Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay: Alarming trend... |
| Message Subject: Green Bay: Alarming trend... | |||
muskie-addict |
| ||
Posts: 272 | I didn't read all the pages of this thread, just wanted to make a comment on the "tag" idea on the opening few posts. This is another idea that looks good on paper, but won't do much. Taking an uneducated guess here, I have to believe that there aren't many repeat "offenders" out there. These guys take a 50+ and they go away happy. Yes, obviously we've all heard about the individual who killed 5, 8....however many 50s last year. Sure, you'd limit that person to ONE 50"er. But that doesn't stop the next guy who's out there looking for a 50 for the wall. Or the ten other guys out on the water every day looking for their "one for the wall." The tag idea is a bad one, because while yes, most us cringe when we hear that one person harvested multiple huge fish in one year, I'm sure ALL the other people who kept just one fish, outnumbered the 5-8 fish that this one person kept. Education, signage and size limits will go way farther than this stamp or tag idea. JMHO. -Eric | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
this is how most fisheries in WI are treated by the locals. they are "entitled" and it's their "right" to kill what's legal. imho, you exaggerate a bit, but it's true that there are many who believe the legal harvest of fish is ok, even in the case of a sportfish such as muskies. however, as Reef Hawg had pointed out, throwing stones across the border doesn't help one bit. understanding where these beliefs come from is the first step in working to change them. in other words, if you take the time to dialog with people without judging them, and discover why they believe and act in the ways that they do, you'll uncover the keys to their motivation and you'll build relationships that will help to change those beliefs. Wisconsin has a long and rich history of muskie fishing, one that existed long before anyone anywhere even thought about releasing fish. it's wonderful that some places have muskie fisheries that "grew up" in the era of catch-and-release and were able to develop a release culture at the same time; however, that's not the history in Wisconsin because it's so much older than most fisheries. that history is the foundation of the present-day fishing culture, and it means that many people still define success in muskie fishing as catching a "legal" or "keeper" fish. it's foolish to suggest a strategy of belittling and shaming these people for beliefs that they grew up with, that they've learned as a normal (and notably legal) thing to do. using a Dr. Phil "pop psychology" approach such as this will actually make people hold onto their beliefs more strongly; it's counterproductive. a real understanding and study of motivation and human behavior in social contexts tells us that people are more motivated by postive reinforcement and the building of approach goals. this suggests that replacing the "reward" of bringing home a physical fish with psychological "rewards" of praise, attention, and the sense of "doing the right thing" will be very successful. take the idea of QDM for trophy deer. it runs directly counter to "if it's brown it's down" thinking, but it's working in Wisconsin by rewarding people for doing it, not shaming those who don't. if you run QDM on your land you get praise and attention for doing so in the forms of signs, etc. social research proves this to be true. something like getting the local paper's outdoor writer to start a photo contest of released (only) fish is the kind of thing that motivates people. tie that in with education and you've got the start of a long-term change in local culture. Edited by lambeau 11/21/2007 9:54 AM | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Lambeau, couldn't have stated it better. WI has already made huge strides from the days of thumping most every legal(it is what my father did until the mid 80's). To further this trend we must educate, take steps to improve regulations and promote awareness, while not alienating. How little people realize or care about another 'regions' culture, when theirs(that they consider 'right') differs. Tom, talk to the actual chairman of the C.C.(it was Steve Oestreicher a few years ago when we dealt with similar issues) and find out if there is any way to avoid square one. If it passed locally and in all counties voted in, there is a chance..... Edited by Reef Hawg 11/21/2007 10:07 AM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| This summer the WDNR and NRB acted quickly to increase the size limit on sturgeon and to reduce the season length. They did this on what is touted as the healthiest and largest population of Lake Sturgeon anywhere. Yet we see no action on a potentially fragile GL muskellunge restoration effort that could end up struggling to cope with VHS disease and a drastic increase in fishing pressure. (Very typical in this state) Everyone benefits from a higher size limit and/or C&R only regs. Most importantly the GL Spotted Muskies and the restoration effort benefit from this effort. No one is harmed by letting muskies swim away alive. If after a few years VHS is not a threat, the fishery is researched more fully and harvest is sustainable, we can look at lowering the size limit. With all the effort by the WDNR and Muskie clubs that supported the GB fishery, it's amazing (and disappointing) to see the number of Muskie fishermen, DNR personnel, CC and NRB members that do not support the protection of the (potential) large spawners in this unque fishery. (It's the only Great Lakes Muskie fishery we have!) It would be nice to see people put their differences aside here and voice support for what is best for the fishery and restoration efforts. A huge thank you to Tom for taking this on. You are doing the right thing. When in doubt - do the best thing for the fish. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 11/21/2007 10:10 AM SNIP... A huge thank you to Tom for taking this on. You are doing the right thing. When in doubt - do the best thing for the fish. As the Research Director for the local MI chapter, I am only the voice for MANY concerned anglers in the area. But rest assured--there are many people working on this, both locally & beyond. We thank you for your kind words. TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Reef Hawg - 11/21/2007 10:04 AM SNIP... Tom, talk to the actual chairman of the C.C.(it was Steve Oestreicher a few years ago when we dealt with similar issues) and find out if there is any way to avoid square one. If it passed locally and in all counties voted in, there is a chance..... This might be a good idea, and I will look into it. Thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate the help. TB | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple thing I have been thinking about this morning, there seems to be two way to look at the situation on Green Bay. Fishermen’s perception of trophy fish and the fisheries maximum potential. State poll of all species anglers showed that a strong majority of Wisconsin fishermen believe a trophy musky is 50”. If management is about creating a trophy fishery than a 50” limit should be fine. However shouldn’t management be about maximizing the fisheries potential? There is lots of evidence out there that GB has more potential than the 50” limit will provided. When considering it’s new, there are other potential negative problems out there it just makes sense to me to protect it until more is known about it. If the WDNR goal is a self sustaining fishery than the higher limit makes sense. Look again at what Dr. Casselman has said: “…with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population.” So what has been the increase in mortality is it 2%, 4% or even 10%, more than it was 10 years ago. If it’s only 2% more that would require a doubling in stocking to keep the present number of big fish in the system, if it’s 10% it would require 16 times the level of stocking. Unless there is significant reproduction, which is still an unknown. To me it makes far more sense to protect the fish, because the State flat out doesn’t have the money to increase the level of stocking to keep up with even a 2% increase in mortality. When we where working on the Pelican Lake proposal we started at 45 the WDNR convinced us to go for 50” because they felt that fit Pelican’s potential far better. That should be the angle used here to increase the size limit. This has been said before, if it doesn’t have that potential then the limit can always be dropped back to 50. Good luck guys and let us know how we can help. Keep up the good work. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good thoughts, Mike. ...And another way to look at the "fisherman's perception of 50 inches as a trophy" thing, is that if the limit would be increased to *above* 50 inches (forget 54 inches for a moment), then this should result in MORE 50 inch fish being available for them to catch, correct? You can only keep a 50 inch musky once... I think by now most of the folks following this thread have figured this out, but there's a much bigger issue than a size limit at stake here. With uncertain population estimates, unknown migration patterns within the bay itself, unknown spawning success rates, unknown angling pressure and the (yet unknown) pending impact of VHS, this fishery is facing significant uncertainty. Preserving the fishery by increasing the size limit on muskellunge is only one of the things we can do. Trust me when I say there are others. And the wheels are in motion. Thanks for the post. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/21/2007 11:26 AM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Thank goodness some are displaying some common sense here. Was Green Bay envisioned to be a trophy fishery from inception or not? Did they import the Great Lakes strain to see what could be accomplised or not? The majority of people could care less if Muskies even exist. Demanding a consensus of all anglers Statewide to protect a project like Green Bay is not fair to the fishery or the people that put funds, time and energy into this project. How many lakes in Wisc. still have a 30" minimum? How in the world can you say that having ONE fishery protected to see it's true potential is unfair to any angler? Steve Voigt | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | How many lakes in Wisc. still have a 30" minimum? Steve Voigt Zero | ||
| brad b unlogged |
| ||
| "If after a few years VHS is not a threat, the fishery is researched more fully and harvest is sustainable, we can look at lowering the size limit." If harvest is sustainable.... what are you talking about? Unless I'm missing something, these fish are NOT reproducing naturally. If that's the case, NO amount of harvest is sustainable UNLESS stocking continues. Stop stocking tomorrow and declare the season closed forever and the population is doomed, as the fish will die from release mortality or old age. Suppose there is natural reproduction. If your protecting a fish until well after its spawned a few times, (I have to think a 15 year old fish has experienced the birds and the bees more than once) your giving the species more than ample opportunity to establish itself. Combine that with the fact that the most effective spawners are not the oldest fish and you really should have no concern for sustainability of this population. So what do you REALLY hope to accomplish with a 54 inch size limit? Seems pretty clear to me your simply pushing YOUR ideals onto the rest of the state. There simply is no legitimate biological reason to increase the size limit so high. But, if you want to push another law onto the books for NO biological reason to protect "your" fish, go right ahead and try. But for crying out loud, be honest about it. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'There simply is no legitimate biological reason to increase the size limit so high' Sure there is. GB is a potentially unbelievable trophy muskie destination, and that alone has biological merit. Also, I'll leave the explanation to a biologist, but protecting the big girls to 54" definitely has merit RE NR.That is precisely why you see that limit on so many trophy potential waters in Canada today, and NO ONE is arguing that was a bad move. I hope that becomes a reality on Mille Lacs too, it's needed. And, I don't see anyone 'pushing', I see some dedicated conservation minded folks who are legitimately concerned for the future of the fishery discussing ideas and strategies and thosw who think that line of action is not what is needed offering their opinions. If you live in WI, you know how to work against these ideas, have at it! Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested. I'm not at all sure this is a 'Wisconsin' trait, I see similar feelings across the country. I honestly believe most folks just don't get how fragile ALL 'big fish' populations can be when suddenly and catastrophically overfished. Ask any fisheries manager how difficult it can be to manage for what so many anglers want...LOTS of fish, and LOTS of 'big' fish. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Steve Worrall - 11/21/2007 7:50 PM Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested. I'm not at all sure this is a 'Wisconsin' trait, I see similar feelings across the country. I honestly believe most folks just don't get how fragile ALL 'big fish' populations can be when suddenly and catastrophically overfished. Ask any fisheries manager how difficult it can be to manage for what so many anglers want...LOTS of fish, and LOTS of 'big' fish. Right on Steve. Ever go onto Lake Link and read posts about how no one can get a perch limit or how the muskies have eaten all the bluegills? Go on one of those threads and go back a year or so. I'd bet a year of tuition that you'd see posts from the same individuals saying how they took the whole family out and limited out and how easy it is to get a limit. Then read on and watch how the fish become a bit more difficult to find, but still limits are obtainable. Then it goes to all the fish are gone, where did they go? Its probably the muskies, or the DNR not doing their job. No, its over exploitation. As populations decline and fishing pressure remains the same, exploitation rate goes up, its really quite simple. Something needs to be done on GB. Everyone is always saying how WI cant produce big fish because of the catch and kill mentality. Well now we can do something about it on GB and produce fish that rival fish anywhere else that is producing trophy fish. One last note....GMG are you really going to compare fishing pressure in Vilas county to pressure on GB? C'mon, you cant really be serious.... | ||
| Tom P |
| ||
Posts: 26 Location: Wisconsin | The worst thing I see happening on the bay is people catching muskies and not being prepared to release them properly. People should take as much time and effort in there preparation of releasing fish as they do in catching them, like having a proper size net so the fish can remain in the water, having all the right tools handy, cutting hooks instead of just ripping them out. As far as the size limit, I have seen many big fish released there, but if a person catches what they feel is a trophy to them I see nothing wrong with it and 50" is fine. Tom P I fish lake "Y" lake "X" is over-fished | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
GB is a potentially unbelievable trophy muskie destination, and that alone has biological merit. isn't that really more of a "social" merit argument, than a biological one? it's already a trophy destination, becoming even moreso isn't so much about whether or not the fish are surviving/thriving than it is about what sizes we would like them to reach before being exposed to the risk of harvest. the context of that post within this thread was a response to the suggestion that the harvest of some fish over 50" would lead to the implosion of the entire fishery. it's hard to see that happening on a created fishery with continued stocking. Also, I'll leave the explanation to a biologist, but protecting the big girls to 54" definitely has merit RE NR.That is precisely why you see that limit on so many trophy potential waters in Canada today those are also waters that have no stocking and are known to have successful reproduction, making the role of every single female that much more critical throughout it's entire lifespan. i've heard it suggested that the goal is for Green Bay to become self-sustaining, but is that really likely? is it a stated goal of the DNR and are they researching whether or not there is successful NR happening in the Bay? if so, i'd support the higher limits as a biological need, if not, it moves back into the realm of responding to the differing preferences of anglers. also, if the DNR believes there's a biological for a certain rule/size limit, they have the ability to implement rules outside of the Conservation Congress system. to this point they've not acted to raise the limits to what we're discussing here, suggesting that they don't see a biological need re: NR. i personally would love to see the 54" limit, and i voted in favor of it because protecting those fish even longer is my preference. it's possible that others would have a different preference than mine, and i'm willing to dialog with them because i believe i can convince people of the social and economic benefits of doing so. people complain about pressure, but ultimately it's a sign that great things are happening and that the people developing this fishery are doing a great job! Also, I have to speak to Tomcats post...to a very large degree he is correct. I see many lakes hit so hard with harvest of crappies, bluegills, and gamefish over a couple seasons it's unreal, and those folks are the same ones to complain first when the fishing deteriorates as entire year classes of nice fish are harvested. he is however, entirely incorrect when he suggests the remedy is to shame and berate people. it doesn't work, it makes things worse, and continuing to encourage people to do so is irresponsible. push the DNR to act when needed, work to raise the limits when possible, and educate people about the value of releasing muskies (and other fish) even when you encounter them harvesting a fish that you wish they'd released. the stories of anglers at the landing in GB being cursed and berated to the point of tears after catching the trophy of their lifetime is shameful. the shame isn't their harvest of that fish (although that's unfortunate), the shame is that C&R-minded anglers would ruin the experience for someone in that way. it's amazing how well people respond to genuine congratulations coupled with "next time please consider..." Edited by lambeau 11/22/2007 4:49 PM | |||
| muskie-addict |
| ||
Posts: 272 | I tend to agree with the "we should have seen this coming" thought process. A couple very successful tournaments, umteen magazine articles and fishing celebs up here filming shows......what did we expect? Saw the same thing happen to Lake Webster in Indiana. Pretty much the same general timeline, only Webby doesn't grow monsters like GB does. Webster was stocked, got popular, guides showed up, they and others advertised, fishing shows were filmed........and then all of a sudden these same guys writing articles, guiding and filming shows are all over the boards being the loudest voices wishing for a size limit increase, barking about people mishandling fish, claiming to see dozens of dead fish every day, people keeping fish, yada yada. If you build it, they will come. I know this is easy to say now, but we should have been ready. It WAS inevitable. I just find it funny that the same folks guiding and filming shows on GB are now the ones getting involved after the fact. Maybe they were involved all along and their efforts just weren't so visible, I dunno. Not trying to blame anyone here. I applaud them for their efforts to help. Just saying that when Tomcat said "what did you expect," he was dead on. As far as someone said earlier about fishing the bay since the 60s and seeing few other boats and now seeing 40-50 boats and that being way too many and an exploitation of the resource.......WHAT exactly do you think should be done about that? Hold a raffle to see who can fish that day and who has to go back home? Plant trees in 3/4 of the parking lot so there's only room for so many rigs? No offense, but the people are here and more will come, this is reality. Deal with it. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Muskie addict, You are correct, we 'should' have seen this coming. But I think in a sense we did and we had the 54 resolution on the docket already and it seems to be at a stand still. "If you build it, they will come." Right, we built it, now lets protect what we built. No sense just letting it go to shambles. Edited by Pointerpride102 11/22/2007 8:09 PM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| [edit] for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place! that's there only because the GB fishery's potential actually WAS anticipated and the locally invested people acted to protect it. to suggest people "didn't see it coming" is a disservice to those who actually are out there doing the work to make those things happen. we all owe those people our thanks and gratitude, not the kind of disrespectful internet quarterbacking that you're doing by saying that "we" weren't ready. you make it sound like the current 50" limit is something from the dark ages. outside of a handful of other lakes in Wisconsin, how many water bodies in the United States have a 50" or larger size limit in place? seriously, what ones are they? it was expected for those fish in GB to grow big, and progressive limits are currently in place to protect 99.5% of the fish. you're also mixing up increased pressure due to publicity with whether or not fish are kept. do you think the infamous bar owner who's kept a number of fish gets the Muskies Inc magazine as part of his membership to find out the tourney results? i'm not sure of it, but as far as i know he's not a visitor to this site, either. the general fishing public in the GB/Fox Valley area knows all about the fishing and it's not because of some articles in the muskie magazines that most of them don't read, nor because of bits on muskie television shows that they don't watch. have you seen De Pere in the spring? guess, what? some of those people know a thing or two about catching muskies too, and all of those fishermen talk to each other. we're not talking about a backwoods lake up north that no one has ever heard of, this is a popular fishery in a major population center. to blame those MI tourneys for any of this is downright silly, the tourney came after, not before. people catch fish. people talk to other people. word gets around. again, i support a 54" limit, heck i'd support making it entirely catch/release, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are already extremely progressive regulations in place on that system as a result of the work people did to give those fish the opportunity to grow large. we should be thankful for that fact. Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:26 AM | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What other explanation for the fish having potential to reach 58" or more is there other than 'biology'? Leave 'em in there, and we will see. Harvest them at 50", and we won't, not if the pressure continues to climb. Social and biological issues often clash; as I said, ask any fisheries manager. Lambeau, really now, the DNR will not unilaterally alter the size limit from 50" to 54" up there no matter WHAT happens, I just don't believe that for a second, and the fact they have 'not acted' doesn't reflect a thing. They WANTED a 50" limit on several lakes up here that meet the direct criteria you mentioned and wanted those lakes protected badly enough to openly support the proposals...hmmm, had to have folks like Mike and Norm make it happen on ONE and that years later. The CC process is what it is, and if the DNR enacts emergency regs, the Legislature can and sometimes does simply change the law to as close to what it was as is possible. What a mess. To some folks concern about 'implosion': 1) Yes, as I understand it, it is/was a potential hope/goal to see the fish reproduce and assist if not sustain a fishable and perhaps trophy population. Since the spotted muskie program there began, however, the very definition of the word 'trophy' has changed. A classic example of social change, I think. 2) Yes, a 50" limit is in place. It was put in place when there was a fraction of the current pressure, and the current pressure is liable to be a fraction of future pressure based on what we have seen to date. 3) Once a fish reaches 50", it is a true survivor; the vast majority of that year class NR result or stocking effort are long dead. I question the same thing about Mille Lacs..what IS the goal? Get the fish to trophy size and leave it in the hands of the anglers after that point, or perhaps now the fisheries are what they are protect a true trophy angling destination that might indeed redefine the term 'trophy' once again? As both fisheries come to age, that decision one way or another has to be made, IMHO. 4) The argument presented that the fishery can be sustained at the current level with stocking and therefore 50" may be adequate can be used to convince a 54" or MORE may be needed when one factors in increased mortality due to major league increased pressure and therefore a need to protect a broader base of the older year classes just to hold 'big fish' numbers static to what is there today. I entered this debate after Tomcat edited his post and apparently the worst of that battle was in the past. My comment is OBVIOUSLY referring to what is there now and ONLY to the idea that fisheries are frequently exploited. His constant 'only in Wisconsin' bashing is a theme I have seen from that quarter for years, and of course is not accurate in that context and of course...is rude. 'i personally would love to see the 54" limit, and i voted in favor of it because protecting those fish even longer is my preference. it's possible that others would have a different preference than mine, and i'm willing to dialog with them because i believe i can convince people of the social and economic benefits of doing so.' So my last post indicated I have a more inflexible stance than yours? I think not. I have HUNDREDS of times said ' it is, after all, just a fish' to extremist attitudes while all the time working on improving trophy fishing potentials wherever my tiny bit of influence might hit home, and that for over 30 years. I was there when some of the first spots were stocked in Green Bay, standing right next to Kenny Ellis. Of COURSE the fisheries folks and muskie clubs involved over the years did a great job to date, and will do the very best possible to so so in the future, but as you suggest, alot depends on 'social pressures'. This is a source of exactly that from many viewpoints, would you not agree? And, just an observation from reading the last couple posts, I think -addict was using the word 'we' collectively and was not supporting anything but the 'what did we expect' portion of Tomcat's post. Some folk's abusive attitudes sometimes fires me up as well, but that should not then cause collateral damage throughout the debate. I'll assume your last two paragraphs are directed at those who might accept or display that unfortunate and ill advised behavior, correct? | ||
| muskie-addict |
| ||
Posts: 272 | I almost don't know how to respond to that, Lambeau. First, um, yeah, you could say I've spent time in GB. It takes me 8 minutes from my driveway to the launch pulling a boat, and my friend and his partner won the 2007 BOTB tourney. I'm well aware of what's going on there. Second: "for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place! that's there only because the GB fishery's potential actually WAS anticipated and the locally invested people acted to protect it. to suggest people "didn't see it coming" is a disservice ......." OK, if the current limit was so forward thinking and goes above and beyond so many other bodies of water and we should be falling all over ourselves thanking those who put it into play......then why this thread? Why all the posts? Why all the interest, and squawking now? Why all the concern about people keeping 50" fish? Why are so many people working so hard on doing somthing MORE about this? How many other bodies of water ANYWHERE have the potential GB has? I'm doing a disservice? Look at the title of this thread! "Alarming trend." Evidently this 50" limit wasn't enough and people are concerned about what might happen if the size isn't increased......because people came and started keeping fish, which is what we're talking about in the first place. You cite all these great things and all the work that's been done and all the foresight, but we all still have a sense of urgency to do more. And, yes, I believe we should have seen it coming. Huge body of water, GL strain, on the banks of one metro area and easy access from other much larger metro areas. This whole "gee these fish sure get big and people are coming here to keep them" thing seems to have totally blindsided us, and I'm not sure it should have. People have been saying WR fish and Green Bay in the same sentence for a decade. Fine, kudos to our muskie forefathers who set the 50" limit, but five pages worth of posts tells me I'm at least partially right and that people are looking for more than what the current 50" size limit can do for this fishery. Your post was a little all over the place, so I'm not sure what you're really saying. We're on the same team here man, I assure you. -Eric *edit* Grrrr! Edited by muskie-addict 11/23/2007 8:14 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | muskie-addict, There may be some confusion here, there are two usernames in play onsite that are very similar. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
It takes me 8 minutes from my driveway to the launch pulling a boat...I'm well aware of what's going on there. Eric: sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine when people who are not involved in any way in a particular issue lob internet rocks at it from afar, and i mistook your "muskie-addict" screen name for "esoxaddict" who isn't someone who's been fishing in the GB area as far as i know. imho, you are exactly the right person to be opining on this issue. i removed the first couple lines from my previous post. i also pride myself on generally not posting in personal ways at or towards anyone, it just got a bit under my skin yesterday. i'll be up at my parents' starting next Thursday and hitting the river, keep an eye out for the purple Tuffy and please stop by and say hello if you're out. my deepest apologies. "for gosh sakes, there's a 50" limit currently in place!"...OK, then why this thread? Why all the posts? Why all the squawking? i think the issue of people being alarmed about fish over 50" being kept is separate from the issue of whether or not the need to protect fish in that system to a large size was anticipated. it was anticipated (thus the very high limit when compared to any other waters in the U.S.), and there is cause to look at raising it even higher. it's possible for both things to be true. with a 50" limit in place i don't believe anyone dropped the ball in a way that's going to result in the destruction of that fishery; raising the limit will simply help to protect the fish longer and create more opportunity for people to catch trophy fish...of course, that'll result in even more pressure... i just bristle a bit at the suggestion that people "didn't do enough" to protect the system. they did! the trophy-factory waters in Minnesota only have 48" limits, and most of them were only raised recently. people complain about the numbers of fish kept from those waters as well: the pontoon-troller on Mille Lacs is more infamous than the bar owner taxidermist on Green Bay. for some reason when it happens over there it doesn't get attributed to a state-wide culture of "meat-hunting" in the way it does when it happens in WI. the current limits on Green Bay are an example of what can/should be in place on other waters everywhere that have this kind of potential. can it (should it) be updated for GB now? absolutely, but to do so does not mean that people failed to act responsibly in the past. i stand by my comments that i don't believe the increased pressure is the result of TV/magazine/internet publicity, but the pressure and the publicity are both the result of the incredible success of the fishery. the numbers of trophy fish available in a relatively small area is the reason for all of that. Fine, kudos to our muskie forefathers who set the 50" limit, but five pages worth of posts tells me I'm at least partially right and that people are looking for more than what the current 50" size limit can do for this fishery. that's the rub. it's absolutely true that people are hoping for even more: bigger fish and more fish protected from the risk of harvest. it's clear that the GLC believed differently, and convincing them that this is the desire of more than just a relatively small group of fanatics is the task at hand. Tom Betka has repeatedly assured us in this thread that plans and actions are already in place to help make this happen. Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:28 AM | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
the DNR will not unilaterally alter the size limit from 50" to 54" up there no matter WHAT happens, I just don't believe that for a second, and the fact they have 'not acted' doesn't reflect a thing. i think it reflects the fact that the survival of the fishery isn't at risk. if it was, that would be a biological need. take for example the extreme harvest restrictions put in place on perch fishing in the Bay when the perch population was clearly at risk of disappearing - they acted due to biological need, not because people preferred to catch jumbos instead of 8"ers. when the overall population isn't at risk, raising the size at which fish are first exposed to the risk of harvest is really a social need, not a biological one. we're talking about the difference between protecting 99.5% of the population vs protecting 99.9% of the population. that's a social decision on how much of their biological potential we want fish to protected from the risk of harvest. (and yes, this is entirely semantic.) i support it as a socially desireable outcome, i just believe arguing that it's a biological "need" isn't something that will resonate with those who are in position to make decisions about it. we want even bigger fish because that's what we're trying to catch: being honest about that with people can be very effective. Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 8:44 AM | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wonder if it isn't more "biological" than you think Lambeau. As I have said several times in this thread--we simply don't know what we do not know. I have spent the last several days gathering and reading literature, on various topics. I can tell you that I can find exactly two pieces of literature pertaining to the post-1989 muskellunge populations in the Fox River and Green Bay: Kevin Kapuscinki's 2006 paper that I mentioned in a previous post, and the 2007 Great Lakes Fishery Commission Report which can be found here (thanks to Brett Jolly for pointing this one out): http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/Great%20Lakes%20Fishery%20Commissio... While the population estimate looks more encouraging in 2006 than in 2005, (2975 vs 425; p61-62), there is still some ambiguity in report. Where were the sampling sites, for one thing? Why the HUGE discrepancy in estimated population density between years--was the first year abnormally low, the second year abnormally high...or both? How much interaction is there between the bay fish (ie; north of Long Tail/Point Sable) and the extreme southern bay & river? We obviously need to see a couple more years of data to be able to get a good feel for the true population of the system. Also, in that report on page 64, they "estimate" a catch of only 455 musky for 2006. Shoot, I think there were almost 50 fish caught on the weekend of the MI tournament alone! Certainly 400 fish is a lot, but when there are at *least* 25-30 boats out there on many weekends, I wouldn't think it would take that long to rack up more than that. And their "anecdotal evidence" of 6 harvested fish? Heck...didn't RT whack 6 all by himself? Where are they getting this data? In 15-20 times out there in the last 2 months, I have yet to be asked a single question about my catch... (Maybe the surveyors are just counting fish mentioned in the musky board forums? LOL.) Seriously though, I would like to see evidence of a bit more effort to gain more accurate data before we take those numbers to the bank. And then there's VHS. After 10-15 hours of reviewing nothing other than VHS literature, I can tell you one thing...we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA when, where, and how bad it will hit us. It's already in Lake Michigan, to be sure, but I have found no indication of quantity of fish lost--other than vague terms like "large quantity," "massive die-offs" and "several hundred tons" of freshwater drum, muskellunge and round Goby die-offs. Needless to say I haven't gotten the warm and fuzzies about how well the existing fish are going to fare when the big one hits, so to speak. And God help us if it turns up in one of our hatcheries--because the US Dept of Agriculture will make us shut that facility down, destroy all of the existing fish and start from scratch. I saw in one piece of literature from Michigan, where they estimated it would cost 40-80 MILLION dollars if they had to revive the hatchery program after a positive VHSv episode! So with all due respect to the sociologists out there (and there *are* significant sociological implications here, no doubt about it), the biology of this issue is far from certain. In fact I would go so far as to say that we may want to consider preserving as many fish as we can, just for a rainy day. How anybody can say there are no biological issues, is way beyond me... TB Edited by tcbetka 11/23/2007 7:31 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Those who think it may/should be either a necessity or an extremely desirable goal based on biological concerns to again increase the length limit on Green Bay Muskies are not being any less 'honest' with people than those who say they would like the same increase because they personally feel the fishery is secure into the future and just (perhaps selfishly) want to find out what the true potential of the Green Bay Muskies might be . It depends on one's position, based on largely individual observations as Tom so clearly indicates. Disagree with the reasoning, sure, but don't suggest my opinions are not 'honest' if I choose to believe that the increased pressure on a somewhat condensed population of big fish just now coming into maturity indicates additional protection of the population now just reaching the upper confidence limit might be needed. Who the heck would I be less than honest with HERE if I said that; this is the 'research forum' at MuskieFIRST, not a CC meeting, and I might just feel my ideas are accurate. Raising the limit from 28" to 30" to 34" to 40" and then higher on any Wisconsin water is OF COURSE a complicated set of decisions that are based largely on management goals. Those management goals are determined by, in Wisconsin, first the DNR with minimum sizes based on NR, population, potential, and more (Dave N has described that process several times) and then largely public desires driven by the Conservation Congress process here. Pressure by small politically active groups has in the past and will in the future strongly influence management strategies, would you not agree? Some here may feel the point has been breached and activism is needed. I'd say we need to allow that latitude given we are not yet presenting these concepts to the general public. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
like i said, this discussion has moved into being a bit semantic, and that's probably at least a bit of my doing.  it's probably also distracting from a more valuable discussion about strategy for affecting change in raising the limits: outcome being more important than reasoning when it comes right down to it. thankfully it's clear that Tom and others are clear thinking and planful, so i trust we're all in pretty good hands there. part of the value of continuing to kick this around is to hone and improve the arguments in favor of raising the limits... Tom has stated a number of times, "we don't know what we don't know" about the amount of harvest, and also raises the bogeyman of VHS as two points of "evidence" that there's a biological need for increased limits. Steve supports a line of reasoning that it's intellectually honest to suggest that there is a biological need for higher limits because those beliefs are held in earnest. i suggest that what you're both doing is using an absence of evidence about something to suggest that there is evidence for the absence of something...and i suggest that this is flawed logic and therefore a bad strategy to adopt because it's too easy to deflate. Tom, you admit that you can't find any clear evidence that the population has been impacted by harvest, and that no one knows the real numbers of fish being harvested. you use this to suggest that the numbers being removed are probably higher than we know. but what if they're lower than you suspect, or that the total population is more robust? it's equally possible. the only information available on total harvest is entirely anecdotal, and when coming from pro C&R sources who witnessed fish being taken, it's likely that this is exaggerated to at least some degree. you state the need for more evidence before we take "encouraging" population estimates to the bank; shouldn't we likewise see more hard evidence that there's any problems before taking that belief to the bank? keep in mind, there is a 50" size limit currently in place. VHS is really an unknown, and a potential threat to "large numbers" of fish of all sizes, or something that may not strike in meaningful ways at all. the distinction between a 50" or 54" limit (impacting only a relative handful of fish and a small percent of the total population) is hardly going to be a defense against that virus. Steve, you bristle at the suggestion that it's less than honest to wave the flag of "biological need" to raise the limit on this fishery. it might be an honestly held belief of yours and others, but that doesn't necessarily make it rational or based in fact. present a single bit of evidence that there is a real risk to the overall total population of fish and i'll happily agree with you that we're talking about biological need. (the "present some research or evidence" refrain is one that you yourself have asked from others at times!) in the absence of any evidence that the fishery is at risk, i suggest that we're only really being honest when we couch this discussion in terms of "want" rather than "need". ie., we want all the fish between 50"-54" to be released, but there's not necessarily a threat to the muskie population as a whole if some of them are harvested. under the current 50" limit, the threat of harvest only applies to a very narrow slice of the population, and raising the limit simply narrows it even more. either way, the vast majority of fish in the system are protected to grow and (hopefully) find a way to reproduce. i'm not afraid of moving forward on the platform of "want", and i think part of this sky-is-falling thinking is the result of people fearing that without a biologically-based crisis we won't be able to get the outcome that's desired. i disagree, and think that standing in front of others and saying that we want to be able to catch the biggest fish possible is more believable than trying to tell them that the whole fishery will get destroyed if the limits aren't raised beyond an already progressive level. Edited by lambeau 11/23/2007 10:55 PM | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | There's a lot of truth to what you've said...and I didn't mean to imply that there are strong biological reasons to change the limit to 54 inches. Rather, I am simply stating that there may not be any biological reason NOT to. And I admit that the sociological ramifications are very significant here. The fact remains that we have to be prepared to rebut experts using biological argument--and just because I can't come up with a slam-dunk biological argument to support raising the limit to 54 inches, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist (or that one is even needed!). I also understand that the absence of evidence is not, itself, evidence. But the fact remains that if forced to debate using biological argument, there are several valid concerns to be considered. But this is primarily a sociological issue. I won't try to hide that. Most people I have talked to are very concerned that a few people are taking too many big fish. But it boils down to the fact that there really isn't much else we can do--there are only so many options. And given the history of the first go around with the GLC, and the reported lack of biological support (I must say "reported" mind you, because I haven't yet gotten to read the minutes of the meeting) for the proposal, it doesn't appear as though we have many other options. So I guess you could also say that, in this case, the lack of clear-cut biological evidence in favor of keeping the limit at 50 inches...doesn't mean it exists. Is the glass half empty, or half full? TB Edited by tcbetka 11/23/2007 11:21 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) Pressure on the Bay is increasing in percentages one cannot deny 2) It appears no one is sure of the population numbers there, or numbers of large fish, strong upcoming year classes, etc 3) The fish are concentrated at certain times of the year and therefore more susceptible to pressure; the anglers concentrate and can and do some days catch impressive numbers of fish when compared to other waters. If 10% of the fish CPR'd ( the low end of most estimates I have seen) succumb to angling mortality, the available numbers of fish in the upcoming year classes available to GET to 50" will be reduced. How much of an issue is that? Does that alone encourage additional conservation steps? 4) The upper confidence limit there has perhaps not yet been reached and could be VERY impressive, are we not doing enough to protect Wisconsin's only current possible World Class Muskie fishery? Is it not that trend to avoid progressive trophy management here that cause the alarmists from the far right of my position to gain audience with the "Wisconsin kills everything' argument? 5) There is legitimate concern the fish now over 50" may be over harvested; the 50" limit was imposed based on what was then, this is now. 6) One of the papers now available re: GB suggests that a larger limit may become 'desirable'. 7) Most of the discussion is far from 'the sky is falling'. I believe the title of the thread is " Alarming trend", not 'The Sky is Falling in Green Bay'. The question for all practical purposes is...should something be done? Then...If so, what? I believe I have said several times that it's primarily NOT biological issues alone that create changes in management strategies in Wisconsin like those some seek here. I CAN tell you if you want to apply the proper pressure in the proper places, you had BETTER have whatever biological issues are available nailed down tight and carefully applied to the argument/discussion/proposal, and I'll push that all the way to that information TB wants to take to the 'bank'. Present evidence that potential over harvest of the upper end of the available Muskie population ISN'T a problem and will not be as pressure increases. Or, refute that, either way, present something.... The 'want' platform if presented in the form some suggest is in my opinion certain doom to any increased size limit proposal brought to the CC; the Muskie community has been there and done that and I can assure everyone based on that experience 'want' alone won't get it no matter how convincing. It was the 'want' argument that won the day with the original 50" proposal up here, and that proposal was overwhelmingly defeated because it was considered elitist and lacked good solid educational efforts... good educational lobbying, to be blunt. This is politics, in reality. Winning on this issue means altering perceptions and promoting reasonable and careful activism, and all those efforts can be tossed out the window by a committee anyway, based upon failure to answer/address 'concerns' of those who would implement the new regs. I bet it was too much 'want' in the proposal and not enough 'need' to give those looking at the idea a solid stance if they felt the proposal had merit, and that caused the tabling of the last attempt to change the size limit on the Bay. TB, let me know what you find out there. This process will not be easy and will require the 'want' to be strongly argued with the 'need'. Why is the limit at 50"? Want? Need? Why not 45"? 48"? What portion of the population might reach 54" plus and then be subject to harvest? Is that number any different than the number that now reach 50"? Sure, mortality WITHOUT angling can be 30% per year of any year class. What is the true potential there? Some may not fear VHS, but I do based upon the source of the last VHS Muskie kill being Great Lakes related. Should it be part of the public argument? Probably not, not enough data. As a result, it will appear alarmist. Would it be best to err on the side of caution BASED on the fact not enough data is available on the Muskies in green Bay, and at least get action on getting study going while *perhaps* finding methods to encourage a more conservative approach to harvest there until study can be completed? Will the State of Wisconsin continue to stock Green Bay at past and current levels? Will those levels survive the increased pressure that is inevitable on the Bay in numbers large enough providing the fishery that some now accept as Status Quo?? My opinion? Line up the questions, and acquire all possible answers. Do not over react or over act. Prepare educational materials, back them with opinions from the fisheries professionals here in the State. Prepare a proposal that is neither all want or all science, but a consolidation of both. Get your stuff together, acquire a base of support that is broad and reasonable and able to 'spread the word'. And be prepared to lose no matter what, pick up and go for the next year. Or, do absolutely nothing and hope for the best. If after all the need doesn't exist and respectable numbers of the Green Bay Muskies actually reach full potential, this argument is moot. If not, then all Wisconsin has to do is stock a bunch more and keep the system going; accepting year classes may be weak or strong and the trophy population will be more unpredictable than some would prefer into the future. That's if it was me 'standing in front of people'. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good post Steve...you took the words right out of my mouth; or at least said them better than I may have. The 'want' approach did not work by itself; of that we are fairly certain. The 'want' approach *was* sufficient to get enough people behind it and get the CC to consider it. And I think that it will again be enough to get it to the CC and the GLC. But that's where the 'want' approach will cease to work. This isn't opinion...it's fact. It happened, as Steve points out. So we must take a somewhat different approach--one that includes 'want' (as this can be a powerful catalyst for change), but one that also includes the biological 'why' we want it. But in all fairness, why shouldn't that be required? Why would we want the DNR to make a very significant change to a (somewhat) controversial regulatory issue *without* there being at least a modicum of biological evidence? If things didn't work out in a couple years, the finger-pointers out there would be asking WHY they "caved" to public opinion, based largely on a sociological argument. And you know what...those finger-pointers might be correct! The fisheries managers are trained to do their jobs, and are charged with the welfare of the resource. If they aren't the ones that should consider the science...who is?! I said in my last post that this is basically a sociological argument, and I stand behind that statement. The driving force behind this movement is the fact that many people want to see just how good this fishery can become. They don't *want* to have to drive to Mille Lacs, western Ontario, Georgian Bay or upstate New York just to have a shot at world class fish. Yes, a 50" fish is considered a "trophy" by most people...but is it "world class"? Sorry, but I personally don't think so. But still, I get it--I get the fact that there should be a biological basis behind this argument, in addition to the sociological issues. You don't have to hit me over the head with a 2x6...a 2x4 is plenty! But the thing we cannot lose sight of here is that, if there was a strong biological argument that existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This would be a done deal, and we'd be looking at a 54" limit there already. But why 54"...why not 52? Who knows? Why not 56? Well, here's what I say about that--why reinvent the wheel? Canada has been using a 54" limit for years in some places, so why NOT use that? These are the same fish, eating much of the same forage, for the most part. I argue that the "world class" (there's that catch phrase again) Canadian fisheries seem to favor a 54" limit, at least in many places. So why not adopt this in Wisconsin? That may be reason enough to do it right there. But of course it just isn't that simple, is it? So Steve, you must be reading my notes. Without detailing the entire plan (because it is still in evolution, for one thing) I have been advocating the formulation of a comprehensive plan to protect the current fishery, protect the future fishery, and support on-going study to provide the DNR with hard data upon which to base future management decisions. Of course, this plan would address both the sociological AND the biological concerns. Thankfully, there are others that agree with me and so the wheels are in motion. And although I have not laid it out for them in detail, I am happy to report that (to this point anyway) our local DNR fishery managers have been supportive. So remember folks--if this were just a matter of biology, it'd likely be a done deal by now. But it's more complicated than that, as it involves sociological arguments as well. Which is more important? Who knows. Does one have to be more important? Can't BOTH be important? This is real-world we're talking about here...things aren't always black or white. TB | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Lots of good arguments from both sides here. As I see it, it boils down to being "proactive" or "reactive" (should the trophy population crash due to overharvest, which can and has been argued that the current trend is heading it that way). Some few years after Lac Suel got "noticed/found out" the HARVEST there was massive (personal best for the wall and... one Wisconsin guide was taking and MOUNTING many BIG fish, going so far as to have a secret compartment in his boat after they made it C&R only!). When the MNR realized what was happening...with concern from many US anglers(!), they IMMEDIATELY made the muskellunge fishery catch and release only. Initially it was to be for only three years, until they could study the fishery and DETERMINE just what they had there for a muskie population. That was the early 90's...it is STILL C&R only there! It is therefore apparent, that their studies concluded that there was NOT a population in Lac Suel that could sustain continued trophy harvest. By being PROACTIVE, the Ministry likely avoided a near total crash of the trophy muskellunge fishery there. Had they waited and been REACTIVE, it is unlikely Lac Suel would EVER come back, as Ontario does no stocking!! EDIT: Forgot to mention that after Wabigoon got hammered in the early 80's that lake too went to C&R only for quite a few years. When it was determined that it could stand minimal harvest as the trophy fisherty was rebounding, it was reopened with a 54-inch size limit. Where I ask, is the GUARENTEE the the WDNR will continue to stock Green Bay, or at some point in the future will be able to afford to at the stocking levels necessary to sustain the continuing and increasing pressure there, without even factoring in the EXTREME likelyhood of VHS damage there? It has been estimated by biologists/scientists that VHS has wiped out about 40% of the ADULT population of Muskellunge in the St. Lawrence River (this is supported by the greatly reduced catch there by area guides on both the US and Canadian side of the river). Should VHS hit the Bay and targets the adult/trophy population, even with MASSIVE (and unlikely) restocking, it will take another decade and more to return it to where it is now. Exessive harvest NOW can only compound the problem should VHS hit. I know Steve said we shouldn't be "alarmist" re VHS, but that strong likelihood/possibility MUST be factored in. Yes, I realize that some may argue why not harvest them rather than let VHS get them, but as was argued with C&R in the beginning, no angler can KNOW which fish will (have the potential to grow to trophy size...C&R) succumb to VHS. Harvest the wrong ones, and almost the entire population of trophy sized muskies could be wiped out! As for me, the proposed 54-inch size limit only makes sense at this time. Protect that valuable fishery until some studies can be done (and see if VHS does hit) and THEN re-assess the situation and make any further changes if necessary, either with even higher size limit; C&R only or even reduced size limit. KNOWLEDGE is KEY! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell www.larryramsell.com Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/24/2007 2:23 PM | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |