|
|
Posts: 127
Location: Brookfield | I am interested to see what the people on this board think about this topic. Personaly I feel ther should be a statewide increase to 50 inches, I do not plan on ever keeping a fish to mount (I would do a replica myself) but if I were to keep one for a skin mount there is no way I would consider a 34 incher a trophy.
Maybe I am wrong, would doing something like this posibly do more harm than good? I dont think so but I have been wrong once or twice before acording to my wife. What would it take to get something like this passed?
Just wanted your oppinions, John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Would be a very bad regulation on certain waters. Some waters can flat out not support a 50 inch size limit, it would not be beneficial to the entire fishery. I think what we need to remember sometimes is that biologists need to manage the entire lake community (i dont mean the land owners, the biological community). They need to do what is best for all the fish, not what just suits the musky crowd. |
|
| |
|
| 40 statewide with trophy waters at 50 or 54 would be great |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| We can't forget that muskie anglers make up a small percentage of licensed anglers statewide and management of our water isn't solely focused on muskies and only muskies. If it fits in with what the potential of a body of water has and doesn't throw the entire system out of balance then I am for increasing size limits. However, there are many bodies of water in this state that a 50 inch size limit would harm more than they would help. There are others that definately could use a 50 or even a 54.
The big key is getting the respective biologist on board giving his support. They won't do that unless there is enough known about a particular body of water (i.e. population, natural reproduction, growth rates, etc.) because they'll be asked why they are supporting it. If they can't do that, or don't feel like they have enough to back it up then they won't push it through. This happened with one I was working on...a relatively young fishery that not much is known about in terms of muskie population, what natural reproduction there is, and so on. Instead the groundwork is being laid to do a comprehensive fishery management plan that will benefit all species. This way all stakeholders (muskie, bass, walleye, panfish guys, etc.) can get on board and provide even more support. Pushing it now had too much potential to burn bridges with those other groups and that's something you definately don't want. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | Some waters could use a higher size limit for sure. I'd also like to see a protective slot placed on many of our lakes, say 40-48". Many fish killed in that size range every summer. This has been brought up before and recieved very little support.
Very diverse waters dotting the state, and blanket regulations don't seem to work. Education and voluntary catch and release has done wonders in WI in the last 10 years, though.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i spent 12 years in the south where the slot is king and can't for the life of me understand why it's not used to manage waters in the north whether its perch, walleye, bass, pike or muskies ... it flat out works and especially when bringing a lake back from being down.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm seeing some direct support from several fronts within the DNR for implementing slots limits on some waters in Wisconsin. We may see that in the near future.
Excellent comments, everyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Slots are a good tool, but not a cure-all.
There is a certain suite of conditions that must be present for slots to be effective. When used on waters that lack the criteria, slots can actually make things worse. If harvest (or other mortality) is high, precluding populations from reaching numbers necessary for good reproduction, and growth rates are relatively high, slots can and often do work wonders. Where you have a bunch of slow growing fish stacking up at smaller sizes, slots will probably make things worse. Each water is different, and a ton of background work needs to be completed to determine if it would be a good candidate for slots. Add to that the public's general resistence to additional regulation, enforcement often becomes a problem. There is a big push in the west to simplify regulations, I'm not sure if it's occurring there, but it probably will. From what I understand, changing regulations isn't the easiest thing in the world there either; and to have to do it on individual waters, tailoring the regulation to the need, would be a daunting task. Biologically correct, but socially and politically nearly impossible. Doing it on some waters makes the most sense...the 'problem' then becomes, when it works, people begin to want it to be implemented on their favorite water, without completely understanding why it worked on the others. They are probably one of the most misunderstood regulations in fishery management.
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | and that must be why biology was so hard for me in school where chemistry came natural and easy. in the molecular world of chemistry it "always works" ... none of the "natural" response to shake things up. i'm learning that you biologists might be part artist? ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Sled, it's that clean mountain air he's breathing. Makes for clear headed thinking. 
Kevin
Two days with Norm.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If I have to be an artist I'm doomed! But you are right on sled....a lot of information, data, research goes into getting all the numbers of population size, stock biomass, age structure, sex ratios and so on that if a number or two gets estimated incorrectly and a regulation is implemented on the basis of incorrect numbers the lake population could be in for a world of hurt. That being said, Sorno touched on a very good point, as you know we the people here in Wisconsin can push the agenda on what WE want done, not what is necessarily needed in the lake, grant it the fish biologists support is crucial. So, like Sorno stated, if a slot is implemented on a given lake and it works out well, that same slot could harm a population in a lake just down the road. Thats the tough part about this field of study, there is no one end all, fix all. A lot of very good educated guessing sometimes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was in memphis, tn. when sardis lake had a huge parasite kill off of the largemouth bass population. they re-stocked using the slot and within 5 years the place was thriving without the situation of blasting the stocking class when they matured. it was an impressive situation as were many of the other waters there ie: pickwick, toledo bend, ouatchita, sam rayburn and fork ... plenty of fish to harvest under the slot and then plent of big fish action within the slot and the opportunity to mount a single fish over the slot ... seems like something that suits the broader range of license holders and one that makes "common sense" ... i would assume even a slot and harvest situation on muskies in "some" waters would push the population in a positive way and stratify the sizes. there is a body of water i fish on that should support bigger fish, but i assume that they don't get a chance because of the volume of aggressive smaller fish just won't allow, so there are numbers and age, but limited size stratification. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | In a lake like that sled you almost need a certain level of harvest to get the stratification of age/size structure. Its that whole competition thing, competeing for a limited food, space, shelter etc. resource. An overpopulated lake can stunt growth and lower the growth rate, reduce it to an underpopulated lake you may have reduce it too far and made it tough for them to come back, get it to the right level and have a lake that can support big fish....you might just have yourself a lake full of world records! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| another factor when considering this is lakes close to highly populated areas should really think about 'High" size limits for game fish,,,we currently have alot of imigrants that have moved to the midwest and these people come from a culture where fish are food 'regardless" were seeing this here in the Twin Cities area |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| What I got from talking to various DNR guys and biologists over the past few years is that each and every lake has a different "ideal management strategy".
What types of forage are present?
What types of game fish are present?
How much of each type is present?
How much fishing pressure is there?
What are the growth rates of all those species, and is there a lot of competition for food?
Are there a lot of smaller muskies?
Are there few small muskies and a lot of large muskies?
Are there any species of fish that appear to be stunted?
Way too many factors are involved that I know way too little about to say one way or the other, but I will say this:
You can't grow trophy sized muskies if they don't live long enough to become trophy sized!
In my opinion, a statewide 45" size limit would be beneficial. From there, "special" regulations could be taylored to those lakes where overpopulation is a problem -- slot limits, reduced size limits on lakes where some harvest is needed, 48" size limits on "trophy lakes"...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: In the slop! | I think the simple answer is, YES. To me it is sad that the state with the longest and most muskie fishing history has one of the shortest minimum length limits around. Here in Iowa we have a 40" minimum and we are always working on the DNR for an increase.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Here I was reluctant to mention a protected slot for fear of getting ripped to shreads... |
|
| |
|
| I worte the DNR about the size limit and they jusut got back to me today on it...I will post there respnse. |
|
| |
|
| imho, the perception that Wisconsin is regressive on muskie size limits is incorrect. it's propagated by a vocal minority of largely out of state people who rant about how everyone from Wisconsin wants to keep the limits small so they can kill fish.
suggesting Wisconsin's limits are low because people want to kill fish is a fundamental attribution error. it emphasizes personality as the explanation without considering situational causes.
the situation in Wisconsin is that the number of muskie waters dwarfs others states, and therefore, even though a smaller percentage of Wisconsin waters have increased limits, the raw number of lakes and acres with those higher limits actually dwarfs those of surrounding states.
yes, the statewide limit in Wisconsin could/should be raised on more waters, and there are ongoing efforts to do so.
how many lakes/acres in YOUR state have muskie size limits at or above 40"???
with the possible exception of Minnesota, i bet Wisconsin has more.
the reality is that Wisconsin already has more water (numbers and acres) with the 40", 45", and 50" limits than most others states in the muskie's range. we're doing pretty good over here. we need to keep it going, but we're doing pretty good!
here they all are as of the 2007 regulations:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/regulations/2007/documents/FishingRegs%2007-...
(list is organized by county, so there may be some slight duplication)
Adams Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
Ashland Co.:
Lake Gallilee 40"
Bayfield Co.:
Bony Lake 40"
Eau Claire Lake 40"
Namekagon Lake 50"
Pike Lake 40"
Brown Co.:
Fox River 50"
Burnett Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Barron Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Calumet Co.:
Lake Winnebago 50"
Chippewa Co.:
Chippewa Falls Flowage 40"
Chippewa River 40"
Cornell Flowage 40"
Old Abe Flowage 40"
Lake Wissota 40"
Holcombe Flowage 40"
Jump River 40"
Clark Co.:
Lake Arbutus 40"
Black River 40"
Mead Lake 40"
Rock Dam Lake 40"
Columbia Co.:
Park Lake 40"
Silver Lake 40"
Spring Lake 40"
Swan Lake 40"
Dane Co.:
Lake Monona 45"
Lake Waubesa 45"
Lake Wingra 45"
Douglas Co.:
Eau Claire Lake 40"
Fond du lac Co.:
Fond du lac River 50"
Lake Winnebago 50"
Forest Co.:
Julia Lake 40"
Kentuck Lake 40"
Riley Lake 40"
Roberts Lake 40"
Wabikon Lake 40"
Green Lake Co.:
Big Green Lake 40"
Fox River 50"
Iowa Co.:
Twin Valley Lake 40"
Iron Co.:
Catherine Lake 40"
Cedar Lake 40"
Fisher Lake 40"
Gile Flowage 40"
Long Lake 40"
Mercer Lake 40"
Moose Lake 40"
Pine Lake 40"
Springstead Lake 40"
Trude Lake 40"
Turtle Flambeau Flowage 40"
Wilson Lake 40"
Jackson Co.:
Lake Arbutus 40"
Arbutus Canal 40"
Black River 40"
Black River Flowage 40"
Morrison Creek 40"
Potter Flowage 40"
Juneau Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
LaFayette Co.:
Yellowstone Lake Catch-and-Relase Only
Lincoln Co.:
Bridge Lake 40"
Deer Lake 40"
Nokomis Lake 40"
Rice River Flowage 40"
Wisconsin River 40"
Marathon Co.:
Wisconsin River 40"
Oconto Co.:
Archibald Lake 40"
Anderson Lake 40"
Oneida Co.:
Bridge Lake 40"
Buckskin Lake 40"
Clear Lake 50"
Katherine Lake 40"
Julia Lake 40"
Nokomis Lake 40"
Pelican Lake 50"
Rainbow Flowage 40"
Rice River Flowage 40"
Shishebogama Lake 40"
Stella Lake 40"
Two Sisters Lake 40"
Outagamie Co.:
Embarrass River 50"
Fox River 50"
Shioc River 50"
Wolf River 50"
Polk Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Portage Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
Price Co.:
Jump River 40"
Rusk Co.:
Chippewa River 40"
Dairyland Flowage 40"
Flambeau River 40"
Holcombe Flowage 40"
Jump River 40"
Main Creek 40"
Potato Lake 40"
Sauk Co.:
Lake Redstone 40"
Sawyer Co.:
Brunet River 40"
Chippewa Flowage 45"
Chippewa River 45"
Grindstone Lake 50"
Lac Courtes Oreilles 50"
Moose Lake 40"
Radisson Flowage 45"
Sissabagama Lake 40"
Winter Lake 40"
Shawano Co.:
Cloverleaf Lakes 40"
Embarrass River 50"
Red Lake 40"
Shawano Lake 40"
Washington Lake 40"
Wolf River 50"
Wolf River Pond 40"
St. Croix Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Taylor Co.:
Harper Lakes 40"
Vilas Co.:
All Lac du Flambeau reservation waters 40"
Allequash Lake 40"
Big Lake 40"
Big Muskellunge Lake 40"
Buckskin Lake 40"
Crab Lake 40"
Kentuck Lake 40"
Little St. Germain 45"
Little Trout Lake 40"
Papoose Lake 40"
Shishebogama Lake 40"
Sparkling Lake 40"
Trout Lake 45"
Walworth Co.:
Delavan Lake 40"
Washburn Co.:
County-wide minimum 40"
Waupaca Co.:
Cincoe Lake 50"
Embarrass River 50"
Little Wolf River 50"
Partridge Crop Lake 50"
Partridge Lake 50"
Waupaca River 50"
Wolf River 50"
Waushara Co.:
Fox River 50"
Lake Poygan 50"
Pine River 50"
Willow Creek 50"
Winnebago Co.:
Fox River 50"
Little Lake Butte des Morts 50"
Winnebago Lake 50"
Poygan Lake 50"
Lake Butte des Morts 50"
Lake Winneconne 50"
Wolf River 50"
Wood Co.:
Wisconsin River 45"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thank you lambeau, well said and well enforced with the facts. |
|
| |
|
| I firmly believe that the WI DNR along with the support of numerous musky clubs and people throughout the state would like to see a higher size limit on quite a few bodies of water. The problem in certain Countys throughout northern WI is tha the resort owners are against the size limit increase's because their all for their customers to be able to come up and stay w/them and catch and keep a 34 " musky or a 40,45, 50 incher!! That is what's holding so many of these northwoods lakes back. It's all tourism that runs the economy up there. It's been talked about for years! I personally think the WI size limit of 34 inches is perfect especially for a lake like Wildcat in Boulder Jct. that has produced small fish dating back into the 80's. Alot of harvest would only help this lake. Now you take a true know trophy lake like Lac Vieux Desert and put a 40" size limit on it and wow so many 42 to 46 inch fish are being harvested!!!! It is hurting this lake more then it would if there was a 34 inch size limit on it. Does anybody see this??????? This lake is in the same size and respects of Pelican and should have a size limit of 50 inches on it. And there's two others that come to mind that rightfully deserve it and have been beatin for years and thats north and south twin. 50 inches across the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Other lakes the produce nice fish should be at a 40 to 48 inch slot! Such as Kentuck,the entire eagle chain,three lakes chain, sugar camp chain, high,fishtrap, palmer,tenderfoot. Keep one under 40 or over 48........... Done deal............ My list goes on. And o ya Trout should and would go under the 50 inch size limit
Lets work together to make this happen.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not as easy as it looks, and that's a fact. One lake at a time..... |
|
| |
|
| Well Steve lets put two lakes into prospective maybe 4. Now that Pelican got it's 50 inch size limit your all warm and fuzzy but there' s 3 other lakes that greatly deserve it. And that being LVD for one, Trout for 2 and N and S Twin for 3. The others can do with a 40 to 48 inch slot. This needs to happen@!!! What can you guys do and what can we do down here in Appleton to make this happen?
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 80
| mr.musky I would have to respectivly disagree with you, to catagorize the resort owners as being against larger size limits is not all accurate. one of my best buds owns a resort on LVD and is active with the lake ass. I know his views on size limits so lets not point the finger just at the resort owners. The main problem resort owners on LVD are facing this year is the sportfishing limit for walleyes being one fish, courtesy of the intensive spearing season from the Mole Lake Tribe. also to state that going back to a 34 inch size limit on LVD would be better for the fishery? , It would not hurt my feelings one bit if LVD went to 48 on hybrids and 50 on silvers. just my thoughts. |
|
| |
|
| Ed I should've have went more into depth on the resort owners. I wasn't referring to the resort owners at all on LVD, I guess a few years back they were shooting for a higher size limit on the Twins and that got shot down by the resort owners and currently stands at 34". LVD is back to a 2 walleye limit. The one fish a day was only from May6th till 11th.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Mr Musky,
I do agree with you that those lakes could probably benefit from a higher size limit. My suggestion to you is to contact the DNR and find out what are the ways to go about getting a size limit changed. Talk to the biologists up there and get there support, get some support from the lake associations if possible, write up a good proposal and get the process in motion. If you do and ask support of people here on M1st and other musky sites I have no doubts that you would get that support. If you want it done take the initiative, dont come on here telling us that we need to do something. I have never fished any of the lakes you have mentioned, but I would definately support raising a size limit and would round up as many people as I can to vote, like I do every year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Pointer- Nice reply!
As for the base question. Yes, definitely on some waters. f.ex the WI River below the Castle Rock Dam. Above the dam it's 45", and below the dam it's 34". Does that make sense?
This whole process of setting size limits via the WCC is idiotic. The limit's, etc. need to be set by the WI DNR fisheries biologist responsible for that water. I'm personnally tired of hearing the muskies are eating all my walleyes-crappies-bluegills-bass-perch............................
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr Musky,
'Warm and fuzzy' hardly describes the result, optimistic that it happened and can happen elsewhere is more like it.
Change in Wisconsin is a process, not an event. Local support and sponsorship has to happen first. Know anyone ready to step up who is influential on the lakes you listed? I'd be considered an 'outsider' on all of that water and would have a nasty uphill battle just to get something started.
The slot would only work on a few bodies of water, that's up to the biologists and THEN the general public of which we are a small minority.
LVD might be a good candidate for a change, Twin definitely is. Trout might fly, but local support may be pretty weak. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | There does seem to be a shift in public opinion on musky issues. I believe every musky issue passed state wide last year at the spring hearings. I don’t know if more musky fishermen are showing up or if the non-musky fishing public is starting to understand the importance protecting the resource for future generations. Either way the last couple of years the old guard of “fish are meant to be caught kept and eaten” have not shown up in force.
We should take advantage of that, and try for a few more lakes with increased size limits or protected slots.
MrMusky posted some good lakes that could benefit, there are others. I think the best place for increased length limits to SHOW there worth are on higher density trophy waters if that makes sense.
For example Clear Lake in Oneida County has a 50” limit, but the lake is very difficult to fish and has a very low density of musky. The benefit of the limit is still there, but is much harder to see, because it is plan hard to catch fish on a lake like that, Trout could fall in to that category. Not saying it shouldn’t have the 50” limit though. LVD would be a great lake for a 50” limit, for most of the same reasons it is good for Pelican. The Wisconsin River would be another great place for a higher limits. From Tomahawk all the way up to Eagle River. The Eagle River chain may be a good place for a protected slot. Lake Tom and Minocqua would also be good bodies of water for a change.
What needs to happen is the body of water in question needs to have a champion who will do most of the dirty work and keep the effort going though each of the steps without taking the eye off the ball. Then when the important votes come up Musky fishermen need to show up in support. This is what happened with Pelican and it worked to a T. Every time we needed support lots of musky guys showed up to help. That’s what needs to happen and make this work.
The best strategy is one lake at a time that way all the facts can be presented in a clear manor to less total people, it just seems to make things clearer and easier.
That being said the State Wide limit could easily go to 40” in fact when it was raised to 34 it was supposed to be raised two years later to 36, but because of spearing issues that all got stopped in process because there was bigger issues for people to worry about. There will still be a need for special lower limits on lakes of 28 inches, 34 inches and the higher limits.
I have an outline of the process, I did for the Pelican Lake Proposal, that I can post if people are interested in what I thought the best way to handle the procedure was.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Al, it just happened that way on the WI river. In fact, we originally were going to push for Petenwell alone, but decided to try to incorporate all local waters that our clubs stock, along with the local waters that the DNR stocks. Now, at the time of my proposals, I asked for help from others in adjoining counties that could take up the pursuit for themselves in their areas after I'd written the proposal, and add more miles to the new limit. Some people from portage Co. contacted me, and it was decided to extend the proposal to Dubay dam. One cannot argue that the river stretches we chose, were not in dire need of more protection. Now, do I feel that there are more miles of the river that need help? Of course. And the stretch you mention is one of them. And, if you wait for your local biologist to push for the change you'll be an old/er(LOLOL) man. I don't particularily love the process either, but it is what we have. We chose an area that needed protection, and even bit off a bit more than we could chew at the time and got pretty 'lucky' to get the amount of water changed, that we did.
That said, I'll be first in line to help you with your stretch of river there, with examples of the original resolution, and assistance in gaining local support. Gimme a ring when you want to get started. It should be soon.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/25/2007 10:01 AM
|
|
| |
