|
|
| Moltisanti - 3/14/2011 7:32 PM
Muskiefool...have a beer.
Wish I could but too many morons are trying to screw up our fish, gotta stay sharp friend.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 3/14/2011 8:55 PM
EA
Shawn, what's sad is that even YOU won't openly admit that your fisheries aren't a result of the laws you have in place. You KNOW better. It takes the right combination of acreage, forage, water chemistry, and genetics to grow big muskies. MN has big muskies because you have the lake ecosystems to support them. It's mostly the environment you PUT them in that determines their growth potential, AND their numbers. Comparing KY to MN? Are you SERIOUS??
What do you think KY musky fisheries would look like if you stocked the same strain of fish you have in MN, and enacted the same exact laws??? Now what about IL, IN, WI, or any of the other 38 states that have muskies???
You know as well as I do that it wouldn't be the same.
I've got to hand it to you, though. You are the first poster in six pages of banter with the balls to ACTUALLY point out what the issue is, even if nit was uni9ntentional. It's not about additional lines, it's not about regulations or size limits. It's about THIS:
"The number of muskie anglers in this state grew from about 20k in 1990 to over 225k now."
and this:
"even though they all come here on their vacations to fish."
Let's skip the BS for once. We all know who you are and what you do for the fisheries. It's commendable, it's honorable, and we need more people out there like you. But let's not pretend the issue here is something other than what it is. The entire muskie world has descended on MN like flies on sh*t, and you guys are ALL angry about it.
And what's worse is that you can't even stop for a minute, and NOT mention how fantastic the muskie fishing is in MN!!! Well... What did you THINK was going to happen??!? Everybody from MN is constantly going on and on and on about how superior your fisheries are to everyone elses. And then when the great unwashed masses from every other state show up and fish, you all have some sort of crap hemmorage?
Come on, man.
So your saying the waters you list of have less carrying capacity for biomass than say Vermilion? I would bet my Dog (great dog too ) on it (Big V ) having hundreds of times less potential than those lakes in any of those places.
You could all have the same or better but most wont sacrifice the chance for 1-6 fish a day for the chance of 1/50" a week or 1/55 in a lifetime, Mississippi strain fish are not the largest, actually the larger fish from Mille Lacs have been WI fish from Iowa.
Stop stocking 100000000000000000 fish and let them grow without getting guts full of hooks and some crazy things can happen. Then you need a Kellett and support from all who care; and we do care, most you'll know or ever see here or on any site. Guys like him are working for fish while and so you and everyone can come here and enjoy them, thats not fun or easy at times so we crack and spit.
Come fish and bring lots of money.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | M-fool, you might want to lay off of the Jose for a while....... Your beginning to scare me.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| You must not like that dog very much... |
|
| |
|
| Shawn, what's sad is that even YOU won't openly admit that your fisheries aren't a result of the laws you have in place. You KNOW better. It takes the right combination of acreage, forage, water chemistry, and genetics to grow big muskies. MN has big muskies because you have the lake ecosystems to support them. It's mostly the environment you PUT them in that determines their growth potential, AND their numbers. Comparing KY to MN? Are you SERIOUS??
Growing big muskies requires the correct balance of many variables. To insinuate that Laws aren't an important part of the equation is simply wrong! Is the main key factor? No, but it IS important. Look at some of the traditional big fish waters of WI like Big Chip for example. All the key factors are there but still fewer big fish. Why? I'm not saying two lines ruined big Chip, rather management plans failed to stay ahead of increased pressure.
Remember, we're not talking about taking away rights! MN has always been a 1 line limit. I, personally don't think adding a line will "ruin the fishery." Nobody can make concrete claims about how it will effect things, and that's part of the problem! Comparing the fisheries of any two states is tricky and not very scientific. If we knew for sure it wouldn't effect the fishery I'd be for it! We simply don't, so I support the status quo. If two lines passed, I'd live (and even use two lines on occasion) and life would continue. The sky is not falling!
Lastly, I know plenty of gas stations, bars, resorts, restaurants, guides and even Muskie conservation organizations that are benefiting from the increased popularity of our sport. Please try not to make blanket statements or judgments about an entire state or Muskie community based on the comments of a few on a website. I welcome all who come to fish MN and really feel blessed to have this resource in our backyard. No "crap hemmorage" here! And if you need a Guide....
Edited by Ben Olsen 3/14/2011 10:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'too many morons are trying to screw up our fish'
Now there's a statement open to interpretation.
|
|
| |
|
| pretty closed statement Steve they are all crying like stray cats at the Capital, They want the fish gone so you and I and all the other Muskie freaks go away.
The same bunch that wanted your fish dead 20 years ago are back with a vengeance, they hate Muskies and the fisherman, they hate and intimidate the DNR. They will do anything to stop the new lakes from being stocked and the old ones too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh.... THOSE morons.
I am compelled to be cautious when publishing posts from you and some of your associates, for reasons I am sure you clearly understand.
|
|
| |
|
| I hear ya, I dont think the 2 line will go anywhere, especially after the DNR told the House committee they would reduce all harvest by 30 to 50% (3 years in a row), part of me wants it because I know harvesting 1/2 a Muskie will be hard to do.
Most will riot if they cut the rest of the game fish, its a fun discussion but I also know its reality as well.
ZERO Chance; and if it does, we win as well, not bad odds. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Agreed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | EA, if you think I haven't said anything about how great our fishery is in this thread then you need to start reading what I type...
As far as growing big fish, you bet MN's lakes are very good at growing big fish. Now getting fish to grow big is another thing all together. Fish can't grow big if they've been gut-hooked, exhausted from being caught after spawn with open wounds everywhere that cause bacterial infections, get bonked at 34", get speared, are targeted in the winter and held out in subzero temps for a 10 min photo session, etc.
Another reason why fish grow big in MN is because of our stocking rates. We stock at a lower rate then most anywhere I've heard of. Now if there's fewer fish in the lake we should increase the protections right? It only makes sense to me, I don't know about everyone else.
I ran the numbers on Tonka and I figure there is around 1500-2000 adult muskies in the system. 2 years ago when I ran the numbers I knew of over 1000 fish caught out of around 25 boats. Now considering about 2/3 of the muskie anglers are from the cities and figure 1/2 of them fish Tonka that would mean around 75k people fish muskies on Tonka by the numbers. So if 25 boats are catching over 1000 fish, what about the other thousands? THAT's why we need protections: to MAINTAIN our current quality of fishing.
Will 2 line kill the fishery on it's own: no. Will 2 line + early open season + winter harvest + low size limits + etc? Yes. So if we know something will make our resource (that we already know and love) worse why do it? It's short term gain for long term pain if you ask me.
Edited by Muskie Treats 3/15/2011 8:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| 1 line only please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
| I'd have to admit that draping a sucker over the side and casting too at the same time has always had me wanting mn to have two lines but after reading this thread I think peoples comments on the neagative results out weigh this, I think we should just leave well enough alone. I guess I woul'nt mind having 3 lines during the winter though lol |
|
| |
|
|
The reason our fisheries got so good so fast was because nobody knew about them.
They grew for 10 years without pressure, which in essence is having a C&R fishery.
When you are talking about trophy fish that take many years to grow and are by nature a low density creature the thought that regs won't make your fishery defies common sense.
Bob Strand ( a man who farts more muskie knowledge than anyone who posted here) says that our success was a direct result of little to no pressure for a decade, than the only conclusion you can come to is that muskies thrive when you take care of them. He very clearly states that even low numbers of delayed mortality and intentional kills would have made our waters a much different story.
They populations are very succeptable to roller coaster rides when delayed mortality and intentional harvest are put into the equation.
We have 48" limits, one C&R lake, a short season and one line only.
We also have the most popular fishery in the US for muskies.
To think that stringent regs aren't part of the equation, or that we now need to be complacent about taking care of what we have is very ignorant to history and the facts regarding what actually goes on the real world.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Muskie Treats - 3/14/2011 7:45 PM
It's on and on how people want it "easy". Seriously, if you want easy fish (that are small) go fish Kentucky where you can fish as many rods as you want, before the spawn, and keep your 2 30"ers a day. What's even more sad is that I have to waste my time pointing this out.
Don't be a 'tard Treats, we got too dang many already, and let me tell you, they aren't easy when they see 8 baits per boat pass. Keep your suggestions to yourself.
It would help if we had a surtax on FIB's, but they squeal so loudly when you tweak em, it's probably not gonna happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| What about raising out of state license fees? I know getting size limits changed and changing season dates is a circus, but it seems like that needs to happen too. I still think the harm to the fisheries would be negligible adding an extra line, but the more I hear about the other issues that are facing the MN fisheries? Well, Shawns #'s alone indicate that there are already too many people fishing to sustain the numbers of big fish that are being caught these last few seasons. It's a young fishery, too, which means that the first few generations grew to maturity with little competition for forage and more food than sucessive generations will have available.
There's not much more fun in muskie fishing than raising a fish, and watching it turn off your lure and smash a sucker you had out. As much as I'd like to see folks able to enjoy dragging s sucker in the fall in MN? You guys have a long way to go to keep what you have going into the next decade. I've been planning a trip to MN for the last few years, but... I don't want to be part of the problem. God knows we have our own issues in WI, many of the same issues in fact. But 75,000 people fishing 14,000 acres of water, for 1500 - 2000 fish?
Is that even fun? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Non-resident license fees are a little low, but the best deal in the state is the deal the non-resident guides get! Talk about a crock. I'd be willing to be big money the vast majority of them don't pay anything into the state for taxes (illegal) and they get to exploit Minnesota's resources. THAT is where the focus should be if you want to talk money. Not to mention they are a big part of the reason a lot of people are now fishing many of the "smaller" lakes in MN after Mille Lacs turned cold and Vermilion fish became a night deal.
Non-resident fishermen spend a lot of money on stuff while they're in the state, from gas to food to lodging. I could see a slight increase in their license fee making sense, but not that much.
In fact, I'm gonna send an email to the DNR asking just this question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Deep breathing....another one..."proud of the fishing opportunities we have in MN." you bet your last crankbait we are! Back in the late 70's when an honest effort began to produce a Muskie fishery in this State that we could all be proud of there wasn't much known and fewer people knowing it. The numbers have grown and the pressure is visible. We cannot add Muskie lakes fast enough to withstand the growth. Yet there is allot more known now, but in comparison not that many more out there working on the issues and using the knowledge. I for one want ONE place in the United States that has "World Class Muskie Fishing" I see what the guys from out- of - state are thinking is a bragging statements, not meant to be. More work than I can imagine went into getting it. Allot more work to do....there simply is no room for setbacks & resource harm. We will NEVER get to this point again. If you think it is good now....it COULD be better. I say GO AHEAD ON John & Shawn keep doing what you do. We need to support your efforts not berate you for wanting to protect the resources. |
|
| |
|
| You want to use 2 lines, go use 2 lines where it is legal. That should be a tourist attraction for all the states that have such "good" fishing, right? I think it's funny how all the out of stater's want 2 lines in MN, and most of the guys in MN who are good fishermen and educated on the issue want it to stay at 1 line. The out of stater's want to catch more fish on their trips, understandable, but greedy in my opinion. Catching more fish now results in catching less quality fish in the future....I think it is pretty much common sense to understand that. Protecting the resource now ensures quality fishing in the future. Going on 3 years now, I have not heard any good arguments from those who support 2 lines, other than that they will catch more fish. Again, thinking about themselves first and not the quality of the fishery in the future. This will never pass anyway. If it does, you can put an asterisk next to any new state record fish caught while using 2 lines since it has been at 1 line for as long as I can remember.
Edited by Baby Mallard 3/15/2011 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| BM, I think most of the support is coming from guys who fish two lines in their own states and haven't seen any significant impact on those fisheries because of it. You can try to compare the quality of fishing in different places as an example, but the fisheries are so different it's impossible to draw parallels. Different genetics, different forage, no natural reproduction... Muskie fishing down here is a whole different animal, because we just don't have the water. If we put them anywhere, and they actually survive in enough numbers to produce a viable fishery it's all we can hope for.
So when we get in the truck and drive 8 hours each way, spending $350 in gas just to get there and back? We want to catch fish. If we wanted to fish all day and see one skinny 33" fish, we'd just stay here and fish. Except that there are so many boats on our lakes they actually crash into each other, and when we joke about taking your life into your hands even being out there, we are NOT kidding... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Baby Mallard - 3/15/2011 12:57 PM
You want to use 2 lines, go use 2 lines where it is legal. That should be a tourist attraction for all the states that have such "good" fishing, right? I think it's funny how all the out of stater's want 2 lines in MN, and most of the guys in MN who are good fishermen and educated on the issue want it to stay at 1 line. The out of stater's want to catch more fish on their trips, understandable, but greedy in my opinion.
If it does, you can put an asterisk next to any new state record fish caught while using 2 lines since it has been at 1 line for as long as I can remember.
Your entitled to your opinion. Now man up and do this at the Expo this year. Walk up to Gregg Thomas and say, "Hey Gregg, when I watched your first Blueprints video and the detailed multi-line trolling setups you use, I was appauled. I think you are greedy and your fish shouldn't count." Then on to Radloff's booth, Tanner Wildes and everyone else. Why don't you tell them how you are ethically superior? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Moltisanti - 3/15/2011 2:18 PM
Your entitled to your opinion. Now man up and do this at the Expo this year. Walk up to Gregg Thomas and say, "Hey Gregg, when I watched your first Blueprints video and the detailed multi-line trolling setups you use, I was appauled. I think you are greedy and your fish shouldn't count." Then on to Radloff's booth, Tanner Wildes and everyone else. Why don't you tell them how you are ethically superior?
That's funny, but Greg would just start laughing. |
|
| |
|
|
How exactly is one to know that using multiple lines hasn't affected thier fishery, unless they have a some way of knowing what it would be like now if they had only used one line?
I look at what MN has and realize we've only had one line up to now.
How many MN anglers do you see flocking to the states that allow 2 lines?
How many big name guides would rather stay in states where they can use 2 lines?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Actually, JS, I know a ton of Minnesota guys who take October trips to Wisconsin, just so they can run suckers.
And I prefer to look at what Minnesota didn't have...like a viable stocking program until 20 years ago. Wisconsin made the mistakes that you learned from, while all the metro guys were beating Deer, Bone and Hayward to a pulp. Now you have a great fishery and you'll be #*^@ed if some out of towner comes in with an opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | How about those Packers..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| Guest - 3/15/2011 3:11 PM
How exactly is one to know that using multiple lines hasn't affected thier fishery, unless they have a some way of knowing what it would be like now if they had only used one line?
I look at what MN has and realize we've only had one line up to now.
How many MN anglers do you see flocking to the states that allow 2 lines?
How many big name guides would rather stay in states where they can use 2 lines?
JS
Well, John, I've fished 2 lines in IL and WI for the last 35+ years, and the only fish that I've hooked badly enough to kill were the ones I kept to eat. Those fish were going to die by means of fillet knife anyway. And for the last 7 years muskie fishing in the fall, we've run two lines constantly and it has not resulted in any muskies being killed that I am aware of. Muskie fishing is better EVERYWHERE than it's been, even in the places where you can run two lines or even 3 lines. All the signs point to catch and release as the main factor in the success of those fisheries. WI still has a 34" size limit, they have the same issues with treaty harvest, and they have the same issues with out of state anglers flocking there.
As for how many big name guides would rather stay in states where you can run two lines? Many of them DO stay in their own states until the water gets too warm to fish for muskies safely. Then, it's off to MN. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | John ,
the reason the "big name Guides come here from the south is because their lakes get to hot to fish during the summer,.... and that MN. has great muskie fishing.....
"If you build it, they will come" ......and you guys built it right,...that's why they come.
again, muskie guys aren't pushing for 2 lines.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| EA
water is that much warmer in wisc?
WOW imagine how long its gonna take to get on a spot on V if people have to slow down dragging a sucker off the back
Edited by happy hooker 3/15/2011 3:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8834
| happy hooker - 3/15/2011 3:35 PM
EA
water is that much warmer in wisc?
WOW imagine how long its gonna take to get on a spot on V if people have to slow down dragging a sucker off the back
No but it's certainly a lot warmer in IL, IN, and KY, which is where many of your out of state guides come from. As for the WI guys guiding in MN? Not sure who most of those are, but maybe they are guys from Vilas County looking for a place where you can troll without oars?? I know of one central WI guide who goes to MN during the warmer months. Judging by the condition of his area lakes by July? 80+ degree water, bad algae blooms... I'd want to leave too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Guest - 3/15/2011 3:42 PM
So there are a "ton" of muskies guys from MN that go to WI in the fall to sucker fish? Like if you add all their weight together, or is ton a number?
I have seen the exact opposite. WI guys coming over and sucker fishing in the fall in MN. Nothing wrong with it at all.
So MN DNR learned everything they know about stocking and muskies from the WI DNR. Really? I am pretty sure that Bob Strand found out alot of information working with Leech Lake guides/fishermen and using radio tracking.
I am not trying to discredit the work that a lot of people have put in to make MN a world class musky fishery in any way. I'm sure Bob and many others did a ton of research and hard work to get there. That would be stupid to ignore that. Just like it would be stupid to think that those people didn't take data from other stocking programs to help achieve the end result.
And yes...many Minnesota fishermen also fish in Wisconsin. |
|
| |
