Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Has anyone else read this? |
| Message Subject: Has anyone else read this? | |||
Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | http://www.haywardwis.com/record/?section_id=34&story_id=234220 It's a brief article about the DNR's proposal(s) for the Chip. I find it interesting they are allowing motor trolling, and then planning on upping the size limit to 50". I can't say that I disagree with upping the limit, however I question its viability as a means of protecting the fishery. I would imagine that a great majority of the fish in the 45-50" range aren't kept in the first place. It seems almost as though it is posturing, as it were. The other thing that I find really interesting is the plan of "one line." I don't think I have ever fished more than one line. Not while baitfishing, most definately not while casting, and I've never dragged baits for musky. I question the "rule" being implemented on the Chip, and not on other bodies of water. If they are going to use it as a stepping stone, why would they not do it statewide in the first place? I'm not being critical, because I am not a fisheries manager or biologist. I question, however, the effectiveness that these policies would have on a body of water that would be hard as hell to troll in the first place, and second I question the overall need. Again, not being critical of the pending decisions, but curious as to what others might have to say about the possible implications, or benefits, of the actions. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32889 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I disagree strongly that most 45" to 50" fish are released. Many are not, just watch the papers for a small sampling of what is actually harvested. The 50" limit proposed will do exactly what Dave says it will do in the article, protect the Chip's potential as a true trophy fishery now and into the future. Norm Wild and Mike Roberts worked hard to accomplish the same thing on Pelican, and I applaud that effort and look very much forward to the inevitable positive results. Three lines live baiting and trolling are too many; more than anywhere else I know of. One for Muskies deosn't seem to bother anyone in MN and Canada, and would be a big step here in getting trolling out of the social mores/tradition camp and into reality....trolling is just another way to catch muskies. Allen and Detloff should have no (ZERO) say in the matter; what is WRONG with that paper even offering those two a place to comment?? Both have taken anti-conservation stances on size limit increases in the past so it's no surprise they would again, and both have been detached from reality for years. The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement. | ||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | sworrall - 9/7/2007 10:13 PM The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement. I think that I'd agree with the general sentiment of your statement, as well, I would have to agree that the above line in particular is one that rings true beyond belief. I quoted that line, not meaning to take it out of context, but to justify my prior statement (if that was directed back at me). What I intended by stating that, is that I don't see any single one of these being implemented solely, I just chose the size limit as the one in question. I wholly agree that managing it as a trophy fishery will make a difference in the long term. As well, I would imagine that it is NOT going to deter people from venturing to the flowage. I wasn't insinuating that I disagree with anything within the proposal, but I question why some of the same regs wouldn't be instituted state wide. I guess I should have made that more clear. As far as the number of 45'+ fish released to kept, maybe I'm disillusioned on that. I really don't keep super close tabs on the area as far as the numbers kept. What I do keep tabs on are those in the circles that I know, people that I fish with. Maybe it is being hopeful. I think I read you correctly in saying that you hope the "stepping stone" is implemented, and sticks? If that's the case, would you then not be opposed to seeing those regs go statewide, or at least more of a clear cast on some of the more notable inland waters? That's the part I am questioning, I guess, why just Chip? Why not manage other bodies in the same manner? Quite possibly there is a plan to do so, this was the first thing that I had seen about any of it. As far as Allen and Detloff, you got me there. I don't know too much about either of them, other than what has been said in the past. No real first hand experience, so I won't comment any further. | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| The 50 inch limit would be great and I have seen the 45 limit help dramatically in recent years! Motor trolling one line is no big deal (as done in MN and Canada) and it is so funny how it is hit or miss all across WI based on nothing but tradition. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32889 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was directing that at Detloff's ridiculous comment in the article. The regulations are proposed for the Chip because the management there and the public there largely seem to support it. One step at a time. We got the Pelican limit to 50", and have no desire or intent to take that statewide. Each waterbody has it's own special interest groups and potential for each specie of fish, and each needs to be managed as such. I am hoping to see those regs on trophy waters, and trolling allowed on the bigger waters across the state. But that's me...Tomorrow the Kevin Worrall Memorial on Pelican! | ||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | Understood. Good luck and be safe to all those in the tourney tomorrow. I'd like nothing more than to be chuckin lumber at critters with ya. | ||
| cfms |
| ||
| I loved the comment about motor trolling destroying the quiet ambiance of the lake. I have a vision of hundreds of anglers motor trolling with 200 hp 2 stroke motors at 20 to 30 miles per hour, kinda like the scene from Jaws where all the city yayhoos are shooting at the sharks hahaha.!!!!! | |||
| reelman |
| ||
Posts: 1270 | Minnesota and Canada fishermen don't know anything but one line but they are trying to at least allow two lines in Minnesota. When I go to those areas that only allow one rod trolling with only one rod just plain feels wrong since I am use to using 3 lines per person. There is a possesion limit and size limit along with C&R there should not be any noticable difference between being able to use 1, 2, or 3 rods. The other thing that bothers me about this is do we really want every lake to have different regulations? Look at the mess with the trout regulations? | ||
| Amazed |
| ||
| How dare the DNR go against Johnny Dettloff's wishes for "HIS" lake! What a crock!! Perhaps he is worried that trolling will allow "others" to catch a 50" Chip musky before he does (about 30 years trying and still nothing over 48 1/2"). He once said that he didn't care if no one ELSE fished the Flowage. He would be happy having it all to himself. The "Chippewa Flowage Plan" is SOUND and based on good biology to make the Chip a "Trophy Musky Fishery". Dettloff is ONE PERSON, and as such should have no more say than anyone else fishing the Chip!! Allen has already "seen the light" and is now catching his big muskies on Mille Lacs. Amazed | |||
| VMS |
| ||
Posts: 3480 Location: Elk River, Minnesota | WHAAAATTT?!!!! I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT ANY OF YOU WERE SAYING... MY NOW EVER MORE POPULAR 4-STROKE ENGINE IS SO LOUD WHILE IDLING THAT THE ENTIRE LAKE SOUNDS LIKE A RACE-TRACK DURING A CAUTION LAP, AND EVERYONE MUST SCREAM AT EACH OTHER TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WHILE SITTING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER. I SURE HOPE YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME...THE LAKE IS JUST SO HORRIBLY LOUD FROM THE CONSTANT LINE OF EVERYONE IN THE NATION COMING TO TROLL "MY" LAKE THAT I MIGHT LOSE MY VOICE TRYING TO CONVEY MY CONCERNS. I GUESS I'D HAVE TO AGREE WITH JOHN THAT IT'S SO LOUD UP HERE THAT THE "QUIET AMBIANCE" IS GONE FROM EVERYONE COMING "JUST TO TROLL" THE BIG CHIP AND RUINING THE SUMMER HOMES OF OTHERS ON THE LAKE FROM ALL THE EXCESSIVE 4-STROKE MOTOR NOISE. HONEY?!!!.....YOU SEEN MY HEARING PROTECTION?!!  I would agree with Steve on this as well...John's comments are what I would call "an extreme stretch", and regardless of the size limit, just catching these fish is fun. On a body of water that size, the more BIG fish that get be released, the more LITTLE fish that can be created to replenish the resource. As has been shown in various waters where size limits have increased...we see more fish, but especially more BIGGER fish, and probably countless fish that have been caught and released multiple times. I hope they go ahead with the change. Definitely a smarter management policy, and it will also show that trolling will not "rape" a lake. About the only question I would have is how do you enforce the 1-line rule JUST for muskies? There are northerns in there too, and in some cases, trolling walleye sized lures may out-produce muskie-size stuff. We all know how that goes..."oh..I was fishing for walleyes officer... I just happened to catch 4 muskies doing so...HONEST!" Steve Edited by VMS 9/9/2007 2:51 PM | ||
| XXX |
| ||
| Tee Hee, now THAT was a funny post... WHAT... CAN YOU HEAR THIS OKAY? I agree 100% what Steve said about John Dettloff and Scott Allen being "detached from reality for years". I'm of the opinion that Dettloff has single-handedly done more to hurt muskie fishing over the years with his staunch opposition to increased size limits than any one person. The fact that reduced size limits around Hayward could have affected the entire state makes my blood boil, part of his delusional reasoning is that there are 60 pound fish still swimming in Hayward waters... even though none have ever existed. On another front his "cherry picking only Hayward records program" made us the laughing stock of the entire country in newspapers and on ABC not too long ago. Let's not forget the misallocation of funds and direct lies Steve Worrall found contained within the contents of CFMS... just another feather in the cap of Dettloff's illustrious contributions to the sport of Muskie fishing. His position in Hayward and eccentric detachment from reality has done irreparable damage to our sports credibility. Whenever he is allowed to make ridiculous comments like that he should be collectively tarred and feathered for it. I understand he was recently demoted from president at the Hall of Fame, I can only hope that both Dettloff and Allen's 15 minutes of fame are over. | |||
| Kelly |
| ||
| I thought MuskieFirst wasn't supposed to be used for bashing? | |||
| Amazed |
| ||
| Kelly: Since when is telling the truth bashing??? XXX and I are "right on!" Amazed | |||
| Kelly |
| ||
| I think you can disagree with someone by arguing the facts and against their positions rather than personal attacks. | |||
| Kelly |
| ||
| Amazed, You weren't one of the people who launched the personal attacks. I thought your argument was said well and above board. The personal attacks by other people don't belong. Nobody should have more of a say than anyone else and nobody should be excluded from having a say either. | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I applaud Dave for his efforts in Assisting a particular water reach its goal. I also agree that size limits are/can be helping. I am happy to say that the size limit increase that I proposed for the WI River a few years ago, seems to be helping. While I am sure a 50" wouldn't hurt the Chip and I'd vote for it every time, wouldn't working/putting more effort into to improving statewide/other lakes in more need help our overall fishing experience in WI more? While I'd love to see size limits increased at least a few inches statewide, I'd realistically like to see more efforts to improve many of the trophy lakes stuck at 34" now, rather than working soley to change regs on lakes with already high/er limits(I talked and got blasted about this regarding the G.B. proposal too). Don't get me wrong, I applaud them for taking another step, but really wish that more lakes in WI at the current limit of 34" would be considerred as at least 40, 45, or 50 lakes right now, which(in my opinion) would improve fishing accross the board, alot more than raising a limit from 45-50 on one high profile lake. I also wish that more current 34" lakes would be changed or proposed by the DNR itself, so people like Norm, Mike and myself didn't have to do it each year too. I feel there are alot of lakes that are being 'raped' with 34" limits, far more negatively impacting our states' fisheries than the lakes with already favorable limits(again opinion..). Lastly, I do not agree with the one line per angler STATEWIDE for Muskies. If they'd want to make it one line per angler in trolling situations, or on lakes where there is a high incidence of line attendance abuse(like the Chip), fine, otherwise I'd fight it tooth and nail. While I don't think we need 3 lines, two is something many commonly employ. I don't agree that 80% of muskies that die in WI are from single hook rigs(again opinion/knowledgeable reason). I just don't see them in use anymore, and would like to know where the hundreds of people are using them that would be required to make up these types of numbers. The majority of fish killed in WI are still our bread and butter 35-43"ers caught as incidentals or by people that just want to keep them. That is still the issue. Once fish grow over that size, they are more likely to be caught by Musky anglers than as incidentals. I do see single hooks in use on rare occasion, and hate them. Why not just ban their use and cut to the chase, rather than penalize those who do things 'right'? Of course, the authors of such(statewide) proposal, realize that there would be little foundation for this to be passed, not to mention the trouble that would be encountered with people fishing for 'other' species when trying to enforce it. Not that I need to even state my case, but during about 5-7 outings per year in the fall, I like to make drifts down my favorite flats in and drag a sucker while casting artificials. This is as much tradition as it is very effective. I am very alert, and set hooks as soon as I have a pick-up, as I am sure most Musky anglers do. Why again, is this proposed to be outlawed? I also like to drag a single sucker on waters that trolling is legal, while casting artificials, employing the same tactictry, though using the electric motor to guide me around structure. Again, if this is raping our Musky fishery, I'd like the deep-thinkers in charge of this proposal to enjoy a few fall days with me, to see just how 'easy' it is to devastate the Musky population on the lakes I fish. Again, not trying to start a line-per-angler war, but I regularily fish MN too, and don't agree with the one line rule there, as many, many Musky anglers that I talk to agree. It is, though, why we have more of an anti-livebait sentiment coming from MN. They simply cannot use it in the effective manner that some states can, so they don't, and I don't fault them for their criticism of it in those regards. If this is about getting rid of fishing with suckers, and the grey area that clouds their use while 'position' fishing in WI, say so. Please don't try to say, though(not saying you did), that multiple lines by Musky anglers are devastating our fisheries, and the/a reason that we aren't catching more big fish. If we were allowed only one line, the pig f***ers(a term we like to use for the schmucks ruining it for the rest of us) that don't abide by current line attendance law, kill fish with single hooked, unnattended lines, will still do so and the same enforcement issue will persist. Raise size limits on lakes that 'need' it, continue to make headway in stocking improvements(and non-stocking), hold people accountable regarding the tending of lines, get rid of single square hook use(I'd even go along with outlawing circle hooks, and I use them, if it helps ease enforcement), and please don't try to manage/penalize the entire state or even the rest of NW WI for an issue widely and long known to plague the Chippewa Flowage. Jason D. Schillinger (715) 424-0513 Edited by Reef Hawg 9/8/2007 9:56 PM | ||
| jclymer |
| ||
| Mr. Worral, What exactly is the policy of this forum on bashing specific people and products? Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that it is ok, as long as you agree with it.. You bashed Detloff, which is fine with me, but how come if someone talks about the trolling pontooner, minn kota or tuffy boat customer service, the post gets erased? Can you please clarify as I am confused????? | |||
| jclymer |
| ||
| "He once said that he didn't care if no one ELSE fished the Flowage. He would be happy having it all to himself. " I don't know about you, but isn't that the truth for anyone that spends alot of time on one body... I would be happy having Mille Lacs all to myself, heck I'd be happy with a 100 yards all to myself... | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| I'm tired of the double talk that resonates from that part of our great state of Wisconsin, here is just a small sample of Detloft doubletalk quoted directly from the article. “The musky fishing on the Flowage is at one of the finest levels it’s ever been at in history. We’re experiencing the best fishing we’ve ever seen and I’ve been doing this for about 34 years." "As for the 50-inch minimum, Dettloff said “there’s no reason to up the limit, the 45-inch limit (currently) hasn’t done anything to help.” Let me get this straight John, you maintain the fishing is better than it's ever been in one breath, then in the next breath say the 45 inch limit hasn't done anything to help. Delusional seems very appropriate. | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Start a different thread related Johns comments, please(and put this post there too...). Keep this one open for discussion of the DNR's proposals, the reason it was started. Most know the size limits can help if applied properly(ie higher ones where needed..). That said, John did have a right to voice his opinion(even in a newspaper), no matter if we agree or not. If someone was quoted by the paper applauding the DNR for the entirety of the proposal, would anyone have complained here? I would, as I don't agree with it in its; entirety. My right(until the owner or administrator of the site feels like removing it which is their right too...hehehe). Prominent locals are quoted regarding these types of things all the time. People will disagree. So what. Just want to see more thoughts/comments on the proposal itself here. Edited by Reef Hawg 9/8/2007 7:44 PM | ||
| Ed BZ |
| ||
Posts: 80 | I thought Reef Hawgs comments were spot on. Get rid of the swallow rigs up the size limits on the trophy potential lakes and leave the lines per angler ALONE. Just my 2 cents | ||
| wistex |
| ||
Posts: 3 | sounds like a good method to make folks not want to fish for muskies on the chippewa flowage. if a professional guide has tried for a 50" fish for 30 years and never caught one, don't you think folks will get the idea that there aren't any that big and not bother to come to the big chip to fish. how do you think this will affect business for the guides and resorts? while you are at it why not make walleye mininum size 27 inches. that might will help business too. jeesh! perhaps the promoters of the increase of the size limit of muskies think it will actually make the visiting fishermen believe there are lots of 50" muskies. why else would the dnr raise the limit to 50" ??? | ||
| Ed BZ |
| ||
Posts: 80 | wistex, The DNR would be helping the Chip's trophy potential by raising the size limit. Anyhow were I am from we eat walleyes and let the skis go. jeesh! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32889 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jclymer, 'Allen and Detloff should have no (ZERO) say in the matter; what is WRONG with that paper even offering those two a place to comment?? Both have taken anti-conservation stances on size limit increases in the past so it's no surprise they would again, and both have been detached from reality for years. The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement.' Show me the 'bash' there. That's well known established fact and RIGHT from those two as a source. I have no problem with the resort, the guiding, the books...etc. I have a problem with total bull. And I have a problem with folks like that misinforming the public to benefit themselves. If that's bashing, get used to it, I'll use my Editorial position here whenever possible to make sure that crap don't fly. No bash intended, just absolute clear (editorial) opinion.. Want to see bashing? Listen to those two spout off about me, MuskieFIRST, and our editorial policies and positions; and that largely because I caught them in one of the biggest misrepresentations of reality I've ever seen...the CFMS. And the trolling pontooner comment isn't erased, look around before you make comments like that. ( http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=37...) many times it's context that causes a thread to get tossed into the recycle bin...that thread was congratulating a lady in her 90's on a 54" fish. Want to talk about the trolling pontoons on Mille Lacs? Been discussed before in detail, go ahead! And no comment that is truthful, and not a personal vendetta, will be removed unless it's just plain rude, stupid, or untoward. So I'm correcting you as requested, despite the obvious rude slant of your comment in your post above. By the way, I actually am 'sponsored' by MotorGuide, and have been for some time. Doesn't mean we will allow inaccurate, untoward, or other damaging and untrue commentary about the competition. Still confused? If you can't see the difference here right up front, I don't have the time or patience to explain it. Wistex, You can't be serious, can you? Where does any of what you say occur with the proposal? Are you saying the new 50" limit on Pelican is BAD for tourism?? Check what happened in Canada when they implemented the 54" limits ( I bet Herbie hates all that business)....THAT's reality. Why raise the limit? READ THE PROPOSAL. Then comment based on the facts of the debate. Reelman, There already are specific management differences and regulations on Muskie waters all across the state. Pelican is 50". Moen isn't. | ||
| jerryb |
| ||
Posts: 688 Location: Northern IL | 1st any time someone proposes to wipe off the books an out of date out, of touch, 84 year old rule, I'm in favor of it! State wide or one lake at a time, even if the one's who are proposing it comes off,, well lets just say I question there source of data. I only see an up side to the raising of the size limit as well. Why dose the DNR "so called" expertise come in to question so often? Well here we have one prime example: Dave Neuswanger,, "fisheries team leader" and the "senior fisheries biologist" Frank Pratt say with only "one line in the water, anglers will be "forced" to be more attentive to that line, meaning a musky will not be susceptible to "swallowing" a hook," which team leader Neuswager said proves deadly" blah blah, blah... You want to talk about disconnected from reality? I want to know just how many muskies have "team leader and frank" caught trolling, I suspect not too many, where do they come up with this stuff? I remind you I'm 100% behind the change in the 84 year old rule but give me an argument against it that makes some sense. The fact is this statement is founded in complete misrepresentation of fact, trolling has NEVER shown to to be fatal (swallowing a hook) to muskies than any other method. The part about fishing below the thermocline again How many fish has "team leader and frank" caught fishing below the thermocline? Again, I suspect not too many. I know, I've tried! Fish that are below a thermocline are pretty much inactive, dormant and almost impossible to locate and catch. They should either stay with the 3 rod rule or go to a state wide 2 rod rule except on the great lakes. Trolling is not going to hurt the lake with the increase in the limit. There will be increased economic activity with the no trolling rule dropped. | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Thank you Steve, eloquently stated as usual! I was alerted to this thread yesterday and was curious how its contents would be dealt with on Muskie 1st when you returned from Pelican - hope you all had a great time. To say I understand your stance regarding Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Allen would be quite the understatement. I would be lying if I said that I didn't wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread in that regard, however I cannot take credit for them. I am aware though who one of the posters was and I would like to assure you, and those concerned, that I have taken steps to curtail the activity and have the Muskie 1st website policies fully respected by this person in the future. I just thought I would take a moment to assure you of this and remind those interested that the original reason I began this quest remains; to end the controversy over the current record, and do my best to return legitimacy to the number one record of our beloved sport. | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | I'm of the opinion that combined with new length and creel limits an across-the-board one line per angler inland line restriction that includes forward trolling could only benefit the state of Wisconsin's fish population, and in turn provide a better catch and release fishery for everyone. Please consider for a moment that the overall population for all fish on every lake would undoubtedly increase in both numbers and size. Imagine if you would what would happen on the lower Fox River this fall if there was a one line per angler regulation imposed tomorrow. My guess is that you would see most muskie anglers casting, and very few trolling their singular line. Most trollers would be those who needed a break from casting, or were unable to cast at all. Sounds like this could be a return to a Wisconsin tradition of casting on one of the state's finest muskellunge fisheries, minus the trailing sucker of course - certainly a concession for some. Any quick strike rigs would have the angler's undivided attention so they would be less chance for the fish to swallow the live bait presentation. I would hope that they did not think a fish would swallow an artificial presentation, perhaps it was addressing a small fish being dragged in a multiple line trolling situation. I agree wholeheartedly with abolishing the single hook sucker rig, I also agree with the proposal that one line would receive the attention it deserves when using live bait. I'm guessing that part of the dilemma facing Wisconsin's fisheries management personnel is they would like to open up more lakes to trolling, however, the generous three line limit looms problematic. I hope some of us can still remember back-trolling three lines per about a decade ago on class A Muskie Lakes, cough cough, and can agree that was a problem. Perhaps two lines per angler would be a nice compromise statewide? Perhaps unattended lines, swallow rigs, and folks keeping non-trophy muskellunge is a problem on the Chippewa Flowage and they are proactively seeking to address these issues without consideration to the rest of the state at this time. | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | C'mon Jer, when I try to fish the Fox and the bay this year and next openner, and don't have to work around your 5 and 6 line sets, I may take notice of your reasoning. That said, you are one of the, if not the most courteous multi line runners I see, and I have no trouble with your way of fishing. But, if one line is the way to go, ethically and fundamentally, why are you running as many or more lines as anyone on the water when I see you out??? You are a troller, would like to see more(all?) lakes openned up to trolling. I am not a regular troller(I do it in late fall when the 'only' option), and am usually casting one line while trying to avoid mulitple line sets now on Green bay, in places we used to cast on our own. If multiple line sets were causing harm to the fishery now, why not start a trend now man, and lead by example? "Please consider for a moment that the overall population for all fish on every lake would undoubtedly increase in both numbers and size. " Explain to me how a one line per musky angler would increase fish populations and size on every lake. You are telling me that fishing with a sucker on a quick set rig(the practice that the vast majority of Musky anglers employ on WI's non trolling lakes if using more than one line) is harming the population of all fish on every lake in WI? "would hope that they did not think a fish would swallow an artificial presentation, perhaps it was addressing a small fish being dragged in a multiple line trolling situation." Actually, I had a much tougher time reviving a couple throat hooked fish that ate smaller trolled lures, than any live bait on quick set incident ever caused me. I have seen SOME(notice my emphasis on some) trollers handling fish in a far more detrimental fashion than the majority of livebait guys I've seen as well. Dragging fish to the rear of the boat at 5-7mph, only to simply dump them back into the lake(St. Claire Torpedo style) at the same speed, hoping they survive, because they don't want to stop and reset 6 lines during a release. While it probably works just fine most of the time, and I am not questioning its overall effectiveness, I don't think it is any better for the fishery(arguably worse) than fishing with livebait where a 6 second delay in picking up a rod could result in a fish that is actually hooked well on a quickset for a change(please tell me the last time you had one swallow a quick set...). That said, I am on the fence regarding trolling on all lakes too. I used to bandstand its' comeback, but with the changing of the 'guard' in Musky fishing so to speak, I am not so sure. I don't like how people troll within 11 feet of my boat on the bay now, and would hate to see it on my home waters smaller than 500-1000 acres too where I can now get away from it for a few months. Again, personal opinion. But, to say that the current rule is detrimental to the fishery is simply bunk. Get rid of single hook use, drop line limits to two lines an angler or a boat limit of 3 or 4, enforce it, and problem solved. I'd hate to see everyone on G.B. casting one line too. I like the fact that most people are out there trolling their sets while I cast all day, just wish they didn't come so close... So.. that part of your argument goes directly against my way of thinking too. Not that it was part of my stance against one line only, but sure adds some selfish reasons to it...hehehe.... Edited by Reef Hawg 9/9/2007 3:01 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32889 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jerryb, First, Dave is an avid Muskie angler. You need to look into Dave's history alittle before posting somewhat belligerently. 'The fact is this statement is founded in complete misrepresentation of fact, trolling has NEVER shown to to be fatal (swallowing a hook) to muskies than any other method. ' Read the article and proposal. It's REALLY obvious you have not yet read the Proposal!!! Think suckers here, not trolling. And, once you have, I think you will want to apologize to Mr. Neuswanger and Mr. Pratt. "The part about fishing below the thermocline again How many fish has "team leader and frank" caught fishing below the thermocline? Again, I suspect not too many. I know, I've tried! Fish that are below a thermocline are pretty much inactive, dormant and almost impossible to locate and catch." 'Neuswanger said that one objection to motor trolling is that during the summer, trolling might have a tendency to raise fish from the cooler depths into the warmer, shallow water which could further exhaust the fish making it difficult on those fish when they are subsequently released. “There are probably some waters where I would be concerned about that. The thing with the Flowage is that it’s shallow and full of weeds and structure, and summertime trolling in areas where people are fishing muskies isn’t even going to be very possible. And if you were to go too deep, you’d be below the level where there was sufficient dissolved oxygen,” he explained. “But most muskies in the Flowage in the summer will be not much deeper than 20 to 25 feet before they run out of oxygen at lower levels in the lake.” First, no one said anything about a thermocline. Surface temps can be VERY warm even over 40' of water, while quite a bit cooler at suspendo depths. I've read and heard the same objection to fishing suspended fish 20' down and holding them for release in surface temps WAY warmer during the early effects of extremely warm periods. For example, the Goon this July had water temps in 15' in the low 60's, and bay deep edge surface temps at 84 with no thermocline at all setting up because there is substantial current. Way I read this Dave just said the Chip won't be as subject to the objection some have to motor trolling during the warm water periods. He says that if one goes 'too deep' there will not be enough oxygen anyway (no fish there). Reef Hawg, I'll take this one: 'Explain to me how a one line per musky angler would increase fish populations and size on every lake. You are telling me that fishing with a sucker on a quick set rig(the practice that the vast majority of Musky anglers employ on WI's non trolling lakes if using more than one line) is harming the population of all fish on every lake in WI?' Many (not all, but many) lakes in Wisconsin are heavily fished in the Fall with Suckers. Unfortunately, even with quick strike rigs, having 6 or even 9 lines out can create a heck of a delay in hitting the fish that just took a rig. I've seen up to 5 minutes before a hookset to clear other lines. This doesn't even mention what I think is the true target of the proposed regs; live bait shore fishing. That being said, the rest COULD be argued with simple math, but would indicate less chance for a hook-up and therefore less angler mortality, an argument that might not sit well with some folks. I suggest everyone who wishes to enter this debate READ the proposal, the link to the page with all the Sawyer County management proposals is in the article linked at the top, but here you go just in case you don't feel like looking for it: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/upchip/ then: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/upchip/documents/Chippewa%20Flowage%20FMP... | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
| I really don't want to squabble about this anymore Steve(not too good at it anyhow), and do see your points too. I also see people 'drifting' multiple sucker rigs myself, and have also been an unfortunate witness to the occasional delayed hookset(most of the time the people I've witnessed missed the fish, but not always). I just cannot agree that this would be cause enough to justify going to one line only statewide. Scientists as they may be, I just do not feel these guys(authors) have the breadth of experience(Musky angling, and just being around the Musky community in WI) that many do to see what is 'really' going on regarding this topic, to make the assumption that it would help enough to accept the level of alienation to surely follow. The shore sitting/unnattended bank rod issue is one thing, and a situation that should be dealt with on the enforcement side of things, and something that will not stop, I assure you, if the line limit drops to one. It is also one(unnattended line issue that is) that I think has played its course(for the most part) in NE, but still lingering on the Chip and NW WI for the most part. Take a river float trip(one of my main arguments against this proposal by the way) with me some time in the fall, casting artificials with a sucker on a quick strike over the side, rate the enjoyment factor with the added sucker along(minus the pain in the butt that the things are alot of the time too of course...hehehehe), and tell me how I am destructing the fishery. This is how most Musky anglers in our community prefer to fish, and do not feel like we should be penalized for it. If this proposal is for the greater good, there outta be be a majority or a very significant faction of Musky anglers abusing our right to use multiple lines, in order to really justify this thing, don't you think? As a strong advocate of CPR, size limit increases, and overall Muskellunge management improvements I'd be right on board if I felt it would do more good than alienation(why alienate the very people that, for alot of years, had been doing more to try to help the size structure in WI than the DNR themselves). It was just a few short years ago that I had to kick and scream to get the DNR to agree to my higher size limit proposals on the river and other lakes(actually had to wait till certain members of the local DNR retired before our local voice would even be heard). Please don't take it over the top. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |