Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> slot limits |
| Message Subject: slot limits | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | F.S.F. lets say the goal is your #2 what makes more sense, trying to raise the size limit for the next 20 years and getting nothing accomplished in the mean time or getting a slot limit passed in the next two years while still thinking that the next step is high limits. I agree this should not be a state wide thing, it should be lake by lake, taking into account all factors including current limits on existing lakes. On a different note, why do you and others think that a slot limit would encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, I think you hit it. Slot limits are designed primarily to allow harvest of a reasonably abundant self sustaining population while protecting mature fish and for that reason may not be successful with Muskie populations in many waters. One example where slots on Pike and Walleye worked pretty well is NE Ontario. There were two measures that were placed to protect the trophy pike population; a lowered limit from 6 to 4, and a slot of any fish under about 27", and only one over about 35" to be present in the limit. The problem was anglers harvesting mid to upper 30" fish for the freezer. The population of big pike has grown steadily in Wabigoon, for example, and walleye too with a similar slot in place. Note they did NOT slot limit the Muskies there. On trophy waters the limit went to 54", creating an atmosphere where VERY few fish will ever be harvested. The system supports the Muskies in the density they are present, and they WILL grow to a large size as a result because there isn't a 'harvest' of any consequence. From what I've been told, the reason for the different management techniques is overall recruitment and the fact Muskies are not as prolific as species that react well to slot limits. I'll have the straight skinny on that issue after a couple more interviews, I hope. One problem, believe it or not, is CPR. If a slot limit is placed, and most of the fish in the unprotected slot are CPR anyway, the result will be no different than a maximum size limit. Since most of the fish harvested now would probably be protected, one might assume that could happen. After all, several management folks I have talked to in Wisconsin and other states tell me the single largest reason for BIG muskies disappearing from some systems is HARVEST of those fish as they reach 'trophy' size. They are not there because they are kept. If that is indeed the fact, a slot wouldn't do much, because the 33" fish that is not protected is likely to be released anyway. The 50" plus size limit was tried here with full support from our muskie fisheries managers in an attempt to get a 50" limit on some lakes the DNR felt would support a trophy fishery, but didn't get past the Conservation Congress. I don't like posting 'supporting' documents for an opinion that has nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand, but these are examples of Slot limit discussions elsewhere, by those who should know. 1) I've heard that some state's use slot limits, where you can legally take fish in a certain size range, but anything smaller or bigger has to be released. Has anything like this been considered for trout in Pennsylvania? Would it give more protection to those trout that are the prime breeders? Slot limits were originally implemented for the management of largemouth bass fisheries. The basic idea with these regulations was to provide protection for some quality size fish and also protect a segment of the population for recruitment purposes. The variation of the slot limit regulations that you asked about is very similar to a regulation that was used on an experimental basis to manage a wild brown trout fishery in Wisconsin during the mid 1980's. The study was conducted on a fertile limestone stream, similar in productivity to our limestone streams in Pennsylvania. Under this variation of the slot limit, anglers were permitted to harvest one trout per day between 14 and 17 inches in length. The results of this study concluded that the slot limit regulations did not improve numbers of larger trout (20-inch range), and essentially the same results could have been accomplished with the use of a 14-inch minimum length limit. Therefore, at the completion of the study, it was recommended that the slot limit regulations should be replaced with a simpler 14-inch minimum length limit. Other studies using slot limit regulations for wild trout fisheries have provided mixed reviews, at best. In most cases, the best management practice for these special regulations fisheries would be to manage them with the use of an elevated minimum length limit such as 14 inches. In Pennsylvania, we utilize a variety of management programs for wild trout. For example, Trophy Trout regulations are one form of special regulations designed to stockpile adult trout and provide a high catch and release rate fishery for trout that are somewhat larger than the average 10-inch catchable size trout. In addition, Trophy Trout regulations also provide anglers with an opportunity to catch some larger trout (greater than 14 inches in length) on the waters managed under these regulations. Typically, anglers do not place a great deal of emphasis on harvesting trout when they visit the waters that we manage under special regulations. Based on the results from some of our recent surveys, we know that many of the legal size trout caught by anglers in these areas are being released. Fisheries Managers are sometimes criticized for implementing regulations that are confusing to the average angler. Slot limits are certainly more complicated than a simple minimum length limit. Considering the fact that slot limits have not been more effective (and in some cases less effective) than a simple minimum length limit, we have not implemented them as part of the special regulations package to manage Pennsylvania wild trout fisheries. 2) Site Map | Contact the DNR | What's New? | Newsroom | Events > MN DNR Home > Fisheries > Management > Management myths dispelled Dispelling some common myths and misconceptions about Minnesota fishing, fisheries management, and fish populations. The reality of fishing in Minnesota 1. Fishing is thriving There's a rumor that people just aren't fishing anymore. That may be true in New York City or wherever this myth began, but fishing is definitely doing well in Minnesota. Just check the graph below. Fishing license sales have remained steady in recent years. Though the number of anglers as a percent of population has dropped slightly, there are today 200,000 more licensed anglers than 30 years ago. Obviously, plenty of people still fish in Minnesota each year. 2. Fishing is big money in Minnesota Another common misconception, especially among those who don't fish, is that angling is a rinky-dink affair, far less important than, say, professional sports. Yet each year anglers spend more than $1.8 billion in Minnesota on fishing-related recreation. That's billion, with a B. The big money goes to boats, gas, and lodging. But the little items add up too. For example, each year anglers in Minnesota spend $50 million on bait $34 million on lures, line, and tackle $8 million on ice. The figures come from a federal government study on 1996 spending. On average, an angler spends $1,086 on fishing in Minnesota each year. Benefiting from this outlay of cash are gas stations, cafes, bait shops, motels, and resorts-mostly in rural Minnesota. Big companies thrive off fishing, too. Among the top national names based in Minnesota are Alumacraft, Crestliner, Inc., Johnson Fishing, Inc., Lund, Northland Tackle, Stearns Manufacturing, Inc., and Water Gremlin. Cabela's is a fishing retail powerhouse thriving in Minnesota. The Nebraska-based company's 150,000-square-foot Owatonna store is second only to the Mall of America as the most visited retail attraction in Minnesota. 3. Minnesota is doing well compared to the so-called "better" fishing states A common myth is that "everyone" is fishing in other states such as Wisconsin and Michigan because the fishing in Minnesota has gotten so poor. Statistics show otherwise. Though it's not possible to determine if fishing is "better" in one state or another, there are ways to compare the popularity and extent of fishing in various states. Minnesota has more total anglers, receives more income from fishing, and attracts more angling tourists than any surrounding state. For example, anglers spend $360 million more in Minnesota each year than they do in Michigan, which has more people and is surrounded by the Great Lakes and their lucrative charter boat industry. These figures indicate that Minnesota remains one of the top fishing states in the country. The reality about DNR fisheries management 1. The DNR works cooperatively with many local groups One rumor has it that the DNR doesn't work with anglers. Yet Minnesota's 28 fisheries managers and their staff regularly work with hundreds of local fishing clubs, lake associations, individuals, and conservation groups. Such coordination, as this work is called, is essential because it brings fisheries workers face to face with anglers, resort owners, and other citizens who care about the state of fishing. And these daily conversations between managers and citizens in turn drive fisheries management programs on Minnesota's lakes and streams. Take Lee Sundmark, for example. At his are fisheries office in Hutchinson, he and his small crew are responsible for 40 lakes in five central Minnesota counties. Sundmark says that one of his most important jobs is working with more than two dozen local groups to improve water quality and fish habitat. He encourages the clubs and lake associations to participate in the various programs run by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that show interested citizens how to monitor the health of their local lakes. Sundmark also sits down with local groups to hear their concerns and to discuss various ways to improve fishing, such as installing aeration systems, planting buffer strips along lakeshores, stabilizing shorelines, and transplanting aquatic plants to reduce erosive wave action. "The anglers I talk to each day are increasingly interested in lake ecology and how it affects fish habitat and populations," Sundmark says. 2. Few DNR Fisheries staff work in St. Paul A common belief among anglers is that DNR Fisheries is bloated with bureaucrats. That's not true. Of our 320 staff members, just 18, or less than 6 percent, work in the St. Paul headquarters. The rest are in regional or area field stations statewide. 3. There is lots of public oversight Many anglers want to know if we are spending their license dollars wisely. "Who's watching the pot?" they ask. Since 1994, three different citizens committees have been scrutinizing our budge and the Game and Fish Fund. The committees were formed by the Minnesota Legislature to review DNR reports on how we spend money from a range of special accounts. The DNR commissioner appointed citizen leaders to review the: Game and Fish Fund DNR Fisheries budget Trout and Salmon Stamp Fund. Committee members, who mainly represent major fishing organizations, are charged with reviewing various reports and making recommendations to the legislature. This oversight is in addition to regular legislative audits of our budget, which is open to public review, and biennial review by state lawmakers. Even more oversight takes place each January when the Fishing Roundtable convenes. Representing angling groups and other fishing interests, roundtable members spend two days discussing DNR fisheries management proposals and offering suggestions for new ways to improve fishing and management. 4. Fishing licenses are a tiny fraction of overall angler spending One persistent myth is that the cost of a fishing license is a financial burden for anglers. Maybe it is for some people, but not most. On average, an angler spends $1,086 on fishing (gas, gear, bait, lodging, food, etc.) in Minnesota each year. The $17 individual fishing license represents less than 2 percent of that total. The reality about lakes and fisheries 1. Lakes can only hold so much fish biomass Some angles urge us to "make" lakes produce more fish. But a lake can only support a certain amount of fish over the long haul. Referred to as a lake's carrying capacity, this biological limit is based on a lake's size, fertility, amount of available habitat, and length of growing season. There's no way to force a lake to hold more fish than it can, any more than a field can be forced to grow more corn that its soil can support. In lakes with good spawning habitat, new additions to the fish population come each spring from natural reproduction. They replace fish lost by predation, starvation, old age, angling, and disease. To stock additional fish into a "full" lake won't work because it creates overpopulation. There isn't enough habitat (food and shelter) for the new fish, so they either displace existing fish or die off. 2. lake fertility determines fish abundance and species Many anglers still believe that northern lakes-cool, deep, clear, clean-are the ones packed with fish. But actually, it's southwestern lakes that contain and produce the most fish per acre. A northern Minnesota lake simply can't produce as much fish as a similar sized southwestern lake, any more than an acre of land in St. Louis County can grow as much corn as an acre in Le Sueur County. A northern Minnesota lake such as Vermillion in St. Louis County produces about 8 pounds of game fish per acre, while a southern Minnesota lake such as Tetonka in Le Sueur County produces about 40 pounds of game fish per acre. Why the difference? Because lake fertility is one of the most important factors limiting the number and size of fish in a lake. The more fertile the lake-up to a limit-the more fish per acre it can produce. That's because fertile lakes support more plant life, and plant life supports the entire food chain. Minnesota's lakes range from the relatively infertile oligotrophic ("scantily nourished") Northern Minnesota lakes, which have steep, rocky shores and contain few nutrients, and are so deep that the sun can penetrate only a small amount of water, to the extremely fertile eutrophic ("richly nourished") southwestern Minnesota lakes, which are surrounded by rich farmland and are so shallow that sunlight can reach -and thus stimulate plant growth in-a relatively large percentage of the water mass. Between two regions are the central Minnesota lakes, called mesotrophic ("moderately nourished"). One qualifier: Lakes can actually have too many nutrients and grow too fertile to support game fish. That's because the same plants that provide food and oxygen to the lake also consume oxygen when they die and decompose. Every few winters, thick ice and snow on shallow lakes block adequate sunlight from reaching plants, which then die. As the vegetation decomposes, it uses up dissolved oxygen needed by fish to survive. When fish die in large numbers in late winter from lack of oxygen, it is called winterkill. This commonly occurs on overly fertile southwestern lakes and ponds. 3. Much depends on year classes Anglers on Lake Mille Lacs and Rainy Lake now understand the importance of year classes. Anglers on other lakes are catching on too. The single most important factor affecting whether or not anglers catch walleyes is year class variability. A year class is a generation of walleyes born the same year. Each spring a new year class is born. Depending on spawning conditions and survival-determined largely by water temperatures from April to June-some year classes have lots of fish, and some have few. In any given decade, a lake usually has two or three abundant ("strong") year classes, two or three sparse ("weak") year classes, and four or five medium year classes. When, after four or five years, a strong year class reaches catchable size (14 inches), anglers start hooking more fish. When two or three strong year classes are in the main catchable size range (14 to 24 inches), the fishing can be fantastic. That's been the case on Rainy Lake in recent years. But the converse is also true. When several weak year classes in a row reach catchable size, the fishing can get difficult. The lake just didn't have the right biological conditions those years to produce more fish. Usually the cause was a cold spring that killed young walleye fry as they hatched. Fortunately for anglers, lakes that have strong natural reproduction usually have enough strong year classes to provide plenty of catchable fish to offset the effects of a few consecutive weak year classes. 4. Limits of fishing success Didn't catch a lot of walleyes last Saturday? The fact is, most anglers don't catch even on keeper-sized game fish on a typical day of fishing. That's not because the fishing is poor; it's just the nature of fishing. On any given day, 95 percent of walleye anglers harvest two or fewer walleyes. This generally hold true on every walleye lake in Minnesota and across the U.S. For example, 1992 was considered the best year in modern history for fishing on Mille Lacs, one of the top walleye lakes in the United States. Yet even during that banner year, 76 percent of anglers there on any given day did not catch a fish. It's not such a bad thing that anglers don't always or even regularly catch their limit. There simply aren't enough fish. For example, we estimate that Minnesota has roughly 18 million walleyes over 14 inches long (general keeper size). Approximately 27 million angler days are spent fishing each year. If every angler caught and kept just one walleye on average per outing, the state's entire keeper-sized walleye population would be wiped out before the year was over. As fishing pressure increase while the number of fishing waters stays the same, anglers crop off the keeper-sized fish as soon as the fish reach keeper size. Soon, more and more small fish dominate the fish populations. Decent-sized fish become rare. The only solution, says biologist and a growing number of anglers, is to limit the number of medium-sized and large fish that are harvested. In time, that would result in an increase in the average size of fish that anglers catch. Terminology of limits Bag, or possession limit: This is the total number of a certain species that an angler may possess, in one day or over several days, both on the water or off. For example, you may not have in your possession more than six walleyes, and that includes what's in the livewell and in the cabin freezer. Use: This general, statewide limit prevents the commercialization of sportfishing and distributes the catch among anglers. But because so few anglers ever catch a limit (roughly 1 percent of anglers on any given day harvests a walleye limit), current bag limits generally do little to protect fish populations from overharvest. Protected slot limit: This is a size range, or slot, in which fish must be released. For example, a 12- to 16-inch slot limit for bass means that all bass from 12 to 16 inches long must be released. Use: Protected slot limits protect medium-sized fish so they can grow to be the large fish anglers most enjoy catching. They also preserve fish that are at their most prolific spawning age. Harvest slot limit: This is a size range in which fish may be kept. For example, a 14- to 18-inch harvest slot means that only fish between 14 and 18 inches may be kept. All others must be released. Use: Harvest slot limits protect larger, spawning-aged fish while limiting the overall harvest. Minimum size limit: This limit requires that all fish below a set length must be released. For example, the statewide minimum size limit for muskellunge is 40 inches, meaning that you may not keep a muskie less than 40 inches long. Use: this protects slow-maturing fish such as muskies, steelhead, and lake sturgeon until they can spawn at least once. Maximum size limit: This means that all fish above a set length must be released. A 24-inch maximum size limit for northern pike means you may keep a northern that's longer than 24 inches. Use: this works much like a protected slot limit to increase the number of medium and large-sized fish. One-over limit: This means you may keep one fish over a set length. For example, in 2001 on Lake Mille Lacs you may only keep one walleye that is more than 28 inches long. Use: This limit allows the harvest of a true trophy fish that an angler might catch once in a lifetime. 3)Slot Limit - A limit on the size of fish that may be kept. Allows a harvester to keep fish under a minimum size and over a maximum size, but not those in between the minimum and maximum. *Can also refer to size limits that allow a harvester to keep only fish that fall between a minimum and maximum size. Social Impacts - The changes in people, families, and communities resulting from a fishery management decision. Socioeconomics - A word used to identify the importance of factors other than biology in fishery management decisions. For example, if management results in more fishing income, it is important to know how the income is distributed between small and large boats or part-time and full-time fishermen. ------COPY DELETED-----10/6/2012- yes, 2012. Deleted because Glenn, who has no clue what we do in the Bass world, was offended (and threatened us with copyright infringement) that the article was similar to one on his website. The piece we had posted here was one the author had published internally while working in Florida, similar to but not the same as the piece Glenn's website has published. I believe this was originally published NOT on that website, but in Honey Hole magazine in 2001. What we had posted here had been forwarded to us by one of our reference sources in Fisheries management. Sorry Glenn, but I sincerely hope you learn some civility in working with other Media sources in the future. I will respectfully decline to 'link' to your website as requested on the page you forwarder us. There are a ton more, and all indicate clearly there is NO simple answer to 'wholesale' trophy muskie management. I guess I'll defer to those who make their living in that field, and will report what I'm told in the upcoming interviews. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
Roberts - 12/10/2004 10:29 AM F.S.F. lets say the goal is your #2 what makes more sense, trying to raise the size limit for the next 20 years and getting nothing accomplished in the mean time or getting a slot limit passed in the next two years while still thinking that the next step is high limits. I agree this should not be a state wide thing, it should be lake by lake, taking into account all factors including current limits on existing lakes. On a different note, why do you and others think that a slot limit would encourage more harvest than the current 34” minimum. Nail A Pig! Mike Two questions. Two answers. Your way of looking at this, to use the slots as a backdoor to raise size limits, has a couple drawkbacks. #1 If slots are used in this method, the overall abundance in those waters capable of raising big fish(limited imo)will be decreased efore they ever reach a the trophy stage, and thus the overall number of encounters with musky will probably decrease, even though the small percentage of really large fish, above the slot, may increase. #2 Tremendous size limit enforcement problems crop up with slot limits, almost unenforceable unless the angler is caught on the lake(I guess it is that way anyway but it will be worse with slots)once an angler is off any lake with a slot fish he can claim it was caught on a slot lake. #3 After some thought about the whole idea, I do not see much point in stockpiling fish after they reach 40" to 45", IF there is going to be ANY harvest of musky. I am not against total catch and release, but since stocked waters are dominated by male musky, I don't see the value of artificially protecting these fish that are at or close to maxing out size wise. I would rather protect healthy growing fish and allow them to reach this basic "trophy" size before harvest. The incidental catch will primarily be young fish, not fish in the 40 and up category. I believe that this size fish, and larger fish are the true ambassadours of our sport and walleye guys, bass guys or crappie guys that catch one of these and want to keep them should be allowed to do so. Think about it yourself, most of the waters capable of producing 50 inch fish are NOT overpopulated with musky, and are NOT stressed in terms of territory, or food resources. Would YOU rather A.) decrease the base of fish in the lake which will provide most of your action anyway, while at the same time maintaining or possibly increasing angler mortality on the bigger fish(remembering that the bigger fish are more likely to be contacted and landed by dedicated musky anglers in the first place and also more likely to be released, regardless of the slot)or B.)Increase the number of fish up to 40-45", a reasonable goal, and then let them take their chances knowing that their vulnerablity to less skilled anglers has taken quite a dip and those that can catch them on a regular basis are more than likely going to release the majority same as before. Which do you choose? I guess I am in favor of a pyramid with a big base, and would prefer protection up to 40 inches for most growth capable populations. Thus I would view slots as working against my goals. To answer the second question, I cannot see anyway to put slots in place without encouraging theoretically, tacitly, or openly, kill. Simple to see on my part. Explain to me how you would justify emplacing more regulations, and complicated ones at that, without making this part of your justification of those regulations. It will be a really tough sell I think to say, "ok, these fish do not reproduce, and if you want to keep one, ok you can keep a small one, but then all us elitist musky fisherman want you to NOT keep any from then on, until they get huge, so we can enjoy them for 5-6 years, and by then your chances of potting a big one are next to none, unless luck really really rides in your boat." (Now personally I would not mind IF I COULD SHOVE THAT DOWN THE THROAT OF ALL OTHER FISHERMAN, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE WHAT A SELFISH DOLT I AM, AND WHAT A LIMITED VIEWPOINT THIS MIGHT BE, LOL!!) | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Is it really selfish to want more large Muskies for everyone to catch? I do not understand this - please explain. I would think that the people killing the fish to show their neighbors would be the selfish ones. Mr. Worrall - thanks again for the input, I'm looking forward to your interviews - I'm hoping you ask the tough questions. I'd be interested in going with you. | |||
| Beaver |
| ||
Posts: 4266 | Sworrall, the next time my wife wants to know what the hell we talk about for a whole day while we're fishing, I'll just have her read your post. And a great post it was. There are so many options and variable to take into account, and our DNR has proven that it is not willing to "micromanage", and that is what they would have to do in the case of a slot. You must first concider the beast itself. I believe muskies will be much harder to manage than bass or walleyes simply because fewer of them are caught, and there are fewer in the system and the numbers that would be needed would be hard to come up with. Besides being afflicted by the muskie bug, I also spend a great deal of time on The Mississippi River fishing for walleyes and saugers. River rats....I mean real river rats, just like real muskie fishermen, have been screaming for reduced bag limits and a size limit on saugers and a size limit that would state walleyes from 22-28 inches must be released with only one over 28 being allowed. Rats have been practicing these restrictions and tighter ones for decades. Anglers yelling for protection of a great fishery, and we were met with DNR input that...sauger don't need a size limit because of their population numbers, walleyes don't need protection because there are still plenty of spawners and on top of it, there is an abundant forrage base to support all of those fish. Fishermen trying to protect the fish that they love. We rats release anything over 20'' and any sauger that even appears to be female, some release all while some people fill 5 gallon buckets with 12 inch saugers because "they're as good as perch". There's always going to be a Hatfields and McCoys thing going on. Whether it's between the elitists and the CPR's and people that support harvest of them walleye eating slimy green pigs. I don't forsee anything ever happening to protect huge fish or to protect prime spawners. All I can do is what I do. I let every fish go and will continue to do so because it's all one man can do. Maybe I'm pissing in the wind, but I want my kid to have it better than I have it, and the only way that I see it happening is by practicing CPR and eating walleyes and panfish. And I'm selective about which of those I keep. All these numbers flying around, who's got numbers that show how many people fish strictly for food vs stricly for enjoyment? Enough babbling. Beav | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | What is the official first day of winter, because on MuskieFIRST, it seems to be about November 31st. | ||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Not to be a stickler for details Slamr, but November 31st???? Is that anything like February 30th?  Edited by nwild 12/10/2004 2:33 PM | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | D'oh. On second thought, the first day of winter for MuskieeFIRST seems to coincide with the first sight of hard water anywhere south of International Falls, MN. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | nwild - 12/10/2004 2:33 PM Not to be a stickler for details Slamr, but November 31st???? Is that anything like February 30th? ;) You smote him soundly and well with that one!!! LOL!  | ||
| scott24 |
| ||
| However unattainable at this time in all states, my preference is DO NOT KEEP ANY MUSKIES. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Saying the DNR needs to micromanage all lakes with different slot limits is just an excuse to keep doing nothing. The DNR needs to do something to protect the large breeding female fish on all of our lakes. I do not buy the theory that slot limits don't make sense where fish don't grow big. Protecting Big Muskies where they are rare may be more inportant then protecting where they are common. The people who fish lakes where big fish are rare are more likely to keep big fish - because they have never caught one before. I'm for a one-size fits all slot limit state-wide. On the growth challenged lakes that we have, we try to fix the problem by allowing the killing of all large fish over 28" - this makes sense? We have 15 year old fish at 27 inches and these are protected, while every one that get's to 35inches get's harvested so that 27 incher can grow. It's Ridiculous. We need to overhaul the whole management plan from top to bottom. I'm for a slot that protects all fish from 42" to 52" with a limit of one per season over 52". If the slot proves successful in changing size structure after 5 years, I'd like to see the slot bumped up to 54". With todays Replicas and the mercury content in large predator fish there is no reason to keep a big fish other than selfishness. I understand the thought that many of us would prefer that no Muskies be kept. We need to understand that total C&R is not likely going to happen anytime soon. Slots offer the best compromise and gives us an opportunity to get something done NOW. Opposition is essentially a vote for current 34" size limits to remain in effect. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, The DNR TRIED to do something to protect the large muskies in many waters of Wisconsin. It was voted down resoundingly by the public. I don't agree with implementing a possibly ineffective management technique to 'back door' what I personally feel we really need, a 50" minimum size limit on some waters here in Wisconsin. We already have that on a couple, but I'd like to see it on another 20 lakes and impoundments or so. Where in the US and Canada is there a slot size limit on Muskies? Anywhere? I'd like to interview a fisheries manager who has the system in place. Overhaul the enire management program? Let's see you get THAT past the folks who voted down the 50" limit. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
| Steve does one really need to interview someone that has slots in place on muskies. You know better then that and its a loaded statement as you know there is not any. What we know is it works for other fish and the goal basically is the same to protect mature fish. and to cull out some of the smaller ones. We are not saying its for every lake and it certaily is not but would work on some and you know it whether you will admitt to it or not. A slot will protect the bigger fish. It will cull out some of the smaller ones. Some of them don't make it anyway so if just those are kept that seem in critical condition it would benift the system. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to look at this and say yes lets try it. My god its as plain as the nose on each and everyones faces. This should by all reasoning and all the research we have looked at work. Get off your horses and support it. its better then what we have now and and better then what we are doing now which is nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You want to interview someone on slots. well I want someone to show me facts that a 50 inch limit on wisconsin lakes has worked. I fish them and by god I am not seeing any more big fish then I did 10 years ago. Where is the data on that. I have not seen any to prove it. In fact I believe the lakes in wisconsin without the 50 inch limitproduce way more 50 in inch fish then those with the higher limit. I don't know for sure but would like to see the numbers. As I said I fish some of them and I don't see the change in anything. Yet when it was passed I was told in 5 years you'll see the difference. I doubted it then and still do. Our d.n.r hasmade the changes now let them tel usif itworked or not,The excuse that they don't have money to run the test or do the research is bogus to me. you have that in the plannining when you make the changes.. With slots I believe you won't need them to run a test or a study, the evidence will will be there. You will be seeing more big fish. Don Pfeiffer | |||
| Fish-n-Freak |
| ||
Posts: 259 Location: Alexandria, MN | Why does the Wisconsin DNR let the PUBLIC set the rules? Why don't they do what they feel is best for the Muskies? In Minnesota, if the DNR plans to make changes, they will hold public hearings where people can have their say. BUT the DNR sets the rules! They take the publics thoughts and concerns into mind but the mostly for damage control. They know from the meetings what the concerns are, and what if any misconceptions are around. Then they set the rules based on what is right, as the EXPERTS see it, and explain what was wrong with the PUBLICS ideas. That way they can have the answers ready before the questions are asked. The Wisconsin DNR employees a bunch of very smart, well educated people, that have a real grasp of what needs to be done. The hurdles they have to cross are the PUBLIC and the COST. We as Muskie fishermen, need to help them on both fronts. Groups, Clubs and MI Chapters need to educate the public and support the DNR. If that means a fee increase on all licenses or a Muskie stamp, or a Muskie fund that can be donated too? Something needs to change. I have been fishing Muskies in Minnesota for 22 years. I have seen the effects of the Muskie Fishing BOOM, on many of Minnesota's lakes. The few Muskie lakes were very crowded, now the DNR has made the Muskie a widespread resource and more and more lakes are supporting both numbers and trophy size fish. There are both large clear water lakes and small green lakes being stocked. We are seeing 50"+ fish coming from all around the state. Now the crowds are spread out and lakes were once VERY crowded are fishable again. We are seeing another BOOM in the number of people fishing Mn Muskies, but this time it's more Wisconsin fishermen than new comers from MN. MN has a 40" minimum size state wide, with many lakes being 48 or even 50" minimums. We got our first total Catch & Release lake this year! Elk lake in Itasca State Park (a brood stock lake) was getting hit by trophy hunters. They managed to kill 4 or 5 BIG fish in 2003. MI stepped in and the DNR closed the door. Now that we have a NO KILL lake, the stage is set -- it's harder to get the first, than it is the second, third.... Wisconsin had it days of producing some real BIG fish -- what happened? I want to know, just as much as anybody else. What if MN has the same problem in 10 or 20 years? It would be nice to see the Wisconsin fishery come back to help MN see what needs to be done to prevent a drop in big fish, or to recover if one happens. I am very intersted in what is found and what is done and what the results are. The Genetics portion of this debate is a whole another post. The Genetics just might be more important than a slot or size limit. If the fish CAN'T grow to 50" than a 50" size limit is basically a mandate of total CPR. Which is both good and bad. I have been watching Bob, try to fight this battle on his own. People are quick to shoot down his ideas, but I don't see many offering an alternative solution. I think the first step is the Wisconsin DNR taking control and not allowing the PUBLIC to make decisions. Just another Muskie Nut point of view. Steve Sedesky | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Don, take it easy. You involved are in a debate here, not an argument. Any argument anyone might wish to enter in to should be fought out via email. Yes, I WOULD like to interview a fisheries manager who has a Muskie slot in place. No, I wasn't sure there wasn't. I couldn't find one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere. I read source material extensively about the slot idea and came to the 'conclusion' that it might or might not be a good idea. As I said before, I'll defer to the experts there, but as a state wide rule, it doesn't look very promising. Generally speaking, there's lots of warnings in the literature that each system has it's own set of variables and those variables should be carefully considered before a slot on ANY fish is implemented. You didn't say that you wanted slot limits statewide, but Bob did. I was answering him. As far as the 50" limit, when were those limits placed on the waters you mention, and which waters are you speaking of? I know what the 54" limit has done on some NW Ontario waters, and so far, I like what I have seen. I have to go with what I see so far on the North American continent. I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada. I do have questions, which I attempt to get answered, and ideas that I like to air, just like anyone might here. If fisheries folks want to protect the adult muskies to allow them to reach trophy potential, so far everywhere I've studied the technique seems to be managing specific waters for that goal with minimum size limits in the 50" to 54" area. Why, then, doesn't any fisheries management program in states and provinces where slots on Walleyes and Northern Pike are in place, implement a slot limit on Muskies? That's the question I intend to ask them. | ||
| MikeHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 2427 Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | To me it is pretty simple: Slot limits only makes it even more okay for people to kill fish. It is just another way for Wisconsin folk to kill even more muskies. Catch and Release is the only way to go. | ||
| husky_jerk |
| ||
Posts: 305 Location: Illinois | "Saying the DNR needs to micromanage all lakes with different slot limits is just an excuse to keep doing nothing" It's not a question of it will happen but when. There will never be less pressure on our waters than we see today. Musky fishing is in it's infancy compared to 25 years from now. At some point there will have to be micromanagement to keep fisheries healthy. I don't think slot limits are a step backward but instead an inevitible step in the right direction. We will undoubtedly see higher limits and more lake specific regulations imposed as a neccessity. It's brutally simple. A regulation that is not protective enough but is an improvement over existing limits is a good thing. Years down the road, maybe the limit changes again for the better. Thats the way it works and anything else,right or wrong, is seen as exreme and unnecessary in the minds of the people who make or influence size limit changes. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Mike H, its not just wisconsin fishermen that keep muskies. They come from all over the united states to fish them here. Anyone that has a license has the right to keep a musky. With that said I would think you would look at slot limits as a blessing. It will protect fish! I do not understand why all of you that are against slot limits would not get behind it and see that you would have more fish going back into the water. Its just common sense that if you keep the limit at 34 and put a slot on of 40 to 50 all those fish have to go back in the water. Its better then what we have going for us now. Ask yourself if you want more fish released or kept. If you say released then you should be for the slot limit. In reply to another post! I would like to also like to say that any research I have used has been used as written. I have not kept anything back or twisted the facts as I have been accused of. Also there is no profit to be made for me from this in any way. In 6 years fishing the P.M.T.T. I have done pretty good. Even with winning one event I am in the red for the 6 years. When larry .bob or I post a site that you can go to and read please do so. If you read it you cannot say I or anyone else twisted it for our cause. Research is what it is and I have called for more of it especially pretainning to slots. I do know what research is. I ask firstsixfeet to show me the research that slots will not work for musky. None of us know for sure what will work and what won't. I have just been saying try slots on a few dozen lakes and see. It won't hurt anything and we just may learn something. Is that research? an experiment? or fact finding hunt? Whatever you want to call it it would give us some answers I continue to push for this as I know it will benifit the fishery and younger musky anglers. I'm getting long in the tooth and probably will not be musky fishing by the time great changes will be made. If you have a question on this e-mail me if you don't want to post. [email protected] I know this for a fact, if you don't put the fish back it has no chance to grow. The slot will insure that more fish are going back in. This is better then what we have working for us now. If you have a fishing club and would like someone to come and speak to your club on this subject please contact me as it can be arranged. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| The biggest threat to Minnesota's Muskie Fishery is the continued failure of Wisconsin (Both the Fisherman and DNR) to manage the Muskie fishery to provide a quality chance to catch big fish. Slot limit's and stocking the right fish are a step in the right direction. Let me clarify my position on slot limits. I do believe that slot's would be most effective if done on a lake by lake basis for all 700 lakes. However - I believe that a statewide slot of 42-52 inches would be a better management tool for all of Wisconsin than what is in existence today. I'd support the statewide slot to remove the arguments that it is too costly, too hard to enforce or is to confusing to manage every different lake with different size limits. It is often stated that slots of this size make no sense where fish rarely reach that size. I can't disagree more. Where fish are smallest we go to minimum size limits of 28" which still protects the smallest muskies while allowing even more over the minimum size to be killed. If we catch a 25 inch skinny disease ridden fish in these lakes we are forced by law to throw it pack, when we catch a healthy 33 inch fish we are encouraged to remove these so the smaller fish grow. It doesn't work that way, and never has. We need to have a sytem that protects and rewards fish for growing large. We need to start protecting the fish we want. This is a total change in management philosophy and one we need and need now. With the exception of a slight increase in minimum size limits, our management philosophy has not changed in 100 years. We should be looking to combine all the effective techniques that have been used elsewhere. That includes stocking fish that grow the largest (Minnesota's study ) and setting size limits that protect 50 inch fish (Ontario's 54" size limits). We need to do both - THEY BOTH WORK!!!!! I'm for slot limit's primarily because I think we can get a higher top end slot (52" or 54") than we can get a minimum size limit (50"). I'd be OK with strictly a High size limit - if we protect some 50 inch fish with a 52" or 54" size limit. My feeling is we should do everything better than everywhere else has done it. I think we can support a 54" or bigger size limit as historically Wisconsin has produced longer and heavier Muskies than anywhere else in North America. I'm tired of hearing why we can't make things better, we should be making the fishery the best it can be - the best in North America. 28 ,34 and 40 inch size limits have no place here. Stocking fish from Bone Lake has no place here. If we are managing for large fish and it is determined that we have both "Genetically large" and "Genetically small" fish in our lakes than I believe there is no argument against Slot Limits. (Steve - please ask the DNR if we have both "Genetically large" and "Genetically small" fish in our state. Please ask which ones are protected under current regs and which can be harvested. Ask if this promotes more large fish or more small fish. Thanks) We need a new "Mission Statement" for our Muskie Management Philosophy. I may write one up and start a new thread to see what all of you can come up with. Maybe we can use the Conservation Congress to adopt the Mission statement as the DNR's mandate and give them the freedom to do what ever they want without coming back to the Conservation Congress. | |||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| Slot limit = harvest Harvest = some subset of the musky population not growing to full size = Fewer large muskies (than if a slot limit was in place) Higher size limits based on individual lake characteristics are what's needed along with mass education regarding catch and release | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Just a quick question: where have muskie slot limits been tried? Muskies are not Walleyes. Muskies are not Pike. Walleyes are an abundant schooling fish in the middle of the predatory chain (higher than bait fish or panfish, but not the top of the line predator). Pike are prolific spawners who have been known to overpopulate lakes to the point where there growth suffers. None of the above facts are true for muskies. For muskies it appears over-harvest and genetics are the stopping points that most people agree are the problems with Wisconsin muskie populations. Putting a "slot" in is supposed to encourage the big spawning females to have a better chance at growing to sexual maturity, right? That argument doesnt really seeem to work when one considers that 98% of muskie fisherman cant "sex" a muskie, therefore in putting a slot in, those females are as prone to being harvested when "in the slot". How many muskie lakes in Wisconsin have TOO MANY muskies? 3, maybe 5? Putting a slot in would possibly help THOSE lakes, but would it really help the others? What we need to do (IMHO) is work to get the statewide 34" limit pushed up A BIT. Also IMHO, the 50" limit was too extreme. Would a 40" limit have passed? And in the end, as long as we can't find a way (through negotiation WITH the tribes) to end or at least curtail Native American spearing, the populations of larger fish will still be very negatively affected every spring. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Slot limit = harvest of small fish Size limits = harvest of big fish More small fish = more small fish More Big fish = more big fish Harvest within a slot = some subset of the smallest musky population being removed while leaving the largest Muskies in the system for a longer period of time, making larger offspring. = More large muskies (than if a Min Size limit was in place) Higher size limits based on individual lake characteristics and mass education regarding catch and release is what we are doing now and it ain't working. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Quick question: Where had size limits based on Ultimate max size been tried before Ontario implemented it on Muskies? That worked without being tried or studied for 20 years. The difference is where Ontario used it they were looking at a potential lack of all Muskies with a notable absence of the largest fish. On many Wisconsin lakes we have a notable absence of large Muskies, without a lack of numbers. This where a slot becomes useful - I'd call it tweaking the Ontario plan to manage within our specific waters and our specific fish. The slot concept allow the meat fisherman to be "with us" as opposed to against us. Whether it be slots or High size limits - we have to protect the fish we want to catch - not protect the runts and kill the ones we want to catch. Not all Muskies are created equal. For the record I wouldn't kill any Muskie and think slot limits will equate to less harvest than a Minimum size limit of 40", but the harvest will be focused away from the largest best breeding fish. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "And in the end, as long as we can't find a way (through negotiation WITH the tribes) to end or at least curtail Native American spearing, the populations of larger fish will still be very negatively affected every spring. " I'd suggest we not point the finger at spearing until we can agree on a mangement philosophy that protects large fish from other anglers too. We aren't creating a lot of big Muskies on lakes that aren't speared - are we? With that said - it's in our best interest to bring the spearers in with us - and a slot limit would be the best way to allow some harvest of smaller fish for spearers. with perhaps one large fish per season to be speared. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, AKA Guest, We JUST got many of the increased size limits implemented in Wisconsin, so how can you say 'it aint working?' Also, saying CPR education isn't working is just plain incorrect, and in my opinion, condescending. Also, I question your Ontario comments; the study they undertook up there was pretty comprehensive and they determined the best way to protect the systems that supported BIG fish was a size limit of 54". I'm not sure LOTW was lacking numbers, and the perceived problem on other systems wasn't just harvest, it was recruitment, water levels at the time of spawning and directly after, competition with Northern Pike and more. I think they intended to protect ALL breeding muskies in those waters and allow only harvest of true trophy class fish, effectively reducing the harvest to near zero. Even the move to take the limit to 54" on many Canadian waters was a fairly recent decision. I'd also like to ask how you might obtain the cooperation of the Tribes with the slot; that is going to be a very comprehensive project all by itself. At this point in time I'm pretty sure the Native American tribes who took a hard fought legal decision all the way to the Supreme Court will not feel compelled to even discuss what we might want as sports fishermen, but maybe I'm incorrect. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, I beg to differ, we have had various size limits for a long time. Bone and lake Winter have had "higher size limits" for a long time to name a few of the earliest ones. Interesting to note those early "high size limit lakes" do not have more 50" fish than lakes with smaller size limits. They actually have less. Hmmm...... We've had 40 inch size limits on whole counties over here on the NW side of the state as well as 50 inch size limits on select lakes for the last few years. C & R has been around since the 70's , and while C&R education is important, it ain't working to produce bigger fish (here) - or we wouldn't be discussing this now. Why aren't 50 inch size limits necessary in Minnesota for big fish? Why isn't C&R education necessary in Minneapolis, but is necessary in the woods of Wisconsin to get big fish? My statements were not condescending, they are the truth (in my opinion). You question my comments on Ontario? I question your comments on slot limits. You asked where Slot limits have been tried on Muskies. I ask where Minimum size limits based on ultimate maximum size of Muskies had been tried before Ontario. Just because something has not been tried does not mean it's not a good thing. The move to 54" size limits on Canadian waters improved the fishery almost immediately, while the 50 inch size limits here have had little to no effect - that I'm aware of. Maybe it's because they don't stock fish from Bone lake in Ontario? As for native American spearing, I'd suggest that they'd be more receptive to talking about an option that allows them to continue some level of harvesting smaller fish with the opportunity at a (single) trophy each year, than trying to convince them that a total ban is necessary. We aren't going to be able to address spearing while the DNR keeps telling us that anglers keep too many large fish. I'd support an increase in size limits to 50". I'd be much happier with size limits at 56". If it were up to me I'd go 56" statewide with many lakes with slow growth having a 40" to 56" slot. I don't think many of you that are against the slot have considered that we may have genetically slower growing fish in our lakes, and that removing them may help. Size limit increases will Help if this is the case, just not as much as slot limits. My guess is that 100% of muskie fisherman would like to catch more 50" fish, yet we don't manage a single lake in the state towards the goal of producing more 50" fish. Why is it the Muskie fishery that always get's hosed. How do Sturgeon Regs get changed? Why can we have Sturgeon registration and not Muskie registration. Why do we waste money on a registration for fish very few people care about(sturgeon) but not a fish (Muskie)that whole businessed revolve around? If we can't change the size limits - maybe we should leave the size limits as they are and make it C&R only from July 10th through December 30th? I'm open to almost anything, but I refuse to be satisfied with outdated policies that are significantly less than being done everywhere else in the country - as the 50" proposal would be. Why would we not go to 54" to create a record class fishery as Ontario has done? Why do we have to settle for less? Steve - you stated - "I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada." I'd like to say that I wouldn't assume that people who are managing Wisconsin's trophy Muskie fisheries with 34 inch size limits and Brood stock from Bone lake know more than you and I. Not all the DNR managers are able to go to far off waters to see these large fish really exist in numbers. I have seen the light - and it ain't coming from Bone Lake. (I do realize that Wis DNR personnel do not have ability to manage as they want, but are tied to the Conservation congress - unlike MN DNR. This is one reason that I think we need to start pointing the finger at OURSELVES. We need to demand these things get fixed and fixed now. we need to do everything we can to get this right. Dismissing Slot's and Selective breeding while blindly looking at 50" size limits(which have not proven to be effective in Wisconsin) is not in our best interests. I'm open minded to both slots and high size limits - but 50" Minimum isn't going to get me on board." We need to do better. Once we get 50" we're going to have to study it for 20 year. Let's do better. As a group we need to decide what we want. If we want more 50" fish we need to ask for size limits that actually protect these fish with size limits in excess of 50". If we are told we can't have more 50 inch fish because we already have too many fish, than a slot makes sense. It'll be interesting to see how your interviews go. I'm disappointed that you have not asked for our assistance in getting answers. I guess by not involving us, you'll be able to format the questions and answers to prove your own views like the last interview. Don't take that comment the wrong way - we all take info and use it to profess our own views, including myself. I was hoping the DNR interviews would be more middle of the road. I may have to do my own interviews - If they'll talk to me!!!! Bob PS - as soon as I get my password I'll be posting as BBenson. Didn't intend to hide my identity - my comments typically give me away anyway. | |||
| ChadG |
| ||
Posts: 440 | Guest - 12/14/2004 12:01 PM Not all Muskies are created equal. For the record I wouldn't kill any Muskie and think slot limits will equate to less harvest than a Minimum size limit of 40", but the harvest will be focused away from the largest best breeding fish. I think this statement is one of the best that I have seen during this discussion. You may not be able to do away with harvest but focussing it in a way to work for the greater good could be the answer. On select waters anyway. I think it is a shame that the Cranberry bogs are not shut down on LCO so the world would be able to see what good genetics and a 50" limit can do in Wisconsin. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, You wish to ask for support for your goals, yet you accuse me of pandering. Get real, sir, I want what you do, but as stated before, I'm a realist. 'We' can 'want' all manner of things, but getting our 'wants' turned into reality isn't as simple as stating personal beliefs and letting our fisheries folks know that 'we' disagree with what they are doing. Your comment about 'not involving 'us' baffles me, who is 'us'? Tell, me, sir, how do you see this process moving forward; who will be the 'we' or 'us' you speak of, who will represent 'we's' ideas to the DNR and to the public? How will 'we' get this idea past the Conservation Congress and acquire the broad support of fishermen and outdoorsmen across the state of Wisconsin? What if you are wrong about some of the premises you present, are you willing to accept that? Are you willing to listen to the people who manage muskies all over the NA continent if they don't support your ideas? And if they do support your ideas in Wisconsin, which is very possible, how do you intend to help them get the ideas past a doubting and suspicious public? I did NOT say I was against slot limits, in fact I clearly stated I read a ton of information, and came down firmly on the side of 'Maybe they are a good idea, and maybe not'. I also said this after posting some of the documents I read: 'There are a ton more, and all indicate clearly there is NO simple answer to 'wholesale' trophy muskie management. I guess I'll defer to those who make their living in that field, and will report what I'm told in the upcoming interviews.' You then say: Steve - you stated - "I for one don't for a second think I know more than the folks who are managing the muskies in the US and Canada." I'd like to say that I wouldn't assume that people who are managing Wisconsin's trophy Muskie fisheries with 34 inch size limits and Brood stock from Bone lake know more than you and I. Not all the DNR managers are able to go to far off waters to see these large fish really exist in numbers. I have seen the light - and it ain't coming from Bone Lake.' That statement won't endear you to the folks you want answers from. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Bob, as you continue arguing you get more and more extreme and then start antagonizing the person you are supposably "discussing" this with, at the same time belittling the main target, those with the power to change regulations. I am not nearly as even keeled nor as polite as Sworrall. I have no problem with your agenda nor your search for further management options which might offer more big fish. I am fine with your goal, as I feel most are on this board, but don't antagonize potential allies when stating your unsupported theoretical case. Sworrall IS NOT THE ENEMY, but you are getting into the territory of being your own enemy with the tone and tude of your posts. I doubt Sworrall has any particular agenda other than sincere interest in the subject and brings it to the board and interviews out of trying to satisfy angler interest in the same. He has never seemed to me to be anyone wanting to prove his own point when talking about management and "facts"(of course he has some rather bizarre fishing theories I have tried to reeducate him out of but...nobodies perfect). You are perfectly free to do extensive interviews and research on this yourself and I am sure many of the fishing magazines would snap up a well written article regardless of viewpoint as long as it is supported by good background material, so don't hack on anybody. Sworralls bread is buttered(in part) by having more musky fishing and more happy musky fisherman. He does not have any secret alliance with the DNR but seems to clearly understand the paramaters they work within. I am not sure that you do. I am positive that his face and personality and non accusatory style will encourage free discourse and disclosure and that he is well known and respected among fishing managers because of it, and that THEY are interested in what he has to say and the questions he might ask. So before you start burning your own boat take time to step back once again and get a grip on your enthusiasm(which I fully encourage btw), and take the high road in your search at all times. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, Dang it, I forgot about that. I WILL fish with a cube with hooks on it next year. In defense of Bob, and everyone else supporting the initiative he's forming up; lots of emotion, and sometimes reality checks and questions look like obstacles or opposition. I don't intend to offer either, what I offer are better considered 'speed bumps' in an effort to be sure the entire concept is correctly based in fact,is well focused and backed up by a representative sample of the Muskie anglers from Wisconsin AND the Fisheries Managers from Wisconsin's DNR, realistic in the requests proposed to the regulatory agencies involved, and well enough thought out for a clear,well written educational presentation to the public WELL BEFORE the Conservation Congress meetings and during those meetings across the state when the time comes.I personally feel the 50" proposal failed a couple years back because some the above considerations were missing or not ready for public consumption. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |