|
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | I was talking about this with a few other on another sight and it kind of makes you wonder why it's like this.........Why does the Whitetail hunter who shoots the largest deer in the area get a high fives and pats on the back from all around yet the Muskie fisherman who keeps a fish almost get stoned to death but fellow fishermen? Its all the same ideas about breeding stock and better for the population........So why the difference?
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
| Don't think for a second that deer hunters don't do the same thing. when the State Record Non typical was shot in Wis, he was accused of poaching it, found it as a road kill, gut shot it, you name it he was accused of it. Of course none of them were correct as it was a legal kill. Jealously shows up in every sport not just Musky fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: MN | That's a graet question Tim. I think that it's got to be a density thing and that a big buck is big at 4 1/2-5 1/2years. But a big Muskie takes 15-20 years to reach trophy status. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20194
Location: oswego, il | The other difference is you have a choice to release a musky to again grow which you obviosly do not have with the deer. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe we could start shooting deer with stun bullets, snap a few pics and then hull ass outta there . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Here a couple of reasons.
1) To complete the capture to don't have to kill the fish.
2) (Big reason here) It only takes 4 -5 yrs to grow a trophy buck versus 15 - 20 yrs for a muskie. That's a long time to replenish the stock
3) In deer hunting you are only targeting bucks. In muskie fishing you are targeting the females. We could only harvest all males, I thing the fisheries could replenish itself. Then the question is, just how many times can a males mate??? We know deer can often, but I don't think a muskie can but a few times.
I wrote this before viewing the other posts. It looks like I hit most of the same points as they did.
Edited by muskie! nut 10/29/2009 8:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 653
Location: MPLS, MN | People eat deer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Multiple hunters can't shoot the same deer several times a year for 15 years. Well, maybe if they're all really terrible shots... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One devil's advocate point, even though muskies live far longer, if the system is healthy and good year class distribution is evident, that's not as much a factor as one might think. It would be if for some reason several year classes were missing. I think that's why some lakes will never see size limits that for all intents prohibit harvest...the fisheries folks are actually encouraging some harvest in some waterbodies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Which fisheries folks are encouraging harvest? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The ones that fish bass tournaments.
Kidding aside, There are some lakes with an overtaxed forage base that could use thinning. |
|
| |
|
| I'm wondering, along the lines of what steve said, if NOT keeping a big muskie or two could be harmful to the long-term population of a given lake. If all muskies are allowed to grow to their maximum potential and are released every time, what happens to the younger fish? Each specific body of water has to have a point of diminished returns based on baitfish (food) present. If all muskies are released (I have never kept one) the only thing that will make room for a smaller fish to get big is a large muskie that has died naturally. Every time I see someone mishandle or keep a muskie I just say it is opening up a place for a smaller one to get big.
John H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | We need to get to point where we can identify a 38 inch 12 year old male and remove it from the system like a forester does with stunted trees. C'mon science! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Treats,
The ones who wouldn't put a 50" limit on some of the waters you fish. Try for 54", see how it goes ( I'd love to see a 54" limit on Mille Lacs, Vermilion, and Leech, as an example). The ones who won't place a 50" limit state wide in Wisconsin, and I agree with them in some cases. Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio, too. Want to discourage harvest? Put the limit at 54" as the Canadians did on trophy potential waters. Ask the guys who fought for the larger limit on Bay of green Bay why they had so much trouble getting it done.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | In lakes that are maintained via stocking (in MN anyway), the population densities are intentionally low to avoid the population getting to the size where it taxes the forage base. In most of these lakes there is little natural reproduction so the quantity level of fish is pretty well established. I know that many other states other then WI practice their stocking like this too.
Now I do know some bodies of water in WI where there is a great amount of stocking and natural reproduction going on. In those systems I could see harvest as a potential management tool. In those cases you'd probably be better off to keep the smaller fish and leave the large ones to pass their genetics along. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if one of the small ones had tremendous growth potential?
Not arguing with you, I also like the idea of slot limits where it makes sense, but not too many fisheries folks do when it comes to Muskies. Dave Neuswanger published a short piece on slot limit ideas a while back, I think... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | We didn't go for 50" this last time as there was already a precedent for 48" that was much easier to get. We will be going for a higher limit on many lakes in the up coming years. The reason why the DNR wouldn't jump right away on a 54" is due to sociology, not biology.
I haven't spoken to a MN DNR official that encourages harvest of muskies (they may just be keeping it a secret). The only exception to that is they would like to see the current state record fall. |
|
| |
|
| A lot of fish die every year unintentionally. I don't think harvesting fish should ever be encouraged when there are plenty of fish dieing unintentionally. These numbers will go up every year as more people are starting to musky fish. Guys are becoming better fisherman as well which means more fish that are being caught than ever before. The more times each fish is caught decreases its chance of survival obviously. I think we will start to see a decrease in larger fish on a lot of the heavily fished waters. All it takes is a swallowed lure, a fish pulled from deep water, or a mishandled fish. Some of these fish are caught 10 times or more a year. Chances of it making it to 50" are slim. A lot of the 50"+ fish you are seeing now got there because fishing pressure was not as bad 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago for that matter, compared to now. The fish that are not harassed on a daily basis are the fish that will more than likely grow to large proportions.
Edited by Baby Mallard 10/29/2009 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What good would a slot do when you're already stocking the lake? Just dial the stocking back and voila you're there. The WI DNR stocks too many fish per acre IMOP. If I remember right when proposing Lake Geneva the the plan was for 10,000 fingerlings every year. Where as in Pokegama they were proposing that many over 10 years. Muskies need space to grow plain and simple.
The problem is when you start encouraging harvest that tradition grows. Then we're right back to where we were 20 years ago... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | with all the guys just starting and more and more do every season to muskie fish i think we need every big muskie we can get. think of it like this, a guy shoots a deer he is done for the season and goes home happy. that same guy puts a big ski in the net and very soon after that he wants another,bigger one. and he will spend alot more time tryin to get another one then he will spend in a stand looking for a deer. i say the more big fish we have the better off we will be.JM2C. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Baby Mallard,
Bullseye. Been saying that about the MN 'revolution' for about 5 years....
treats,
So, explain how the end result is any different. I didn't say WHY or get into belief structures, I simply stated the obvious that the fisheries folks set limits smaller than would discourage harvest on many trophy potential waters because there simply would not be many legals caught. If a fisheries professional doesn't think it's socially acceptable to place a 50" or 54" limit on a waterbody that kicks out numbers of fish in that range on the top end...why would that be?
And a slot would work where population control is deemed necessary to GET the density down. Are you saying leave it, and harvest of the top end fish in that water would solve the problem if no further stocking is done? Butternut comes to mind. Another would be to take out some of the males. And what's with the 'You' stuff? I'm not encouraging harvest any more than you. I'm simply acknowledging reality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I used "you're" as the act of. Obviously you are not stocking fish. #406927
I used "you" as in anyone pushing the message not you in particular. #406927
Neither was meant as an attack or allegation nor intentionally directed at you.
The upper management of the MN DNR doesn't like to make drastic changes. They've been know to abort plans based on just a couple calls. It's more that some key personal often times don't want to deal with people (who may or may not know any of the biology of their decision, or have a personal agenda) in order to do what is the biologically right call/best call for the fishery. We'll see what the new regime is like in the next couple months. We're making strides in this area, but it doesn't happen overnight as you're probably experienced in the past.
As far as the end result being the same I disagree. The original post was about harvesting a trophy buck vs. a muskie. I'm assuming that we're all talking about a trophy fish here in my comments. In order for a fish to get to trophy potential it needs the right ingredients. If you (meaning the stocking entity) initially stock too many fish you won't necessarily have more trophies as there can be too much downward pressure for these fish to get big as well as potential forage restrictions depending on the body of water. I don't want this to degrade into a MN vs. WI thread so I think I'll be done with the thread now.
Edited by Muskie Treats 10/29/2009 12:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking to the end result of a limit that allows harvest, and therefore encourages said harvest by allowing it as socially acceptable or what the public at large wants or wahtever, or setting it for biological reasons at the same size. If the biology says set it at 55", it should be set there, IMO. Pesky phone calls from reactionaries... knew you were not referring to me, just handing out some stuff. |
|
| |
|
| I am not a hunter, so please forgive a naive response. But, why don't people hunt with a tranquilizer gun? They can shoot, photo, and release. If a hunter tranquilizes a deer and then decides to keep it, they can kill the deer while it is tranquilized. Plus, a tranquilizer eliminates the problem with wounded deer getting away, and may actually improve the "catch rate."
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Deer aren't stocked and if it weren't for hunting in many areas it could be detrimental to the health of the entire herd. I don't think tranq guns are legal for most of us either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Muskies don't ruin flower gardens or jump in front of cars. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Brian, As far as I know traqualizers are not s o quick as to instantly incapacitate a deer or other animal. It take a minute or so to work on the animal. In that minute a deer can go a LONG way and without any blood trail would be just about impossible to follow and find. Even with a blood trail it can be tough to follow a deer sometimes.
Plus the fact that deer just plain need to be harvested or they will overpopulate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 9
| this is like comparing apples to oranges or packers to browns
come on |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Uhmm ... ahhhh, ... nevermind.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| Brian - 10/29/2009 12:34 PM
I am not a hunter, so please forgive a naive response. But, why don't people hunt with a tranquilizer gun? They can shoot, photo, and release. If a hunter tranquilizes a deer and then decides to keep it, they can kill the deer while it is tranquilized. Plus, a tranquilizer eliminates the problem with wounded deer getting away, and may actually improve the "catch rate."
Brian
Hunting for liberals?  I suppose your idea would work.
I don't hunt either, but it's only because I haven't had the opportunity. But it seems like a lot of work to tranqulize it, wait for it to go down, and then kill it, especially since its not going to be any less dead in the end.
Personally, I'd be pretty leary of eating anything that was taken down by enough chemicals to kill something my size.
I think part of the difference in attitudes lies in the fact that deer populations need to be managed. Since we've basically removed all the natural predators from their habitat, a healthy ecosystem depends on a certain amount of harvest. Such is often not the case with muskies.
I suppose that there are a fair amount of hunters out there who just hunt for sport like we catch muskies for sport, but... |
|
| |
