|
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I had an appointment yesterday that put me in someone else's house. As soon as I walked in the door, I noticed a chubby musky mount hanging over the fireplace. I could tell it was an older mount. I engaged the homeowner in conversation. "I see you're a musky fisherman, yak, yak, yak, I've done some musky fishing, blah, blah, blah, where do fish yada, yada, yada."
He was an older gentleman that fishes muskies every year at the end of the October in NE Cheeseland. We chatted some more and he told me the lake they fish had the size limit raised, so now it's hard to catch a "keeper".
I went crazy on the old dude, cursed him up and down, then pushed him down and kicked him a couple times before storming out of his house.
Actually, I'd be in jail and out of business if I did that, so I tried another strategy. I told him about some of the guys I've fished with and how they all practice catch and release, how I frequent musky Internet sites where pictures of giant fish are more numerous than when I first started visiting them back in '06, and how there's nothing cooler than knowing someone else might enjoy catching the same fish you did, especially a kid.
By the time I left his house, there were strong indications he will never keep another fish.
MuskyHopeful, a golfer promoting C & R, converting one angler at a time. I'm so awesome.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 646
Location: In a shack in the woods | Way to pat yourself on the back. Good job. Lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| MuskyHopeful - 11/18/2010 2:16 PM
[...] We chatted some more and he told me the lake they fish had the size limit raised, so now it's hard to catch a "keeper". [...]
Kevin
You could have saved yourself the trouble and said:
"I'd bet it's a lot easier to catch a "keeper" now than it used to be... The only thing is now you aren't allowed to keep them. Which, I might add, is exactly why it's so much easier to catch them these days."
Or there's always
"I like to put them back after I catch them so you old timers can't complain about how good the fishing was in the old days..."
Or
"You know they eat all the (insert undesireable aquatic species here)... And the ____ will eat all the walleye eggs without the muskies around to eat them first."
Or there's always
"wonder how big that fish would be today?"
Or
"I had a fish mounted once. Stupid thing started attracting all sorts of bugs. My wife made me throw it away. Then I saw one of them graphite replicas they do now. Amazing. So I bought one. Took me a month to convince my wife that it wasn't going to attract bugs. Then she made me put it in the garage anyway, despite me telling her there was no part of it that was made of anything living. Then I got to thinking what would have happened if I just released the fish. Aside from having more money, and not having my wife up all hours of the night checking the house for bugs, my replica would be hanging over the fireplace where it belongs instead of out in the garage with the nudie calendars. Got half a mind to hang THOSE over the fireplace instead."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | You didn't even have your forearm up under his chin when you explained the latter?  Education never starts well with an insult. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| ToddM - 11/18/2010 4:12 PM
You didn't even have your forearm up under his chin when you explained the latter? Education never starts well with an insult.
It can END well with violence, however. Just sayin'... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1120
Location: West Chester, OH | "I throw all mine back so I can keep fishing!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi | Hopeful, I knew you were a true ambassador of the sport. Next time, bribe him with a pizza, a few shots of Jager, maybe a half of a bloody mary, and a few beers warmed by the cool November winds and he'll tell be like a 9 iron in a thick rough.
*****Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, been writing a paper for the past hour and a half and needed a break. This could possibly be the dumbest post ever by Tuffdady!!!
Good work Hopeful! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | tuffy1 - 11/19/2010 6:29 AM
Hopeful, I knew you were a true ambassador of the sport. Next time, bribe him with a pizza, a few shots of Jager, maybe a half of a bloody mary, and a few beers warmed by the cool November winds and he'll tell be like a 9 iron in a thick rough.
*****Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, been writing a paper for the past hour and a half and needed a break. This could possibly be the dumbest post ever by Tuffdady!!!
Good work Hopeful!
I'm just glad to see you're alive, bean pole.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| I have yet to intentionally kill a muskellunge so don't explode on this. But I think we have to be reasonable about catch and release. The way to preserve the muskellunge fishery is to set the "keeper" limit high enough, and educate all anglers thoroughly enough, so that only really mature fish are kept. (I presume that bass, walleye, and pike anglers account for some of the kills of what musky anglers would readily return to the water.) We have to realize that there has to be some point to it all. It costs a lot of money to fish for these things. At some point you should be privileged to take something home. To me, a trophy mount is not an evil thing so long as the fish was taken in accordance with the law. Who is going to complain if an amateur angler keeps a 49" fish he caught in the St. Lawrence River. Or a 54.5" he caught in the Georgian Bay? I don't know the regulations in every state and province that has a muskellunge population, but if each state adopted a 40" limit in general, and perhaps a higher limit in designated trophy water, there should be plenty of fish to go after. How many muskies stop growing before they reach 44"? How many muskies continue to spawn when they reach their full length? Just a thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Kevin... nice post... teaching us how to teach them. Thanks for sharing!
Nice closing, too. Your self-proclaimed awesomeness is noted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 608
Location: WI | Cast - 11/19/2010 8:50 AM
It costs a lot of money to fish for these things. At some point you should be privileged to take something home.
If you spend all that money trying to catch a trophy muskie, you might as well spend a little extra coin and get a replica so that yourself and others may have the privilege of catching that fish in the future. If every musky angler was keeping their trophy, I don't think 55 would be the new 50 like it seems like it is becoming today w/ some of the giants being caught. Just my thoughts.
Nice work Hopeful. Great story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| I would have kicked the oldtimers A$$ for keeping any muskie! LOL! Great post. Another part of how to teach and not criticize. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Increased size limits aren't the be all end all. There are certainly areas where it would help, but there are also a significant number of lakes that just can't support a population of large muskies. Some harvest on those lakes makes sense. Some of the relatively infertile lakes in Norther WI for example? You could designate those lakes catch and release only, and still never see a 50" musky there. Growing a trophy muskie takes more than just having the muskie there and allowing it to grow old. |
|
| |
|
| Every lake that has leech lake strain will put out 50"+ fish and i am sure great lakes strain and most of the Canadian fish are the same way so putting high size limits on them makes perfect sense. I also believe that most of the Wisconsin fisheries if managed properly would spit out more big fish so all the talk of lakes that cant and wont produce big fish is just that talk. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7115
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | fa-q - 11/19/2010 12:17 PM
Every lake that has leech lake strain will put out 50"+ fish and i am sure great lakes strain and most of the Canadian fish are the same way so putting high size limits on them makes perfect sense. I also believe that most of the Wisconsin fisheries if managed properly would spit out more big fish so all the talk of lakes that cant and wont produce big fish is just that talk.
Not really seeing any 50" leechers here in Illinois, so basically saying that what you say IS, then maybe you might not be as "fa-q"TUAL as you think. You might be right, you might be wrong, but I'm guessing that your assertation is based on as much fact as those who say the perch/walleye/bass populations are down because of muskies eating all of them.
There is ALWAYS going to be a portion of the overall fishing population that wants to keep what they consider a TROPHY fish. Being that our waters are managed by those that work to provide fishing opportunities (and note, I DID NOT say trophy fishing) to the general public, we as muskie enthusiasts must understand that OUR beliefs are not the only beliefs, nor will all consider them to be the right beliefs. To say nothing and not educate the masses is obviously not a positive path to the growth and maintenance of muskie waters, but to look down upon, deride or berate those who think differently while acting legally is definitely a negative path. |
|
| |
|
| Aren't the Illinois lakes managed more for numbers? if i am thinking correctly some of them are around 6 fish per acre so that could have something to do with smaller average size. I also believe that keeping fish is great however I also believe that managing pike for the table is a way better use of the resource then managing muskies for harvest and leaving the muskies for a trophy fishery that would make more people happy and you cant please everyone. |
|
| |
|
| I will also admit I overlooked the lakes to the south of Minnesota when I initially posted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| fa-q - 11/19/2010 12:17 PM
Every lake that has leech lake strain will put out 50"+ fish and i am sure great lakes strain and most of the Canadian fish are the same way so putting high size limits on them makes perfect sense. I also believe that most of the Wisconsin fisheries if managed properly would spit out more big fish so all the talk of lakes that cant and wont produce big fish is just that talk.
Take for example, a small glacial basin that's relatively infertile, and lacks any substantial forage like ciscoes, redhorse suckers, etc.? (I've just described a great number of the lakes in Northern Wisconsin) Now, lets say your primary biomass is small perch and bluegills, which, are largely stunted because the food chain just won't support any additional biomass, even of larger sized panfish.
Now, stock a bunch of leech strain fish. THEN what? Without the forage that it takes to grow a big fat muskie, how are they going to get to 50"?? There's simply not enough food in the system to support a polulation of large muskies. They'll likely do well for the first few years feeding on abundant and approproate sized perch, but THEN what? Once they reach a certain size, they'll exert more energy feeding on perch and bluegills then they actually get from the meal.
Look at it in a convoluted and slightly related way: You ain't gonna get fat if all you have to eat is salad... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 462
Location: Antioch, IL | Slamr - 11/19/2010 12:24 PM
There is ALWAYS going to be a portion of the overall fishing population that wants to keep what they consider a TROPHY fish. Being that our waters are managed by those that work to provide fishing opportunities (and note, I DID NOT say trophy fishing) to the general public, we as muskie enthusiasts must understand that OUR beliefs are not the only beliefs, nor will all consider them to be the right beliefs. To say nothing and not educate the masses is obviously not a positive path to the growth and maintenance of muskie waters, but to look down upon, deride or berate those who think differently while acting legally is definitely a negative path.
Well said Slamr and Hopeful, your awesomeness knows no bounds :). Good ambassador work. |
|
| |
|
| There is ALWAYS going to be a portion of the overall fishing population that wants to keep what they consider a TROPHY fish. Being that our waters are managed by those that work to provide fishing opportunities (and note, I DID NOT say trophy fishing) to the general public, we as muskie enthusiasts must understand that OUR beliefs are not the only beliefs, nor will all consider them to be the right beliefs. To say nothing and not educate the masses is obviously not a positive path to the growth and maintenance of muskie waters, but to look down upon, deride or berate those who think differently while acting legally is definitely a negative path.
With that I believe the size limit in Wisconsin is a joke I mean 34" really? Anyone who truly believes a 34" muskie is a trophy is out of touch with reality. However I could see people being impressed with a 34" pike however to the vast majority it is a very nice fish south of Canada but not a trophy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | I had a great encounter two weeks ago with a property owner. She asked how we were doing , we caugt a couple and then she said something but it wasn't musky positive. I asked her if she liked the muskies and she said no. I asked her why and she told me they used to catch alot of 10" bluegills in the lake which they don't anymore. She fell into my trap beautifully. Now there are alot of factors why she isn't catching bigger gills but the muskies were not it. I told her that if the muskies were eating all the blugills, you would not be catching any bluegills, your not catching any 10"ers because the fisherman kept the big ones. She then said she's not sure they are catching any out here but then I told her that in the spring I caught as many as I wanted(using them for bait) 4-6" long. Did not tell her I was using them for bait. She had nothing to come back with and I told her to have a nice day and she did likewise.
As far as encouraging harvest on bodies of water where fish do not get big, I will go against the grain here. INHO, no matter how many fish you take out of a system like that, your not going to get big fish from it and at least have a fishable population. I say put their size limit up to their growth potential ot even a bit above. Keep their populations up and make them the best action lakes they can be. Don't try an re-invent the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | ToddM - 11/19/2010 2:59 PM
I had a great encounter two weeks ago with a property owner. She asked how we were doing , we caugt a couple and then she said something but it wasn't musky positive. I asked her if she liked the muskies and she said no. I asked her why and she told me they used to catch alot of 10" bluegills in the lake which they don't anymore. She fell into my trap beautifully. Now there are alot of factors why she isn't catching bigger gills but the muskies were not it. I told her that if the muskies were eating all the blugills, you would not be catching any bluegills, your not catching any 10"ers because the fisherman kept the big ones. She then said she's not sure they are catching any out here but then I told her that in the spring I caught as many as I wanted(using them for bait) 4-6" long. Did not tell her I was using them for bait. She had nothing to come back with and I told her to have a nice day and she did likewise.
You blew it, Todd. You had a perfect opportunity to cast a bucktail at her legs like a gaucho's bolo, set the hook into her calf or Achilles tendon, then drag her around the lake for a while (assuming you're using one of those X-heavy rods designed by Mike Hulbert as they work for everything). By the time she came up for air, she most likely would love muskies, and would even start C & R'ing those 6" 'gills.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | With that I believe the size limit in Wisconsin is a joke I mean 34" really? Anyone who truly believes a 34" muskie is a trophy is out of touch with reality.
Apparently, you know very little about the size limit structure on Wisconsin waters.
First, no one thinks a 34" fish is a trophy. Some waters are not MANAGED as trophy waters because they are put and take and incapable of producing large fish. Wisconsin has a TON of stocked lakes where NR is not enough to sustain a population at all.
Our state has been in a 'no stocking' position on quite a few lakes where NR is being studied. That study is nearly complete. On a couple waters I have followed density fell, size increased, and those lakes are targeted to or already have larger size limits.
Trophy designated waters and those that support a good self sustaining population now carry from a 40 to 50" limit depending on the upper confidence limit. The DNR is looking to increase more waters to 40" or more as well. They tried a while back to get approval from the public on a bunch of trophy waters at 50", and the CC hearings went badly for that proposal. SLow but steady progress, and many waters now at 45" to 50". |
|
| |
|
| Lets just hope the progress continues and gets more of the fisheries to live up to their potential. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32959
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | For certain...but unfortunately, we have the Conservation Congress process to deal with. Politics at it's worst. Biologists can't manage the waters as they feel they should be in most cases.
Thank goodness for Hopeful. Seriously.  |
|
| |
|
| Its very similar to the public input process they are doing in Minnesota holding everything up and causing problems that don't deal with biology but are driver by fear mongering and old thinking that has been proven false. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Well... If the people with a vested interest in the outcome would actually show up at the hearings, the outcome would probably be better.
I'd be very interested in hearing from a few of the WI DNR fisheries biologists on this topic. I trust that the people who study this stuff for a living know a bit more than us armchair biologists, but they never seem willing to contribute here. I wonder why that is... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 11/19/2010 7:41 PM
Well... If the people with a vested interest in the outcome would actually show up at the hearings, the outcome would probably be better.
I'd be very interested in hearing from a few of the WI DNR fisheries biologists on this topic. I trust that the people who study this stuff for a living know a bit more than us armchair biologists, but they never seem willing to contribute here. I wonder why that is...
No one knows more than the armchair biologists. They all know exactly what needs to be done and how easy it is to accomplish what they want. Just ask them |
|
| |
|
| The DNR is looking to increase more waters to 40" or more as well. it's my understanding that the DNR is actually looking to increase the limit to 40" on ALL waters in the state, and that proposal should appear on this spring's CC hearings ballots. No one knows more than the armchair biologists. They all know exactly what needs to be done and how easy it is to accomplish what they want. Just ask them :) well, opinions are free and worth what they cost. many of us wish the CC system would be set aside in favor of allowing expert managers to do their jobs. of course, it's also not enough to hear from real biologists. nor is it even enough to hear from fisheries biologists. it's important to listen to those biologists who have actual experience and expertise managing muskies - and those folks are few and far between, even on the internet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7115
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | fa-q - 11/19/2010 12:47 PM
Aren't the Illinois lakes managed more for numbers? if i am thinking correctly some of them are around 6 fish per acre so that could have something to do with smaller average size. I also believe that keeping fish is great however I also believe that managing pike for the table is a way better use of the resource then managing muskies for harvest and leaving the muskies for a trophy fishery that would make more people happy and you cant please everyone.
Waters in IL (though I can look up the actuals if needed) I believe range between 40 and 48" limits. Though it's not the 54" you see in some places, it's still pretty high. |
|
| |
