|
|
| On a different muskie-related message board I posed the question, “What would it take to produce the ideal muskie fisheries for everyone?” Here are some of the interesting replies I received back, and also feel free to add your own. Some were meant to be in good fun obviously, but there are also some realistic and good ideas mixed in. Thanks for looking.
Have all taxidermists switch to replica-only operations.
Have all muskie lakes be catch & release only.
Have all muskie fishermen go barbless.
Have 100 % catch and release except where harvest is needed.
Have a tagging system put in place so the true impact of harvest could be measured.
Have a long-term study of delayed mortality to find the true impact on the fishery.
Have less people fishing in conditions that are likely to harm fish.
Have more education in proper fish handling.
Have less opposition toward the stocking of more MN lakes.
Have taxidermists educate more people on replicas and eventually end skin mounts.
Have muskie anglers work together to get minimum length restrictions raised and increased stocking.
Have guides who will benefit financially from the stocking of lakes actually show up at meetings and show support.
Have all of us take the time to educate the non-musky anglers we see handling muskies poorly.
Have a 54-inch size limit - nation wide.
Have everyone who runs a boat have to take a rigorous course and pass a test.
Ban Jet Skis and wake board boats and make it illegal to fish from a pontoon.
On heavily pressured water, have a rule like some salmon rivers have, where an angler is allowed to hook and release a maximum of 4 fish daily.
Create a stamp like a trout or salmon stamp for a healthy fee that would give back to conservation.
Have more DNR/sheriff presence.
Educate the fishermen of other species about the benefits of muskies in the shared ecosystem.
|
|
| |
|
| Alright, here is a question that should be put in response to this post.
If muskie fishing is to be all catch and release, what the heck is the purpose of it? A man (or woman) spends thousands of dollars on a boat and accoutrements, rods, reels, lines and lures; and hundreds of hours learning the basic skills. But then he or she is supposed to release every fish he or she catches in the endeavor. Why go fishing?
Do hunters photo and let go the deer and bears they see in the forest? Aren't there limits to the catch and release ethic?
I live in a state with a 40" minimum size for legal muskies. Most male fish will never reach that size. Why shouldn't the successful angler take a 45"er home to share with the family?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Otsego, MN |
I live in a state with a 40" minimum size for legal muskies. Most male fish will never reach that size. Why shouldn't the successful angler take a 45"er home to share with the family?
Because 45 inch muskies don't taste very good! |
|
| |
|
| Because there is NO reason to.
If somebody wants fish, go get one of the 4.5 billion bluegill swimming around in the lake, or a 3.8 billion crappie, etc....
HULBERT |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Billion? Believe me, panfish are subject to overharvest too. |
|
| |
|
| geez....sorry for not having exact numbers.
Obviously there aren't BILLIONS of these fish lakes and OF COURSE they can be over harvested as well.
Didn't know I needed to be exact without people over reacting. I guess next time I hear something like.."Man the bugs were bad tonight, there were billions of them around the boat." I will correct them and ask, "really billions?" "Did you count them?" Or when I hear somebody say this week, "I went to Wal-Mart today and there were about a million people there" I will again correct them and say, "Really a million? Did you count all the people?"
HULBERT |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| I think to create an "ideal" muskie fishery, you'd need to manage each lake individually. That would take an amount of research, money, and time that I don't believe exists right now. In the end, lakes would be stocked according to the biomass and habitat to grow the largest and healthiest musky population possible, and size limits for each lake would reflect that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 136
Location: Chicago | Exoxaddict hit the nail on the head. There is'nt the money or resources available to institute most of the sensical suggestions listed and that is a ever increasing fact. Though there is something that is free and plentiful and that is commen sense. If only most of our state fisheries would use it. How many lakes can you think of that have that have the capabilities produce 50" class fish that have undersized limits. I'm not trying to paint all systems with the same brush, but through time and history many of these systems have become well known. Yet we see deplorable size limits of 34" and such on many waters. Is there a place for a 34" size limit? Yes, but there is a gigantuan amount of systems that need to be raised considerably. Until then we'll have to take our money elsewhere and fish on top of each other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Cast - 12/22/2008 8:52 AM
Alright, here is a question that should be put in response to this post.
If muskie fishing is to be all catch and release, what the heck is the purpose of it? A man (or woman) spends thousands of dollars on a boat and accoutrements, rods, reels, lines and lures; and hundreds of hours learning the basic skills. But then he or she is supposed to release every fish he or she catches in the endeavor. Why go fishing?
Do hunters photo and let go the deer and bears they see in the forest? Aren't there limits to the catch and release ethic?
I live in a state with a 40" minimum size for legal muskies. Most male fish will never reach that size. Why shouldn't the successful angler take a 45"er home to share with the family?
Most Musky Hunters fish for Muskies not to eat, but because of the sheer thrill of having a huge fish on the end of your line. If you don't want to spend the money to go musky fishing, DON'T!! If your intentions are to fish for food, why spend 10x's as much on musky equipment when they are the HARDEST fish to catch? What happens if you don't get one? Your family starves for the day? Dollars spent per pound of fish caught, you can do a whole lot better fishing for walleye or panfish. Then, unless you REALLY SUCK at fishing, you will go home with some dinner.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
Location: WI | Is it a coincidence that the next post is about Fishing Rights? It seems like the purpose of this post is to limit the rights of fisherman. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 909
| Long John Silvers has some killer fish, I just ate some for lunch and only spent $6.00 and my back and arms didn't even hurt from casting all day for it...O.K. I was just having some fun, please don't pound me for it!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Cast - 12/22/2008 7:52 AM
Alright, here is a question that should be put in response to this post.
If muskie fishing is to be all catch and release, what the heck is the purpose of it? A man (or woman) spends thousands of dollars on a boat and accoutrements, rods, reels, lines and lures; and hundreds of hours learning the basic skills. But then he or she is supposed to release every fish he or she catches in the endeavor. Why go fishing?...
Because its fun?
We've all seen, read, and heard about the damage overharvest (of any species) can do to a fishery. The combination of catch and release fishing and increased size limits has produced some of the best musky fishing that has ever been, and its only getting better. With more people getting into musky fishing, and the DNR getting less and less money to stock fewer fish into more and more lakes, the responsibility to help maintain quality populations of muskies in the places we fish lies with US.
You ask why a successful angler shouldn't take home a 45"er...
that's well within your rights as an angler if the size limit is 40". But just remember that if everyone shared that same line of thinking you'd never catch a 45" in the first place. |
|
| |
|
| Do hunters photo and let go the deer and bears they see in the forest? Aren't there limits to the catch and release ethic?
yes, hunters kill certain animals like deer for both food and trophy reasons.
at the same time, QDM has demonstrated that allowing deer to get older results in a better trophy population. and of course, a 6-year-old buck is really old.
at the same time, "hunters" do in fact photograph and let go rare top-end predators such as lions and polar bears. harvesting those animals is extremely restricted and/or not allowed due to the negative impact it would have on their ability to survive.
when it comes to fishing for food, there are lots and lots of good options such as the crappies and bluegills that Mike Hulbert points out - these are the "deer" of the underwater world, and i say eat up! treating muskies differently reflects the reality of their role and relative scarcity in the ecosystem as a top-end "lion" predator: rare and worth protecting.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3156
| Limiting fishing rights or trophy managed theres a difference,,,In Minnesota the DNR manages the muskie has a 'trophy" fisherie with that in mind higher size limits go hand in hand,,with walleyes stocked everywhere,,world class smallmouths.,,pike EVERYWHERE,and panfish in all 10,000 lakes theres no shortage of chances for harvest,,, managing a couple species with high minimum size isnt going to cause anybody a lack of fish frys in this state |
|
| |
|
| Comparing fishermen to hunters is ludicrous. Funny how people always act surprised that we are debating the balance between "rights" and the common good.
I'll gladly tread on your right to kill fish so we can call catch bigger fish. 45"? Think big, it's possible.
You can say I'm limiting your rights and I can say you're selfish. In the end, we're both right, but why do you work so hard fishing if you don't want to catch big fish? You can probably throw out a couple reasons to keep a 45" but every fish out there 46" and above is a reason not to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 83
| I'm not sure " ideal Fishery" and Musky fishing belong in the same sentance. I don't think I've run into too many guys who are completely satisfied with how things are going for them!
|
|
| |
|
| simple,less musky fisherman
and less internet fisherman who always like to tell where are the big fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | To produce the ideal fishery for musky fisherman you would need to eliminate all other fish species or pass law making it illegal to pursue any other fish species. The fisheries world does not revolve around musky fishing. The fact that there are more bluegills, perch, bass etc make them easier targets for the casual fisherman. Musky fisherman make up a small fraction of the fishing industry and regulating to create the "perfect" world just for them is but a mere dream and is completely unrealistic. It sure would be nice though wouldnt it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My point was assuming it's OK to tell folks there are 'billions' of panfish, kill all you want, is pretty irresponsible. The numbers being what they are, if you want trophy gills and crappies, you need to leave the vast majority of them in the lake too. One winter of ice fishing pressure can and will wipe out a couple year classes of pannies in a 500 acre lake if the pressure is as intense as it can be. I've seen two carloads of ice anglers harvest over 200 crappies in a single night from one of my favorite little lakes, and it's only 200 acres.
I won't apologize for pointing out that information; any great Muskie fishery is likely to support trophy panfish as well and I like to fish for and believe in conserving both. We usually release many of the bigger crappies and gills we catch when Ice fishing, and harvest the 'eaters'. Some lakes, like Thunder, are now so overpopulated with gills it's crazy and instead of the BIG gills one uesed to catch, they are tiny and way too numerous...disease will eventually level that out. Why so many? because Ice anglers thought there were 'billions' of Pike and Walleyes in that water, and they literally raped the lake over the last few years. Not enough predators in the right numbers, and the panfish went nutso.
Count however you like, Mr. Hulbert, just don't miscount OR discount others sport fishing because you don't personally partake. Conservation and preservation/creation of trophy fisheries where it's possible to grow 'em crosses the species line over, and over, and over.....
|
|
| |
|
| I think the whole list posted is what is wrong with muskie fishing...not one mention of how these ideas affect other fisheries...people taking shots at guides..."make me big muskies no matter what gets in the way".....I paraphrased it for you.... |
|
| |
|
| A lot of the suggestions on the list were kind of tongue-in-cheek, not serious. What about the idea of purchasing a tag though? What if it cost $10.00 to buy a tag that allowed you to keep one fish per year with the money going back to stocking fish? Any way that could work? Although a lot of these ideas were not to be taken seriously, I thought some warranted a bit of good discussion on the pros and cons. Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| if there was a musky tag or stamp to be purchased i would be fine with that. on the other hand it could possibly send the message. i paid for this fish im harvesting it. also on my side of the pond ,,ontario,,it would be hard pressed for funds to go to muskies... the tongue in cheek thoughts really do represent frustrations and wishes from guys who do enjoy the sport. good thoughts derrys. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'What's wrong with Muskie fishing'...I take it further, folks not always thinking about how what they want might effect others who do not share the same interests and goals, perhaps.
That's the Human condition, Ben.
 |
|
| |
|
| I think all fishing Guides Muskys,Walleyes,etc should have to pay a
fee here in Mn that should go directly to stocking efforts and Fish Management, After all there making a profit off our Natural resources. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So are resorts, bars, restaurants, hotels, gas stations, bait shops, and more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| I will comment on a few of the ideas.
While I would like to see bigger size limits on most waters there are lakes that would not benefit one bit from it. Doesn't Day Lake in NW Wisconsin have somehting like a 30" or 34" size limit and the DNR atually encourages taking some of them because htye won't get any bigger than that and they are actually somewhat stunted?
If you make all taxidermists change to replicas only then are they really taxidermists or artists? All good taxidermists are already artists but if all they did could they really be called a taxidermist? They would not be required to buy a taxidermist liscense.
To have individuals tag fish would be a recipet for disaster IMHO as more fish would be killed and injured by people not knowing how to do it correctly.
We already pay enough in liscences and excise taxes to sustain any stocking and other things we need for the fishery if the money was only used correctly and not misappropriated. A stamp would just be more money for them to waste. Plus we probably have more muskys now than at anytime in the past, other than a few areas such as Green Bay what more can really be done?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Good to see somebody pipe up for the 'other' fish, on a Musky site. Not to beat a dead horse but panfisheries are simply devastated at an alarming rate, with the advent of quality electronics, better warm weather gear, and the further popularization and ease of ice fishing. The thought that panfish numbers are infinite seem to never go away. Just as difficult to get the quality back with regards to panfish size structure, as it is with Muskies, and they are just as important to me. Just as Muskellunge size limits still need some help on many waters(ie higher minimum length limits, slots or C.P.R.), more stringent panfish limits need to be looked at, with regards to what is happening to some once famous panfish factories.
Edited by Reef Hawg 12/22/2008 10:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 12/22/2008 9:04 AM
Billion? Believe me, panfish are subject to overharvest too.
Mr. Sworrall, I agree with you about overharvesting panfish. Do you see that it not only hurts the panfisher, but also those fish that depend on panfish for forage.
I don't know about your state--though I'd guess it's the same or close--but in my state an angler can take up to 50 panfish per day. That is ridiculous. And though I've never seen 50 fish taken by one angler in one day, I've talked to folks who take in the high teens twice or more per week. That is a big loss to the water.
What do you think of this limit: No more than eight panfish per day, per person, and no more than six of any one species. That is, six crappies, six bluegills, six perch. Would people be content with that?
Maybe this belongs in a different post. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Cast - 12/22/2008 8:52 AM
Alright, here is a question that should be put in response to this post.
If muskie fishing is to be all catch and release, what the heck is the purpose of it? A man (or woman) spends thousands of dollars on a boat and accoutrements, rods, reels, lines and lures; and hundreds of hours learning the basic skills. But then he or she is supposed to release every fish he or she catches in the endeavor. Why go fishing?
Do hunters photo and let go the deer and bears they see in the forest? Aren't there limits to the catch and release ethic?
I live in a state with a 40" minimum size for legal muskies. Most male fish will never reach that size. Why shouldn't the successful angler take a 45"er home to share with the family?
Isn't it cheaper to go to the grocery and purchase some fish that are already cleaned? I have seen this question brought up before. It is more of the catch of the fish is why we do it rather than eating the fish regardless of the species. If it is a fact of putting food on the table, then doing it yourself is so much more costly than just purchasing it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 212
| Alright after having a similar discussion about ONE of our local lakes with the area WCO's, it was pointed out that there just aren't enough musky fishermen compared to the other species specific fishermen out there to have muskies be the most important species. It's something like 2% of the musky population that is 48 inches or greater, and trying to increase that number could have adverse effects. More muskies could mean more diseases for them, more competition for food, more pressure, and alot of other unknowns. How could you ideally manage a whole state under one regulation, let alone a whole nation?? Sure there may seem to be tons of panfish in a lake, but in one or two years those numbers can change ridiculously fast. It is a finite system. There is a balance made by nature. Changing things that effect that balance have much farther reaching effects than the one view musky-minded will ever realize. |
|
| |
