|
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | The MN size thread got me curious about what a lot of us WI guys are averaging.
Anybody crunched the numbers to see what their average size of fish was from WI waters? From the few that listed them in the MN thread, looks like somewhere around upper 30's is common.
I'll have to figure my numbers out when I get home and let everyone know. Anybody else want to share?
It might also be interesting to list if you are prmarily an open water fisherman, shallow structure, etc. as well as typical area of the state you fish in.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: North/Central WI | I typically spend 500-600 hrs on the water in Wisconsin each season. Basically all of my fishing is done on weekends when fishing pressure and boating traffic are the worst. I primarily fish Vilas county, but occasionally wander into Oneida county for a tournament. Most lakes I fish contain cisco and all of them have a history of producing large fish. I spend most of my time over open water and fishing deep structure (both deep weeds and rocks). Last year was a good year but no fifty.
Had 54 fish 34" or better
7 fish over 45" (including 2 hybrids)
avg size was slightly over 40" |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | All of my 2008 Wisconsin musky fishing took place in Sawyer county. Fishing primarily on "action" lakes, the largest fish was 42", with a 37" average. I would have loved to put larger fish in the boat but I'm thankful for the time on the water I was granted. Good luck in 2009 folks ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I already posted on the other thread, but 94 in the frabill, 37 inch avg. fishing mostly central WI rivers and flowages. Interestingly, the avg from sept and oct was well over 40", but for may/june it was about 33". I would attribute the poor performance early in the season to matchfishing  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | 36.75". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| 37" (actually 36.75")
Probably closer to 35" in reality if you count the ones that were too small to bother measuring.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/29/2009 12:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Where abouts were you fishing, you guys? This info would be helpful!
Edited by 12gauge 1/29/2009 12:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| Where?
Madison (Yahara Chain): 35.625"
Vilas County: 39.333" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I dont keep a tally, but I'd imagine I was right around 37 or 38. |
|
| |
|
| it is also interesting to show the sample size.
A small sample size like 5, one 30 incher could really skew the numbers.
like EAs. how many fish did it take to get a 37" avg?
113 fish in my boat in WI last season. 37.25" avg.
only fish over 30" were counted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
| I fished 322 hours last year and caught 21 muskies with 7 over 40 inches. My average size was 37 inches. All fish that were caught came from bayfield county lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| bn - 1/29/2009 1:33 PM
it is also interesting to show the sample size.
A small sample size like 5, one 30 incher could really skew the numbers.
like EAs. how many fish did it take to get a 37" avg?
113 fish in my boat in WI last season. 37.25" avg.
only fish over 30" were counted.
Than your average isn't an average of anything except the fish that were over 30".
In any case, you are right -- a small fish can really skew the average of you have a small sample size. But then so can a big fish.
Funny though, even though you have like 9 times more fish in your boat (holy crap do you have a job you have to go to ever, or are you independently wealthy?) our averages are within 1/2"...
In fact it looks like EVERYBODY is right around 37". Funny, but I'm thinking "little" when I get a 37" and NOT "average".
Maybe our expectations are a bit more than reality, eh?
Just for kicks, Brad, what's your average in Canada? Mine is 43.333"
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | yes it is the avg of fish over 30", not too many are caught under 30...maybe 15 last year
I haven't spent a day fishing in Canada since 05, so I'd have to look back at the trips but I'd imagine the Canada avg was 44ish.
as for hours on the water, maybe you should live a little closer to musky lakes and you'd get as many hours as I do...since you are single w/ no kids too EA!
even though I may have 9 x the # of fish I'd be willing to bet I only have 3 x or less the # of hours...it's not about quantity of hours, it's what you do w/ them.
I fish all over, shallow to suspended, big lakes to little lakes...Nate has a good avg going in Northern WI but he doesn't get the numbers he could but is targeting bigger fish...I would say the avg for me in Vilas/Oneida area is higher than the Madison chain by about 2", but I do quite a bit of what Nate does and that is going to weed out some of the <35" fish.
Edited by MSKY HNR 1/29/2009 2:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | 37.2 from north central Wi. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Interesting thread so far. My average, counting the one 30ish inch fish that I didn't measure is 39.2 inches. That's over only 17 fish, so pretty small sample size. My average after throwing out outliers of 30 and 48 is 39.166, so it didn't change things much.
Most of my fishing was done in the area around Chippewa County (probably a little north of what you'd call west central).
I fished a lot of deep structure this year, and that accounted for all 5 of my biggest fish this year (43.5-48). Smaller fish were on weed flats and cribs for the most part. I did catch 3 fish up in the Hayward area in the limited time I was up there.
Surprisingly, I caught one late fall, suspended fish, and that was a 30 inch fish I didn't measure - smallest fish all year. Guess that one didn't read the magazines.
I will be moving up to Hayward next year, so it will be interesting to see what happens there. Thanks for all the participation so far. Looking forward to hearing some more results.
curleytail
Edited by curleytail 1/29/2009 11:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Not trying to start a fight, but why are the fish averages so small in WI? Over stocking? poor management on minimum length restrictions? are these fish harvested at a high level or are they stunted? Do you think the use of 2 lines has a negative effect on these fish as you can cast while also drowning a sucker?
I'm sure you guys have beaten this topic to death in the past, but I'm just shocked at those averages. Are there any future plans for the DNR to improve the muskie fishery in WI or just keep it the way it always has been?
Edited by Baby Mallard 1/30/2009 12:35 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Mallard, it has been beat to death, over and over... There are lots of theories: bad genetic strains stocked, lake size and habitat, WI anglers being more likely to keep fish than other states (I have not seen this happen, but have heard of a few big local fish being kept).
I think a big thing is the general makeup of the lakes. Sure, there are WI lakes than can, and do put out huge fish each year, but we don't really have anything that can compare with some of the giant lakes that are loaded with ciscos in MN. To counter that argument, there are supposedly smaller lakes in MN kicking out a bunch of big fish too. Leech lake strain in MN is the advantage? Maybe, but if I'm not wrong some huge WI strains have been caught in MN too. I think WI is experimenting with stocking the LL strain to see what happens in a few places.
I don't know all the particulars, but I do know that there are different fisheris in different places. Bay De Noc is known for putting out a lot of HUGE walleyes. Does this make every other lake in WI and MN that doesn't put out fish like the Bay inferior or does it just mean that the bay is exceptional.
In my opinion, WI does not have "such a small average," MN has such a huge average. The number of huge fish caught has exploded in recent years, with most of them you hear about coming from MN. Does that now make Wi, and any other state with average muskies bad?
curleytail
Edited by curleytail 1/30/2009 12:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| I fish Marinette county flowages and my avg length was 37.25 with a small sampling size of 13 fish. So that seems to fit also. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Quit keeping track of fish the last two years, but up until then the avg was a smidge over 40" fishing Vilas, Oneida, and Forest counties. I would imagine the last two years were the same.
A lot of my fishing is doen suspended, but I spend time shallow as well. My avg. for strictly suspended fish and "deep" fish is a bit higher at about 42" I would say. Therefore my avg. size for fish caught shallow on structure is under 40".
Nothing wrong with an avg. over 37". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I, like Travis, quit keeping track for about three or four years now. The last log I had I was just under a 40" average. My average that year on Pelican was over 40, around 43 if I remember correctly. That average actually worried me because I wasn't catching any small fish.
This year my average on Pelican was actuallty lower, and believe it or not, this made me happy. I was seeing a lot more smaller and even undersize fish than in years past. Tells me that they are reproducing and making more muskies, guaranteeing a healthy fishery for years to come.
I am not a fisheries biologist but my simple mind says, you should catch more small fish than big fish in a healthy fishery, there should just plain be more of them in the system. If you are still contacting big fish with regularity, you have nothing to worry about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| Mallard, there are many reasons in my opinion. Completely different ecosystems for one thing -- small lakes can't support the same sort of biomass as Vermillion, Mille Lacs, etc. Different forage, different water chemistry, different fish. I don't believe based on what I've read that genetics is as big of a factor as the others, but it does play a part for sure. I think the most significant factor, as much as I hate to admit it, is harvest and delayed mortality. And I don't think its the residents as much as it is the tourists. Sure there are old timers, and there is a local mentality in some areas that if you caught it its food. But it's absulutely AMAZING when you spend a few weeks in Northern WI and find out how many folks are from IL. And those are the folks who typically don't have the same respect for where they are as the folks who live there. Junior catches the biggest fish of his life, and on the wall it goes. Thousands if "juniors" every single weekend, year after year after year...
The most significant factor? Well, let's just say the 34" size limit isn't doing us any favors at all.
WI will never be like MN as far as musky fishing. Well, unless you only look at Green Bay. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 159
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I like seeing a lot of different sizes of 'skis. Nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of 50 inchers (and bigger) swimming around the state, and an awful lot that will be 50 in the years to come if we take care of them. I would truly be worried if i had a 48 inch average, as i had a good mix of mid/upper 40 inch fish with lower/mid 30 inch fish this year. I wouldn't trade the sustainability of that for kind of fishing for anything. 37 is a great average. |
|
| |
|
| Just short of 150 fish for 08 but only measured 30 or so.
Fished northern and southern WI.
I would say that the average was high 30's
Water and stucture varied depending on time of year and location. Highest number came from deeper water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2059
| Not caught in WI....but Iowa muskies are from WI originally. 19 Iowa fish hit my net for a 38.29" average. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Wi muskies are smarter. They learn after getting caught a few times. Mn muskies are dumb, they attack anything that moves no matter how often they get caught until the day they die. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
| Average size isn't necessarily indicative of the quality of the fish population. Sure, it can be an indicator. But you need to remember that 48" fish aren't hatched at that size, and fish likely get caught multiple times throughout their lives, especially in the smaller, pressured waters in Wisconsin. If the overall average size fish caught was in the high 40"s, there would probably be some concern over unbalanced age demographics.
Probably stating the obvious here, but in other words, in a lot of waters, catching low to mid 30"ers can be taken as a sign of lake health....and so a lower average size, in some cases, isn't that big of a deal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 393
Location: Hopefully on the water | 40" average fro me last year. However it was very easy to figure out with it being my only fish from last year. Caught in Vilas county on a bucktail. Spent most of the time between Vilas, Sawyer, and Brown county this past season. The numbers and average should change this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 376
Location: On the River | 35 fish 41 inch average, same as last year. Most caught on the river |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 1/30/2009 9:42 AMAMAZING when you spend a few weeks in Northern WI and find out how many folks are from IL. And those are the folks who typically don't have the same respect for where they are as the folks who live there.
WOW thats really not fair
you guys like trying to chase people away, IL anglers, Brett Favre, what next ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 1/30/2009 9:42 AM
AMAZING when you spend a few weeks in Northern WI and find out how many folks are from IL. And those are the folks who typically don't have the same respect for where they are as the folks who live there. Junior catches the biggest fish of his life, and on the wall it goes. Thousands if "juniors" every single weekend, year after year after year...
.
maybe they missed the new sign in Rockford? |
|
| |
