|
|
Posts: 3147
| Miinnesota guys if you get the chance go over to fishingminnesota.com in the muskie section and check it out, Outdoor news wants feedback Outdoornews is a pretty influential publication in our state
hopefully I didnt violate any of this websites policys directing traffic but its an important issue
Edited by happy hooker 2/1/2013 4:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | Great thread. Love the idea. I gave my input. |
|
| |
|
| You guys should read the ridiculous response some anti fool wrote in the letters to the editor section of the new Outdoor News. Some people... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I'll have to pick a copy up. My thought is, what would the cost associated be with some kind of subsidy on replicas over 50" to ensure the big ones live another day. It seems like something muskies inc or the dnr might want to consider as part of their management plan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | OMG really...
So, you're saying that there should be a monetary incentive for you to put a big fish back into the water so it can get bigger and you can enjoy it again?
Really...
Aren't we taxed enough????
Doesn't MI spend enough to stock our lakes???
Now you need money from a non-profit organization (which you probably don't even belong to) in order to release a 50" fish???
Really?
I feel like gouging my eyes out after reading this last post and wonder if I've been wasting my time over the last decade... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I'm just saying if replicas and skin mounts were closer in cost you'd see more fish released. I personally have no desire to keep a fish no matter how big. I'd just like to know the economics of that versus stocking. And I bet you don't throw a fit when the DNR throws money at putting more fish in. Again, I don't know all the numbers, but it is my understanding that some of the fish that are stocked can cost as much as $10-$20 a piece. How many of those fish ever live to see 50"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | It'd definitely a thought....can't bash the idea as it is an idea.
questions in regards to it as well...
How does the catch get verified and who will need to be hired to deal with it? How do the $$ get back to you? Who's going to watch over the funding?
If the money were there to do it, it would be an incentive, but I have a gut feeling that the cost associated with doing something like this would be quite high as compared to the money that would be generated.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The cost of a replica vs skin mount is about $1-2 and inch if you're talking a good fish mount. I would hazard to guess that most people who bonk a fish to get them mounted throw them away once they see the $500+ price tag. A size limit of 56" would eliminate that waste and get people to start thinking bigger (both of themselves and the fishes maximum size.)
I do know all the numbers concerning costs and mortality as I'm the one that negotiates the private stocking for the TC Chapter of MI which does the most private stockings of muskies in the state. I also know all the numbers when it comes to the DNR and MI budget and the thought of either entity giving away free money to some dude who decided to release a 50" fish is ridiculous.
For the record I would guess that around 2-3% of all fingerlings stocked have a chance to make 50". That's why it's so important to raise the limit. So you can either protect the resource or give away Muskies Inc Foodstamps.
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/1/2013 6:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | We want to accomplish the same thing. I'm just thinking outside the box and saying that I would guess a relatively small subsidy to get that fish back in the water might be cheaper than trying to grow another one to replace it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Thats cool! 25 years ago that 50 inch is big fish so today it is nothing! More 50 inch plus than ever before and big thanks to catch and release! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | VMS, The details would obviously have to be worked out, and if the government was involved, it may very well prove to be too costly. Just trying to think outside the box on ways to ensure we can continue to catch these beasts for years to come. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 307
| The logistics alone of trying to pull off a subsidy like that would be enormous. How do you "verify" that you released a 50"? A picture on a tape measure? DNR verification? If the subsidy is worth anything people WILL cheat. It's not that tough or expensive to go to a sign shop and have a "shrunken" 60" ruler printed to give it the appearance of being longer than it is.
Not counting all the political on taxation reasons why it shouldn't be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I completely hear you on that Plunker. Just a thought. That being said, I personally wouldn't even take the subsidy and I'm sure most people on the forum don't need incentive to release these fish. It would be nice if the casual fisherman had some kind of motivation to put a trophy back in the water. It always sucks when you see some walleye fisherman with a hog in the boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'm definitely not knocking your thought as sometimes thinking outside the box as you have done here can get something good on the table, and...has a good potential of working. Brainstorming is always a good thing to do.
I say let's keep thinking about additional options as well...good things come from sometimes very simple thoughts..
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 552
Location: deephaven mn | here is the incentive, not money bigger fish! if you let a 50 go it will grow next year 51,in two years 53 etc.etc.
its all ready proven it will eat a bait, let it go and catch it again next year or catch the other eater that someone else let go
incentive! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | As good as the fisheries in MN are now, I think it could be short-lived if we don't make some changes. We have a sport that seems to be rapidly increasing in popularity, as well as an ever increasing influx of people making this a destination and many forums like this getting the word out. I'm 100% for an increase in the size limit and frankly wouldn't care if they made it 70". I'm sure there will be some kind of kick back about increasing the restrictions. I'm just wondering if there aren't other ways we can achieve the same desired result. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I agree 100% kap, but unfortunately many fish are still removed. I'm more worried about the end result than the means I guess. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | we already do this, at least in my chapter of Muskies Inc.
Capital City chapter (in Madison, WI) gives away 2 free replicas every year. we do a random drawing for our members, one entry for each fish 45" or longer that was released and registered in the Lunge Log. it's specifically intended to encourage both using the Lunge Log and releasing large fish. as our chapter's release coordinator i get to draw the names at our meeting on February 11th. if someone wins a replica in our chapter once every 20 years, their membership costs are essentially free.
join Muskies Inc, select Chapter 08 and you can be in our drawing next year!
but that's a separate issue from whether or not folks should get behind high release limits in MN...they should. it's a world-class fishery that took a ton of investment to create over the last 35+ years. preserving it increases opportunities for everyone to catch large muskies and attracts millions of dollars to the state every year.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 307
| Nothing wrong with ideas. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1287
Location: WI | The Lake Superior Chapter of Muskies Inc has a free replica for the biggest fish in our club every year. Since you're in Duluth Ammoman16, have you considered joining? I'll be working the M.I. table at the Duluth Sport Show at the DECC on friday Feb 15th, or you can come to our meeting of Feb 12th at Mr D's in west Duluth to hear Greg Thomas speak.
We've discussed the MN size limits at our meetings. If you want to get involved it's easy to do! I think our club recommended going with what the DNR finds suitable, but most thought 54" was a good start to mirror Canada. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | I've been a member of the local chapter. I didn't renew last year (a complete lapse on my part). I hope I'm not being taken wrong thinking that I need incentive to release fish. I've never kept a musky and can't imagine that I ever would. I'd like to see others release more fish. How many fingerlings is one 50 returned to the waters worth? That's all I'm asking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Nolan - 2/1/2013 5:30 PM
You guys should read the ridiculous response some anti fool wrote in the letters to the editor section of the new Outdoor News. Some people... are you talking about the darkhouse guy that wanted to eat the 48 inchers? I got to meet him in the meetings in Waterville to try and get Tetonka stocked and his big concern was he couldn't eat them. Boy he's one hungry fella. Funny I really don't get why the MDAA is fighting this or why they care. |
|
| |
|
| I was originally against moving Minnesota's minimum from 40" to 48" feeling that many of the kept fish in that range were a result of newbies and non musky anglers accidently catching them and they would likely die from overhandling anyway.
I was really enlightened over the past few years when I have seen a number of waters I fish have high numbers of 48 to 52s kept because they were "legal" not mounted, but eaten or smoked. Another crop of those were carted off to the taxidermist with the thought "I'm mounting my first 50". Two of the lakes that has been regularly occuring on are not near the fishery they were a few years back because the over 48s have had a high harvest rate. 56 would've protected those fish so that everyone reading this post could that fishes those lakes would have a better chance of catching a 50. Sad that is no longer the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| I wanted to chime in on this. I myself will not keep a musky but that is of my own doing. I have no problem if someone wants to keep a fish, it could be the biggest fish they will ever get and i will admit for a person like that to be able to bring it home and show people means a lot. I understand the need for catch and release, but i think people are getting so wrapped up in this have to have bigger and better society we are in. How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. The are just as hard to find for an average hunter as a 50" muskie to an average fisherman. I know i am going to get blasted as you can get a replica made, but we still need to remember that after all is said and done it is just a fish, and not the most important thing in the world. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. The are just as hard to find for an average hunter as a 50" muskie to an average fisherman.
weird...i know someone hunting private but unfenced land in southern WI that let a couple of 150" class deer walk this fall while filming a television show because they weren't yet big enough to take - if you let them go they get bigger, see?
regardless, it's completely apples to oranges. a trophy deer that's 4-7 years old is much easier to replace than a trophy muskie that's 20-30 years old. and of course, there's scads more deer since they're not an apex predator.
show off the pictures or the videos. or the replica, i've never had anyone visit my house and suggest the muskie on my wall is inadequate because it's synthetic instead of skin. mostly they say, "wow, that looks great." funny stuff.
Edited by lambeau 2/2/2013 10:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | My opinions on this is we should absolutely raise the limit to 56". However, I believe that one of the many reasons we all fish for muskies is to be "THAT GUY" that caught the state record or the world record. Obviously not everyone is going to thump a fish even if it did fall under one of those categories. But unless you have actually caught a state/world record you can't tell me what you would or would not do with the fish. If I caught a state record I am 99% sure I would release the fish. On the other hand, I'll just be honest and say that I don't know if I could release a world record... And I'm talking WORLD RECORD. Meaning HUGE. A "TRUE" world record fish is more than likely towards the end of it's life anyway, and to have that title or accomplishment under my belt would be something that I am not sure I could pass up. Before anyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that I would 100% kill it either. I spend a lot of time with these fish, stocking, rearing, doing what I can to better the fishery. It would be hard to pass it up, but harder to kill it. I'm not sure what I would do. To be fair, I am a big musky activist. I spend a ton of time with my local chapter stocking fish, fundraising to get more fish in current waters as well as the possibility of getting new waters. that is just the beginning. CPR is just as important to me as it is to the next guy. But we all need something to shoot for. We all need goals, this just happens to be one of mine (as I'm sure it is for some other guys).
To help myself and other anglers accomplish their goals of breaking state, world, or personal records, there is no reason why the limit shouldn't be increased. All it is going to do is guarantee that you will have more and better shots at big fish down the line. It will keep more large fish in the water and give more anglers the chance to achieve their fishing dreams.
IMHO. If everyone out there (meaning all the musky nuts) seriously wanted to C&R every fish they caught. Instead of extending the size limit, people would be pushing for them to be STRICTLY catch and release. Which I am not opposed to. But if there is going to be an increase, it should be a large increase that is actually going to do some good for our state and the musky fishery. Because anything above 56" is getting darn close to that state/world record status. It also means that unless the fish is a genetic freak, it more than likely only has a few years left on it's life span. Not saying it is a reason to kill it, but it puts a different spin on the decision prior to making it. Records were meant to be broken, someone some where will break it (not without speculation of course).
There is no reason not to raise the limit. I will be pushing the size increase as well as most here in MN should. It does nothing but help you to further accomplish your goals, and a sense of knowing that the big gurls are lurking under the surface is just more reason for me to be on the water. (not like there is not enough already).
So say what you want, but there is NO reason that the limit should not be increased.
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/2/2013 10:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | bigred2198 - 2/2/2013 8:07 AM
How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference.
There's a huge difference. It took 4-5 years to make that buck but a 50" muskie takes 12-15 years. You can have 3 year classes of that buck for every 50" muskie. That 50" muskie can also live and be enjoyed for an additional 5-10 years as well where that buck is likely dead by 7-8 tops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer. also muskie treat, for the average guy who doesn't get much time to hunt and is not in a prime big deer area a 150 deer is a once in a lifetime deer, as is 50" muskie. Some areas it might be 10-20 years to create a 150 deer, they do not hide behind every bush. Like i said i have no plans on ever keeping any of the muskies i catch, but we need to work together with all groups instead of all the bickering between, the muskie, northern, walleye bass, and the other fishing groups. I am not a walleye guy but they have a stamp to help their fishery, i think that a muskie stamp would go a long way as well to help cover the cost of stocking and muskie management. The idea i think has been brought up already, but should be pushed again. With the amount of money we spend on muskie gear, a $10 stamp would almost cover the cost of one stocked fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| I am all for it. I may keep some walleye or crappy for eating, but I pretty much CPR everything anyway. I can get my heavy metal daily allowance from something other than a 50 inch fish that has lived in polluted waters and eaten other polluted fish for 20 plus years. Nor do I need the ego boost of having the fish I caught on my wall, a replica will work just fine. Let em grow! Even if it only has 1 year left of life, it may spawn and add more "big genetic" fish to the system for later. Looking at this and other threads, I don't think many on MF would keep a musky of any size. So, with that in mind, I think the debate should focus on how to get the other anglers to not harvest them. If I was a walleye or bass fisherman, with no plan to fish for musky, why would I buy a musky stamp anyway? Alternatively, I know people who will bonk a musky simply because they think they eat all their walleye and bass. Regardless of the increased size limit, there needs to be some type of PR campaign to increase the awareness of anglers in order to protect musky fisheries. Without that, we are just yakking to the same audience and spinning wheels. I'm sure Muskies Inc is working on that, as they have done a good job working with various DNR's to get the fishery to the point it is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Last I knew, LAX charged the same for replica's as for skin mounts for the very reason to promote catch and release! |
|
| |
