|
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | My question is this and I am really curious as to your replies. If it becomes fact and is law will you accept an angler keeping one over 54 or will you get down on him for doing so. I say if the guy gets a 54 and wants to keep it all the best wishes to him on one hell of a fish.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | ALL fish should be released. No matter if it is 34, 44, or 54. Just because they are 54 inches doesn't mean their life is done. The whole "it's past it's prime" lingo I hear is just another excuse to make it seem alright to keep a big one.
I would also like to see a * by the rules of keeping a fish. I personally believe that all fish that are going to be kept need to be measured on a bump board correctly, that way there are less 51's and 52's being killed after people call them 54's.
But then again, these are just my thoughts and I understand that I am in the minority when it comes to releasing all fish. |
|
| |
|
| All fish should be released unless it is that magic once in lifetime 70 pounder that I will certainly keep! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I would only keep one fish.... A world record. So.....I guess I will never keep a big muskie or pike. I will, however, have a replica made of the first 50" muskie and/or pike I catch.
I like the idea of my kids catching a 55" so I am a no on the keep a 54" 
James |
|
| |
|
| Hulbert
You're keeping it real. You speak for lots of us and the message needs to get louder.
Guest |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | I am some one who would congratulate the person on a helluva fish. While I don't condone nor encourage people to keep any muskies, I don't see the point in condemning a guy or gal who keeps a "legal". Sure, INSIDE I'd be upset as heck, but to denegrate a person's personal choice (when they've followed the state and local laws) is to me both shortsighted and rude. See Al Nutty's article in the front of the new issue of Esox Angler, "When is it OK?". It pretty much sums up how I feel!
I am in full support of a 100% C&R fishery in North America. I will continue to release all my fish. It is high time to consider starting a full-fledged movement towards 100% catch, photo, and release across the country! Tell me I'm wrong!
Mike Witowski |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the limit is 54", I'll encourage CPR of all fish from Bay of Green Bay. I'll encourage education and show folks what people like tbetca and many others here have done to try to preserve that fishery's possible world class status. Look to the efforts of those who got the 54" limit proposed in the first place, and got it passed in the CC vote statewide. Efforts like the one by the Coalition are extended with honesty and respect, something the Muskie Cops of the world could learn from. These folks extended the effort to actually get something done, and continue to work toward goals I can GUARANTEE for which, once put into place, 'inner looking', small minded knee-jerk reactionaries will later try to take credit .
If you are really dedicated to conserving trophy populations where ever they exist by encouraging CPR of all Muskies there, I challenge you to step up and DO something constructive about it. And, by the way, bitching here and getting all righteous doesn't qualify, IMHO. Look to Tom's efforts if you want to find a true conservationist. Noise isn't action. Especially here, one is pretty much preaching to the choir.
That said, if the law states a legal fish is 54", I will allow that the right exists to harvest a 55" fish after my educational efforts fail to sway someone. That's reality. Don't like it? Get the limit changed to CPR only.
Good luck with that.
That said, the question was Bay of Green Bay. A total CPR only Wisconsin law would eliminate a large number of Muskie waters from management altogether, and I'd oppose that for obvious reasons.
I support good, sound, logical management of our resources preserving the True Trophy Status of those that are special for the future. Ontario set the bar, by setting the limit at 54" to protect the status of waters where the upper confidence is about that, and just a shade larger, and protecting waters that truly need it with a CPR only regulation; temporary or permanent based upon the situation.
By the way, Crappies and Bluegills are 'fish' too. Just try to make me release the 15 I intend to keep Saturday for dinner..... |
|
| |
|
| I understand that I am in the minority when it comes to releasing all fish.
do you really think that's true, Mike? that you're in the minority about releasing all fish? my sense is that it puts you firmly in the majority!
i think some slight differences come in when people start speculating the "what ifs..." about catching a world record, etc., but really the far majority of muskie anglers are releasing every fish they catch. Muskies Inc numbers are somewhere over 99%, and although there are some non-MI people who do keep fish, they're a shrinking minority.
the biggest disagreements i've seen probably arise in the preferred style that people adopt for advocating CPR and educating about release, not on the issue of whether or not releasing fish (esp. trophy-size fish) should happen.
to answer the question: for me, i don't think someone should be attacked and shamed if they choose to exercise their legal right to harvest a fish; i also think it's perfectly fine to respectfully say that we wish they'd make a different choice and release it.
|
|
| |
|
| I'd have no problem with an angler keeping a fish of that size. How many 54's does the average Musky angler catch in a lifetime? Not too many. I don't catch as many fish as guys like Hammernick, Hulbert, etc., but I also believe in a thing called delayed mortality. You're fooling yourself if you catch 100 Muskies a year and think every one of them survives, even when the best CPR techniqes are used. I think that is a fact, although the numbers can't be determined.
So if a guy wants to keep one or two 54" Muskies in his lifetime, which he would be extremely fortunate to catch, I say have at it. Enjoy your mounts and the taxidermy bills that come with them.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Without getting too deep into this, I think the idea of a few lakes accross the state being 100% C&R for all species would be neat, just as a test. It would be an ideal location for taking youth to a.) hopefully catch some great fish and b.) teach the valuable knowledge of CPR. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Since few have actually answered it: No, I would not get down on another angler for doing so.
I might mutter something under my breath in private, or to the guys in my boat, but I would never confront another man or woman about that. They didn't launch their boat that day as a "fence sitter" who wasn't quite sure if they were going to release that fish or not...should they be lucky enough to catch a big one. They knew when they launched their boat they were going to put THE one in the box if it bit. And me trying to stop them makes me the jerk in most people's eyes.
But, to each their own. If that's their one of a lifetime, I'll shake their hand. I've seen infinitely more fish that either died, or almost certainly would die soon, from mistreatment or from getting a hook in a bad spot, than I ever have, or EVER will see muskies kept just for the sake of keeping them.
-Eric
Edited by muskie-addict 1/23/2008 8:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| When we get the size limit changed to 54" and then when 54"s become common like 50's on the bay then life will be good and I wont be bent out of shape about the occasional fish that is kept. I am bent out of shape about hearing all of the 50's that were kept the past 3 years!! Let's not get to worried about who will keep "the first 54" when it hopefully gets put into place, lets worry about getting it passed first! And then I sure dont want to hear any gripping or bickering if someone does indeed keep one chances are they wont be die hard release musky fisherman anyways it will be Walleye or Salmon fisherman gone wild who will thump one.
Mr Musky
Edited by Mr Musky 1/23/2008 9:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | There are alot of good points on this thread, however:
Are not most kept fish from folks uneducated in the C&R value/ Little Johnny caught a musky while bluegill fishing and his dad thought it was a northern?
Muskys should die of old age. The only Musky skin mounts should be of one that wouldn't go. I know that if I had one that wouldn't go, I would feel like I just shot my brother.
With the way Repos have evolved (Namely Rick's Work), why keep any fish, legal or not?
Sure, it is within your right to keep a legal musky, caught by legal means.
However, When I get that one that I feel tops the career, I'm getting a rep, because it will last long enough for my grand daughter to have in her Den, and it will be just as prestine as the day I picked it up from Rick. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| I'll advocate releasing all fish, but if it is a legal fish I won't get down on a guy for it. Even if it was from the bay that's a heck of an accomplishment. Doesn't really matter where it is from, inland or Great Lakes Water, it's something to give a pat on the back to the guy who got one like that.
Now if a guy/gal becomes a piggie about it and keeps multiple fish of that caliber then it definately is within reason to question one's conservation ethics.
Personally if I ever came across a fish like that I wouldn't even measure the thing. Just post the pics and let the girth and weight police do their thing since they tend to be more accurate than any certified scale anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan | I think that 100% of muskies should be released. I am never going to keep a musky, no matter what the size of it is. Even if it is an unquestionable world record, the thing is going back in the water and I am getting a replica or supersized picture. I understand that saying this on a forum and actually releasing a GIANT fish are two different things, but I believe I would release it. I honestly dont see why anyone would keep a musky other than because it is obviously not going to make it. I agree that those huge fish, 54"+, are a fish of a lifetime and are really rare, but that is why they should be released! Again, I dont see the reason for people keeping muskies. They aren't good for you to eat and replicas are better than mounts and I believe pretty equally prived (could be wrong on that though). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| its a personal choice. here on st clair i tell guys a good photo and save your bucks for a replica. they dont fall apart.. as stated from derries, delayed mortality is by far the greatest factor in muskie fishing. photo ops are the worst case scenario... thees so little known on the beast. with muskie fishermen creating only 18 per-cent of angling studys are either outdated or just plain flawed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| 8inchcrank - 1/23/2008 8:58 PM
Without getting too deep into this, I think the idea of a few lakes accross the state being 100% C&R for all species would be neat, just as a test. It would be an ideal location for taking youth to a.) hopefully catch some great fish and b.) teach the valuable knowledge of CPR.
Justin, this is one of the best ideas i have heard online in a long time!!!
I know this is not feasible..but what about a limit on the number of 54" fish a guy can kill each year..like 1. i think in hunting you can only kill a certain amount of deer in one season, right? well..that might be an interesting avenue to curve how many fish are getting whacked. In Canada you can buy a Conservation License or Full License. With a conservation liscense in Canada, you cannot be in possession of muskie, even if it's over the size limit.
if a "harvest" or Full license cost $20 more, that would eliminate some people from evening purchasing the license and hopefully less dead fish too. Then, if some one kills a fish with a conservation license they can be prosecuted. (if this license system already exists in WI, boy do i look foolish).
Don, to answer your question, no i would not accept someone who wants to kill a 54" fish. Katch and Kill works for just one person. Catch and Release works for the rest of world. "for the good of the greater"...
if it's 54" by 34" and world record...well, i cannot fault anyone for keeping a world record.
tomcat
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dockboy said: “I agree that those huge fish, 54"+, are a fish of a lifetime and are really rare, but that is why they should be released!”
Right NOW on Green Bay, that statement is correct. That is the reason for the desire to increase the size limit to 54". In waters that have the genetic potential and forage, muskies OVER 54" are NOT "rare"! It has already been proven that muskies there can far exceed 54" IF they are allowed to do so rather than get harvested as soon as they get over 50".
To answer the question, my policy is: "I support “Catch & Release”, but if legal, its YOUR fish. I do ask that you consider the great replica mounts available today before deciding to kill your fish…Thank You!"
To berate those that keep a legally caught muskie only alienates them, but there is no harm in politely trying to "educate" them as to why you feel it would be better if they release them.
As Derry's and others have alluded to, proper handling prior to release and minimal time out of the water for photo ops is far more important to reduce delayed mortality than worrying about the occasional "fish of a life time" being kept. This is where our energy and efforts should be spent in the future throughout the entirety of the North American muskie fisheries, ESPECIALLY in naturally reproducing waters and waters under rehabilitation like Green Bay. The "glory killers" who keep all legal fish are another matter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | IMO, if you say you are for a 54" size limit, you have stated it is OK for someone to harvest a fish over 54" If you beleive in total C&R you should be against a 54" size limit and pushing for a total C&R regulation. WHat is it??? You can not have your pie and eat it too! What do you want, A or B? You can not have both? If the WI DNR passes a 54" size limt on the Bay and a couple years down the road anglers start keeping numbers of 54" fish, I am pretty sure the DNR will not be willing to change the regulation AGAIN! And I am willing to bet, if anglers were harvesting 50" fish, they sure as hell will be keeping 54"ers. What do you want on the Bay, a 50" limit, a 54" limit, or total C&R? Remember not just muskie anlgers will be making the decision. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Johnne,
Go ahead and push for total CPR. Good luck with that.
Your last statement is exactly why your luck will be non existent.
In certain waters, total CPR may make sense, but I am pretty sure won't happen no matter how hard we 'push'. That's reality, so why pretend there is another reality out there? There isn't.
In others, it doesn't, not if the goals of management are what they are. Are you for dropping hundreds of lakes that will never support trophy muskies from the stocking list altogether, and stopping stocking totally on some lakes with trophy potential? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. |
|
| |
|
| total C&R would be cool on a few big trophy waters in WI but I doubt I ever see that in my lifetime...just don't see that happening...how many musky waters are there in Canada or MN with that regulation..not many.
I will not belittle someone who keeps a fish over 54" if they do so legally with a license. Now the individuals who find the need to keep multiple fish over 54", well that is just not right...I agree with others that we are fooling ourselves if we think some of the big fish we have caught and released haven't died in the hours or days after we released them ...sure by keeping one they have no chance of survival but come on...some die. The reason fish are stocked is so that some can be legally harvested if the angler chooses to do so. Berating someone for keeping one I feel does more harm than good overall. It alienates that person from really wanting to become part of the C&R crowd as now that person just thinks of the musky nuts as some sort of elitist j*ckasses imo.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. Of course, I could get me a T shirt and remove all doubt. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| I believe the question was "will I accept it if an angler decides to keep a 54" + muskie..."
I WILL accept it, just as I accept the current statewide 34" size limit on many WI waters. I will not LIKE it, though, and if given the opportunity, I might mention to that angler how long it takes to grow a fish that big, and how few and far between a catch like that is. Just like the rest of the choir here, I'd rather see them all released. But I'm not going to go beating up people at the launch over it, nor will I stand up on a soap box and be a jerk about it.
It's more important to me that we continue to educate and continue to work towards building better fisheries across the continent. When someone catches a 54" fish, and whacks that fish, the whole muskie community gets their shorts all in a bunch over it and we make ourselves look like the bunch of a**es that we pretend we aren't the rest of the time. I can accomplish more in that fishery (or any other fishery) by doing something like showing a newbie a pair of knipex, and explaining why its better to cut the hooks than leave them in a fish, or spending a day fishing with them and explaining that muskies are really more fragile than one would think, getting them excited about watching them swim away, etc.
I believe we lose more big fish by incedental catch and poor release than we EVER will by people taking trophies, so why cry about it? Let's just do the best we can with the law, and if/when someone we encounter keeps a giant fish, congratulate them, maybe explain our passion for C&R, and move on. Trying to make them feel bad about it ain't gonna bring that fish back.
If a big one ever goes belly up on me? I'll let Lax use it for the mold, get a skin mount, eat the meat, and then I'm going fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
or
I am against drunk driving but if you want to do it, that's toally cool with me. I won't think less of you.
Either you are 100% Catch and Release or your not. When you tip toe around it, that means you think you are, but if the opportunity presents itself with a monster fish....who knows what will happen.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MikeHulbert - 1/24/2008 10:32 AM
I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
or
I am against drunk driving but if you want to do it, that's toally cool with me. I won't think less of you.
Either you are 100% Catch and Release or your not. When you tip toe around it, that means you think you are, but if the opportunity presents itself with a monster fish....who knows what will happen.
Good points Mike, I actually agree with you on something!
One thing that I dont really understand is everyone stating that we need to educate, educate, educate people on CPR, yet the same people will turn around and say they will keep a possible WR. Seems hypocritical to me, we preach releasing every fish then say, "Well you can keep this fish because its a special fish." Let them go, no reason to keep one.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | MikeHulbert - 1/24/2008 10:32 AM
I personally believe you are either 100% Catch and Release or you are not. You can't say, I am 100% catch and release but if a guys wants to keep one he can.
It's like saying, I am against domestic violence, but if my neighbor wants to beat his wife that's cool. I might not agree with it, but I am not going to think less of him.
Seriously, keeping a fish and beating your wife???
I realize it is just an analogy, but this my way or else attitude with C&R is what alienates us (the C&R crowd) with the casual fisherman. It is the same way with QDM or any other perceived "trophy" group.
You can be total CPR in your boat and still acknowledge someone's legal right to keep a fish. If someone opted to keep a 51"er on Pelican where 50" is now the legal limit, I would congratulate them, and then explain how many releases it took to get the fish to that size, and encourage future releases. You catch far more flies with honey......... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, that's bull, Mike.
it's against the law to beat ANYONE.
It's against the law to drive drunk.
Both are laws intended to protect PEOPLE.
The laws protecting Muskies are what they are because the fisheries managers think that's what they should be, and in WI's case, so do the majority of sportsmen. How do I know that? because I was part of an effort to get changes made, and we had our collective rear ends handed to us.
I happen to be in the minority on many issues there, but I recognize that fact and don't insult other's intelligence to try to argue my position.
And no, I'm NOT for 100% catch and release, there are some waters that are MANAGED for harvest. If we somehow get 100% CPR here statewide, those lakes will no longer be managed for Muskies. Some lakes require harvest to keep a balance. You won't ever fish those waters, because the nature of the system is such that the fish do not get very big.
Take Cave Run, for example. I sat with the fisheries manager there for a couple hours, and listened to why he felt it would be very bad for the lake's future to place a larger size limit on the lake. He was basing his policies on management based on reality, not what we as Muskie anglers think is right. Has to do with the cyclical nature of the shad there, and the probable crash in population that would occur if no harvest or a larger limit was put in place. What to do there??? Ignore the experts who manage a near zero NR system(pretty well, I might add), and do what seems like a good idea instead? |
|
| |
|
| I see your points Mike then will say that what is wrong with being 99.9% release.
the 100% release crowd that are so h*ll bent against anyone for keeping one to me start looking and sounding like people that are flat out selfish. The fish are there for everyone, not just you or me because we will release them all but they are there for little jonny who wants to get his first and for the old timer who never got a 50"er to put on the wall, if he chooses to do so fine so be it..good for him he got his trophy, do you agree with it, no, but what good will it do by jumping all over the guy...really none imo...I'm all about release but comparing domestic violence and keeping a fish is a stretch... jumping on someone for keeping ONE fish is just crazy to me...you have no doubt killed far more than one fish over the last few years from delayed mortality..how can you justify getting all over some guy who keeps a trophy fish to him or her when there is no doubt you have killed far more fish just by simply the sheer number of fish you have caught and released?
I think being 100% c&r is great but so is being 99.9%...there will still be plenty of fish for us all to catch. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Mike
There's no reason for YOU to keep one. Hell, your livelyhood depends on those fish being there. If you were keeping them I'd think there was something wrong with you. But saying there's no reason for anyone to keep a legal fish? If it's of legal size, and joe angler paid for a license, according to the law he has a right to keep that fish, and doesn't need a reason for it. Understanding that doesn't make anyone less than 100% catch and release. Regardless of whether or not someone would keep a WR fish, education is paramount. Think about it. What turned YOU into a C&R guy?
For me it was a lot of small things, like the day my dad handed me a fillet knife at age 8 and said "here, you're old enough, YOU do it.", or watching a buddy spend 10 minutes reviving a pike and watching it swim off, tremendous guilt over a skin mount I got when I was about 14... But as far as muskies, it was an experience with a guide, watching how much care he took in unhooking and releasing my first musky, and the learning that took place afterwards about how few muskies survive to get to be trophy size. hpw long it takes, how few of them there are in a lake...
Look at it this way: if you change 10 people's minds about C&R who ordaniraly would have kept every legal they caught, how many fish does that potentially put back in the ecosystem? Even if you kill the legals YOU catch, that education and knowledge you passed on has a greater positive effect than you yourself ever could simply releasing your fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 743
| sworrall - 1/24/2008 12:00 PM
OK, that's bull, Mike.
it's against the law to beat ANYONE.
It's against the law to drive drunk.
Both are laws intended to protect PEOPLE.
OK..then use the abortion analogy. "i am against abortion, unless my teenage daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend who i do not like, then she will terminate the pregnancy"...that's sending a mixed message by tip toeing around topic. you either ARE FOR IT..or AGAINST IT...
I dont think anyone, except a few people, thought mike was actually comparing killing a musky to beating your wife or drinking and driving. he was just trying to use an example, an anology, so people understand hypocritical stances on catch and release. talk about taking things out of context..GEEZE.
NO..i am NOT comparing killing a musky to getting an abortion..but since Steve had to bring up beating wives and drinking and driving is illegal, i thought i would use an analogy where all activities are legal.
sweet meat. the topic of catch and release will never be resolved. EVER.... |
|
| |
