|
|
Posts: 12
| Must be those "remnants" that the WMRT speaks of. And yes, it sucks that Vilas County still runs the "Kept Division" (but of course things like a "kept division", a 34" limit, destruction of spawning habitat, single hook sucker rigging, spearing, they have nothing to do with the smaller fish everyone complains about...its ALL genetics!)
2005 Musky Marathon
Adult Released Division - Final Standings
(updated January, 2006) _______________________________________________________
1.
Mark Suess
Oshkosh, WI
09/16/05
53"
Vilas County Lake on a Top Raider (Bucher) Lure
Guided by: Michael S. Henke
2.
John A. Honkamp
Brookfield, WI
06/06/05
52"
Vilas County Lake on a Jig/leech Lure
Guided by: Bob McClellan
Anne Marie Miller
Richmond, IL
09/04/06
52"
Vilas County Lake on a Top Water (Dancin Raider) Lure
Guided by:
3.
Steve Lawrence
Edgerton, WI
08/20/05
51"
Plum Lake on a Bucktail (Bucher) Lure
Guided by:
John L. Grala
Lindenhurst, IL
10/3/05
51"
Lac Vieux Desert Lake on a Bucktail (Bucher) Lure
Guided by:
4
James H. McComas
Anchorage, AK
08/27/05
50"
Vilas County Lake on a Bucktail (homemade) Lure
Guided by:
Edited by Chocodile 2/19/2006 6:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| shhhhhhhhhh!
How about the guys that don't say anything due to the fact WI has 45687682 more Musky anglers than anywhere else?
Shhhhhhhh!
You can't use data from a Muskies Inc. log when so many members no longer put any information about big fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2091
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I agree, none of those are accurate. Look at how many 50's from WI were posted on MuskieFirst alone this past season. There are plenty of big fish in WI. |
|
| |
|
| But I also know many guides from MN that put more fish over 50 in in their boats in 2-3 weeks than are registered in the marathon for the season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Big fish in Wisconsin?
I might have to check that out, maybe I could find one sometime. LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | No big muskies in Wisconsin. Wow, someone better tell Pete Olson, Gare Myshack, Paul Klein, Phil Schweik, Steve Worrall, Jonnysled, Dennis Radloff and the entire crew of Badfish Outdoors. They must have gotten lost on their way to Minnesota and stumbled across northern pike with great tans. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's no question many if not most 50" plus fish from Wisconsin go unreported for fear of an exodus to that water, usually small, and easily hurt by increased pressure, but there's also no question the 'new' muskie waters of Minnesota are kicking out numbers of hogs, maybe comparing to the unspoiled and unexploited waters of the Chip back in Louie's day or Pelican in the early Suick days or before. Minnesota had better protect those fish, or they will be gone too, and fast. No more lakes are being 'created', so the dynasty may not last too long if the history of other areas with over exploitation is repeated there. It's already under way on some waters.
I saw a register of fish from a resort back in about 1963 the other day from the Chip. Near 100 fish but only a couple over 40, and only ONE over 50, a beautiful 54. Most were 30 to 36", and near ALL were harvested. What does that mean? |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the statement "many if not most" 50"ers in WI go unreported...while they may go unreported to say muskies inc or other clubs I believe most are heard of...reports of 50's get passed from friend to friend with the advent of the internet and email it takes a matter of minutes before alot of people know about them...
I'd be willing to bet a ton of dough that all the 50"ers in WI can't even top the 50"s from one of the big name lakes in MN...
Yes, WI does have some big fish but not anywhere near the shear numbers of big fish MN kicks out....As slow was the WI DNR seems to move I hope my kids are able to see a change in WI after we are all 6 feet under.... |
|
| |
|
| I could take the list of 50"s from one lake in MN say Leech, Cass, Mille Lac, Bemidji, Tonka, Vermillion and have 5-10 times as many 50"s. But hey if you want to beat your head against a rock in WI be my guest! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Presque Isle Wisconsin | NO doubt about the great fisheries in Minnesota and Canada,and its a wonderfull thing.Wisconsin is a different challenge and still a great place to muskie fish.Lots of smaller lakes that spread the pressure out and still plenty of big fish to be caught.!Last season 15 fish over 30 lbs were caught in a two week period on three area lakes in my neck of the woods and if anyone cares to challenge me on that Ill prove it.Yes its easier to catch a big fish in other areas for sure and thats a great thing for the sport.An average fisherman can catch the trophy of a lifetime in a relatively short period of time over there,but like I said its a different challenge here and maybe takes a better set of overall fishing skills in Wisconsin.So if you cant hack it head west or north.Forums like Muskie first will be in the forefront of improving the Muskie fishery here and Ill do everything I can to help them succeed.WE probably already have the next best chance at a true worlds record in Green Bay.My cleints last fish of the season ws a beauitful 491/4 inch fish that pushed 40#s.Took sixth place in the release division in O5.Caught by kent Szaleski Of MIlwaukee Chapter of Muskies Inc.Sorry for the rant....Just being a Homer. I dont quite understand the purpose of the original post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Presque Isle Wisconsin | A 491/4 fish cant be 40#s? Now the fish I mentioned probably weighed around 37#s as in pushing 40#.There is a picture on my web sight in the fishing reports section. Check it out. Fish was 491/4 by 24 what ever that works out to on the formula.Look at the fish at any rate and tell me it wasnt a trophy muskie.But what the hell do I know weight man? Ive only had a couple thousand of these things in my boat over 38 years of guiding.By the by that length measurement was done within the 20 seconds the fish was out of the water and was without a tail pinch.Like I said head west or north if you dont like Wisconsin fishing |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Go ahead and disagree, guest, but you are wrong. I know of 3 from a 200 acre lake CPR'd over 50, 4 from a 500 acre lake CPR'd over 50, and two from a flowage CPR'd all within a 10 minute drive of my house just last year. Two were posted to this website, a 50 and a 52. The others were not reported anywhere but amongst the folks locally as far as I can tell. Ask the folks over on Mille Lacs trying to find a place to launch some mornings why that might be that they go unreported on a lake you can swim across. I'd like to see pictures of them all, but I understand the 'why' of it.
DJS, relax, we're talking Wisconsin here, not Minnesota.
I know Pelican kicked out a few this year again, as did Minocqua and Tomahawk, as did MANY of the area waters. One just doesn't see many of those fish reported in MI or other contests much. Sure, I bet Mille Lacs equalled or beat the 50" class fish from my little area of the muskie world, and I also bet Mille Lacs doubles or triples the water surface area. |
|
| |
|
| I do think that MN is doing quite a bit to protect those fish with higher limits and more of a catch and release mentality up there in general. There are quite a few MN lakes that harbor decent numbers of muskies due to their attachment to river systems. Stocking/DNR reports don't show these lakes as even having muskies in them. I do hope to see more lakes in MN stocked with muskies. It also would be nice to see many lakes in WI stocked with decent numbers of the "right" fish. Just my opinion. To me it seems like the original post was created just to star an arguement of MN VS WI. Each has their own aspects of muskie fishing that make an enjoyable experience for the angler depending on what he/she are looking for in a muskie fishery. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Agreed, MN and WI will never be exactly the same...the lakes are just different and in many cases the forage....
Does WI have big fish..yes, in the numbers MN puts out? not even close...on an avg week I would venture to guess Mille lacs can put out 7 over 50"...
That might be a good month for all of WI waters...
They both are different..do I like hitting some of the 200 acre lakes in Northern WI off the beaten path...you bet...love it...only boat on the lake sometimes is why I hit those lakes...but do I expect to see a 50"er..no not really...when I go to Mille Lacs do I expect to see a 50" YOU BET...and more than one..
In 2 days in July on Mille Lacs my buddy and I moved 45 fish...only one was under 40"..we boated 7 and missed quite a few more..WI waters just don't provide that kind of action...
It would be nice to see WI waters have some higher size limits, and stocking programs with the right fish in the right numbers that make sense....
Still love to fish both though....
Edited by MSKY HNR 2/20/2006 9:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Everyone needs to hit the reset button and focus on the original post, not the crap that's been posted here in the last couple of threads. It looks like internet vommitting. If your not personally taking time to improve the resource than who are you to complain? If you are from Minnesota, don't worry about it, keep fishing your lakes. If your from Wisconsin quit whinning and start acting. There are a million reasons to musky fish in Wisconsin. I personally don't give two rips about what state is better, I just care that I get to go musky fishing. I don't care if I'm fishing a small creek with 34" everywhere. If its where I musky fish, then its the best place on earth. I have been fortunate to fish Wisconsin, Minnesota and Canada for these fish and imagine that, its my own backyard in Wisconsin where I put 30# in the boat each year, not Canada or Minnesota. If you really care about Wisconsin and its fisheries and are not just wasting your time bashing online than go and learn about the Pelican Lake size proposal, stocking practices of southern Wisconsin or the push to make the Wisconsin River 45" from DuBay north to Merrill. You do have the power to make a difference, why not try doing it? |
|
| |
|
| Two different fisheries between the two states, for sure. Wisconsin is getting better, as catch and release takes a firmer hold across the board. Yes, we still are dealing with incidental kill numbers and our 34" limit isn't helping. However, as I mentioned voluntary cpr has started to rebuild our size structure. Our average size catch has increased quite a bit in the last few years, with numbers of heavy 44-48" making their way to our net. Yes, a straight up shot at a 50" might be better had in MN or ON. Each area has it's upside. WI, especially the Vilas/Oneida area, is loaded with muskie lakes. Smaller, more 'wilderness' type water than many other places. The ability to fish deeper 'trout' water along side a lake that will test your slop fishing skill. Trophy lakes within 5 minutes of action water along with sheltered lakes that can be fished in 30mph winds. Then add the option of the Hayward area and it's many lakes, the underfished river systems, SE WI's recent big fish production, and the shot at a true giant out of the Green Bay system, and a person can easily see why we are so blessed in the muskie state of Wisconsin.
J.Sloan
Badfish Outdoors
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Great post Justin!!!!!!!
Lets all work together. For me to continue to work on the Pelican Lake proposal and start working on the single hook issue.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Well put Justin.
Mike |
|
| |
|
| I know that there are large muskies caught everywhere that don't get reported to Muskies Inc. The stats from the Vilas Co Marathon bear this out. I also would not dispute Howie's, Worralls, Jonnysled's, 8inchcrank's or anyone elses posts as to trophy fish they are aware of from WI. I can not comment on the muskie fishery in the NE part of the state because I have not spent enough time there to make a fair evaluation.
I do however feel I can comment on the status of NW Wisconsin's fishery. I had a place on the Chippewa Flowage for 25 years and would consider myself, at the very least, to be an average muskie fisherman. In 25 years of fishing the flowage and the other Hayward area lakes (including LCO, Grindstone, Whitefish and Namekagon) my largest fish was 48 3/4". I had one fish on that I am confidant was 50" or larger. My average each year fishing in NW Wisconsin would vary between 37 and 38 inches. There are large fish caught in NW Wisconsin each and evey year but the numbers are certainly nothing to get excited about. The stocking informational meeting in Hayward (IMO) showed clearly that this is not my assesment alone. There was no doubt that the people at that meeting were clearly in agreement that NW Wisconsins trophy muskie fishery is in poor shape.
So I guess my piont is that YES there are big Muskies in WI. However, not all parts of the state are seeing the same results in thier fisheries. Cities like Hayward, Eagle River, Boulder Junction, Minoqua and Rhinelander are all known for thier muskie fisheries. It is clear to me that Hayward is lacking something right now. A reasonable population of large fish. Yes there is tribal spearing, yes there are small size limits, yes there is destruction of spawning habitat and yes there are still some who fish with single hooks in NW Wisconsin. But the same holds thre in NE Wisconsin where there seems to be a reasonable amount of trophy fish available.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | I am going to start a new post on how I really feel about this issue. Forget about being PC like other anglers, lets get something done. |
|
| |
|
| Comparing apples to oranges.
How many bodies of water are there in Wisconsin that even come close to the size of the big producers in MN? Lake Michigan doesn't count.
Wisconsin used to put out a lot more big fish before Barbara Crabb started the harvest of them to help the NA's survival. And....who really gives a crap? I fish where I can, when I can. I fish Wisconsin on weekends and vacation in MN on lakes that have bays bigger than most lakes that I fish in Wisconsin. My expectations are completely different when I go on each trip.
If I catch a big fish, I don't tell anybody except my wife, daughter and friends.
"You call someplace Paradise.....kiss it good-bye." Don Henley
Everybody, go to MN. There are more and bigger fish in those huge ponds.
Then tell everybody when you catch one so that more and more people will go there.
Then you'll have people telling you to stay home.
Everybody is better off just keeping their mouth shut about what they catch and where they catch it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | just like the snowmobilers who keep driving through wisconsin to the UP (nervana) because we "don't have enough snow" ... or the DNR is so crazy for pulling over the "drunks" .... our fish aren't "big enough" and the "local businesses" are going to "go down" when our money "goes elsewhere" (nervana) .... it's still the same up here and the local economy produces year after year for visiting tourists and anglers alike. if you spend the time on the water here that you do when you are in canada or minnesota, you'll have experiences with big fish .... if you fish a little, play a little and entertain the kids during a summer or fall combo vacation, you might not .... if you want to fish in an aquarium, be my guest .... i like the small lakes and rivers with the overall experience and don't necessarily worry about how old and big the stocking class is this year .... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | ill take an aquarium any day of the week thank you very much!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FredJ,
What we've done over in NE and NC Wisconsin is find the small lakes that get VERY little pressure that hold good muskies, and quietly fish them. There's been a couple that people figured out and the big fish are now gone or near gone, and it only takes a few seasons. The Moen Chain is a great example, although it's rebuilding now because of a bad reputation for small fish for a few years. No pressure=no harvest, no harvest=larger fish. Of course, there's the Wi River which has always had nice fish, but I don't fish that much, and guess what? Very few other anglers do, either, by traffic comparisons on Pelican or other 'popular' waters. Howie is on waters most people drive right by or know nothing about, and that's a fact with much of my time, too. That little 200 acre lake that is giving up 5 fish days right now, and sports fish at 45# and 53"? It wouldn't last a season.
Minnesota had BETTER protect thoese fish. If you think that there isn't harvesting going on, you are delusional. It'll get much much worse, too, because there's a population of anglers who SOMETIMES target muskies who will probably not release a 53 if it ends up in the net. and Minnesota is now a popular destination.
I looked over a flyer from the 60's from the Chip. Take a look at the Milwaukee show photo album; I shot a picture of the cover. I'd guess there were two full pages of muskies listed in there registered with that resort, with only a couple over 40 and one 54. The average fish was about 32". What does that mean? Most were harvested. |
|
| |
|
| plans to protect Those large MN trophy lakes are already in the works..MMA just had its meeting sat,, with 6 dnr reps present,,,48 inch minnimum hopefully within 2 yrs |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Let me throw this out at ya. While yes, as MN sees increased fishing pressure, it doesn't mean you'll see less 50's those lakes give up. Lockjaw posted an interesting set of data on Leech lake. The population distribution for LL was as follows:
30-34" - 19%
35-39" - 31%
40-45" - 31%
45-49" - 15%
50" &up - 4%
What sticks out to me is the equality in the distribution of the population, almost a damm near perfect bellcurve. Also, if you are to take the historical growth rate of the LL strain, then we know that those fish hit 50" in 12-15 years. Now yes, if there are "trophy hunters" out there, they are most definitely going to target that top 4%. And if say, half of those fish are removed each year, you may see a dip in a fisheries overall production of 50"ers due to the lost recaptures of those "lost" 50's. However, if and only if the top 2-4% of the population is subject to removal, then there will undoubtably be other fish growing into that category to replace the kept trophies. And because of the faster growth, the population will be able to replace those fish sooner.
Where a fishery like this may find itself getting into trouble is when the 45-49"ers start getting thumped. Then you lengthen the lead time in replacing the lost 50's and reduce the potential of the population overall. I guess, and its just my guess, that those seeking to travel to MN or Canada are doing so for a greater chance at a 50"+ fish and probably wouldn't settle for a 46"er.
As far as the Chip data you saw, I too noticed similar results. I have seen Herman's Landing charts from the '50's and '60's, and yes, everything was kept. What I also noticed too was the lack of big fish. Lots of low to mid 30" fish with maybe two or three big fish. If I had to guess, I would say the kill days probably played a big role in the lack of bigger fish back then. But what I find puzzling is why in the past 20 or so years has the average length of a caught musky on the Chip only increase from about 36" to 38". And while there definitely are a good % of fish over 40", you are not seeing the numbers of 50"ers.... even with a high level of C&R.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | MuskyMonk - 2/20/2006 2:32 PM
Steve,
Let me throw this out at ya. While yes, as MN sees increased fishing pressure, it doesn't mean you'll see less 50's those lakes give up. Lockjaw posted an interesting set of data on Leech lake. The population distribution for LL was as follows:
30-34" - 19%
35-39" - 31%
40-45" - 31%
45-49" - 15%
50" &up - 4%
What sticks out to me is the equality in the distribution of the population, almost a damm near perfect bellcurve. Also, if you are to take the historical growth rate of the LL strain, then we know that those fish hit 50" in 12-15 years. Now yes, if there are "trophy hunters" out there, they are most definitely going to target that top 4%. And if say, half of those fish are removed each year, you may see a dip in a fisheries overall production of 50"ers due to the lost recaptures of those "lost" 50's. However, if and only if the top 2-4% of the population is subject to removal, then there will undoubtably be other fish growing into that category to replace the kept trophies. And because of the faster growth, the population will be able to replace those fish sooner.
Where a fishery like this may find itself getting into trouble is when the 45-49"ers start getting thumped. Then you lengthen the lead time in replacing the lost 50's and reduce the potential of the population overall. I guess, and its just my guess, that those seeking to travel to MN or Canada are doing so for a greater chance at a 50"+ fish and probably wouldn't settle for a 46"er.
Monk,
In what context are these data presented? Is it netting data? Sexually mature fish? Harvested fish? Fish 30" and over? Total fish captured? Creel survey data? Part of the information must be missing. If I saw a population distrubution like that, I would be really worried about the future of the fishery. If indeed they make 50" in 12 to 15 years, it looks like there's only about 6 to 7 years of fish left. A perfect bell curve is not a good thing if you are looking at a whole population. Now if you are just looking at sexually mature adults, you may have a different story all together. I don't know what type of gear they are using to capture the fish (many bias to size) nor what they are reporting. But without LOTS more additional fish into the bottom of that age structure, that fishery is on a rather short timetable in my opinion. Gotta be more to the story here.
S. |
|
| |
|
| If I had to guess, prob. from Muskie Inc. catch data, but I could be wrong. So lets say musky population distribution, OVER 30".
|
|
| |
|
| Is it true that there are no big muskies in Wisconsin? I have to agree with Steve Worrall. I guess when I first started fishing Wisconsin back in the mid 80's....there were NO big muskies, were there?? For some reason, I remember a certain Bob G. catching a 50 lber. I can honestly say, that I've only released 6 fish over 48"s in Wisconsin, and have yet to catch a TRUE 50" fish....why? Because I don't know what I'm doing!!
Anyway, I can say that one of my future goals is to catch a TRUE 50" fish from Wisconsin....if I didn't believe they were there, and some numbers of them, I'd obviously not have set it as a goal!! I believe my goals are attainable.....like catching a 50 lber. from Eagle....it'll happen....hopefully before I die!!!!
Anyway, Worrall, you are right....I can tell you at least 5 small lakes that put up fish over 35 pounds in the last 3 years!! There are big fish in Wisconsin!!!
Just my 2 cents worth!!!
Donnie  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The data MuskyMonk reposted was Muskies Inc. CATCH data, that is why there is nothing under 30 inches reported. A fish has to be 30 inches to be entered into the annual Muskies Inc. contest.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
