Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Spring Hearing Question #3 |
Message Subject: Spring Hearing Question #3 | |||
John at Ross's![]() |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: Price County WI | 3. Increase the statewide minimum size restriction to 40 inches for muskellunge on all waters currently at a 34-inch minimum size restriction and decrease the minimum size restriction to 28 inches for muskellunge on ten waters: English and Mineral lakes (Ashland county), Bearskin, Booth, Julia, and Squaw lakes (Oneida county), Butternut and Solberg lakes (Price county), Spider lake (Sawyer county), and Upper Gresham lake (Vilas county). | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | John, You know I'm all for the 40 inches (45" would be better), but the 28 inch is totally unwarranted on Solberg and most likely on Butternut too. DNR caving to local politics on both of those lakes! | ||
PredLuR![]() |
| ||
Posts: 291 Location: Madison, WI | Hopefully someone can explain to me how lowering the statewide limit on those ten lakes from 34" to 28" is going to help the musky population. I grew up on the Spider Chain and have fished it since I was 6 years old, I am 33 now. Are the muskies in this body of water extremely slow growing, yes. without a doubt, but they are getting bigger. The reason I can say they are getting bigger is both from actual data and visual proof. My parents have owned a resort on the lake since 1984 and when they got up there, there were almost 15 active resorts at the time. Now there is one, my mothers. It would make everyone sick to see the amount of 40"-50" fish that came out of this chain since 1984 from resort guests, and that was just my parents resort (this was before catch and release times). Many people would catch a 40" fish and get it mounted, because it was always the biggest fish they had ever caught. My parents were full from May through September with new guests each week and a total of 5 cabins. Now multiple that by the number of resorts on the lake and you get an idea of the amount of turnover that chain would see during the fishing season. Now that basically the entire lake is under private ownership, you dont see that turnover and people are not keeping muskies. Now they are starting to grow. The actual data is the fact that we have kept all off the musky charts through 1984 and a few years back, I totaled up all the fish and started getting mean averages for length and they started going up. The visual proof is based on 10 years ago you could almost never see 35" and above fish, now we see many more 35"-39" fish because of catch and release . I have always thought a statewide 40" would be wonderful for the Spider Chain because it would protect all of those fish that needed the time to get that size, which they absolutely do because they are so slow growing. A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught. The whole reason that lake is "slow growing" is because of its classification as a Class A musky lake due to the natural reproduction and the limited forage base. Because of this classification it has not been stocked or any new genetics introduced into the system for I believe 30-40 years. It was actually a brood stock lake for many years and was one of the sources of muskies that were stocked into LCO. There is also a limited forage base in the lake as the panfish are very stunted with the lake literally loaded with 2-5 inch bluegills and 4-6 inch perch. Can someone serious explain the reasoning behind lowering the limit and the goal behind doing it? Are people all of a sudden going to start keeping 29" muskies in order to improve the size structure on the lake? Because if that was the case, why not introduce a slot limit for the fish you are trying to remove from the system while at the same time protecting the fish that need protecting. Or maybe the muskies are truly eating all of the walleyes and panfish(rolls eyes). | ||
brandondunbar![]() |
| ||
Posts: 133 Location: Wausau, WI | Solberg Lake is a quality musky fishery,but by NO means is it a numbers lake. I'm not necessarily for the 28" size limit, but there are a few numbers lakes that are listed in the proposed ten that need an enhanced management plan. What kind of plan? Time will tell. | ||
jonnysled![]() |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Solberg has a big one? | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | No not you!! I've heard a nickname of "tiny" being passed around!! Edited by KenK 2/9/2011 2:48 PM | ||
Jomusky![]() |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Contact your DNR biologist as he is the one who has ultimate control over the size limits on the lakes in his area. He is the one who has asked for the 28" size limit. Also, contact the local muskies clubs as they may have some pull with the biologist. Please do not vote against this great rule change just to protect these few lakes. The state really needs a statewide 40" size limit, it is a great step in the right direction. | ||
lambeau![]() |
| ||
A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught. Actually, a 28" size limit is a clear encouragement to harvest fish. For lakes that are overpopulated with small, slow-growing fish, the goal might in fact be to increase harvest and reduce the number of fish per acre until such time as the population is more in balance with what the lake can support. There are lakes where genetics or poor forage base or overpopulation means that very few fish are able to grow over 40" long (gasp!) and a higher size limit would only compound the overpopulation problem by protecting every starving fish in the lake for their entire lifespan. Wisconsin is full of lakes that are full of muskies and no two of them are the same. North Twin and Wildcat are simply not the same thing and shouldn't be managed as if they are. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed.
| |||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In addition, many times lakes like this are overpopulated with males, the smallest of the Muskies there, unlikely to ever grow beyond little under the circumstances. Could be an attempt to get some of those out of the system to reduce competition. | ||
esoxaddict![]() |
| ||
Posts: 8824 | lambeau - 2/9/2011 4:19 PM [...]. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed.
I think we'd all like to see that, but how would that work? And what would happen after the populations were more balanced? I agree it would probably lead to better fishing all around, for all species, but once the low size limits and additional harvest accomplished that, would those size limits need to be changed again? | ||
John at Ross's![]() |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: Price County WI | Solberg is not even close to a numbers lake, and the size seems ok to me, we boated fish from low 30's to mid 40's last year with most of them being 38" to 41". The panfish population is heathy with a good population of nice sized gills. I think there is some influence from local groups on some of these lakes, If they really wanna know where all the walleye are they should check their freezers. | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another distinct possibility. | ||
Flambeauski![]() |
| ||
Posts: 4343 Location: Smith Creek | Due to a meeting that took place in 05 the folks who were having a hard time catching pannies and walleyes decided the muskies in Solberg had to go. The local biologist didn't think Solberg compared to other lakes on the list but with the pressure from "concerned citizens" couldn't do nothing. The option of keeping the limit 34" wasn't an option and a slot limit wasn't either. Like John said, the panfishing has been pretty darn good lately. People forget how much our flowages change from year to year, I suspect if the "concerned citizens" don't rape it too bad the panfishing will be excellent for the next several years. But in 05 the panfishing wasn't all that good so get rid of the muskies. Too bad. They got pretty darn big in there, too. Not like English and Mineral where they just don't get over 40". | ||
Reef Hawg![]() |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | First off, for many of us, already working on our own local size limit increases, any statewide increase, will be a step forward. With that said, I also understand the need to appease/adress those individuals/lakes that need special attention but am at a loss as to why these two would be packaged together. My confusion is already exhibited in some of the above posts. Even those who posted their concern about the 'chosen' 28" lakes above would agree we need the statewide increase. However, it will be Musky anglers themselves who bring up concerns at the hearings, regarding the 28" lakes, even though most of us would agree to sacrafice even a few of our favorite lakes to 28" limits, for the greater good. The questions should be separate, in my opinion. If someone were to ask me what I thought about the 28" limits, I'd explain it just like Steve here, Jordon on MH, and other experts do: to improve/repair size structure, or to allow harvest of fish from a lake that hasn't and won't produce big fish. Having grown up fishing the Philips area lakes, I can attest to John's comment about Solberg. This is not your typical 28" size limit target lake, based on what the management plan for those types of lakes is. Yes, it used to be a pretty darn good numbers lake, but even that changed over the years(harvest). I'd argue(haven't fished it in seven years so please correct me, John, if wrong) that the size structure in Solberg is as good now as it has been in modern times(typical A2 destination with fair numbers and fair shot at a 42" fish and chances at much bigger). We know why panfish and walleye pops suffer, and doesn't eeven need be rehashed. Having fished butternut through my college years, catching dandy Muskies, it is hard to beleive how far that lake has fallen, but I won't argue with those who have fished/surveyed that lake in the past 10 years I've been away from it. One thing is certain, that lake used to harbor true monsters, so could very well benefit from this type of regulation. Hard to beleive it wasn't harvest in the first place, that got this lake here... Not sure if it is Big Bearskin they are talking about in Oneida, but if so, doesn't it surprise those who fish it? I know it surprised some here.... Again, my last couple paragraphs are playing devils advocate as much as anything, and I do understand the good intentions of the 'package'. I know its' too late, but if we are going to try to catch lightning in a bottle with a statewide size limit increase, why not have it stand-alone rather than confuse it with potebntially controversial size limit reductions that could've been adressed in the very next question on the ballot. Edited by Reef Hawg 2/9/2011 6:11 PM | ||
John at Ross's![]() |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: Price County WI | Just because most of the 28" lakes are in my "Backyard" is not going to change the way I vote. I just won't be to happy about it. | ||
brandondunbar![]() |
| ||
Posts: 133 Location: Wausau, WI | John at Ross's - 2/10/2011 7:42 AM Just because most of the 28" lakes are in my "Backyard" is not going to change the way I vote. I just won't be to happy about it. +1 | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I know, what's worse the rock or the hard place? I'll take the 40 inch limit, too bad that some of these fine lakes are being lost in the shuffle. As most who chimed in about these Price county lakes, it is local politics, the lake association's current members do not like muskies period and the local DNR is caving!! At the risk of being deleted, if you want a good history of what is really going on at Solberg, visit the Fishing Reports page for Solberg at Lake Link and scroll back through the pages, especially the reports from solberg1 (and formerly just solberg). | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Slow down a minute. It's a question, not a 'given', and it's up to all of us to be fully informed and make a decision to back the proposal or show up in numbers and vote it down decisively locally and state wide with enough margin to send the message. I will add this to the mix; back a few years ago Butternut was recognized as overpopulated when considering the entire biomass, and the size structure was suffering as a result. There was a major push to encourage harvest, and nothing happened. Literally. Going to 28" on some of the waters may in actuality be better for the systems than 32" was. Why? Because if a harvest of a 28" or 29" fish occurs, it's a reasonable chance that fish is a male. As far as the slot idea goes, Dave tried that in the Chippewa basin a couple times and Madison rejected the idea out of hand, so it wasn't 'local DNR' in that case. Also, keep in mind there are other anglers out there, and they have as much right to push for their agenda as we do. The DNR in Wisconsin is, within reason, charged with a ridiculous mission of keeping the public at large happy by majority vote instead of doing what is right for one population of fish or another. In some cases, if the CCC didn't exist we as muskie anglers would be very happy, in some we would not. That said, the CCC exists and the vote occurs. So keep the self righteous rhetoric out of the discussion, and try to acquire a clear understanding of the issues at hand and then work to accomplish the possible resolutions. | ||
jakejusa![]() |
| ||
Posts: 994 Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Not to be rude guys but all this talk of 28-32" fish is really scary. Honestly we pull the bait away from fish that size. It really sounds like the management practices went with public sentiment vs. scientific data. I don't know and am not trying to pick at anything, but this is not a discussion I ever thought I'd see in Muskieland. | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | But Steve, in the case of Butternut, stocking has ceased and over 100 muskies were trapped and transported to La Crosse (with only a couple mortalities), not to mention what the natives spear annually. I can't see there still being a problem there. Also, the musky guys wanted a 40 inch limit on Solberg after the stocking ceased, but were shot down by the panfish loving lake association. Really, I can't speak on the other lakes listed, but in the Price county lakes, this is about walleyes and panfish, not concern over muskies!! Edited by KenK 2/10/2011 9:55 AM | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | KenK, 'Also, keep in mind there are other anglers out there, and they have as much right to push for their agenda as we do. The DNR in Wisconsin is, within reason, charged with a ridiculous mission of keeping the public at large happy by majority vote instead of doing what is right for one population of fish or another. In some cases, if the CCC didn't exist we as muskie anglers would be very happy, in some we would not. That said, the CCC exists and the vote occurs. So keep the self righteous rhetoric out of the discussion, and try to acquire a clear understanding of the issues at hand and then work to accomplish the possible resolutions. ' If that's a fact and it's not an advantage to get the rest of the lakes up to 40" at the risk of the ten to 28", we need to show up in numbers statewide and vote this down. perhaps an addendum can be placed into the question that many have asked the question to be split into two. Anyone know the process to get that done? | ||
John at Ross's![]() |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: Price County WI | jakejusa - 2/10/2011 9:13 AM Not to be rude guys but all this talk of 28-32" fish is really scary. Honestly we pull the bait away from fish that size.QUOTE] We do too... Edited by John at Ross's 2/10/2011 10:39 AM | ||
reelman![]() |
| ||
Posts: 1270 | Vote if it makes you feel better but realize that the CC and NRB will do whatever they want regardless of what the vote it is! The whole process of the CC is screwed up beyond believe. How many times will we vote on this question before it gets completely ignored like the 54" Green Bay question? | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | But if it is on their agenda, ala motor trolling in Price, it's a slam dunk on the first vote! | ||
Mr Musky![]() |
| ||
Posts: 999 | I agree, the CC congress is a joke! We go out to vote for size limit increases for other lakes in other counties that we fish but in the end the only counties they look at is the county the lake is in and the surrounding area. And after all the work that was put in to get the 54" size limit on the bay and then get hosed by the bioligist. What a messed up system! | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Vote if it makes you feel better but realize that the CC and NRB will do whatever they want regardless of what the vote it is! The whole process of the CC is screwed up beyond believe. How many times will we vote on this question before it gets completely ignored like the 54" Green Bay question?' Be careful not to be inflammatory just to make noise. You just told folks not to bother to vote. If that had happened on the Pelican Lake 50" limit issues TWICE...the limit on Pelican would not BE 50". 'but in the end the only counties they look at is the county the lake is in and the surrounding area.' That isn't true. The local vote carries considerable weight, but the vote needs to pass statewide to be a slam dunk. by the same token a near even local vote can be tipped easily by the statewide margin. The mission there is to meet EVERYONE'S needs as is best possible, and to listen to the folks who mange the fisheries and accept/reject the recommendations passed by the CCC accordingly. Just because we demand something as muskie anglers doesn't automatically mean the folks who's career is fisheries biology will agree it MUST happen. Broad based, wild statements do FAR more harm than good in getting what we want done...done. Why is that so hard to grasp? | ||
reelman![]() |
| ||
Posts: 1270 | Steve, I agree with you that just that us musky guys want something doesn't mean that it should be done on a biological level. But then the question is why do we even vote if it's all up to the biologists? I believe that the biologists should be making the desicions, not a bunch of bar stool biologists. The CC has outlived it's usefulness and should be done away with IMHO. This year they are putting a question in the hearings about crossbows for no reason other than to try to drum up contorversy so more people attend the hearings. This way they can try to justify the CC by showing how many people attend. What next a question if hunting and fishing should be outlawed? That would get people to attend in droves but is that really the best use of the CC and of our maney? They also put a question on about teaching the history of the CC in hunters safety?!?! This kind of sounds like indoctination by the CC. They would get to put their propoganda in front of every future hunter in the state. You say without the hearings we would not have the 50" limit on Pelican. That may or may not be true. Minnesota has large size limits on most of their lakes and they don't have a CC. There are other ways of getting things done than by using the CC. | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This year they are putting a question in the hearings about crossbows for no reason other than to try to drum up controversy so more people attend the hearings. This way they can try to justify the CC by showing how many people attend. ' Really? Offer up some proof, please. 'What next a question if hunting and fishing should be outlawed' I bet that one doesn't make it through the first phase of the process. 'You say without the hearings we would not have the 50" limit on Pelican. That may or may not be true. Minnesota has large size limits on most of their lakes and they don't have a CC. There are other ways of getting things done than by using the CC.' Yeah, but Wisconsin DOES have the CCC and has no need to prove it's 'worth' at this point; no one has tried to abolish the process and I seriously doubt anyone will be successful if they do. I was there during the Pelican process. I know it's true. No way does the Pelican limit go to 50" without Norm and Mike's hard work and the CCC process. No way. You were not there, have no clue what transpired, and are doing EXACTLY what I cautioned about above. Begs the question again, right? 'This kind of sounds like indoctrination by the CC. They would get to put their propaganda in front of every future hunter in the state. ' That surprises you? If the CCC is in existence, should not ALL sportsmen and women be made aware of the function of the organization and how this all works so we can actively participate and make changes when at all possible? If, indeed, the process is being 'looked at' critically by our Governor and DNR lead, I haven't seen or heard anything about it. | ||
KenK![]() |
| ||
Posts: 576 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Steve, this was posted on MHM about the crossbow question. Copy and paste, not my words! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBDlrmkBEo Listen to this link and tell me what the he** the conservation congress is doing. They are putting a question on the ballot about crossbows for the only reason to put in a controversial question to try to raise attendence. This is not the purpose of the CC. After voting for the last 3 years on the 54" Green Bay size limit thing and watching it pass by a huge margin every year only to see nothing be done on it by the CC has driven me to not attend these hearings this year and perhaps never again. They do not listen to how we vote and then come up with their own stupid questions to try to justify their existance. Edited by KenK 2/10/2011 12:36 PM | ||
sworrall![]() |
| ||
Posts: 32922 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I cleaned up the audio and there's a baby hollering in the background and no other persons speaking at all, sounds like a telephone rendering. What's with that? If this is authentic, and I question whether it is (a you tube video doesn't make it so) it doesn't surprise me much, but if they truly wanted participation, they could have added another dove hunt or feral cat question. ![]() The CCC may pass on the vote to the NRB and the DNR biologists weigh in on it. A decision is made on a subject like that one by the NRB to act or..not. it's based on the input from fisheries managers and the actual impact they see the change making. Remember I said that we are not going to always get what we want just because we say so? You saying you won't vote again because you didn't get what you want on one issue takes you out of this conversation and reduces our overall impact as muskie activists in Wisconsin, the exact thing we DON'T need. | ||
Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |

