|
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress-
"We had a Warm Water Study Committee meeting Saturday. There were many musky issues on the agenda and I sensed some resistance, although some things did get through. They voted down proposals for a 50" size limits on 2 stretches of the WI River, supported a proposal to remove the 50" minimum from Pelican Lake, but supported proposals for 50" minimums on Whitefish Lake and Redstone Lake."
There is also some resistance to a statewide 40" size increase. It is coming from the area DNR Biologists. I can't believe Wisconsin is so far behind the eight ball on musky size limits!
Just a heads up on Pelican.
Many of us here worked very hard on getting this in place. I don't feel it has been in place anywhere near long enough to see any impact of the size limit increase. If musky populations are down it would be from the lack of stocking.
Now would be the time to make sure the idea to change it back gets shut down before the momentum gets going too much.
Anybody know where it is coming from? I will keep digging and post updates. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Man o man. The Wisconsin DNR is in the Stone Age when it comes to musky management and size limits. I can't believe they want to remove the 50" from Pelican. They should be adding more to the list, not taking away. Get with the times!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This IS NOT FROM THE WDNR!!! The local biologist is in 100% support of the 50” size limit on Pelican.
This idiocy is coming from a small group of Town of Enterprise people (the township that borders the western portion of the lake) They brought a resolution to the Oneida county spring hearing last year and because the musky fishermen there to support the sizelimit increase on Big Sand, Kentuck and Long didn’t stick around to the end of the meeting this hand written resolution passed.
According to the people that brought the resolution to the meeting it has nothing to do with the current population, and everything to do with being able to keep fish. Little Johnny argument was used as the main reason.
I find it very interesting that the Warm Water committee wont support increase even when the local biologist support them, but will support a decrease based on a very small number of people voting, with the local biologist against it.
I talked to the local biologist, he had to submit it to the committee(his hands were tied by the spring hearing vote) but really hopes the musky fishing population will come out and oppose it if the thing actually makes it on the ballot as a question. From this report it sounds like it will make it as a question.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And we as muskie anglers will show up...and vote it down. Big Time. |
|
| |
|
| because it's the right thing to do, or because "we as muskie anglers" blindly vote in favor of those things?
the reason i ask is this: as mentioned above in the quote from an email, Redstone Lake also has a local proposal coming through the process for a 50" size limit. it was put forth by a well-meaning and energetic individual for their local muskie lake in a county with low attendance at the spring hearings.
but...imho, Redstone isn't a lake that by any stretch that we should expect to produce 50" fish with any regularity. it doesn't have a track record of doing so, it doesn't have the greatest forage base, and most importantly there is no known successful natural reproduction.
whereas Pelican has all the "right" reasons for a 50" limit: history of real big fish, low density, no stocking whatsoever, etc.; Redstone does not.
we should make informed and wise decisions about which of these efforts we support, or we'll run into the same problems that came up when the attempts were made to get the limits raised on too many lakes at once a few years back: the perception of elitism leading to organized resistance.
supporting Pelican's 50" limit is practically a no brainer. Redstone: non-starter.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking strictly to Pelican. I don't do much of anything 'blindly' and do not usually support any agenda that does, but that's me.
I don't need a lecture to indicate where politics might rule the day instead of good, solid, fisheries manager style supported management.
I've always said I personally feel Wisconsin's method of allowing/encouraging special interest groups excessive influence through the Conservation Congress meetings in the spring is not necessarily going to result in on the ground realities that reflect what's best for the fisheries.
I don't think the folks who got this possible ballot question have a scintilla of concern over the fishery. Quite the contrary.
Yet, it's going to be on the ballot next Spring, so those of us who feel strongly about protecting trophy potential waters from the kind on almost thoughtless over harvest we saw as recently as the 1990's are forced to react accordingly....not because of lambeau's 'elitist' concerns; indeed, because if we do not act the pendulum will swing ALL the way back to where it was. That's not what the fisheries manager here thinks is best, and yet it could be so because a small group of people want it that way. SO, because Wisconsin's fish and game management is influenced so strongly by the 'democratic' process, the experts cannot even implement the best programs for our waters in many cases.
One thing is sure, the DNR will get the blame when it goes badly, and it will. That's a shame. Don't like things as they are in WI? Look in the mirror for help with the first person you know who can make a difference. |
|
| |
|
| Amen Lameau!
I couldn't have said it better myself. And I'm for a pelican lake 50'' limit but not for every body of water. The musky Maniacs of this world need more level headed thinkers like you before we restrict, limit, regulate, and eventually eliminate our sport. I for one do not want to live in a European society. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Guest - 12/7/2009 6:36 PM
Amen Lameau!
I couldn't have said it better myself. And I'm for a pelican lake 50'' limit but not for every body of water. The musky Maniacs of this world need more level headed thinkers like you before we restrict, limit, regulate, and eventually eliminate our sport. I for one do not want to live in a European society.
I don't know about you, guest, but my sport is muskie fishing. Higher size limits in most cases make my sport BETTER, and certainly don't threaten to eliminate it.
Now, if your sport is muskie KEEPING as opposed to just catching them and putting them back? Well, you have a point. WI has a long history of muskie keeping, so maybe that's what side of the fence you sit on. I think if you asked the opinion of most muksie anglers, and probably anglers of all species, the fewer fish that are caught and killed the better the fishing ultimately turns out to be.
Nothing Eurpoean about conservation. Conservation is a big part why you have fish to eat and deer to shoot. A few noisy property owners, who probably just want their grandkids to be able to keep the muskies they catch? That's not a good reason to go reversing size limits in places where many people worked very hard to get them passed, and it's not a very good reason not to pass them on lakes that may not have trophy potential.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20227
Location: oswego, il | I was puizzled by the redstone 50" proposal while dropping an obvious 50" no brainer on pelican as well. I think it says alot about the process to getting the right regulations in place to make the best fisheries available. What is even more sad is I bet you won't see any of this in Muskie Magazine. |
|
| |
|
| essoxaddict,
Imagine what a 50'' limit on Butternut lake would be like..... disastrous!
As for deer hunting in Wi. lol. I have seen no verbiage from the wdnr the last eight years whatsoever. I hunt in the eradication zone that was changed to the more pc heard reduction zone. Do you see conservation in eradication or reduction?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest, the DNR has said quite a bit about deer management. Good discussion and a few press releases here:
http://www.whitetailsfirst.com
I don't believe anyone asked for a 50" limit on Butternut.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Guest, there are lakes where some harvest is needed. They are few and far between compared to the hundreds of others other that never have and never will reach their full potential, because so many of the fish that reach the statewide 34" limit are harvested the first time they are caught.
As for the deer population? "conservation" sometimes entails restoring balance to an ecosystem. That can mean erradication and harvest, where appropriate. Eliminate predators, and you need to take other measures to restore the balance... But that's a discussion for another forum. |
|
| |
|
| Steve, i didn't realize sharing an opinion on a forum was "lecturing". i thought that discussion was what this board is for? if it sounded that way, not my intent. in the meanwhile, i'll continue to suggest that reasonableness is the right path, as is understanding likely roadblocks to success.
Jeff...have you ever fished Redstone?
what guest suggests isn't all that terribly far-fetched, and it echoes my point. if we "abuse" (my word) the CC system and put unnecessarily high limits in places that don't merit them, we risk antagonizing and activating the anti's. if/when that happens, they'll make it a whole lot harder for us to "use" the CC system to get those higher limits in place on the lakes that actually need them and could produce trophy fish; or on efforts like the statewide 40" size limit.
keep in mind that these things are voted on statewide, and people who start seeing multiple 50" limit questions year after year after year might just start to kick back...maybe i'm wrong, but you sure do hear a lot of comments along those lines every spring...in other words, proceed cautiously.
the best answer to the "Little Johnny" argument is to point out that there are plenty of stocked put-and-take lakes with lower limits available for Junior to go if that's his goal, and it's good to also have protected lakes with natural reproduction and higher limits for the trophy/release fisherman. win-win.
WI is completely different than places like MN or Canada. in those areas they rely either entirely on natural reproduction or the stocking is designed to create a fishery with the potential for it to occur and take over. it makes sense for them to have very high limits on all of their waters. WI's history is one of putting muskies into every lake they could find - even if the lake doesn't have the potential for trophy fish or for natural reproduction. imho, in WI high size limit efforts should be saved for those lakes that will benefit the most - save the energy and avoid potentially aggravating people on lakes that don't deserve it.
all of which is an aside from the fact that Pelican IS one of those lakes with that kind of potential and this spring people will need to get out to every county and speak up against this attempted backslide.
Edited by lambeau 12/7/2009 8:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Esosx addict,
Sorry, I guess we are on the same page.
When it comes to muskies anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'because it's the right thing to do, or because "we as muskie anglers" blindly vote in favor of those things? '
Looks like a direct answer to my comment above it, which was obviously an answer to Mike's comments about the Pelican question and the need for action next Spring on the Pelican 50" question.
It seemed you were, in essence, preaching to the choir, in my case at least. Perhaps your intent was otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
| i was responding directly to your comment...responding to Mike's...responding to Joe's...which is quoting Tim's email...and includes the reference to Redstone.
read the rest of the post...i was trying to point out that sometimes people simply vote in favor of something because it involves muskies - and that gets a ton of reinforcement on these discussion boards where everyone is part of that choir.
in some cases it's the right thing to do for the right reasons: Pelican for example, where the naturally reproducing genetics are good and the lake has shown that it can produce and support fish of that calibre. over 20% of the fish registered with Muskies Inc from Pelican are >40". 5.25% are >45".
in some cases it's the wrong thing to do: Redstone for example, where (imho) the stocked fish don't have the water or forage necessary to regularly get that big no matter what the size limit. only 14% of the fish registered with Muskies Inc on Redstone are >40". only 2% are >45". the potential political costs far outweigh the benefit.
we should do these things when they're right, not just when they're muskie.
Edited by lambeau 12/7/2009 9:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8788
| Guest, no need to apologize. Even if your opinion was different from mine, that's what makes discussions interesting. If we all agreed it would get pretty boring around here.
Lambeau,
Yes, I have fished Redstone. I don't expect that 50" fish are going to be jumping in the boat there any time soon, no matter what the size limits are.
In any case, I was referring to the statewide 40" size limit, and not Redstone specifically. What I don't get is this idea that since the lake doesn't have the right foage base and the right substrate to support a trophy population of muskies that reporoduce naturally that a higher size limit is necessarily a bad idea.
Yes, in an ideal world, the DNR would assess every lake and take measures to manage it in the best way possible, with the most attention to the lakes with true trophy potential. If that were possibile, if the DNR and the money and the staff and the resources to do that, I may support that idea. That, however, is not realistic. a 40" size limit? That IS realistic, and I think we all can agree that that would be beneficial to all but a few anglers. The put and take fisheries, as you call them? The less that is taken, the less that needs to be put back, and that leaves more money and time and effort that can be dedicated to other lakes.
I don't think "trophy muskies" has to be the goal here. It's not all or nothing, or at least it shoudn't be. Better fishing opportunities should be the goal. Muskie fishing is growing, and will continue to grow. And as it grows, WI will continue to lose more and more muskie related tourism dollars to MN. WI muskie fishing won't ever be what you see in MN, because the lake ecosystems just aren't the same. But it can be a LOT better, just as the walleye, smallpmouth, pike, etc fishing can be.
Lake specifics aside, you can't grow a decent population of muskies when they wind up on the wall when they reach 34.5". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Uhhh, OK, Mike. I was talking only Pelican(already said that once), and I do believe that's the right thing to do.
I do not feel it's the right thing to do to apply the same 'rules' to all muskie waters.
But, you already knew that. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I guess I'll go against the grain here...imo Redstone can easily support a 45" size limit...50" is a stretch but it does have tons of forage...crappies, gils, walleyes, suckers, redhorse, bullheads...there is no shortage of things for them to eat in there..it has a fairly large deep basin and decent depth....I think using the lunge log for anything these days is a joke w/ tons of guys not reporting their fish on there accurately and lots of anglers simply not registering fish period...you also have to take into account the long standing history of Pelican and the sheer number of anglers who fish it all season..the same can not be said for Redstone...less anglers and less good anglers on that body of water month in and month out you aren't going to have lots of big fish registered in Muskies inc..but to say that it can't kick out big fish based on the lunge log is a stretch imo
I have seen quite a few pics of 45+ fish that are very FAT from Redstone...if there was a shortage of food wouldn't the fish be on the thin side? I don't know that I've ever seen a skinny fish from there....I would support a 50" limit...and I do think it could kick out lots of upper 40 to 50 inch fish IF given the opportunity to get that big...just like another action lake we fish that I have heard something in the range of 14 to 16 fish from the lake were at the taxidermist this season...do the math..why aren't there more 45+ fish on Redstone or this other lake...ummm duh. they get thumped.
50" is a stretch but why not... it can support big fish. it has enough food.
WI is behind the times..we have too many lakes that could kick out big fish w/ 34 and 40" size limits that just gives the fair weather musky angler or walleye jerker the wrong idea ...well it's a "legal" I should keep it then
Edited by BNelson 12/7/2009 9:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| it has enough food.
is there a difference between "enough" and "right" when it comes to forage?
there's a bazillion crappies in there, the DNR has removed thousands of pounds of them to try and reduce them. they dominate the lake, and it's awful tough to find one over 10" long...enough or right?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | there are lots of bottom dwellers in there too....and the fish in there are fat.... Madison fish eat lots of panfish too...the fish on monona following aroung perch weren't too picky only eating perch over 10"...how do they do w/ a 45" size limit now 4 seasons and counting...i know some guys who ice fished Redstone last winter that found plenty of big craps and gils...
harvest and spearing are the 2 biggest reasons why more fish in WI don't get BIG...one of which we as musky anglers have some say in controlling...
Edited by BNelson 12/7/2009 10:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | I know that the WDNR has netted a 49 in Redstone in the past.
Brad that other lake has people thumping low 40's....that's sad. There are a lot of very thick mid 40's in there. I've heard that Redstone has the same issues with kept fish. It's hard to say what a lake's potential is with people putting 42"ers on the wall or on the table. Both lakes have a 40" limit currently and it needs to go up. We need to protect our limited musky resources in south central WI. |
|
| |
|
| lots of big panfish? i'm not an icefisherman, but look at the Trap Attack results from a couple years ago. are small panfish a sign that the lake is out of balance, maybe near capacity? there's shad in there now too, i doubt that'll free up carrying capacity.
anyway, i'll vote for Pelican and against Redstone. one lake's worth it, one isn't. southern WI has much better options than that. and hey, i'm in the choir.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so they have tons to eat...tons of gils and crappies..and you say that lake isn't worth a 50" size limit..I guess I don't see why you would not be supportive of it...so you'd rather have a 42" get wacked than to see it protected? the fish in there are healthy, fat and have plenty to eat and enough water to get big...but aren't protected...so if it was 45" you would support it? just don't get why anyone would not want a lake that really can kick out big fish to have a bigger size limit... |
|
| |
|
| More muskies over 40 in the stone to help eat the crappies would be good. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I think the fish biologists should be the ones to decide whether or not Redstone's fish community would benefit from an increased size limit on muskellunge. Not Brad or Mike's vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Let's keep this focused on Pelican:
Thanks for clearing up the details Mike.
We clearly need to watch the write ins at all the county hearings. The policy is that they are posted on a wall before the hearings start. That way you can read them and vote on them if you have to leave early....although I would encourage you to stay and argue for the cause when the proposal is read.
The printed vote will only be on the Conservation Congress Section. If it would pass it would still need to go the DNR section and the biologist can prevent that from happening.
As always we need to turn out in numbers for the hearings, but also keep the biologists, conservation congress officers, committee members, and musky management team on our side. It sure wouldn’t hurt to do some hearing door politicking especially at the counties by Pelican.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that little Johnny can't be taught catch and release ethics. It is not little Johnny who has the ideas of keeping the fish, it's who instilled it in him. It's not like Pelican is the only musky lake around. If they must keep a musky go somewhere else.
I think Wisconsin should adopt a new state fish the Dead Musky.
After all it is the state that allows:
- Unmonitored Indian ice spearing
- 34 inch size limit, MN will be 48", MI 42", IA 40" and IL 36", the average female musky doesn't reach sexual maturity until 40"
- Boulder Junction Musky Feed
- Transport Musky Tournaments
Lets do something about it and do it together.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The size limits and transport tournaments are the only two on that list the State has any control over, and both are CC influenced. Since it's possible for the CC to change both, it's 'US' we need to motivate. If you are looking for support, it may be a good idea not to paint the issues with too broad a brush, that can alienate folks you need to want to help you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | what data on "trasport tournaments" is there to even make the statement? it's no better an argument than saying that "inexperieced people shouldn't be allowed to fish for muskies". it's opinion and i sure hope that they don't start legislating based on opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
I know the area fish managers I spoke with don't like transport events much, at least that was the reaction to the CPR format the MAC tried so hard to introduce to WI muskie tournament anglers last summer. The fact it's not popular with the biologists doesn't necessarily translate to anything, but I would point out some states feel strongly enough about transporting fish, especially during the warmer times of year, that it's simply not allowed. In some cases, unless the format is CPR, a fisheries manager may mandate the event be a 'kill' tournament. |
|
| |
