|
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I'm enjoying them, d- er guest. Keepses themses comingses. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| I gotta go have some Chow Mein!!!!!
guests posts and anecdotes put me in the mood for fortune cookies |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| thescottith,
Words to live by. LMAO!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Seriously, move to Alaska, out in the frozen north. All the tranquility you want, and nothing consumed because you will either freeze or starve to death while you pontificate about doing what needs to be done.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I find this entire thread rather strange. It seems to be based an assumption that:
1. Muskie fishing is getting worse and not better.
2. Not enough people are involved in advancing Muskie fishing and fisheries.
3. There is to much commercialism involved with Muskie fishing.
4. Someone is to blame.
My observations are:
1. While there are variances, Muskie fishing has actually been improving on many waters all over North America. Furthermore, Muskie fishing remains very good on many of the "original" Muskie waters such as Leech, Cass, and the Chip.
2. While there is a great deal of room for improvement, there are a lot of people involved and working hard for the Muskie fishery.
3. Commercialism, (or economic activity), is a natural result of a popular activity. That happens with anything that gets more popular and Muskie fishing is no different.
4. There is no one to blame. The DNRs in many states have done a good to great job. No one makes you buy anything or stay at a resort. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with marketting tackle or a resort to eager customers.
Remember back when 7ft rods were considered long and there weren't a lot of Muskie lure choices? Remember when catching a 40 inch Muskie was cause for celebration? Remember when the line choices were Dacron or Mono? I do.
I think maybe we all have it to good. How many of us live within an hour of good Muskie fishing? Seems that some may just be a little spoiled? Hmmmm?
Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
| Herb_b - 10/14/2011 3:10 PM
I find this entire thread rather strange. It seems to be based an assumption that:
1. Muskie fishing is getting worse and not better.
2. Not enough people are involved in advancing Muskie fishing and fisheries.
3. There is to much commercialism involved with Muskie fishing.
4. Someone is to blame.
My observations are:
1. While there are variances, Muskie fishing has actually been improving on many waters all over North America. Furthermore, Muskie fishing remains very good on many of the "original" Muskie waters such as Leech, Cass, and the Chip.
2. While there is a great deal of room for improvement, there are a lot of people involved and working hard for the Muskie fishery.
3. Commercialism, (or economic activity), is a natural result of a popular activity. That happens with anything that gets more popular and Muskie fishing is no different.
4. There is no one to blame. The DNRs in many states have done a good to great job. No one makes you buy anything or stay at a resort. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with marketting tackle or a resort to eager customers.
Remember back when 7ft rods were considered long and there weren't a lot of Muskie lure choices? Remember when catching a 40 inch Muskie was cause for celebration? Remember when the line choices were Dacron or Mono? I do.
I think maybe we all have it to good. How many of us live within an hour of good Muskie fishing? Seems that some may just be a little spoiled? Hmmmm?
Just my opinion.
Hi Herb, i know its your opinion, but i think your out of touch with alot of lakes to say the fishing is improving? |
|
| |
|
| I've been reading these posts and have fished before the mn stocked lakes really started taking off, during their peak, and probably what now is-post peak. Fishing pressure has definately changed things in MN on "stocked" waters. It may actually be getting better on natural waters as everyone is pounding stocked lakes. A person will have to get use to it or take up a different hobby. What would make it better in MN again is more lakes, less fishermen, or a Wisconsin fishery that would rival MN. (Wisconsin in my opinion has more scenic waters than MN as a whole) Thus I applaud the comments and efforts of those calling for more participation in improving the fishery via regs and more stocked waters. (thank you) |
|
| |
|
| Step 1: Build a tremendous fishery
Step 2: Promote it from every angle, in every venue, with pictures and stories to boot
Step 3: Explain to the great unwashed public how to exploit it, in great detail, including how, when, where, and with what.
Step 4: Make sure every website, every page of every magazine, every guide and every angler is aware if how great it is
Step 5: Throw in a couple TV shows about it just for good measure
Step 6: Also make sure to instill the notion, in anglers old and new, that one has not fished until they have caught multpile 50" fish
Step 7: Remind those same folks about how great the fishing in MN is, just in case they missed it the first 50 times
And then? Complain about how many people are exploiting the resource I suppose.
Kind of like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and then complaining because you have a headache, isn't it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Flambeauski - 10/14/2011 2:09 PM
I'm enjoying them, d- er guest. Keepses themses comingses.
Well played Flambeauski! |
|
| |
|
|
Couple things;
The people "complaing" aren't the ones who have promoted, or exploited the fishery, however you want to put it.
I think the jist of a lot of the concern is the promotion of the resource is outselling the capability of the resource.
I think it's rather funny that the reactions to the poems by guest are to call him crazy, say he's on drugs etc.
If people really think that the fishery can sustain the pressure it's getting without people taking extra measures to help it, or to embrace better ideas about better C&R or other such things that commonly get ridiculed by the masses, than let's hear those points instead of the name calling.
If you have a legitimate case for brushing off the ideas of the poems then speak your mind instead of poking fun of someone you have never met.
Address the message instead of trying to rip apart the messenger.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I know that some lakes, like Mille Lacs and Vermillion, are no longer at their peak. But I am not thinking about just those lakes or just the past five or ten years. I am thinking about the entire midwest and the size and quality of the Muskie fisheries in the last 20 years. Yeah, it was probably easier to catch a big Muskie on some lakes five years ago. But it is a whole lot easier now than it was 15 years ago - not?
What I see are a lot of fisheries maturing and the fish simply becoming more difficult to catch as a result. But the fish are still there and can be caught.
Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 10/14/2011 4:37 PM
Couple things;
The people "complaing" aren't the ones who have promoted, or exploited the fishery, however you want to put it.
I think the jist of a lot of the concern is the promotion of the resource is outselling the capability of the resource.
I think it's rather funny that the reactions to the poems by guest are to call him crazy, say he's on drugs etc.
If people really think that the fishery can sustain the pressure it's getting without people taking extra measures to help it, or to embrace better ideas about better C&R or other such things that commonly get ridiculed by the masses, than let's hear those points instead of the name calling.
If you have a legitimate case for brushing off the ideas of the poems then speak your mind instead of poking fun of someone you have never met.
Address the message instead of trying to rip apart the messenger.
JS
John... The decline in the MN fisheries was predicted and talked about years ago. We had many discussions about it here, and on the other sites, and some very good input from biologists. What I gained from those discussions is that the "peak" was inevitable - first introductions of muskies will have no competition for forage, and the entire lake to themselves. As you add year classes, and those classes start coming up, there are still relatively few fish in the system. Looking down the road to when those first year classes reach maturity, and the year classes immediately behind them? That is the best fishing you will EVER have in that system.
Is the pressure on those lakes contributing to the decline? Certainly. But we can implement the best management strategies, and the best C&R ethic, and you're only trying to fix symptoms of the real problem. The quality of that fishery is still going to decline, even if you remove angling from the equation all together. You can stock more fish, but ultimately it all comes down to whatever biomass that a lake can support, and because of that, (based on all the research I've read anyway) those inital year classes will outperform those which came afterwards. you can have a lot of small fish, or you can have a few big fish, but the only time you're going to have a lot of big fish is when those first few year classes reach their maximum size.
What everyone is really complaining about is that there are just too many people fishing those lakes. And what, exactly can you do about that? People are going to fish wherever the fishing is best. You can stock other waters across other states, which is being done and has been done for some time. You can implement better management strageties on other lakes in other states, which has been done and is being done. But the fact that MN has better lake ecosystems to support large muskies than you will find in other surrounding states? You're going to have better fisheries, and people are going to flock to them. I'm sure if you set up a program where people could pay an extra $10 for a license and buy a muskie to be stocked, for example, that most people would happily throw in the extra $10.
But the problem, as I understand it is not tht more muskies need to be stocked, or that more money needs to be raised. More LAKES would certainly help, but there again, people are going to fish where the best fishing is, and there little anybody can do to change that. When the lake associations are against muskies in their lakes, because they don't want the muskie ANGLERS on their lakes? What are you going to do exactly? Charge more for an out of state license, hoping that it forces people to stay in their own state? Look at WI - they charge $70 fo an out of state license. There are more people from IL fishing in Northern WI than there are from WI. That's because the fishing is better. And it's always going to BE better, because the lake ecosystems are better suited for muskies.
I hear the same things from guys all over Canada. Every year, more and more and more people. Muskie fishing is growing, and the crowds are coming. I have yet to hear an actual solution about what can actually be done to stop it. Lots of complaining, but no real solutions. The best hope is getting more lakes stocked. But what happens in the years in between stocking those new lakes, and when they actually start to produce quality fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: WI | You can hope for higher gas prices, that will keep the fishing pressure down.  |
|
| |
|
| If someone is willing to spend $30k on a boat, $200 for a reel, $150 for a rod, and $20 each for lures, do you really think a few bucks extra for gas is going to stop them? License fees, launch fees, muskie stamps, all of those are good for putting money in someone else's pocket, but it's certainly not going to keep anyone away. About the only thing you can do to keep people off your lakes is keep your mouth shut about them. It's a little late for that I'm afraid.
I know what the answer is. Nobody is going to like it. Best thing anybody can do for the muskie populations in MN is stop fishing there. I don't hear anybody suggesting that as an option, though I bet many would like to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The guest JS quote and post above pretty much sums it up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how bout making everyone buy a stamp ... that'll fix it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
Location: Hugo, MN | I must not have been paying attention. I hadn't noticed the "decline" of the muskie fisheries that seem so obvious to some of you guys. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1460
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | Havent noticed the big decline in MN...more hit the net for me this year in MN than any of my previous years there. Guest poet--you have some rhymes going on there but try to work on the rhythm a bit. Are you taking requests? Could we get something in, say, a limerick? |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 10/14/2011 3:06 PM
Guest,
Seriously, move to Alaska, out in the frozen north. All the tranquility you want, and nothing consumed because you will either freeze or starve to death while you pontificate about doing what needs to be done.
If he thinks musky waters are crowded he should see what combat fishing is really like. Quality accessible fisheries draw crowds everywhere. |
|
| |
|
|
It isn't the fact that so many people want to fish muskies that is a concern, crowded lakes are unavoidable when you have a good fishery. Everybody has the privalege to fish muskies and that is a good thing. We are blessed with some great waters.
The concern is the effect that this pressure is going to have, and what is or isn't being done to make sure the fishery can sustain it's excellance.
Are muskie so much different than some of the big game animals that have tight regs on how many people can hunt them, and how many they let be killed in a year to preserve the resource?
Right now we have enough anglers catching fish that delayed mortality will have an impact, that and the fact that people do still kill them. The answer is limit pressure or have individuals take extra steps to help ensure the resource is impacted as little as possible. Do any of us want to see limited fishing, or tighter regs? It appears not.
It also appears that many anglers don't see any problems and aren't willing to admit that the fishery is getting more pressure than it will be able to sustain and be at the quality it is at now year after year.
We aren't doing enough, and I guess that is being lost on some.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Are muskie so much different than some of the big game animals that have tight regs on how many people can hunt them, and how many they let be killed in a year to preserve the resource? '
Yes. Obviously. Muskies are not deer, deer are not muskies. The DNR would act if they feel the balance of the fishery is in need of more regulation. They have done so with walleyes on several lakes that are also prime muskie fisheries, so the question should be if Muskies are different than walleyes to manage, and the answer would still be...yes.
Are the biologists over there ready and willing tighten the regulations to 'preserve' the fishery as it is today? Do they feel the fishery is at risk? If you do and they don't, why the difference of opinion? If they do and you do, what's the hold up with increasing size limits or offering other restrictions?
Are you seriously championing limiting access? How would THAT work?
Is a reasonable step, at least one that might get some consideration, a statewide 50" limit? Do they still have effective control over the special interests there, or is your legislature the 'problem'? Are the activists in the muskie world considered a special interest group too? How would those issues be addressed effectively?
|
|
| |
|
|
Guess the explanation came later.
Biologists do see problems, but that doesn't mean they are able or going to make changes.
I'm obviously one that champions changes within the ranks of the fishermen themselves.
That can be a steep hill to climb though.
Size limits are great, but more effective in places where pressure is less of a factor as obvioulsy fish die after release as well.
Muskies are not deer. Deer are the rats of the world. Breeding very successfully and in many place need to be thinned out for health of the herd and our cars.
My big game analogy was more pertaining to other low density predators or animals that aren't the "walleyes" of the woods, meaning numbers are low and over hunting can cause harm to numbers without strick regulation.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What do the biologists tell you they see as issues that threaten the muskie population in MN?
What would be the answer if they had free hand to make it so and do they feel as you do...or not? Why are they not 'willing or able' to make changes?
'Deer are the rats of the world.' I bet the Whitetail conservationists would love that one. |
|
| |
|
|
The issues are recriutment of new fish won't keep up to death of fish.
You have delayed mortality, which is something that is obviously enhanced by more people fishing.
You have fish intentionally killed and also cannibalism of young muskies by the higher populations of large fish that the new stocked lakes have.
Stocking rates are not going to change unless it's funded by private sources.
Very simply the numbers of muskies in lakes is not going to increase but decrease.
One notable exception is Leech. That lake is now as good as it's ever been both for numbers and size according to DNR and local guides, fishermen. The pressure on Leech has gone down drastically over the last decade with the popularity of new lakes like Mille Lacs, Vermillion and a host of other MN waters.
It's a perfect example of how pressure affects a population even with C&R being a strong ethic.
We just raised our limit to 48". I suppose going higher would be better, but the problem is a matter of math. Numbers will go down with the current situation.
Not realizing that and making efforts to get more waters and take better care of what we have will have a detrimental effect.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So stocking more is the cure and money needs to be raised to accomplish that? That's the answer? |
|
| |
|
|
No, I don't think stocking more in existing lakes is the answer.
The DNR has numbers of how many fish can be stocked in a lake based on size of waters. Overstocking could be a detriment to other fish species and would probably be opposed by those who already view muskies as a threat to fish populations.
Which is also a hurdle to getting new lakes.
New waters and better handling are the answer in my mind.
New waters will take more money, which may need private assistance to accomplish.
So money is a hurdle in that area.
Fighing for new lakes and an attitude towards fish first is the road that will keep us on the right path IMHO.
Those are both areas that every angler/business can help in.
JS |
|
| |
|
| So, John...
Here are the issues as you state them:
1. Delayed mortality due to the vast amount of pressure.
We've done a fine job getting people to spend their money (dogs of consumerism?) on big nets, release tools, and getting them to release those fish as quickly as possible. We've all but eliminated vertical holds, excessive time out of the water, single hook sucker rigs, and fighting fish with gear that's not up to the task. One cannot exist in muskie circles without being bombarded with every C&R practice known to man. We're even telling people to stop fishing when the water gets too warm. What else can we DO here? Water release only? I can't see telling people not to hold up their fish for a picture. It's a big part of the deal for most. Short of just not fishing for them, what's left? Delayed mortality is a result of fishing. Even the best are going to kill some, despite their best efforts.
2. Those who kill them intentionally: MN doesn't own that crowd. That happens across their range. Unfortunately, the crappie/walleye/bass/etc anglers of the world just don't want muskies in their waters. We can try to educate them, and explain that muskies aren't really eating all their walleyes. The problem I see there is that they aren't going to listen to the muskie crowd. We want muskies, they do not. Conflict of interest. Nothing we say, no matter how well we say it or how well informed we are, is going to override the mentality of "muskies are eating my (insert other game fish here)" And since many of us come across as arrogant jerks, it just compounds the problem.
3. Predation of small muskies by their own species. I am not sure how much of a problem this is. If true, that would seem to be a symptom of having too many muskies, and not enough forage. If they're eating their own in great numbers, they must be hungry. And dare I say that if they are eating their own, maybe the bass/walleye/panfish guys are more right than we want to believe?? If cannibalism is a problem, maybe selective harvest is the answer. Maybe the fisheries MN has created are unsustainable no matter what we do, because we've introduced too many large predators, and they are slowly but surely eating themselves out of house and home.
So... You've said that more fish will not solve the problem. You've said that higher size limits will not solve the problem. We can't stop muskies from eating each other, and we can't stop the vast majority of anglers who fish for other species from simply not wanting muskies in their lakes. They are the majority, and they aren't going away.
That leaves delayed mortality as the only factor we have any control over. You've said we all need to do more. More WHAT? I'm sure that some could do a better job releasing their fish, but that's not lack of knowledge, that's just lack of experience, which will come with more fish and more time fishing. So what is left, John? The things we can do either won't work, or we're already doing them.
Fixing the symptoms doesn't adress the problem. The problem, from what I can discern from your posts, is quite simply that too many people are fishing for muskies in MN. Our beloved poet has said the same thing. Much more eloquently though...
So, what now? Anyone want to volunteer to martyr themselves and never fish in MN again? |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | $$$ for stocking new water - A Muskie Stamp $50.00 also U must pass a test on line for proper unhooking and release before U can buy stamp, also must have a Net, Pliers, Unhook tool or U will be fined. To Harvest a Muskie a $75.00 stamp, Also if a new lake is stock with Muskies one other fish like Walleye, Panfish is stock to.
Deayed Mortality - Muskies under 45" must be kept in water for release and measure and only a pic in the water, Muskies over 45" 30 sec Rule for out of water and NO Bump Boards, Pic only.
My 2 cents
Edited by PIKEMASTER 10/15/2011 8:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 90
Location: Ohio | PIKEMASTER - 10/15/2011 9:06 AM $$$ for stocking new water - A Muskie Stamp $50.00 also U must pass a test on line for proper unhooking and release before U can buy stamp, also must have a Net, Pliers, Unhook tool or U will be fined. To Harvest a Muskie a $75.00 stamp, Also if a new lake is stock with Muskies one other fish like Walleye, Panfish is stock to. Deayed Mortality - Muskies under 45" must be kept in water for release and measure and only a pic in the water, Muskies over 45" 30 sec Rule for out of water and NO Bump Boards, Pic only. My 2 cents And now you just chased away 60% of muskie fisherman and new fisherman so there goes any extra money source for stocking new water Who is going to enforce all the above? you would have to hire 100's of new game wardens and that would eat the majority of your money up that would be needed to stock new lakes What about the other species fisherman that catches a muskie, doesnt have these tools, gets a fine and then declares war on every muskie he catches?
Our biggest problem in my area (Ohio) is guys that fish for other species catching a muskie, slitting its belly and throwing it back in the water or hanging the muskie from a tree I do think that trying to let fisherman know how to do a proper release is crucial in saving a lot of muskie though, I just hate having to pay a king's ransom on top of all the money I already have in the sport
Edited by Magic8Ball 10/15/2011 8:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | Magic8Ball - 10/15/2011 8:18 AM
PIKEMASTER - 10/15/2011 9:06 AM $$$ for stocking new water - A Muskie Stamp $50.00 also U must pass a test on line for proper unhooking and release before U can buy stamp, also must have a Net, Pliers, Unhook tool or U will be fined. To Harvest a Muskie a $75.00 stamp, Also if a new lake is stock with Muskies one other fish like Walleye, Panfish is stock to. Deayed Mortality - Muskies under 45" must be kept in water for release and measure and only a pic in the water, Muskies over 45" 30 sec Rule for out of water and NO Bump Boards, Pic only. My 2 cents And now you just chased away 60% of muskie fisherman and new fisherman so there goes any extra money source for stocking new water Who is going to enforce all the above? you would have to hire 100's of new game wardens and that would eat the majority of your money up that would be needed to stock new lakes What about the other species fisherman that catches a muskie, doesnt have these tools, gets a fine and then declares war on every muskie he catches?
Our biggest problem in my area (Ohio) is guys that fish for other species catching a muskie, slitting its belly and throwing it back in the water or hanging the muskie from a tree I do think that trying to let fisherman know how to do a proper release is crucial in saving a lot of muskie though, I just hate having to pay a king's ransom on top of all the money I already have in the sport
Y would it chase away 60% ???? Hell one muskie bait is over $30.00 plus and U need at least 100's of them to fish for Muskies and that has not stop anyone new or present from fishing for Muskies.
U can't stop anyone from wanting to fish for Muskie that would be un- American but if U want to fish for them U must follow the rules and pay to help restock them.
I don't think a Muskie stamp will keep a True Muskie guy, it would kept a person that has never fished for them before that has no Idea what's he doing from fishing for them untill he commits to the rules of proper Muskies fishing.
Edited by PIKEMASTER 10/15/2011 8:54 AM
|
|
| |
