|
|
| For everyones information every vote on the muskie size limit increases in Vilas Co passed by a land-slide. FINALLY we're starting to make progress, some of you don't realize how tough it's been over the years to get this done, now if we can only get a 40in passed state wide on the rest of are muskie waters.
The Chip-45ins Passed 118 to 2
Moose Lk- 40ins passed 111 to 1
Clear Lk- 50ins passed 113 to 2
Lake Michigan-Green Bay- 50ins passed 115 to 4[:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| We had the same results in Eau Claire Co. Don't know the specific numbers but they were all voted on and passed. COOL!!! |
|
| |
|
| Voting was done on computer ballots in Sauk County so we won't have totals until at least tomorrow. But, there was no oppositions to the reccomendations and afterwards comments were positive. Looks like we did good here too.
|
|
| |
|
| AS I said earlier on a post we have to be careful what we ask for. By increasing the size limit the D.N.R. will have to stock less and thats not a good thing. With catch and release working so well across the state. I feel that a bigger size limit will hurt if it is a 40 inch limit statewide. I will be sending sginatures and letters to the D.N.R. from me and others naming lakes that seldom produce a 40 inch muskie. Why would we want a 40 inch limit on lakes like that. I say again that the muskie is not an endangered fish and does not need the protection of a bigger size limit statewide. Next thing you know will behave trophy regulations on everything. The fish are there for all to enjoy and I just have to thnk the bigger size limits statewide are to please a few. I do not think it has ben really thought out. Please don't get me wrong I believe some lakes can handle a bigger size limit but not a 40 in statewide limit. This alone could make muskie tournaments a thing of the past. I have fished many tournaments on certain water where a 40 incher is seldom caught. NO one would win!!!!! These waters just do not have the strain or food source to produce big muskies and never will. If youmake the limit 60 inches your still going to catch mostly 32 to 38 inch fish. Take alook at the tournaments fished in wisconsin and you will see I am right. Be careful what you ask and wish for it might jump up and bite you in the butt.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| Totals for Eau Claire County as follows:
Green Bay 50" min. size limit, 142 yes----3 no
Clear Lake, Oneida County 50" 70 yes----7 no
Moose Lake, Sawyer County 40" 93 yes-----11 no
Chippewa Flowage Sawyer Co. 45" 110 yes---7 no
We also presented a resolution asking the state to increase the minimum size limits on 34" waters to 40" statewide.
It also passed 80 yes---12 no
we all left pumped up and smiling,
Fred J[:)] [;)] |
|
| |
|
| Guys I agree with Don. There's lakes out there that just don't have the ability to support a 40" minimum. I thought of introducing a resolution for giving the DNR the ability to raise the limit as they see appropriate on the lakes that would support larger limits. I couldn't figure out a way to word it properly though.
It would have to be worded giving the DNR the ability to dedcide which waters were capable of supporting larger fish and the ability to raise limits accordingly. I would also like to see it done without having to be brought up and voted on each spring too.
|
|
| |
|
| Seems to me that most of the people that fish the tourny trail(some talked to in person)are kinda opposed to the state wide 40" limit.Yes,it would make some outings almost impossible BUT seems to me that 40" statewide would be betterment of the whole state and if we start asking the D.N.R to pick and choose lakes its going to put a damper on what alot of people are trying for!Many things after last night are heading in the right direction and I for one will not be sending any rebuttal letters to change any resolutions!One step forward,two steps back is whats been happening in the past,I hope its all forward from here!One mans opinion! Jeff |
|
| |
|
| For the guys who do not agree with a statewide 40" limit. I have a question, what is the average % harvest of fish over 34"? It seems to me that C&R is done by the majority of fisherman and I don't hear of to many people doing C&K. So if you assume that 10% of fish caught are kept (and I would think this is a high percentage) how does a 40" limit hurt the fishery if the majority of people are releasing anyway?
The implication of your comments is that if everybody practiced C&R that this would be detrimental to the fishery? Am I understanding you comments correctly?
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Don, as a respected fisherman you have a very valid point, one that I some-what agree with and at one time I was with total agreement. You are correct when you say there are some eco-systems that won't support a 40in size limit with our current status quo, I have a few right in my own back-yard but there are many many that will and I would be willing to bet that all the systems in which tounaments are conducted would support a 40in (maybe not instantly but within a SHORT period of time) That brings us to the ones that would take some management so that they have a very good chance at reaching and sustaining a healthy 40in size limit. In talking with different fishiers bioligests and hearing bioligest Steve Gilbert give different senarios on what it would take to accomplish this, such as dealing with the lakes that have a over abundance of fish for the size of the eco-system or lack of forage in the same,(believe it or not, there are some lakes that have too many muskies in them to support a healthy fishery) they believe it could be managed or controlled by fike netting and moving some of the population to assure the growth of the remaining fish and or the stocking of a genetic fish that does have the capabilitys of attaining this size and keeping a heathy forage base. Granted, I to believe that no matter what is done there are some fish that will NEVER reach 35ins and probably a few lakes that this plan would fail with, but I also believe that there is no perfect plan (wouldn't it be nice though)and you have to be able to accept the good with the bad. There are some that would like to see an even higher state-wide size limit, I am NOT one of these, That in my opinion would damage or destroy more than a few eco-systems, on the flip side of that I think there are some lakes that need at least a 45in limit to produce and sustain a trophy fishery. Again Don, I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions, mine just differs on this. |
|
| |
|
| Don,
I enjoy fishing tournaments as much as anybody. The current Class system that WI uses could be changed to Class A waters receive a higher limit. Class B & C receive lower...But where is the staff and money coming from?
Overall if it means tournaments get canceled for awhile while the fish catch up to the laws.....In my opinion we'll all be better off. And so will our kids. |
|
| |
|
| Tournaments can still happen, you just can't put them in the livewell and drive them around if you have a sub 40".
Our chapter's tournament starts scoring at 34" and we have waters with 40" limits included in the tournament waters. To my knowledge, we have not had a problem with this.
Tournaments won't go away because of this. Some tournament formats might.
Jono
|
|
| |
|
| Don, Laura and I initiated the state wide 40 inch proposal in an effort to get Wisconsin back on it's feet. Before you get upset with this proposal, I think you should know that we researched this topick of a statewide 40 inch for WI for some time now. As a Wisconsin resident, I am tired of watching our own residents travel out of this state to pursue bigger fish in lakes with higher size limits in other states. With roughly 700 lakes the Wisconsin DNR does not have the fascilities or the manpower to stock to the levels that Indiana,Minnesota, and Illinois have. If you add the number of lakes in all three states you don't have even half the number of muskie lakes that Wisconsin has. This is where the problem lies. Wisconsin has the highest harvest in muskies inc. records by far. Wouldn't it be better to protect the fish until they reach 40 inches so they at least get a few spawning seasons in? This would at least make up for the fact that the WI DNR can not stock to the levels that the other states are doing now.
As far as tournament go, I thought you fished the PMTT on the Fox Chain in Illinois. Maybe you didn't. The limit on the fox chain is 48 inches but for tourneys they can register fish 34 inches and up by DNR approval. So there's no need to worry about tournament fishing and size limit changes. Everything will stay the same when it comes to tourneys in WI as long as they are run like the PMTT. That should be easy enough as you have fished the PMTT before and know that it is one of the best run tourney as far as protecting the fishery.
The last and probably most important aspect of changing the size limit to 40 inches in WI is that it has litterally made our surrounding states and Canada twice the fisheries that Wisconsin is now. If you know Doug Johnson ask him what higher size limits in canada have done. The fishing wasn't always great there. We are losing tourism dollar to other states and thats a shame. Even if a 40 inch change does nothing for the WI fishery, it gives people the percieved notion that there are bigger fish in the lakes and that's a start. It keeps the spending right where it should be; in WI. Right now the majority of the die hard muskie fisherman are going to Minnesota(statewide 40" with numerous 48" lakes), Canada(50"limit with 54" and C&R lakes), and Illinois(almost all lakes at 48"s). Would you as an outsider go to Wisconsin where the size limit is 34 inches? NO WAY!! And that is the reality of what is happening to Wisconsin.
Wanting to better the fishery is why Laura and I(with the help of many), proposed the 40" statewide in a bunch of counties last night. I would think you would want to better the fishery as well.
Ty Sennett
|
|
| |
|
| Well said Ty.
One thing on a personal level Ty & Don.
Not very many guys in this business stick up for what they beleive in. They prefer to not comment because it may affect what ever they are selling (lures, themselves, sponsors) You both are as packaged. we can take it or leave it. You also open yourselves up for a bunch of attacks by cowards who hide behind computers. I hope that you both don't go fish for bait or change your outspoken ways. It only helps this funny thing called muskie fishing. |
|
| |
|
| 2nd that Ty![:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Ty, yes I was at Fox Lake and I am aware there have been considerations made for tournaments. What I am saying is that on many of our lakes a 40 inch size is almost a joke. Even with the tremendous success of catch and release on most waters theses same waters seldom yield a 40 inch fish. I Yes I am in favore of a bigger size limit on many of great muskie waters that can produce trophy fish. What I do not understand is why some insist its is statewide. I think we have to also take into consideration the thought of an average fishermen and not just us musky diehards. Many think we are already a selfish group of anglers and and only think about trophies, I hate to think that is what we are all becoming. Fishing is a sport, meant to be fun and meant to create memories. The musky population in wisconsin is not in any danger from over harvest. If catch and release is working then let it work and let the person that wants to keep one once in awhile keep it. Like myself you are in a position to help educate about catch and release and we both do with many other guides. I just keep thinking back to the bone lake study and do not see a success stoey with the bigger size limits. I say befor we go statewide pick 25 or 30 lakes and try it, see what happens, and some of those should be our smaller lakes that we womder if it would help or not. I think we have the cart befor horse here and we need more data befor passing a statewide bill. Please DON'T MISS UNDERSTAND ME!!!!!!!! i AM FOR BIGGER SIZE LIMITS BUT ON CERTAIN LAKES AND I SEE THIS AS GETTING TO BE MORE THEN THAT. Chuck thank you and I hope everyone understands my stance on this.
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
|
| The Douglas County meeting supported ALL the musky size limit increases by a 90%/for and 10%/against ratio. Wish we could have voted on the state wide 40" limit, we would have had the numbers to get it passed........next year.
Thanks to all for thier efforts. I agree with most here, we just have to keep putting one foot infront of the other and we will get to an improved fishery in this state. I believe the DNR is getting the picture and will not be surprised to see some proposals of thier own soon. We just have to keep throwing rocks till someone opens the door. [;)]
|
|
| |
|
| Right on Ty!!!!!
It was great to hear that Wisconsin is consitering a 40 inch size limit state wide last night.
Don,
It sounds like one of the reasons that you would like a small size limit is so you can catch a "legal" fish in the tournements. Let's worry about the state's fishery first. The fox chain PMTT ran great (exept for the boat traffic).
If a small lake can't produce a 40 inch fish than that lake could be considered to have the size limit reduced back down. I see no rerason for lake's that recieve exesive fishing pressure or that have trophy potential to be raised to 40 or more! |
|
| |
|
| Like Theedz... Waukesha Co was done on computer ballets so results are not knowen yet. But I believe we had good response on the issue.
Best thing was we voted out conservation congress member that liked nature more then fishing and hunting..LOL[;)] [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| In St Croix county it was a landslide of the four proposals and the one we submitted about a 40 inch minimum state wide the total vote was
yes-316
no-2
"two nay votes all night long"
It Was Nice to have Bob Mesikhomer show up and he delivered some very powerful words that I think really influenced the crowd
Very proud of what everybody who showed up last night did!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Great job Happy! I was so frustrated getting stucking working last night but it sounds like St. Croix county rocked! Great job! Nice to see bob m getting involved. |
|
| |
|
| Mrs.Fishpoop and I joined the wagon train from Minnesota and went to the St.Croix county meeting last night. We were expecting a big fight over the proposels due to all that we had heard about them in the past. We were very surprised at how well everything went.
I want to say Congrats to the State of Wisconsin for voting to improve their fishing. In a few years after the regs have had a chance to work, we'll hook up the boat and head to the Big Chip. Tell the resorts to have a cabin ready.
|
|
| |
|
| I certainly am not opposed to a higher statewide limit or even designating trophy waters with 45" or 50" limits. But, for now I still stand behind my original comments that there are some fisheries that will not support a 40" limit. Whether the reason for that be water acreage, habitat limitations or the forage base being inadequate. Maybe the suggestion of raising the statewide limit up to 40" then lower lower the limit on those fisheries that aren't responding is the answer. I don't know.
I can see where others are coming from on this issue though. Thanks for brining out a healthy discussion. I will keep an open mind and look at what transpires in the coming years dealing with this issue.
Hopefully, whatever happens in the end will turn out to be best for OUR fishery.
Thanks guys. |
|
| |
|
| Hi,
Great job everyone! Thank you Ty & Laura for your hard work! I understand both points of view on the statewide thing. But,I'm all for 40" statewide limits.
I attended the Dane county meeting Monday night, not sure what the results were, it was a computerized ballot. We did elect two pro fishing/hunting people to the conservation congress by like 590-60-8 .
Thanks,
Don |
|
| |
|
| oops, posted again |
|
| |
|
| oops |
|
| |
|
| I was at Wood Co. last night, and read the resolution for the size limit increase on the WI river in central WI. It passed 107/7. It also passed in Portage Co. overwhelmingly. Thanks to all those who helped with this resolution, and spreading the word(Don Kempen, Chuck Schauers, Jeff Walczak(handyman) Local businesses, Mike Lazer, Erik Hansen, local clubs, Ty and Laura, and other I haven't mentioned). All musky size limit questions were voted on in Wood and passed overwhelmingly!!!!!!
Jason |
|
| |
|
| Don,
I personally think it would be foolish to put a slot size on muskie. It works great on bass and walleye, but are a totally different species of fish and should not be managed the same way.
You are right about that the muskie fisherman are practicing catch and release and they are not the one's that can hurt the lake. It's the guy who catch's a muskie by accident and then keeps it, this is what need's to be addressed. By placing a 40 inch size limit on all bodies of water in Wisconsin it would force them to put the fish back. |
|
| |
|
| At Portage County last nite the higher limit for the Wi. river resolution passed 61 to 11. Thanks Jason for all the hard work. Unfortunately the vote for a higher Green Bay limit was soundly defeated. A spokesman for the Muskie Alliance spoke, stating that they were against the higher limits even though a board member gave some very sound reasons for raising them. Hopefully the rest of the state had better foresight! |
|
| |
|
| I am the president of the C&R Musky Club a member of the Musky Alliance. I would like to know who it was who "represented" the Alliance as standing against the Green Bay size limit change. At the last Alliance meeting the only decision made was to keep it's previously decided stance for a 36" state wide size limit. No decision was made to stand against or for any size limit change for Green Bay.
As a matter of fact, another Alliance Club, Dave's Musky Club in Kaukauna raises around $9,000 yearly for the Green Bay Spotted Musky Stocking Program.
I have issues with this and will do something about it. |
|
| |
|
| Don,
Even if you are right and some lakes can't produce 40 inchers, there are many more lakes that would benefit from higher limits. I would rather see the majority of lakes be improved at the expense of a few. I think the 34" limit hurts most of the waters out there right now. |
|
| |
