Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... > Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay: Alarming trend... |
| Message Subject: Green Bay: Alarming trend... | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have just gotten news that at least 8 fish of 50" or more have been harvested this fall from southern Green Bay. This is very concerning, to put it mildly. In another thread I stated that I thought the system could sustain this pressure, but now must change my statement to a NO--if these large fish continue to be harvested. I understand the letter of the law states that this is perfectly legal, and until that changes there may not be anything we can do. But it's a shame to see all of these big fish removed from the system--we simply do not have enough data to understand the true size potential of these fish. So I would like some *non-hostile* and civil discussion with opinions on how we can reach the folks who aren't reading these muskie boards. I think it was someone in the "Sustainability" thread who mentioned that the folks that might harvest these fish probably aren't the ones reading the forums. It's the same for CPR, I suppose. Is it hopeless or naive to suggest steps that we can take towards educating anglers to NOT harvest these fish? So I would like to call upon the folks reading this thread to help us reach the anglers that might potentially harvest one of these fish. If we can reach just one of these anglers, it just might make a difference. Again...I understand that there is a legal right to harvest a 50+" fish at this point. We are working on that, but it will take time. But I have to wonder how long this can go on? If we know of at least 8, how many more were taken? Sorry for the soapbox guys, but today was a very poignant day for me. My uncle (father's brother) came over to fish with me, as he never fished muskies before. My father was hard-core muskie angler but died of a heart attack several years ago while in the field on a pheasant hunt. His largest fish ever was about 51-52" and just under 40 pounds. But today I put my uncle on a 53 x 26.5" beauty that was the new record for my boat. Thanks to the fellow anglers on the bay that helped with a successful release--you all know who you are. It really is true...you can never have too many release tools. But the look on my uncle's face when the fish was finally in the Kahuna was priceless... However, after hearing about the number of large fish that have been harvested this year, I can't help but wonder how many anglers might get deprived of that same thrill in the years to come? Talk about mixed emotions... TB | ||
| muskycore |
| ||
Posts: 341 | Put up signs like I'm doing on my favorite lakes. Reelwise designed one, pm him. It's a start if anything, it might even save one or two who knows. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the tip--I will PM him tonight. Hopefully he can provide me with a picture of the sign, and our MI chapter can get several made and erected. We will likely have to get permission from the City to do so, but I can ask the local DNR biologist to help with that. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 6:20 PM | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I agree with you Tom that the potential has not been scraped over at the bay. been fishing over there about 12 of the last 20 days myself(with the remainder spent here on local waters between work schedules) and am amazed at how good a place can be when conditions are good. While I agree with you that too many fish have been kept by certain individuals, I have a slightly different take. What bothers me is the ridicule and hostility I've seen towards a couple people that have kept fish over there this fall. I saw a couple people get their personal best fish, fish of many lifetimes, or the 'one' that they were after, only to be berated at the landing by so called 'experts' and the ethic concious Musky anglers police. Now, I am all for more protection over there, and having caught and netted a number personal bests from there over the years and this fall myself, know that the potential is there for greatness. What I don't want to see is a continuation of the chastising that occurs when someone does keep a fish. I say, keep it to yourself. I'll speak up for catch and release till I am blue in the face, but will also shake a gentlemans hand that harvested thier lifetime trophy. Now, there are people keeping multiple fish and I know who some of them are. Do I agree with that? No way. But, I disagree just as much with the do gooders waiting at the landing to see who they can give a good scolding for keeping one of 'their' fish. Educate, promote, create awareness. Don't ridicule. Edited by Reef Hawg 11/16/2007 6:32 PM | ||
| Reelwise |
| ||
Posts: 1636 | That sign I did was just a quickie. Hopefully we can put something together soon! The law is the law...but some laws suck! | ||
| muskysucker1 |
| ||
| now that we got it moved up to 50 maybe it will be easier to get it to 54. Or even use the VHS for a reason to keep no fish just to see what the effects are going to be, because we truly don't know | |||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | Reef Hawg - 11/16/2007 6:29 PM I agree with you Tom that the potential has not been scraped over at the bay. been fishing over there about 12 of the last 20 days myself(with the remainder spent here on local waters between work schedules) and am amazed at how good a place can be when conditions are good. While I agree with you that too many fish have been kept by certain individuals, I have a slightly different take. What bothers me is the ridicule and hostility I've seen towards a couple people that have kept fish over there this fall. I saw a couple people get their personal best fish, fish of many lifetimes, or the 'one' that they were after, only to be berated at the landing by so called 'experts' and the ethic concious Musky anglers police. Now, I am all for more protection over there, and having caught and netted a number personal bests from there over the years and this fall myself, know that the potential is there for greatness. What I don't want to see is a continuation of the chastising that occurs when someone does keep a fish. I say, keep it to yourself. I'll speak up for catch and release till I am blue in the face, but will also shake a gentlemans hand that harvested thier lifetime trophy. Now, there are people keeping multiple fish and I know who some of them are. Do I agree with that? No way. But, I disagree just as much with the do gooders waiting at the landing to see who they can give a good scolding for keeping one of 'their' fish. Educate, promote, create awareness. Don't ridicule. I don't think that any single post has been more well written on the subject. I commend you for your attitude. It really is people like you that make this sport what it is. | ||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | 54" size limit will not happen. The NRB committee will not allow the increase the size limit from 50 to 54 even though it won (almost statewide) vote by 2/3 vote. I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I am not sure about the 54" regulation--whether or not is still a reasonable possibility. I spoke with our biologist on Wednesday for nearly 30 minutes, and he re-affirmed that indeed his concern is that someone that catches the fish of a lifetime won't be able to keep it. (I don't know why they couldn't/wouldn't get a replica, but I didn't want to antagonize him on the phone when we need to work with him...not against him.) Without going into a long diatribe about the hurdles of getting a 54" limit passed, there are some problems to be addressed before it would get done. But you'll have to trust me when I say that the DNR biologists are VERY tuned-in to what is being said on these forums with regards to this issue. They are hearing us. They are extremely aware of the sociological ramifications of this issue--and it may get passed on that aspect alone. Our biologist stressed that it doesn't have to be solely about the biology of the size limit; and when I spoke with Tim Simonson (head of the state's musky program) on Tuesday, he affirmed that as well. There is another option that has been tossed around a bit--a tag system where you could only keep one fish per year over 50". While this may have some merit (and may be easier to implement, as there is already a Sturgeon tagging system in place that could serve as a model), the obvious problem I see with this is that if a certain individual wants to harvest several muskies, all he would need to do is "guide" others that can simply use their tags to continue to keep fish. No, I really don't see how a one-tag system would help much, speaking personally. But I haven't studied it, so there may be other factors that I am overlooking. However, it's pretty tough to spear a sturgeon and then keep going out for the heck of it. In other words, it would be "one & done" as far as harvesting the fish; while you could potentially continue to fish for 4-5 months if you harvested your musky on opening day of the season... Think of all the fish a skilled angler could expose to harvest, just by fishing with someone with an open tag after they fill their own tag. And I don't think it will fly if it's "one & done" as far as musky fishing goes, but maybe I am wrong? The other option is a pure catch & release fishery on Green Bay--but that's extremely unlikely, as far as I can tell. The biologists simply don't have enough data to know how long these fish can live. Remember, before 1989 there really wasn't much stocking in the lower bay--so the 50-54" fish being harvested now are coming from the first few year classes, and thus we won't really know how big they'll get until they get that big! And I can assure you that the last thing the biologists want is to be too restrictive on the fishery; what with the socioeconomical pressure applied to them on the matter. So in my humble opinion, the best option just might be the 54" limit indeed. But whether or not this winter's Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team meeting gets this issue resolved or not, remains to be seen. I have no problem with a person keeping the "fish of a lifetime," but what is that on Green Bay? If we release the 53x26.5" fish, what will these fish be next year...or the year after that...or the year after that? How many "fish of a lifetime" does a person need to keep? The big fish we got today was the biggest fish I have ever had on a line. Sure, I let my uncle (who never fished muskies before) reel it in the last half-way, while I cleared the other lines. But it was truly a team effort, as he didn't know the first thing about setting up rods, choosing lures, setting lines or netting a large fish. He surely wouldn't haven't done well during the release, lol. I can tell you that watching that huge fish literally SPRINT away from the boat after all we went through during the release was every bit as exciting as the actual catch! Nothing beats it, IMO. So I guess that *was* my fish of a lifetime? (Until next year anyway...) Well anyway, thanks for all of the civil (and helpful) posts thus far in this thread guys. It's clear that there are people here that truly care about the future of the fishery. I agree with the previous poster that warned against potential harassment of anglers who harvest fish--and I would never condone that. But I would point out that there is a WORLD of difference between someone who keeps one fish per year, and the others who do it to simply put notches in their pistol grips. This is not an unlimited resource we're talking about here, and with the quality of the reproductions out there, I just cannot see the benefit of killing a fish like that. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 9:44 PM | ||
| MuskieE |
| ||
Posts: 2068 Location: Appleton,WI | Hey,Just a thought if the fish are growing so fast and burning out at a early age and theres no natural reproduction then how can keeping a fish over 50 hurt the system if it doesnt reproduce???Just a thought not to start an arguement but my buddy brought it up. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | ...And that's exactly what they are afraid of, and what I meant when I said (in an earlier post) that they were worried about being "too restrictive." It's an excellent point. However I will point to several fish that have been caught, and measured well into the 53-57" range. Just freaks? Who knows... But they simply might be the first ones to reach their potential! And to that end, I guess I would also add...that if we harvest all of the legal fish when they hit 50", then how will we ever know just how big they might have gotten. We simply don't know what we don't know, in this case. I would hate to be the responsible party when it comes out that all the 50" fish that got harvest over the past few years had the potential to make it to 60". I vote we err on the side of caution in this case. There's always time to ease size restrictions in the future, if it turns out that there are just too many darned 50" muskies swimming around out there... TB | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | “…And I can assure you that the last thing the biologists want is to be too restrictive on the fishery; what with the socioeconomical pressure applied to them on the matter.” TB I know you are paraphraseing what you have heard with the quote above, so I want to make it clear this is not directed at you, but WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!! I so sick of that excuse, it has played itself OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at LOTW, Eagle Lake, Georgeon Bay and many other Canadian waters with the 54” limit. The people that are flocking to those destinations are doing it for one reason, TO CATCH BIG MUSKIES!!!!! People are not flocking to these waters so they can keep their first 50” fish. If a large year class of fish is removed from Green Bay people will stop flocking there and people will stop shooting TV shows and videos there. These fish need to be protected or there will be NO socioeconomical pressure. There will be NO LOSS of people coming to the area if a 54” limit is passed on these waters and that is where education needs to start. If the NRB stops this proposal then WE need to bring it up again at the spring hearings in another resolution this year and do exactly what we did last year and keep doing it every year until they get it. The Fox River Valley has what for a population 500,000 probably more, there is a lot of potential there for people who have never read a musky board or magazine in there life to go in search of there first musky for the wall or grill, just because they saw it in a local newspaper or on the local TV station that they are living right next door to a world class musky fishery. Sorry for the rant. TB keep up the good work and let us know how we can help. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Team Rhino |
| ||
Posts: 512 Location: Appleton | I'll admit I was the one talking to Eric about the natural reproduction on GB. This fishery is pretty much a "Put and Take" fishery. Let me 1st say that I'm not in favor of keeping any of the fish on GB and would personally never do so but all that taking these big fish out of the system does is make 1 less 50" fish for the rest of us to catch. Also it appears that these fish stay within a home range and generally return to where they were stocked. So it would be nice if the DNR wouldn't stock fish in the river anymore. I know they have branched out to other areas but if they wouldn't put fish in the river it might help the problem. I believe it takes skill and knowledge to catch a 50" fish trolling but it appers it's slightly easier to do in Green Bay. The fish are congregated in a smaller area and making contact with a large fish is a bit easier. This is the appeal to many of the people that fish Green Bay. Just the fact that the odds are higher of catching a "trophy" draws the type of angler who is more likely to keep a fish. Most everyone who fishes there knows that a good number of the anglers aren't regular muskie anglers. Most just jump in for a chance at a trophy without having to cast all day or summer to attain that goal. I was really hoping the 54" limit would have went into effect because it really is a dissapointment what is taking place up there. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | All of those are excellent points, Jeff... Not to minimize it at all, but I agree (to a point) that catching a 50" trolling the southem bay it is probably not the same accomplishment as doing battle with a 40 pound green fish at boatside on a figure 8. But that's what so great about it--as has been pointed out quite nicely in this thread; it gives opportunities to hook up with a monster fish to folks who might otherwise not get those chances. In my case, my casting days are all but over, thanks to severe arthritis in both knees. So I truly appreciate this opportunity. But I disagree about the put & take nature of the bay. The DNR truly wants sustainable natural reproduction in the Green Bay system, and hopefully (through their stocking efforts) they will cause the musky population to reach a 'critical mass' of sorts--and they won't need to continue stocking to the degree they do now. Also, I think your idea about NOT stocking the southern bay is very interesting! I know that they have stocked several other areas in the bay system--and hope that continues. And while I do not believe that the population that resides in the southern bay is all that's out there (I think it's quite the contrary, actually), I think that those fish have a real good shot at some significant level of natural reproduction because of the habitat in the southern end--and maybe that's reason enough to protect the 50-54" fish? I mean, how certain are we that the 45" fish are better spawners with more viable egg masses, than the 50" fish? While the biology of the issue is difficult in-and-of-itself, it seems that in this case the sociology might be even more difficult. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/16/2007 10:50 PM | ||
| Team Rhino |
| ||
Posts: 512 Location: Appleton | I agree that not all the fish out in the lower bay are resident lower bay fish but I would bet the majority there don't travel from great distances to get there. Take the fish by PP that I believe was caught in your boat. Only 1 mile from the original stocking point. In your reply you said the DNR wants a sustainable natural reproduction but that isn't currently what they have. The currently have a "put and take" fishery. Kevin K. himself will admit that. I do know they are trying alternative stocking sites in hopes of developing a naturally reproducing bunch of muskies so it doesn't need all the stocking. Don't get me wrong I'm on your side of this. I very much want to see better protection of these fish. I also want to see better care taken of these fish once caught. I also don't want to diminish the accomplishment of catching muskies on GB. It's not as easy as dragging a few lures and catching big muskies. I think many get that in there head and are discouraged by their results. I spent far more time there last season and saw way more fish being caught. I've been there 2 times this year and caught fish both times but I haven't seen any others caught. I must say I usually fish off peak times there to avoid the circus. I also have concerns not only about the fish right now but I know there is a solid year class of mostly 40" fish there right now, and in the future is going to be in big trouble as even more people float a boat in the Bay. The one major positive about this fishery is the economic impact in the Fox Valley area. I'm not saying it's Green Bay Packers huge but it is attracting many from IL and MN as I've talked to a few at the launches. I also know the local tackle stores sell many more baits in the fall the last few years then they did in the past. I just don't think there are any easy solutions but it does need attention and soon. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jeff, Amen to all of that. TB | ||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Without natural recruitment, and every body and there brother acting like the movie "Jaws", This resource is getting pimped to the point of extinction. I caught my first musky ever, from shore, while walleye fishing. I was bit by this affliction called Musky. Now, I hear guys come into the shop and say "yeah, last weekend sucked. Our biggest was a 48". I should have spent more time out there." I ask these guys what their biggest casting fish is, and they say they have never casted. Anyone that sneezes at a 48" fish on any body of water is insane. Casting or trolling. The resource spoiled alot of folks, newbies and seasoned alike. Without this fishery, alot of died in the wool musky heads would be up north instead, dragging meat. The Green Bay fishery has not brought more brothers to our sport, it has brought meat (or Skin) hogs, as well as those who are uneducated in the handleing of fish. With this in mind, I have decided NOT to go for my CPT's License this year. A resource as precious as this is like a daughter that has been sold into slavery. Don't get me wrong, there are alot of ethical fisherman that do well up there, but for every one of those, there is at least one who intentionally or not, damage it. Go nuts. I'm out of it. If you see my rig up there, I'm after walleyes. You have the muskys all to yourselves. Goodnight, because I'm after the buck of my dreams tomorrow. | ||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I've been fishing Green Bay hard in the fall for 5 years now and the longest in my boat from there in the fall is a 48.5" last weekend. Catching a 50"+ is not easy anywhere, just so many people fish it that you hear of the 50's frequently. Maybe today is my day? Spreading the word about proper CPR and awesome replicas is how we can change things. I really think it is just a few not CPRing. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the posts Rob & Jo...I think there is a lot of truth to what both of you said. I didn't mean to minimize the catching of ANY size musky via trolling--because for every day that we put one in the boat, there may be 1, 2 or 3 more days it seems, where a rod never goes off at all! And a 50" musky is a 50" musky...casting or trolling. But the truth is that a lot can go wrong when the leader 12 inches from the rod tip, and the big girl decides to hit on the F8. The advantage definitely seems to be with the fish, lol. Another thing is that the colder water temps in the fall tend to result in the fish fighting not nearly as hard as they might when the water is 20 degree warmer. So the two forms of fishing are different, to say the least. Sorry to hear that Rob won't be musky fishing up there, because another guy who is passionate about the health & future of the fishery can only help out there . I believe I met Rob during the MI tournament--and if indeed it was Rob that I met, I can say that I was impressed by his passion regarding the welfare of the fishery. Good luck to all of you guys out in the field today. Be safe, and keep your heads low! TB Edited by tcbetka 11/17/2007 6:29 AM | ||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | If you go to Green Bay, please remove everything from your boat or the thieves will. I had heard on of our Cap City members had his entire contents of his rig stolen, like eight rods and reels, over 250 baits, a 10.4" GPS/sonar, a smaller GPS, a camera, a weather radio, tackle boxes, winter clothing and a bunch of misc. tools, and equipment from a hotel parking lot. It was covered, but the crooks knew whar they were looking for. This sucks. I would hope that the police could nab these guys. Please beware. | ||
| muskysucker1 |
| ||
| one of the thing I noticed 2 weeks a go I was out there i saw atleast 15 fish chaught in 2 days not one in my boat but out of the 15 fish less then half were handled proplerly as far as im consered most of the fisherman dont even slow down there were several fish that battled for 10 min plus thats crazy right there Im not saying im great but I have never fought a fish for more then a few min and the other was once the fish were in the net to the bottom of the boat thay went thats uncalled for so even if the size limit was larger it will still have no effect on these fools I think a better start would be some type of cpr education Im not sure how but im sure these fish are hurting after being handled like that I have only been fishing the bay for 2 years now my biggest fish was 47 there is no doubt in my mind this is hands down the best wisco fishery and I would love for my kids to have the chance to fish this some day so what every we can do I will support you guys last year I drove an hour each way after a 10 hour day to vote for the 50 inch size limit and I will do the same if there is a nother vote for 54 Nick Cammarata | |||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Tb, no, sorry, it was not me. Jo, I meant to say that alot of guys fishing up there think a 48 is small. I was not implying that it was. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | maybe you restrict the bay to casting only with no trolling : ) .... i'm belly laughing at the irony of all of this ... | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I bet that you'd see more fish caught than you might think...especially if suckers were allowed as bait. TB | ||
| Andy |
| ||
Posts: 133 Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | I guess we should buy a politician and have him put it in a budget bill. That seems the way to get things done. Priceless  Edited by Andy 11/17/2007 8:21 PM | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | So let me get this straight...the 50" limit isn't good enough now? So they raise it to 54" and people keep 55's...are you going to be upset then too? People..Its a #*^@ fish. The 50" limit was to protect a potential trophy fishery..its happening as planned. So let somebody keep a trophy if its their right to do so. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Ah...wouldn't the 54" limit simply put GB in line with other (similar) trophy waters? Doesn't Canada do this? Why do you think they went to the higher size limit? And are you trying to tell me that certain individuals whacking multiple 50-54" fish PER YEAR...is "as planned"? If these actions are placing the fishery at risk, then something needs to be done. And if we don't know that it is at risk because of these actions, then we should err on the side of caution and act...now. Are you saying that you know how many 50" plus fish are in the lower bay system? If so, then I would love to see that data--and so would the DNR I suspect, because they don't seem to have a clue as to the number of large fish there are out there in the bay system. I would imagine recaptures are pretty low in an area about 190 square miles in size, wouldn't you agree? But in the interest of compromise, I will vote to keep the 50" limit as it currently is--with one or two caveats: 1) We have a tag system in place. One fish per year, per angler. One and done. No fishing for muskies any longer. After all--once you kill your sturgeon, you are done. Can you guarantee the survival of any & all muskies these anglers catch *after* their tag is full? 2) We are able to ensure that one angler cannot be responsible for multiple 50 inch fish being harvested per year--using clients' or friends' tags. What's the difference if a skilled angler trolls alone, or with 1-2 other guys in his boat? If he drives the boat, determines the lures and sets the rods...what difference does it make WHO catches the fish? Once that angler fills his tag, he shouldn't be allowed to risk further fish via the immediate (and delayed) mortality risks inherent to catching a musky. And one other thing...I find it very hard to believe that the fishery managers who (back in the 1980s) envisioned how great the GB musky fishery could be, intended for certain individuals to essentially prey upon multiple large fish at a time when they are more vulnerable. It is my opinion that, while "legal" under the current regulations, it is extremely arrogant and short-sighted in terms of using the resource wisely. What possible purpose could killing 5, 6, 10 or more 50 inch muskies per year serve? How many "fish of a lifetime" can one person have? These are not perch we are talking about here--you cannot grow a 50" fish in much under 12-13 years, even in Green Bay! Eventually we *will* run out of them, whether you want to admit it or not... For someone to keep a "fish of a lifetime" because it's their first 50" fish is one thing; but for a skilled angler to repeatedly harvest 50 after 50 after 50, just because the law allows it...is WRONG. You are entitled to your opinions on the matter, and I respect that. But I do not share them, and I suspect that there might be one or two others that take issue with them as well. Sound fisheries management principles dictate that certain management tools be fluid--what once might have been appropriate for a fishery may no longer be so. I will be the first to admit that we need to study the problem and make changes if necessary. However if we cannot (or will not) act because we don't know what we don't know...then we have only ourselves to blame when and if things work out poorly in the long run. I vote for an increase in the size limit to 54", and then further study. If it appears as though the larger limit is not necessary after a few years, then we can always reduce it back to 50" again. No harm, no foul... TB Edited by tcbetka 11/18/2007 8:01 PM | ||
| Andy |
| ||
Posts: 133 Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | I can't remember if the limit on Eagle was changed to 54 or 55 a few years back, but I'm sure in the next couple years a lot of fish will be taken from there...I don't know though...good or bad? I think it's good. Replicas sure came a long ways, especially if you find someone who can do it and make it look identical to a skin mount. Edited by Andy 11/18/2007 8:07 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think you have to look at population estimates and maximum potential size estimates, and their confidence intervals. Check this out: http://www.fishontario.com/fishing/muskie/article.jsp;jsessionid=GO... Check out page 2. Larry Ramsell kindly pointed this out to me. Note that Dr. Casselman (widely regarded as perhaps the preeminent musky researcher in the world today) seems to think that the Great Lakes strain can top-out at around 58-60 inches in length! While we don't know the true size potential of the Green Bay fish at this time, who's to say that they cannot reach these enormous proportions? After all...they are basically from the same lineage. Now check this out: http://www.titletownmuskiesinc.org/index.htm That's a 59 inch fish, caught (and released) in Sturgeon Bay only 2-3 years ago! (Incidentally, I am told that the blood on the fish was the anglers...not the fish's.) Then check this out: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/printer-friendly.asp?t... That's a 56" musky caught in the Fox River less than three years ago! Given all of this information, wouldn't it seem likely that these fish just might be able to grow larger than we first thought? Their cousins do. Some of their older sisters already have. Act now to protect this fishery--then plan additional study and carry it out. Involve the academic world; fund a graduate student. That's the way much of the world's research gets done. It isn't rocket science we are talking about here. We have a tremendous opportunity here and every 50" fish that gets bonked is one less that could make it to 55 or 60 inches. Why is that important? Just ask Canada... TB Edited by tcbetka 11/18/2007 9:36 PM | ||
| Andy |
| ||
Posts: 133 Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Blame canada! Nah I totally agree TB...we all have cameras...what else do ya need? | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... > Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |