|
|
| I think it should go to 48 inch size. What you guys feel?
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I believe the new 40" size limit goes into effect this season. Pretty sure that measure went through all the hoops. Got to take baby steps on size limits here. There is still a ton of resistance to higher size limits by non musky anglers and barstool biologists. Frankly reprinting that article doesn't do much to help in my opinion. Why the reporter gives as much credibility to an individual angler as a professional fisheries biologist is beyond me. Not a slam on Rich but why does one anglers opinion rate being the voice of public opinion.
Edited by Pete Stoltman 2/21/2012 7:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | On many waters in WI a 48" limit would effectively create a 100% catch and release fishery. Those waters then might not receive any stocking at all and offer no NR, and we'd lose some of our best action lakes. Waters with trophy potential have higher limits. Pelican, for example, is 50". |
|
| |
|
| Wouldn't a 48" limit effectively eliminate the taking of any male fish out of the water? Come on, you're not being reasonable. What about the guy who has to justify his time on the water to his wife? "What do you mean you let a 46" fish go"? "Are you out of your mind"? "We have to eat, buddy." "You better start bringing something back from your outings, or I'm calling an attorney."
Sure, 48" is reasonable for a few trophy lakes in a state. Or a big river. But very few fish are going to grow to that size. A 48" limit on all state or provincial waters is unreasonable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is a strange argument. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| What Steve said. When my wife wants a fish fry she requests me to go walleye fishing for a day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| If you "need to bring fish home to justify your time on the water", muskie fishing may not be for you. There are a lot easier fish to do that than muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe The Swan was speaking somewhat 'tongue in cheek'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Will your wife leave you if you go golfing and don't kill something and bring it home to eat?
Will Little Johnny get mad when his parents don't let him drive at age 12 and give up driving forever?
Edited by Flambeauski 2/21/2012 9:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| toothy or whoever else might get involved in this
has far has size of lake,,,, they point to the fact that Minnesota lakes are larger and that is why a higher size limit works because larger lakes grow bigger fish
but that argument carries no weight
the metro tourney has been won twice with 50 inch fish from a lake that is less then 200 acres
the current state tiger muskie record is from a lake less then 200 acres and the former record from a lake not much more then 400 acres
55 from a city lake last year
numerous 54's over the past few years from MPL's city lakes
the idea that only big lakes produce big fish is false and should be pointed out by the history of that here in Minn
what you need is some metro dnr or metro guides to come over and give some testimony
Edited by happy hooker 2/21/2012 9:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The size of the lakes isn't the issue. Water chemistry and forage is. Some of the stocked lakes here are as infertile and acidic as they can be and support fish life at all, and all fish grow very slowly. Bass in those lakes have an almost impossible task getting to 14", which is the legal size here. |
|
| |
|
| Some food for thought.....
http://www.idofishing.com/forum/showflat.php/Number/510010/fpart/1/... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | that's been discussed here in great detail. |
|
| |
|
| There are several million viewpoints, with many being valid. I wish that instead of changing the size length, the dnr would have looked at the forage base of many lakes. The majority of kept fish are caught by "non-musky" fisherman, which means they would have kept it whether it was 34 inches,40 inches,or 48 inches. What makes fish bigger is food. I feel that the 40 inch limit was formed in opposition to organizational fishing(tournaments,leagues,club outings,guiding). There are many examples of forage base/size of fish lakes. If you put a fish in a pool - he is not going to grow, if you put that same fish in a lake - he has opportunity to eat/grow/reproduce. Two fish species that have increased in the Northwoods - smallmouth bass and musky. Both catch/release driven not size length of kept fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | I think all of us have a skewed view of musky fishing and size limits because we fish these fish. We also understand that muskies have a negligable impact on other sport fish(walleye, bass, and panfish). Sure they eat some but far fewer than the normal fisherman does. However, the majority of fisherman do not specifically target muskies and many see them as a pest eating all the fish in the lake. Also, like others have pointed out, most muskies are kept by people who accidentally catch one. I dont know of anyone personally that targets muskies and keeps them anymore. When I tell people or show them pictures of fish I have caught, they can't believe I let them go(these are the people that keep them). I am all in favor of a higher size limit but I don't believe it will have a big impact on the number of fish kept. Also, I think it opens the door for more negative views towards muskies and more people illegally keeping them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20218
Location: oswego, il | I think the statewide 40 was a great step in the right direction. The only unfortunate part about it was that a bunch of lakes were bundled into a 28" limit to go along with it. The Greshams have no business with a 28"limit on those waters. Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
If your wife will divorce you for not bringing fish home to eat, just stop by a store and buy a box of ding dongs, ho-hos you will be fine.
Edited by ToddM 2/21/2012 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | "Also, I think it opens the door for more negative views towards muskies and more people illegally keeping them".
If lots of kids are drinking (booze) under age you don't lower the legal drinking age, you raise it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| There are small lakes in WI capable of producing fish of substantial size. There are also a great many others that simply are not fertile enough. No amount of catch and relase, increased size limits, or stocking of fish is ever going to make those lakes trophy fisheries. If all they have to eat are small perch and bluegills, you're never going to see the growth rates or the size potential that you see in other places. It's not really the size of the lakes as I understand it, it's the biomass that the lakes can support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Milwaukee, WI | ToddM - 2/21/2012 11:07 AM
Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
I agree with this. Each lake should be managed differently, or at the minimum, create several classes of lakes so that similar lakes are managed in a similar manner.
The major stumbling block is that this takes more time and more money. Neither of which are in abundance at this time. |
|
| |
|
| ToddM - 2/21/2012 11:07 AM
I think the statewide 40 was a great step in the right direction. The only unfortunate part about it was that a bunch of lakes were bundled into a 28" limit to go along with it. The Greshams have no business with a 28"limit on those waters. Increasing above 40 should be a case by case basis and there are still many lakes that need to go above 40.
If your wife will divorce you for not bringing fish home to eat, just stop by a store and buy a box of ding dongs, ho-hos you will be fine.[/QUOTE whats the size limit on ho-ho's? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | 40" statewide is a great step...as others have said imo 48" is not going to fly in WI in the near future....40" is great and just push for certain lakes/chains etc with potential of producing larger fish for higher size limits like our Cap City club did for the Madison chain (45" min size limit)..... |
|
| |
|
| Is this helpful for some questions?
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Muskylengthlimitfaq.pdf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | When it comes down to it a 48" limit is not that unreasonable. I live in MN and our entire state keep limit is 48" or bigger in some areas. When you catch a fish that is 46" inches in length you have to think of how long it took that fish to get there (depending on the lake of course) in some cases it can take 15 years or more. In my personal opinion a fish that has made it long enough to live 15 years deserves to stay in the water. Regardless of how many times it was caught. If you are bringing home fish to eat, why would you be going for the trophy fish in the first place, why not go for some smaller better eating fish, like small northern... pickled is one of my favorite things in the whole world... I could eat it every day!!! People want to trophy fish, to trophy fish. When you keep and kill even a 40" it makes it harder for the rest of us to enjoy our time on the water, makes it harder to catch fish. Eventually if something is not done, WI will lose a lot of the trophy lakes that you guys have. I only fish there once or twice a year, but if it started declining, I would feel sad about it. I love the fishing next door and I will continue to come and fish it as long as I know that there are plenty of trophy's to be had.
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| Flambeauski - 2/21/2012 9:13 AM
Will your wife leave you if you go golfing and don't kill something and bring it home to eat?
Lol! I almost just spit water all over my computer. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | FAT SKI, I think you make some good points but you clearly don't understand the process that is involved in raising size limits in WI....getting our statewide limit to 40" was a huge step...getting it to 48" would be nice yah, but it might not be realistic any time soon....there are many waters in WI that even if they had a 48" size limit fish over 48" would be few and far between... 40" is a huge step.... going to a statewide 48 in WI to me is not needed...pick and choose the waters that can and will produce higher percentages over 45" and do what it takes to get those waters to a higher size limit.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | This is gonna get good. I can already tell. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Bnelson, question: How much of WI's size problems are a direct result of sucker fishing and the mortality related to it? I personally think that a lot of lakes could be kicking out much bigger fish if it weren't for all the meat, and most especially single hook rigs.
If you look at all the lakes in MN, they all kick out 50's on a regular basis except one: Harriet. The only difference between Harriet and all the others of it's size is the fact that there's a TON of sucker fishing pressure. When we've gone out with the DNR in the spring we found several dead ski's. The one thing in common with them all is that they had sucker rigs still attached to them. I even had a friend snag some line with their bait, when they brought it up there was a muskie still attached!
Many of you are going to start flaming me on this and go right ahead. I've seen too much and had too many people tell me in confidence of the increased mortality that this style of fishing brings. This is the largest reason why I will fight multiple lines in MN until I die. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is precious little single hook sucker fishing where I fish in WI, in fact almost none. Most are very conscious of quick strike rigs, and many of the 'action' lakes see little if ANY pressure in the Fall, when suckers are used the most.
The Chip had been hit hard over the years, and other Hayward area waters as well, but that also is declining fast. Native American Treaty rights have a stronger impact, and unregulated/unaccounted for winter spearing wreaks havoc on lakes like Crescent locally...a lake that has the right stuff to kick out big fish.
It's water chemistry and forage and size limits that have just recently been increased on many waters to trophy or near trophy and recent changes that see a change from 50% or less average release rates for all muskies to near 100%. Now it's your turn to watch the 'slaughter' by the uneducated of legal fish no matter what your size limit is until it reaches the point where it's actually forced CRR, albeit lessened by limited waters and a more enlightened coming of age...for obvious reasons.
I actually was attending Nicolet in 1980 and helped a bit when Dr. Mora Gauge did the initial acidity studies on many of the lakes that are quite sterile and as a result; poor water for growing anything near a trophy. Put and take action water describes the motivation for the DNR to stock those lakes, and now with C&R so popular, they are at risk of not getting any stocking in the future and becoming pretty much barren little tiny panfish lakes, especially with the changes in what the Muskie angler wants out of the sport and the selling off of too many resorts on these little lakes when property prices hit record highs a decade ago.... and failure of more resorts when muskie anglers quit showing up to fish for 40" muskies and walleye anglers quit coming up because the limit is now 1 over 14" and one under. Hence the message to be careful what one asks for, if one values ALL the WI muskie waters we have now. No money for stocking doesn't help, either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if i were from Illinois i'd make my plans to fish Detroit Lakes, Bemidji and St. Clair (all of those lakes kick out 50's easily) ... no way would i waste my time in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a size problem. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Maybe WI should reduce the number of muskie lakes it manages and concentrate on bodies of water that have potential and chemistry to produce larger fish. Most MN waters have the potential to produce a 50+ on any cast of the day, be they large or small waters. I won't travel to fish WI waters until I have some level of confidence in producing "possible" results. A limited few waters might interest me and qualify now, there could be more though. If I want to catch sub-40in esox I'll just go pike fishing here in MN. |
|
| |
