the board is about. why individuals have to make stupid remarks, on a good winter topic of discussion is beyond me. this thread i thought was going quite well now i see it going sour. thanks guys!!! were all here for one purpose to make the musky world a better place. i dont think the propblem lies with anyone who posts on these boards. its the other people out there that we as a group need to get through too!! my email is [email protected] in case anyone wants to argue or is offended by anything i have said they can take it up personally with me instead of ruining a good thread. thanks | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | LockJaw’s post was excellent and Norm I think you nailed it WISCONSIN MUSKY WATERS ARE NOT BEING MANAGED TO OPTIMIZE THERE POTENTIAL. Are there any arguments that can be made that make that statement false? What proof do we have that this is the case? In my opinion the MI data, though it may be anecdotal, is relevant. As there is no reason to believe that MI members in Mn will report fish differently than people in Wi. Also my personal observations have shown the same thing. Is there anyone reading this who’s personal observations differ from the MI data? Another possible proof is history, why is it that with far greater numbers of people fishing Wisconsin waters far fewer trophy fish are being caught. If the lakes are just as good as they where in the past shouldn’t the number of trophy fish only rise with more people fishing? For the ones who think people who fish Wisconsin just need to fish better, and shut up. I will offer one more personal observation. In the last 6 years I have averaged approximately 1 musky for every 20 hours fishing Wisconsin. When I fish WI/MI border waters, MI waters and Ontario waters, I average 1 fish every 12 hours. That’s any musky any size. Again I’ll ask is there anyone reading this who has personal observations that are opposite of this, relating time on WI waters to other waters? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 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 |