|
|
Posts: 546
Location: MN | Wanted to pass this along to the muskie community. The 54th chapter of Muskies Inc has proposed a 55" statewide minimum size in MN. The proposal can be seen here: http://www.michapter54.com/pubfolder/PDF/MMPA%2055%20inch%20increas... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: Waconia,MN | Personally I'm all for it, let em grow I say. Catch and release get a replica and let others enjoy catching a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I don't know, 55 seems a bit extreme to me, I'd say go to 50-52, but I'm not going to keep one anyways so it doesn't really affect me.
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
Edited by dami0101 3/3/2014 1:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | dami0101 - 3/3/2014 1:47 PM
I don't know, 55 seems a bit extreme to me, I'd say go to 50-52, but I'm not going to keep one anyways so it doesn't really affect me.
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
While most of us are all for a 55-56 inch size limit and would be pumped if it would happen, I think the point of proposing a 56 inch limit is so there is some room for compromise. Shoot as high as you can and hope for something that is reasonable. At the minimum, we will get 50", and possibly more if we push for it. Lets all get on board with this regardless if it seems extreme! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| make it a 60" minimum ,,, and the result will be a 100% release rate ----- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 205
| jimjimjim - 3/3/2014 3:32 PM
make it a 60" minimum ,,, and the result will be a 100% release rate -----
Why not just make it 100% C&R? I would be more in favor of a 50". Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 161
Location: New Jersey | Catch and release only isn't so far fetched. Florida has done so with tarpon to protect the fishery and it's related tourism. I would venture to say that Minnesota muskies are along the same lines. Here are the Florida tarpon regs. http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/recreational/tarpon/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| dami0101 - 3/3/2014 1:47 PM
I wish there was a musky stamp to go along with the walleye and trout ones, then I'd actually buy one.
I second the STAMP
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| bigdogg2278 - 3/3/2014 4:16 PM
Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R?
You could make the same argument on ANY musky you'd accidentally kill whether it's 40" or 50". I'd venture to guess the majority of fish harvested could have been released if the angler chose to or the laws required them to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: Leech Lake, Walker MN | Just do it 55
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | musky-skunk - 3/3/2014 4:47 PM
bigdogg2278 - 3/3/2014 4:16 PM
Here is my one question to you, you catch a 50"+ and it either swallows a bait so bad it will die for sure when released or it just didn't make it when trying to release. Wouldn't you rather have the option to take it home to mount it instead of it being bird and fish food since the min it pretty much 100% C&R?
You could make the same argument on ANY musky you'd accidentally kill whether it's 40" or 50".
Exactly.
I would love a 55 minimum. I think most of us would be super depressed if we killed a muskie, illegal or legal. If I somehow killed an illegal one I would call the C.O. and explain what happened. I would think most would let you keep it and document the convo so you don't get in trouble. I know of people who have been in similar situations and the C.O.'s are understanding and reasonable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Issue with the stamp is this:
Right now we get funding of $X in the DNR budget. If we start a stamp, we will get additional funding in the form of Stamp sales. Unfortunately, there is no guarrantee that our original $X will not be shrank by the DNR to be reallocated to other areas of their budget. The logic would be as simple as "hey they've got stamp funds, so we can cut $X and put it somewhere else".
I like the stamp idea in the sense that there is probably a huge group of folks out there who would gladly spend some $ to get a stamp to support the fishery. We need to find a better way to get those funds off the sideline. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2389
Location: Chisholm, MN | Why is the stamp idea being discussed? We're talking about raising the size limit.
The number of attempted failed releases with a 55" limit would be much lower than the number of intentionally kept fish if the size limit was 50. It's simple, less dead 50s. Thats what we are looking for right? If the average angler who accidentally catches a 50 may keep it if it is legal. That's exactly what we want less of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| lets all work together and try to make this happen the size limit should be 54+ mn manages for low density trophy fishery lets let them get huge. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| bcram555 - 3/3/2014 8:03 PM
Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought.
Who is to say that a fish under 55 inches couldn't reach 60 pounds?? I've seen plenty of fish in my area, from lake erie around buffalo, ny that are so girthy it makes me wonder... 47x29, 48x29.5, 49x30.5, 50x30.5, plenty of them.... Do your calculations on what a 54's girth might could possibly be. We have a 54" minimum size limit here, i wold bet someone might be pretty bummed having to release a 53.75 inch fish with a full stomach knowing full well that it might have reached that illusive, magical 60lb mark. Unlikely? maybe. Impossible? You be the judge. I am all for catch and release, but if it were me I might be thinking twice about giving it a bonk job and seeing for sure. That being said, if I lived there I would be in favor of it too as I am still in favor of the 54" minimum here, just some food for thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Who wants to start the petition? It's great that the 54th chapter is doing this, but why not do everything we can? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| bryantukkah - 3/3/2014 7:28 PM
bcram555 - 3/3/2014 8:03 PM
Last summer I got hit up by the MN DNR at the boat landing several different times. They were taking a survey of musky anglers and wanted to know what minimum harvest length I would like to see for musky. They probably surveyed me 3-4 times over the summer and I told them 55" every time. The way I see it is the only way I will ever keep a musky is if I know (or strongly think) it's a state record. And the odds of catching a state record fish under 55" is slim to none. No other reason to keep a musky in my opinion. I think 100% catch and release would take alot of the fun out of fall fishing. I like knowing there's a small chance the next one could be a 60 pounder and I could be the new record holder. I think most people have a similar train of thought.
Who is to say that a fish under 55 inches couldn't reach 60 pounds?? I've seen plenty of fish in my area, from lake erie around buffalo, ny that are so girthy it makes me wonder... 47x29, 48x29.5, 49x30.5, 50x30.5, plenty of them.... Do your calculations on what a 54's girth might could possibly be. We have a 54" minimum size limit here, i wold bet someone might be pretty bummed having to release a 53.75 inch fish with a full stomach knowing full well that it might have reached that illusive, magical 60lb mark. Unlikely? maybe. Impossible? You be the judge. I am all for catch and release, but if it were me I might be thinking twice about giving it a bonk job and seeing for sure. That being said, if I lived there I would be in favor of it too as I am still in favor of the 54" minimum here, just some food for thought.
Sure, a fish under 55" COULD reach 60 lbs. A fish under 50" COULD reach 60 lbs. Anything COULD happen. There's always someone looking to make an argument based on the 1 in a million exception that a guy will catch a 49x31 LOL. It's much easier if everyone acknowledges there are exceptions to most rules....the discussion will be much better and to the point.
Propose a 55" limit....settle on anything 50" and up....this is what we need to do! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| Same here I would release to catch again or for some one else .
I do the same with all Steelhead!!!
share the wealth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
muskie tamer - 3/3/2014 1:41 PM
Personally I'm all for it, let em grow I say. Catch and release get a replica and let others enjoy catching a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| eightweight - 3/4/2014 10:03 AM
Same here I would release to catch again or for some one else .
I do the same with all Steelhead!!!
share the wealth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steelhead actually should be kept, that's the only reason they're there in the first place really. You're not doing anyone any favors by releasing them. I would vote to stop stocking non native trout species... Where's that petition? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
| One in a million? Sounds like the odds of catching any fish of that weight regardless of length. Isn't that the topic at hand here anyways? If people weren't worried about the records, they wouldnt question the size limit. There are plenty of fish that are that fat... I would far sooner get a replica made of a 53x32 than one 5 inches longer and 5 inches skinnier. Be careful what you wish for that's all I'm saying. Here's one of your one in a million fish. If it was a couple inches longer it would/could be even fatter and I'd be hard pressed to say it would be much under 60lbs... Just one example, not by any means the only one either.
Edited by bryantukkah 3/4/2014 12:29 PM
Attachments
----------------
 image.jpg (44KB - 219 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 35
| Here in MN, fish don't have measurements like 53x32 or 47x29...fish like that simply don't exist here. We are talking about MN here, not Buffalo, NY. Anybody else agree with that or are there a bunch of 50x30's swimming around that I'm not seeing? I realize Hamernicks client caught a 51x29 10-15 yrs ago but that's the most extreme example I can think of, and in 20 yrs of guiding 6/7 days a week, its by far the heaviest 51 inch fish that's ever been in his boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| I am all for a 55" size limit and would love to see it get passed. The best way to get a 30" girth in MN is to measure it with the floating ruler. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Metro, MN | 55 Inch or more all the way to 100% catch and release has my vote. This is good news to me |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If 100% catch and release is ever a reality, the Muskie program crashes if NR isn't reliable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | As much as I like te idea of the 55" limit and 100% catch and release I would worry that it is counterproductive. Almost all dedicated musky fisherman are c&r to begin with, but to take away the ability for them to mount that one trophy may be a big turn off for many anglers. We as a community need those anglers to help promote the sport. This in turn pushes the dnr to pump $$ into stocking programs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I could be wrong but I have a hard time believing they base their decision on whether to stock, or how much or how often to stock, based on an estimate of how many fish over 48" (current minimum) are kept or killed. Those aren't the fish being "replaced" by stocking efforts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| ^^^ no we don't, we have the next generation to teach the right way. Catch and release will be the norm and they wont think any different cuz it would be the law.get a replica and let it go to catch it again another day, maybe bigger.you know where she lives so you've got the best shot at catching it again, maybe.There's an old guy around here that's mounted every mid 50" fish that he catches. He's got 2-3 in his house, a couple left at his exwifes place, 2 or 3 local watering holes that he has one on each of there walls. Ive even heard the guy has gave some away, just cant stand to let those big fish go or dont own a camera i guess. But it sure would be nice if it were illegal to keep any. Seems like we'd catch on like Florida, precious resources. Bring in more money if ppl caught some and got hooked on the sport instead of goin out and getting skunked. |
|
| |
|
| I don't fish in Minnesota. I don't fish for "keepers". I don't fish for a wall mount. There are plenty of lures, rods, reels, and boat upgrades that I would far prefer to spend my money on than a real or replica fish on my wall. Isn't that why we take pictures?
I've fished on plenty of bass lakes that have suffered frm 100% c-n-r and overpopulation, but I still don't keep them. I hate eating fish. There will always be plenty of trophy harvests, incidental catches by unsuspecting pan-fishers, delayed mortality from unprepared anglers, and those looking for a mount (that their wife won't let them put on the wall anyway) to avoid the overpopulation and stunting that occurs with smaller fish, and mandatory catch and release.
Set the limit as high as you can. Enjoy your time on the water, and always be in search of that new personal best. Who cares if its a record... who cares if you could keep it if you wanted... and who cares if you want to put it on your wall.
Keep on fishin'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I'm for a 55" limit on some Mn. Lakes,... Just because they might give us 54" Some times you need to GIVE in order to GET . Personally, I'll get a Replica. |
|
| |
