|
|
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | Just curious why the spearing thread was frozen. This is a huge topic here in MN. I also am dealing with this issue with Muskiefool and none of us are against spearing. We are against spearing on designated musky lakes. If you read the posts you would see that. There are 27 designated musky lakes where spearing is not allowed. Wait a minute..... as of June 2007 there will be 26. French lake, the ony musky lake in southern MN, will be open to spearing. From 27 to 26 in a blink of the eye. See where this is going?? If people want to carry on the tradition of spearing more power to them. But why out of the land of 10,000 lakes do they have to spear on the few musky lakes we have?? I know it's easy to say "as long as it's not in my back yard" but there sure seems to be a parade of people coming in to MN to fish Mille Lacs and Vermillion, it would just be nice to have some support from the crowds. How much whining to you think you would see if Mille Lacs was the lake that took that number down to 25 next year? Spearing on musky lakes is going to kill muskies. PERIOD!! More muskies killed by anglers than would from spearing?? Show me the proof. Not saying you are wrong, but if you want facts, so do I. And I doubt you can come up with any numbers.
When I first started reading the posts on the frozen thread I had to look and make sure I wasn' t on a spearing site. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pretty simple. You and your associates certainly have the right to your opinion, but when you abuse, attack, or misrepresent what is posted in a debate here, you violate our posting permissions. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is here.
The original thread was intentionally mislabeled. I'm not sure what the motivation was. I moved it to a board where it would remain up front and could be responsibly debated and discussed and relabeled it as to content and intent, and the author ignored that edit and edited the title back to what was represented as 'funny', then proceeded to get personal. That will get a thread locked every time.
Then the author accused me in a private message of 'defending my moderator'. Not even close, what I'm doing is indicating that what lambeau said was misrepresented, as is his position.
His point is clear to me; darkhouse spearing CAN be practiced responsibly on the waters it's currently allowed, and not all who practice darkhouse spearing for Pike disagee with your viewpoint or want to spear designated Muskie water. I believe you just said the same thing, but you just couldn't resist a parting, very poorly thought out jab that was completely baseless.
He said clearly, 'the state of MN has acted wisely to limit spearing only to lakes that are not designated for muskie management, thereby allowing for both species and techniques to be practiced and enjoyed.'
What part of that is so hard to understand? Lambeau is taking a position that defends the traditional pike spearing sport, AND supports limiting the waters on which that sport is practiced. In NO way did he at any time support spearing on the lakes that Muskie Trouble supporters are after as accused.
Lambeau's last post is really good advice if you want to gain ground against the folks after the designated Muskie lakes. Be careful how broad a brush you use to paint a negative picture; you may alienate those who WERE on YOUR side.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | The point is not to allow spearing on the DESIGNATED MUSKY LAKES. No one is trying to put an end to spearing. Like I said one of the lakes has already had the ban lifted. I believe that is perfectly easy to understand. If Lambeau and his relatives want to spear pike go for it!! I also know people who spear. And no I don't think all spear fishermen are bad not even close. But when you have a Lawyer (Mr. Shnitker) heading up the No More Muskies group and a voice for the Dark House Assoc. us Musky fishermen need to cover our backs. If one lake can be removed from the spearing ban they all can.
I apollagize for the jab. Un called for |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My point, and lambeau's, exactly. |
|
| |
|
| More muskies killed by anglers than would from spearing?? Show me the proof. Not saying you are wrong, but if you want facts, so do I. And I doubt you can come up with any numbers.
here's some thoughts and numbers just to chew the gristle on this.
Rod Ramsell, a fisheries specialist with the MN DNR Section of Fisheries stated the following things in an article titled, "Handling Techniques and Survival of Released Muskellunge" (Esox Angler, Vol 5, Issue 4, Fall '04):
"...one thing that has become painfully obvious to me is that the survival rate of angler caught and released muskellunge is not as high as we all would like to think."
"...I have personally recovered and autopsied hundreds of dead muskellunge...shown the effects of poor handling of fish that have been caught and subsequently released by anglers. In many cases it was easy to determine exactly where the fish had been held firmly and how the angler's hands were oriented by the bruising of tissue...and the damage to skeletal structures of the body and gills."
"...we must also accept the fact that not every released fish survives."
"Smaller muskellunge tend to be more resilient to handling than larger ones."
"As a group, muskie anglers have room for significant improvement in their fish handling techniques."
in the Muskies Inc Lunge Log for 2006 on Mille Lacs Lake in Aitkin and Morrison counties, there were 144 muskies registered 45" and larger.
Muskies Inc numbers represent only a fraction of the muskies caught each year.
the majority of these muskies are caught during the summer months, the time of the year that Mr. Ramsell says is hardest on the fish and results in the highest rate of delayed mortality.
so...if we're extremely generous and say that 1/4 of muskies over 45" are registered in the Muskies Inc log, that would put us at around 575 muskies over 45" caught on Mille Lacs last summer. (i believe the real number is likely WAY higher than this because MInc is not really all that big.)
if only 10% of those muskies die from the experience, that means 57 dead muskies over 45" on just that one lake alone in one year. (from Mr. Ramsell's discussion i think it likely that much more than 10% of caught big fish are either kept or die after release.)
if you add in 10% of the caught large muskies on the other 25 designated trophy muskie lakes, you could quickly have a couple hundred muskies over 45" dying every year post-release. (and if the expiry rate is 20% it's double that many.)
also, creel surveys done by the MN DNR show a huge decline in the popularity of pike spearing between 1989 and 2004. the current number of spearing hours is only 1/3 of what it was 15 years ago.
so yes, i do believe poor handling by muskie anglers likely kills more muskies than spearers who are targeting a different (though similar) species.
again, i'm not saying i think spearers should be given the carte blanche that some of the organized groups are lobbying for, and i do think the limitations keeping them off of trophy muskie lakes make good sense. i simply believe that working for sensible regulation of both sports is more effective than railing against the way someone else chooses to enjoy our shared natural resources.
when the bass or walleye advocates try to stop the stocking of muskies into new lakes "we" (muskie fans) decry them for being irrational.
what does it mean if "we" behave in equally irrational ways about something that is _perceived_ to be a threat to muskies???
if we want "them" to work with "us" we need to hold ourselves to the same standard of good sense based on the reality of the situation and not emotional closed-mindedness.
Edited by lambeau 2/2/2007 9:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I have watched this thread grow through the days and to be honest, I personally feel that people are going way overboard on the whole issue. I grew up spearing pike on a lake that is connected to a designated Muskie water. Knowing the law I had no desire to try the lake since I knew it protected a different resource.
Funny thing on this, though, is that I really don't have any solid opinion on whether or not spearing should, or should not be allowed on the designated lakes. Over the past 33 years on our chain of lakes, the spearing community has dwindled to such an extent that we see maybe 1 or two spear houses out on the lake for just a couple days...then they are gone and that is it for the season. The other lake that is connected gets nothing for spearing, but it has quite a few pike in it that are perfect for spearing.
I have not speared for about 10 years on the lake, and it is not because I don't enjoy it...I enjoy chasing tip-ups. I also don't like having to pay the extra fee to spear for only a couple of days through the winter...to me....not worth it. I will admit, though that if I was in an area where someone did spear a muskie whether by accident or intentional, I would definitely follow up and would be pretty upset. So..do I support protecting the Designated lakes...yes since I love to fish muskies first and foremost, but I also feel that with the dwindling number of people spearing for pike in MN that it will sometime within my lifetime be eliminated. To me, it is a dying sport.
I can understand the point, though, of the Darkhouse spearing association with their argument that we would lose some muskies, but not a huge amount...and that by being able to spear a designated lake will not hurt the fishery overall. With our designated fisheries basically getting pounded day in and day out by countless muskie fanatics, there is definitely going to be some deaths (post release or unable to be released, kept, etc)...probably more on one individual lake (designated or not) through the summer than it would ever see in winter from spearing. With a dwindling number of people spearing and only 60 or so lakes closed to it, I can see their argument that having them open will not impact the fishery that much, so why close it...
Do I feel that if Designated muskie lakes were allowed to be speared be a bad idea? Not really...because I don't feel that EVERY person who spears is going to stop spearing where they are at and move to the designated lakes just because they are open to spearing. There are THOUSANDS of lakes to get good northern pike action on that the extra 60 lakes or so would not really change anything. I know that I would not go to the Designated lake close by to spear since I can do so on the lake I am located on and probably get better action anyway.
But..I also see the argument by those in favor of keeping the designated lakes closed is because there are those THOUSANDS of lakes one can spear on...so why change it. Keep it closed since the choices are abundant for spearing.
6 of one...half dozen of the other.. Which way would I vote if it ever came up? Well...I'd probably vote to keep it closed to spearing, even though I feel the impact of spearing would be so minimal that it would not affect the fisheries at all. For me, I can go get pike in so many other lakes, I have no reason to go to a designated lake.
I can also see on here because we are so passionate about our fish that we can sometimes get things WAY OUT OF PERSPECTIVE relative to the whole. We see things MUSKIE only many times and any threat to that is the end of the world to some. It's just not realistic, and does not look at the BIG PICTURE.
O.k...I'm hopping down off the soapbox now.. Let the choir begin... 
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Steve,
Excellent post examining several different perspectives. |
|
| |
|
| Facts and perspective
11,000 lakes(rivers) in Mn., over 8,600 fishable, 87 Muskie lakes(rivers) in Mn.(a little over 1%), 26 designated no spearing(0.32%). (61 Muskie lakes spearable- that is over 71% of the Muskie lakes in Mn. that spearing is allowed on.)
Muskies and Pike are Esox-same shape- same silhouette
Recent spring netting on a No. Mn. Muskie lake open to spearing per the MNDNR. 14% of Muskies had spear marks. (and those are just the ones that survived the ordeal)
Spearers in a recent MNDNR creel survey on a No. Mn. lake represented 2% of the angling effort directed at Pike
that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Could you please list source documents so I don't have to spend a bunch of time contacting the MN DNR and track them down? |
|
| |
|
| email? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | [email protected], and thanks! |
|
| |
|
| that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
this makes sense...one of the management issues with spearing is the ability to select larger fish. on lakes with slot limits the MN DNR puts out all these rigamarole guidelines for spearers on how to estimate fish size by estimating the length of the head. "head longer than 'x' but not longer than 'y'..." ridiculously confusing.
notably, the same impact has been seen on waters managed for trophies (any species) with high size limits...the only fish being kept are the big ones.
|
|
| |
|
| What is so hard to understand. ?
Creel survey. Spearers speared for 2% of the total man hours targeted for Pike on this particular lake. ( 2 hours out of every 100 hours. )
That 2% of the man hours (spearing) produced 1 out of 4 of the Pike that were harvested during the survey. (Spearers speared a quarter of the Pike caught in only 2% of the time)
After the total weight of Pike harvested was added up, the fish that were speared (1 out of 4) weighed a little over 1/2 of the total weight of all the Pike harvested. (they got bigger fish)
One case draw your own conclusions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I am curious about the information GUEST writes about....but....I will reserve judgment on this one until there is further information supplied....questions as, "When did this creel survey take place? What lake? How long was the creel survey, how many fish were caught and released, how many fish were not reported (unknown variable in this case I suspect) etc.
Statistics are a very different animal as compared to normal everyday mathematics... Any statistic given can be twisted to mean what you want it to which puts out a very twisted and not so accurate picture in the whole scheme of things. Without a context, all the numbers are just numbers and anyone can play them in the way they want. With any statistic, there are so many variables that need to be considered, that just throwing out a few numbers can skew one's outlook...many times put into a context to sway thinking. A very easy example to understand with this is in the political spotlight. Watch and listen to all the statistics that get thrown around and somewhere in between the two arguments lies the truth. After teaching this type of stuff for well over 10 years, it amazes me how much stats get twisted, charts get manipulated, and percentages calculated in such odd ways that they are not even close to matching the situation.
I am sure hoping that you will be kind enough to answer the questions I listed above and you have supplied Mr. Worrall with the information. No doubt this is a hot topic for many, but in all due respect, the whole picture must be painted first...and not to discredit your information, but I just have this gut feeling that the whole story is yet to be told...
Steve
Edited by VMS 2/3/2007 9:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What is so hard to understand. ?...they got bigger fish
if you read my tone as sarcastic, it wasn't.
i was saying exactly what i said: that it makes perfect sense, just as you explained it: spearers can be more selective on size, taking a higher harvest toll on larger pike than smaller. and i think the DNR guidelines to help spearers stay within the limits shows the ridiculousness of that aspect of the situation.
however, it does not speak to the numbers of muskies being killed by pike spearers.
what are the actual hard numbers on the 14% spear-scarred muskies that you referred to?
a number like 14% sounds impressive, but that could be 14 out of 100 or it could be only 1 out of 7.
in the latter case there's obvious sample size margin of error.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2007 10:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And that, gentlemen...is why I asked for the source documents! |
|
| |
|
| .
Edited by Muskiefool 2/3/2007 11:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't keep those, sir, and wouldn't post them if I did. I figure a private message is just that.
Thanks for the link.
Oooops, he deleted his post and the link to an abstract on this issue....for whatever reason. Here it is:
http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.157...(2000)020%3C0239%3ARDSFNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Not sure who "guest" is above. But the statistics referenced were posted on another site by a very well respected individual, Rob Kimm. I'm sure he could supply more detailed information on those figures.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
| Spearers in a recent MNDNR creel survey on a No. Mn. lake represented 2% of the angling effort directed at Pike
that 2% accounted for 25% of Pike harvest in number of fish
that 2% accounted for 52% of weigh harvested in Pike.
i'll assume the stats listed above are accurate, but would still like the primary source citation.
notably one year on one lake creates a huge sample bias and it's poor science (too many variables) to generalize from something as small as that.
the AFS article abstract linked above contradicts those numbers when using a much more representative sample. it includes almost 20 years of creel data from 1980-2000 and shows only a 15% take by number and actually a similar harvest rate to angling, though it does note the larger impact on trophy fish than angling.
again, i'm not suggesting spearing shouldn't be regulated in ways that protect both trophy pike and muskellunge populations.
it should be.
i think spearing gets a very bad image because (as Mr. Webster points out) it kills the fish. so if a muskie gets speared (by accident or on purpose) it's a dead muskie. but is this a real crisis for muskie populations? we don't feel as bad about delayed mortality of released muskies because we don't see it and can delude ourselves that those fish aren't dying. but some do, and Mr. Ramsell (a DNR fisheries expert) is saying that it's many more than we like to think...and i'll bet dimes to dollars it's way way more than the number of muskies lost to incidental spearing.
has muskie fishing in MN improved or declined for numbers and size over the past 10 years?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 10:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Obviously it is going to take dated filming of a Muskie being speared to convince you that Muskies are getting speared. Of course then it could be said it was an "isolated incident". As current enforcement numbers are near 1930 levels in Mn. I don't think this will happen. It is impossible to document the killing the Muskies by spearers. The fish are either filleted immediately and the head and skin are placed else where or the Muskie is just shoved back under the ice so there would be no way to make a case againist any particular house. What else could they do with it? Turn themselves in? Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best. Everyone seems so concerned about bashing the spearers, continue to make that ridiculous comparision and see how many Muskie anglers it alienates. The fact that only two states in the U.S., 0 in Canada and 0 in Europe allow dark-house spearing of Pike should say volumns. But obviously it doesn't to some. Do you have any idea how much potential damage a couple of unemployed yahoos could do to a fishery (all species)over a winter with 9 tine spears? Hopefully they wouldn't camp on your favorite lake. Would you really feel good about legalizing spearing for Pike on Pelican? Right now Leech Lake (the home of our strain) is being speared. Vermilion also and 59 other Muskie lakes. But the tradition of a few is important, more important than all the risks combined. What a sorry lot for Mn. anglers to have drawn. Spearers will continue to cull the largest of each year class of Pike at first ice when they are most vulnerable and Mn. fishing license holders will continue to be without the opportunity for a chance at a trophy class Pike all in the name of tradition. Seems like other traditions have also been a problem in Wisconsin but that's a whole different issue.
Steve Voigt |
|
| |
|
| thanks for your reply, Steve.
Obviously it is going to take dated filming of a Muskie being speared to convince you that Muskies are getting speared.
nope. i think you might be misreading me: i already believe it's happening, and it's a bad thing.
i'm just waiting to see any info that says it's a crisis for muskie populations and if it's not, than it's a form of acceptable/manageable loss - just like delayed mortality of angling caught muskies.
As current enforcement numbers are near 1930 levels in Mn. I don't think this will happen. It is impossible to document the killing the Muskies by spearers.
this is a fair point to explain the lack of researched evidence about the impact.
this forces the reliance on more anecdotal evidence.
how's the muskie fishing in MN? any big fish around? good numbers of fish?
spearing is documented to be a declining sport with less participation every year.
Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best.
i think it's a fair comparison because we're talking about things that potentially kill muskies. if people are so up in arms about the perceived impact on muskies of spearing for pike that they think it should be banned, then why not be equally up in arms about post-release mortality from poor handling? if this kills more big muskies than spearing (and i believe the numbers suggest that it does), what's next? ban muskie fishing? require a "test" of good handling skills to get a fishing license? the bottom line is angling kills more muskies than spearing but no one is suggesting that angling be banned.
Do you have any idea how much potential damage a couple of unemployed yahoos could do to a fishery (all species) over a winter with 9 tine spears? Hopefully they wouldn't camp on your favorite lake.
a lot. so would a couple unemployed yahoos who are ice-fishing or fishing in the summer and have a willingness to break the law. the summarized creel data from 1980-2000 referenced above indicates that spearers have the same success rate per hour as anglers.
people who illegally practice anything should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including exceeding possession or bag limits.
however, making guns illegal means only criminals have guns...
is there evidence of declining muskie fisheries that points to spearing?
if there was, what would the MN DNR do about it?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 12:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt,
I don't recall posting my personal opinion on this issue. Why select Pelican?
To answer a couple of your comments;
Comment:'Would you really feel good about legalizing spearing for Pike on Pelican?'
Response: No. I personally don't like the practice of spearing any fish, except those considered rough fish like carp. HOWEVER, an emotionally based 'loaded question' like that one was as misdirected as it possibly could have been in this case. We HAVE darkhouse spearing on Pelican, and the targets are not Pike, they are Muskies. There are no regulations on the number OR size of muskies speared in this manner. That practice has been 'traditional' for centuries, and despite strong efforts from an awful lot of people, was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
Comment:'Comparing unintentional release mortality to an illegal or in some cases a vengeful act is ludicrous at best'
Response: No one did. The comments and questions so far have been in a manner of debate intended as a challenge to back away from the 'attack mode' that will only lose the question in emotional rhetoric and ruin any chance of getting the actual facts in front of the Muskie Anglers out there interested in this issue. The question was asked as to the actual biological impact on the Muskie populations in the lakes that ARE being speared for Pike, and how that impact might play out compared to known levels of Muskie mortality caused by other sportsmen on the same specie. That's a reasonable question, and in no way supports intentional, illegal, or even misdirected or misinformed spearing of Muskies. Answers hopefully can be posted in reasonable and as untainted by angry emotion fashion as can be possible, allowing all anglers following this thread to direct their personal efforts (or elect to do nothing) based upon the facts. That is why this topic was moved to the Research forum.
Comment: 'But the tradition of a few is important, more important than all the risks combined.'
Response: You have unintentionally scored a direct HIT on the core of this issue. It's currently legal to spear Pike on the waters you mention. Your DNR obviously feels the impact isn't high enough to change the law in your favor and in fact might even consider opening up waters NOW protected as managed muskie waters due to pressure applied by your opposition. This is how democracy works, sir. Its your responsibility (or not, that's your personal choice to become actively involved in the process, also a hallmark of democracy)as someone obviously concerned with the impact on Muskie by Pike spearing by providing solid, defensible, factually based arguments against Pike spearing on Muskie waters that will hold up under examination by those who have the power to make the changes you desire. Then you need to gain the support of the general population, including the darkhouse spearers who may NOT wish to spear muskie waters in order to protect muskie populations. Political activism at work, sir.
Comment: 'Everyone seems so concerned about bashing the spearers, continue to make that ridiculous comparision and see how many Muskie anglers it alienates.'
Response: Everyone? That's a completely emotional response that isn't based in anything but anger over someone questioning your position or others positions agreeing with your stance. That's an example of how to marginalize your argument in the real world of getting any changes made with your legislators or DNR. Facts and honest debate shouldn't alienate anyone, from either side. If one becomes so worked up as to become irrationally angry when an opposing, well spoken position is taken, one should not join the debate until that emotional spike can be controlled. I speak from experience here; muskie and walleye anglers here 'protesting' Native American treaty rights looked like rednecked reactionaries, and they were not given more than contemptuous passing attention ( the anti treaty spearing 'movement' was completely marginalized) by those who HAVE the power to make the changes desired.
Comment: 'Spearers will continue to cull the largest of each year class of Pike at first ice when they are most vulnerable and Mn. fishing license holders will continue to be without the opportunity for a chance at a trophy class Pike all in the name of tradition. Seems like other traditions have also been a problem in Wisconsin but that's a whole different issue.'
Response: A separate issue, and one that needs to be addressed separately. If indeed spearing is decimating the big pike population in a manner that clearly exceeds that of ice anglers and open water anglers, then change needs to take place. Prove that out, gain enough support for the platform, and get changes made.
Wisconsin has many traditions, some of which I have been involved in attempting to change; sometimes with some success, sometimes not. Effecting changes is not easy, and is a process, not an event.
|
|
| |
|
| The point that you are forgetting in the comparision of release mortality to illegal spearing is a very important one. It is the fact that a successful Muskie angling catch may indeed kill one out of ten fish thru delayed release mortality, but the other 9 fish are ALIVE even though caught. An illegal killing of a Muskie by spear is a dead fish 100% percent of the time. No survivers. Which if my math is correct is 10 times as lethal per catch. Also let's talk about delayed mortality from spearing Muskies then. What percentage of Muskies wounded by a spear die later? Believe me the spearers don't want you think to hard about that one. But the real point is that by the comparision of the two you are slapping those of us who fought for years promoting C&R and those who now practice it in Mn.. There is NO room in spearing for C&R. It is TOTALLY lethal be it a Pike or an illegal Muskie. You are truly playing with fire on this one lambeau.
As far as the health of the Mn. Muskie fishery, yes it is truly spectacular and also currently peaking as you well know . As Worrall has said many times on this site, Mn. had better protect that fishery. (I salute you for that statement Worrall) Again don't take the hard work of numerous people for years to develop this fishery and twist it into a justification to continue to spear. By your rationale since there are a lot of big fish around maybe we should making spearing for Muskie legal like Michigan. It's unfair for just the Muskie anglers to enjoy the wealth.
I can't call up your post which I'm posting this so I forget what else you had to say |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt,
'But the real point is that by the comparision of the two you are slapping those of us who fought for years promoting C&R and those who now practice it in Mn.. There is NO room in spearing for C&R. It is TOTALLY lethal be it a Pike or an illegal Muskie. You are truly playing with fire on this one lambeau.'
Playing with fire? Answer the questions with facts and stay in the debate reasonably, please. |
|
| |
|
| If you honestly believe that a Muskie death caused by unintentional release mortality is equal to a Muskie death caused by a spearer who swears they can tell the difference between a Pike and Muskie under any conditions and then choses to spear a Muskie lake when they have over 8,500 other choices, then we do not have a common thread to even begin a serious and logical debate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Again, you are not reading what was posted. No one SAID it was 'equal'. You are talking emotional issues, lambeau is talking actual biological impact. Changes will not be implemented just because you say so no matter how 'right' you might be, sir. If you have no desire to debate this issue based in reason and fact, then perhaps you are correct. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'm just posting my questions again so they are not getting lost in this debate. I really would like to know more information. At this point, I cannot call the numbers credible until the sources are supplied.
"I am curious about the information GUEST writes about....but....I will reserve judgment on this one until there is further information supplied....questions as, "When did this creel survey take place? What lake? How long was the creel survey, how many fish were caught and released, how many fish were not reported (unknown variable in this case I suspect) etc. "
Help us out here...We're not being unreasonable in this request...Where are the numbers coming from?
Steve
|
|
| |
|
| The point that you are forgetting in the comparision of release mortality to illegal spearing is a very important one. It is the fact that a successful Muskie angling catch may indeed kill one out of ten fish thru delayed release mortality, but the other 9 fish are ALIVE even though caught. An illegal killing of a Muskie by spear is a dead fish 100% percent of the time. No survivers. Which if my math is correct is 10 times as lethal per catch.
absolutely. speared fish die at a higher rate than fish caught and released on hook and line. but in spite of the % being higher, the actual numbers of dead fish is much smaller because of the scale. for example, 10% of 10000 = 1000, but 20% of 1000 only = 200. the % alone doesn't explain the actual impact on the number of fish swimming around in the water. there's way way way more fish contacted by hook and line than ever are even spotted through the ice.
choses to spear a Muskie lake when they have over 8,500 other choices, then we do not have a common thread to even begin a serious and logical debate.
so someone who chooses to spear fish on a lake where they are legally allowed to do so is doing something wrong? that's the part that doesn't seem "serious and logical" to me. what's next? signs saying "muskie fishermen only" at certain lake landings? "bass fishermen not allowed" or "crappie fishermen must go to the next lake"? the DNR attempts to manage the resource so that it can be enjoyed in more than just one way. being myopic about muskie fishing actually hurts our own interests in expanding our particular way to enjoy nature. see the big picture and there's room for everyone, something the DNR is very aware of.
if there's a biological (or social, a key consideration in MN's management strategies) reason to protect that lake i suggest you take it up with the DNR and try to add it to the protected list, rather than castigating those who practice a sport within the limits of the law.
If you honestly believe that a Muskie death caused by unintentional release mortality is equal to a Muskie death caused by a spearer
dead is dead no matter what the source: spearing, angling stress, pollution, whatever. it's a fish that can't contribute to future generations and it will never be enjoyed by another sportfisherman. are you suggesting that pike spearers are seeking out muskie lakes because they want to kill muskies? that seems like a pretty sweeping stereotype to me; i suppose that could be happening, but really, to what degree? most people are going down to the lake nearest their home and setting up a darkhouse because they want to get some pike.
interestingly enough, in the 2003 MN DNR report IR498 "An Examination of Minnesota's Muskellunge Waters", Mr. Younk and Mr. Pereira make a number of observations that i believe are relevant to this discussion; and at least one very notable omission:
they observed that from 1986-1998:
- effort (hours per catch) has remained constant, an apparent balance between increased angling pressure and increased fishing opportunities created by stocking of muskellunge in new waters
- size of caught muskellunge has increased over time (avg. of 33.8" in late 80s up to 36.2" in late 90s)
- there is a need to get more/better centralized information about angling effort, [natural] mortality rates, sustainable catch rates, and evaluating hooking mortality.
it struck me that the impact of hooking mortality is a management concern that they believe requires more investigation, but the impact on muskellunge by pike spearing was not mentioned a single time in their assessment. what does that suggest?
Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 4:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Well, since my name got hauled into this, I may as well chime in.
Some of the statistics 'Guest' cited were from a conversation I had with a DNR biologist some time ago. The creel data was from a periodic creel survey that was done off an on over the course of the winter on one lake. The muskie spearing data was from a Northern MN stocked lake, but the biologist didn't disclose which one, and I didn't ask.
The sample size wasn't large. I think it was in the high 20s. Consider that the 14% that showed spear wounds were the ones that lived... But the sample size and any inherent skewing (one fish either way can change the percentage a lot obviously) isn't the point in this case. It's not the point because of what those statistics refute, which is a claim by many in the darkhouse assoc that muskies 'never get speared.' I sat in a meeting with one of their presidents where he looked me in the eye and said he'd never even heard of it happening. I sat there listening to him say these were stories invented by muskie fishermen to smear the spearers. However, I knew he'd just met with a couple of concerned muskie fishermen, a conservation officer, and a DNR biologist to discuss the issue about one lake in particular where speared muskies were showing up with pretty frightening regularity. The meeting included him seeing photos of muskies with pretty obvious spear wounds. I knew he was there because I got reports on the meeting from the biologist and the muskie angler. And yet he still claimed it 'never happens.' The DNR KNOWS otherwise. So do I. I've caught fish with spear marks, and seen one being carried to a truck on a muskie lake near my house. (The TIP line is a great thing) I had one come in to get weighed at the bait store I worked at in High School by a guy who knew #*^@ well it wasn't a pike and didn't care. Unfortunately for him, he called ahead to see if we had a scale, and I answered the phone, so the game warden 'happened' to show up about that time.
I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence), that we shouldn't worry about spearing mortality on muskies lakes because muskie anglers cause more mortality than spearers. It's likely true, but it's trivially true. One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.
The other issue with spearing in MN is the effect its advocates have had on efforts to implement better pike regulations on many lakes in MN. Special regs have been extremely successful on many bodies of water in developing better pike populations (bigger fish, a smaller percentage of sub-20 inch pike). Better pike population dynamics have a ripple effect through the whole fishery from perch to walleyes. Yet in many areas, the spearing assoc has vigorously opposed these regulations. Some of their members want all of them removed. One of the said to me, without a hint of irony, that they'd like to spear on those lakes because they have some of the biggest pike around. (This same fellow also told me the idea that big pike help control small pike numbers through cannibalism was nonsense because pike slime was poisonous...) They don't see special regs as anything but a de facto spearing ban. Their attitude is way out of step with the majority of MN anglers, who, a couple years ago when the DNR did state-wide surveying as part of their study of bag limits, expressed strong support for tighter regs on pike. It's part of what led to the state-wide 1 over 30 rule. For those of you from places where spearing isn't allowed, I think it's hard to grasp the full implications it can have. I've seen several lakes in my home area have their pike populations' heads lopped off because they were speared intensely for just a couple of years. Combine intense harvest of big fish with general angler (both spearing and hook and line) of mid-size fish (anglers are extremely size-selective with pike), and you have a pike population in trouble, and eventually, lakes where 75% of the pike population is under 22 inches. On lakes with the potential to produce quality pike, special regs are the ONLY mechanism the DNR has for making that happen, and the spearers fight them every time. They'll say they're for bigger pike, but only if they can spear them. When slot limits and maximum sizes come into the picture, they're dead set against it much of the time.
Scott Webster brought up the biggest issue I have with the DHA, which was the French Lake spearing ban, and how it was lifted. After the DNR shot them down on lifting it, they went to the legislature and slipped a provision into a completely unrelated omnibus bill which got by a couple legislators who'd been watching for it and had struck it out of amendments to a couple other bills. To me, that's the scariest thing I've seen for fisheries management in MN in a long time. Managing individual fisheries by legislation is a doomsday scenario for fisheries management, and one I've been screaming warnings about on a variety of issues from walleye stocking to muskie lakes for several years...and the MDHA opened Pandora's box because they didn't have the public support to change it the right way, and they had to use the back door.
Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex. Many of them have serious implications for muskies in Minnesota (such as opponents of muskie stocking on Gull aligning themselves with at least some in the Darkhouse Assoc. ) I grew up in a darkhouse with a rope around my ankle in case I took a header down the hole. It's very much part of my angling heritage. I get the history. I get the appeal. But when groups like the MDHA resort to political sleight of hand and vacuous logic to defend an activity that can have a pretty negative impact on muskie fisheries, and on top of that deny ANY impact at all, despite being confronted with facts to the contrary, it bothers me.
What I can say for sure is that if there is an attempt to lift the spearing ban, it'll be a rather ugly fight.
Rob Kimm
|
|
| |
