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 -> I am a Muskie Elitist! |
| Message Subject: I am a Muskie Elitist! | |||
MuskieE |
| ||
Posts: 2068 Location: Appleton,WI | I would have to say yes,you need to see his point of view! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, let's ask the question. If the walleye folks, who are a friendly and hard working group of anglers for the most part, had worked in concert with the DNR for years encouraging a reintroduction of Great Lakes Walleyes in that water in an attempt to create a trophy fishery, and one guy killed a bunch over 10 pounds, there would be some very critical comments there too. In a comparative ratio, killing 6 true trophy class muskies is akin to killing DOZENS (if not more) of trophy Walleyes. The only reason to harvest fish of that size from the Bay is to mount them. Yes, he has the legal right, and we certainly don't need to be the Muskie Cops. I just feel, as so many others do, that this is a case of excess and should be pointed out as such What will you say when he harvests another 6 this year? Now Wisconsin won't be able to acquire the necessary fish to restock until the VHS issues are figured out or something changes with the brood lake. One angler literally can be removing a considerable number of the upper confidence limit fish out there pretty much single handedly. Yes, it's legal, but if this fellow is a a business owner and promotional fisherman, it's in my opinion also unwise. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi all, I don't know if a post was removed or I'm missing something here. I simply think that we as a group are lousy at communication. Instead of going after a person or group on an internet message board why not talk to this person face to face or through a phone call. All coming on here and firing everyone up does is makes a person defensive and closed minded. Who cares wheather or not Shep, myself or anyone else for that matter is not going to fish this walleye tournament. Typing out your frustrations on a message board is not going to bring those 6 fish back. But a civil thoughtful conversation may start something that could be great for both speicies. Steve- I would like to address your last paragraph. I whole heartly agree with your take on the damage a single fisherman could do to a fishery. I would also like to add that this VHS issue effects everyone not just us musky fisherman. This could be a problem that could get all of us on the same page. By dealing with this situation together we could find out how the other one ticks. There by bringing us closer as a group of fisherman. I see great potential in coversation. But addressing a personal issue with someone on something that is totally legal and within this guys right to do on a The finest musky web-site is not how this should be done. Sorry Dave Edited by Hunter4 5/23/2007 9:28 AM | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| When you look at this situation, it comes down to two very different schools of thought. On the one hand, you have the fishermen,(muskie, walleye, pike etc.) who feel it's their right to kill as many fish as the law will allow. On the other hand, you have people who think you have that right, but excercising that right can and does have a negative impact on the resource we all enjoy. We all have the right to voice our opinion either way, and I don't think it's sticking you nose into others business by saying you don't have to kill all these fish. If Trout Unlimited (the original "elitists") would have backed down to criticism from other trout anglers, where would trout fishing be today? Probably in the toilet, just like it was before they spoke up. People might not want to hear it, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, or people should be afraid to say it. Now how you say it, and how you go about spreading your message is another thing. JS | |||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | OK, let me back in here for a moment. I didn't go to WF to poke a stick. I frequent that site as much as I do this one. I probably walleye fish more than I do for muskies. I have kept exactly one walleye over 4 pounds in my life. I cannot count the number of fish over 10 pounds that I have released. Why do I release all these walleyes? Fish over 19 or 20 inches are the prime spawners. And I don't think fish over that size taste as good as a 15" fish. As for muskies, I have always said, that I will support an angler's right to keep any legally caught fish. There is no wavering here, never has been. And for this, I have been attacked and accused of being a supporter of killing fish, and it's because of people like me, that there are no big muskies in WI. Let me make this perfectly clear. I do support an indivdual's right to keep a fish that is leagal. However, I also will speak out against blatant abuse of that very right. I truly believe hat is what we have here. Several months ago, I said I did not have an issue with this guy keeping his 58" monster fish. But I did, and still do, question why he had to kill the other 5. I was attcked here on this board for not being against killing any fish, period. And that is all I have done, along with sayng I would not fish his event, because of these other 5 fish. As for trying to talk to him? He was talked to at the Fleet Farm event at Lambeau field in Green Bay this spring. When asked why he killed all those fish, his response was simply,"Because I can". Well, he didn't lie. So my response is I will publicly state that I will not fish his tournament. Because I can. Anyone who knows me, also knows I don't pull any punches. I call it as I see it, and I'm not afraid to say it out loud, either. I'm proud of the fact that I helped Dennis Radloff in Outagamie County on the 54" proposal for Green Bay. I also said that I don't think 54" is going to be enough. Not with guys killing the numbers of fish they are up there. As for why he wouldn't do graphite's? My guess is that for him it costs more, because he would have to pay for the blanks, as opposed to skinning a fish. Or maybe it is just an ego booster for him. Only he knows. I know I will not fish his tourney, and I will try to enlighten anyone who will listen to do the same. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
| It is all a bit silly...If a person has a DUI or DWI nobody would think of skipping his tourney even though that is truly reckless at the highest level and illegal...However if a person keeps six legal fish...let the witch hunt begin...Do you guys ever get tired:) | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
| Explain to me why 54" wouldn't be enough if a high number of fish in that caliber are getting kept? Apparently this was the only cat catching 50+" muskies over there last fall ehh? It still holds true that the vast majority of big fish are being released. If, in fact, over 30 50" fish(as claimed by some) were kept, couldn't one assume that several times that many were released? Now, I fished the Bay nearly half the days of november and was a witness to a few over 50" caught, and saw one kept. I heard of a few others on days I was there, all released. I think the 50" size limit is obviously working, and that if it needs 54", it would protect alot more fish. But, because fish are attaining the size of the limit, we need to push it higher, or unattainably so? PHOOEY! Now, I don't want to come accross as a naysayer here, and I adhore the fact that one dude kept 5 or 6 50+"ers in a season, but there are bigger battles to fight in my opinion. there are lakes with 34" limits all over WI that need far more protection than Green Bay does. Lets work on them, and get some regs changed on those bodies. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Skarie, that is a dead on bullseye. Hunter4, I disagree. I think OutdoorsFIRST has made the point that issues like this one can and SHOULD be discussed, but without personal attacks, etc. Shep isn't addressing a 'personal issue', he's addressing what to him(and he isn't alone) is an important CONSERVATION issue. 6 fish of this quality by 6 different anglers would not be as big a deal, but 6 to one angler in one year...that's excessive IMHO. And, this fellow will do that again this, and next year. Can or SHOULD we as a 'group' be critical of this practice? Maybe, maybe not. There's nothing out of line with talking about this one. I'm talking. Kill them all or a large percentage of the big fish in the Bay, and the Trophy fishery is gone. This water should be protected, and 54" is a fair place for that to be. The guy who kept those fish needs to be looking toward the future. He obviously isn't, or doesn't appreciate the fragility of the upper confidence limit muskie population out there. Maybe folks like Shep and others commenting publicly will get that appreciation a chance for consideration. I hope so. I happen to agree with Shep, I'll defend an angler's right to harvest a trophy, but this could be a clear argument of abuse. 'Because I can' is the explanation of most all excesses, and though legal, is a poor justification. Ethics, many times, are NOT enforceable laws or rules, so I see a reasonable argument. Ben, A DUI has nothing to do with a sports ethics paradigm shift. This conversation, IMHO, does, and for all the right reasons. Conservation ethics begin or are strengthened with awareness, education, and public commentary. As long as the commentary is reasonable and stays to the facts, it's welcome. And the answer is....no. If some of us had that attitude, Pelican would still be at 34". There were quite a few people who claimed our efforts to protect the fragile trophy Muskie fishery in Pelican were 'elitist', and some called the effort much worse. The problem on Pelican? Excessive harvest and the fact system will not be stocked in the near future, and NR is poor. Sound familiar? It's interesting to me that one of the motivators for the 54" limit on a TRULY amazing potential super trophy water is considered by some to be off limits for discussion. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Steve, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this. Dave VanDoorn | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Money talks... I would venture to guess that the potential gain, as he saw it, of these fish meant much more to this fellow than any conservationist feelings he might have. I have seen it too many times. Then there's also the "I am going to keep my fair share, because others do" mentality. It's total BS, in my humble opinion, but we all reward it when we go into an establishment like this. But how do you win? It's impossible. As to the size limit issue--why even have a size limit? By this I mean, why do we even allow people to catch fish of a "trophy" species such as musky and keep them? It goes to 50", then to 54", then to...??? The real question is why do we allow people to harvest fish like the musky at all? Why not make the species catch & release only? Isn't that where we are headed as the size limits inch upwards? I don't ask these questions to agree or disagree with anyone--but only to stimulate thought. In our society, money is the driving force behind the VAST majority of peoples' activities. It sounds to me as though this particular angler (who I know nothing about BTW; other than what I have read in this thread) was looking for a bit of advertising for his establishment. Either people will go in to look at the fish, or they will go in to see what all the controversy is about. But the point is that most WILL go in! Threads like this one, although interesting, are essentially of little value in swaying the opinions of anglers that harvest six 50+ inch fish. Don't get me wrong; I like threads like this, because it's important to voice support for others with the same values and beliefs (and to hear from those with differing points of view). But the guys who frequent these musky sites are already singing in the CPR choir, for the most part, so we are sort of just wasting our (cyberspace) breath, in a way. What it boils down to is that the original poster has just as much right to protest the catch & kill of these fish, as the angler did to harvest them. Both are simply exercising their rights as currently allowed by law. But wasn't it only about a year ago that there were threads going on all the major musky forums on how Wisconsin no longer has any big fish? If the fish continue to be harvested and the numbers go down, what impact does that have on the tourism industry of places like Hayward & Eagle River (and Green Bay for that matter)? It seems to me that things will get more serious only when the lack of tourism dollars becomes enough of an issue for the powerful lobbyists to start nipping at the heels of the state legislators. Money talks, I've heard. It is my personal opinion that it's only a matter of time before all size limits do indeed go up throughout most of the state, but until that happens it's an angler's right to thump one pig per day...like it or not. I don't. I personally feel that whoever suggested a "tag" system for keeping one trophy fish per year was dead-on right--why is a trophy musky of any less value than a trophy whitetail? Yet you can only kill one of them per year, for the most part. And it takes one heck of a lot longer to grow a 50" musky than it does to grow a 200 pound whitetail with a huge rack. TB Edited by tcbetka 5/23/2007 10:26 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Those who act upon their beliefs are not 'wasting their breath'. Mike Roberts, Norm Wild, Reef Hawg, and all those involved in creating protected trophy waters in Wisconsin, Minnesota, or anywhere will debate the issue where that debate is encouraged, and act on what they learn from that debate and information exchange. Progress works exactly that way, and one doesn't have to be discussing the issues with an even pro/con audience, IMHO. That rarely occurs. No, I don't think the future is C&R only in Wisconsin and that isn't something I'd personally support. There may be a few true trophy waters that end up there, but only if there is a TREMENDOUS effort, and that supported by the DNR fisheries folks managing that water. A tough road, for sure. | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| One thing that is so misleading by the "elitist" tag given to people who oppose the killing of these fish, is that they are doing it for themselves. I've never understood how someone is an elitist when they are trying to ensure the health of the fishery for everyone, for the present and the future of the resource. How many people keeping just one trophy a year will it take to deplete a resource in which it can take 10-15 years to grow those trophies? Not many. As a taxidermist, guide, outdoor writer, TV personality, bait manufacture etc. What does your livlihood depend on? It depends on a healthy fishery. Without that you are nothing and looking for a new job. As with many things in life, our resources need to be protected from those that don't care about the effects of over-harvest, misuse or abuse. Be it environmental (delelopment, pollution), or just killling to many or the wrong ones (slots, size limts etc.). I certainly is not sticking your nose into others business by preventing them from ruining something that belongs to the public and to our future citizens (my daughter and your kids). This is not the day and age of fishing for food, where it can mean the difference of feeding your family meat or eating potato soup. This is the day and age where we all share our fisheries responsibly or we lose them in the future. JS | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Steve. Of course we cannot make the entire musky fishery "catch & release only." I was attempting rhetoric. The fact is that we rely on the removal of fish at the top of the food chain as an important management tool. But I guess I was trying to make the point that at some point, it has to be OK to harvest a large musky--but where is that point? Although aquatic biology school was a long time ago for me, I realize that the issue is far more complicated than simply implementing a global size limit. I suppose that the main point I was trying to make is that it's a tremendously complicated issue. And we have to assume that if there *are* size limits on musky, then the people who are imposing those limits need anglers to harvest fish from the legal side of those limits. I have always believed that should let fish managers manage and help them however we can. But then we have all this sentiment from those who think that ALL muskies should be released. So there's an internal conflict within the musky community, and some of the sentiment goes against sound (and well-established) fish management practices. In the end I guess all that we have is our opinions, but we should never forget the fact that we don't always know what we don't know. If the issue seems very complicated--it probably is. Suffice it to say that there are no easy answers... TB Edited by tcbetka 5/24/2007 6:31 AM | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| Allowing taking muskies over a certain size isn't a fisheries management tool in the case of muskies. It's there to appease those that want to kill one. Case in point, Lac Suel, C&R only for the sole purpose of keeping the population healthy. Biology doesn't dictate that you need to weed out the top of the food chain, in fact the main reason so many lakes in MN and WI have a lack of trophy pike is because they are all taken out before they get there. If man had no effect on fisheries populations, i.e. no fishing, nature would have a natural food pyramid without needing to cull the top of the food chain to do so. The MN biologists that I know of and have worked with would have no qualm making muskie C&R only from a biological standpoint, it's a social issue that let's muskies be killed by those that choose to do so. JS | |||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | Steve and John, Both great comments and insight. What started out as an attempt at humor, has evolved to a pretty decent discussion. I think Ben's comment directed at me is funny. Do I ever give up? Just 4 months ago, I was accused as being one of the reasons WI has no big fish, because I supported this guys right to keep a big fish. So which is it? Elitist, or supporter of killing muskies? And your analogy to DUI is way off base. Not related in anyway. A person with a DUI has done something illegal, has paid a fine, done jail time perhaps. How is this connected to killing several big fish? Reef Hawg, I don't get your arguement, saying that because fish are reaching a limit, that that limit shouldn't be higher? Why did you work to get the limit on the Pete raised? Were that many fish being killed there? How many anglers were keeping multiple fish a year over the old limit? And no, I know that guy wasn't the only one catching fish over 50" I got one on my only day out, and I know of many more that were caught. Most were released, sure. But there were at least 2 dozen fish killed there last fall. Not to mention those that died from delayed mortality due to poor handling. Many of those in the spring. And yes, one angler could have a great affect on the health of a fishery if they take out fish every year. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | John, I am not so sure about this issue of harvesting top predators as a management tool--I think that you might find many fish managers that would debate this with you. However (as I said above), it's been so long since I was at all active in the field of aquatic biology that I really am not the authority on this matter. Maybe Dave Neuswanger will see this thread and comment. I have gone on record in this thread of favoring a "tag" system, whereby an angler is allowed to harvest one fish over a certain size per year. While many anglers would choose to not harvest any fish at all, the ones that did want to harvest multiple trophy fish would be significantly curtailed in that respect. While this may not be the perfect solution, or one that you agree with personally, it most likely would have saved several large last year...even if we are just talking about one angler. (I enjoy your posts, by the way.) TB | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Yes, alot of fish were being killed on the river in the 34-43" range. We saw enough and heard of more. We pushed for a couple reasons and I am sure the same ones that most do. We wanted to allow for a few spawns(we feel there is some successful repro.) from the females, and a chance for people to catch any musky. We decided on 45" because it is not known that muskies get much bigger on pete, and wanted to keep it attainable. Yes there are enough 45-48" fish, andf an occasional freak over 50 but they seem to top out in that mid to high 40" range in this area. Bottom line, wanted to make it palatable to locals, while still putting alot of protection on. We don't plan to make another push now that the we see fish a bit bigger than 45" kept. There are other more important battles around here and in WI that we are/going to be taking part in. When the push for 50" on the bay started, I was right on it. Best thing that ever happened there. But, I knew then that the fish would attain 50" and that some would be kept. Didn't you see it coming man? Again, don't take this as an argument against the 54" limit, as much as a push for help where more needed. that said, if, at 54", we start to see, say, a half dozen 54" clubbed in a fall, will it be pushed higher? Why? The limit is working, correct? Move on. Work on fixing another broken part in WI. Again, as a dedicated fisherman of the Bay(I'll be there starting Saturday), I am not against a 54" limit, but also have a right to ask if it is both biologically needed, and if it is the battle that should be at the forefront of our agenda in 2007. All of the people pushing for this, could be working on reg changes on lakes that need far more help than the Bay does, far more. I don't want to see this push make us look just like the person that you started this thread about(elitist), as there are enough situations where our own(musky asnglers) make me want to vomit while listening to their so called 'ideals' are and even more sickening, telling me what mine 'should' be without even knowing who I am. While I'll stand behind any fight for limits that have sound reasoning, I'd also like to ask that people not forget the bigger, more important battles that need to be won in northern WI. Lets resurect some of the old pig producers, protect some current ones, and create some more. Edited by Reef Hawg 5/24/2007 6:16 PM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
I am not against a 54" limit, but also have a right to ask if it is both biologically needed, and if it is the battle that should be at the forefront of our agenda in 2007... While I'll stand behind any fight for limits that have sound reasoning, I'd also like to ask that people not forget the bigger, more important battles that need to be won in northern WI. Lets resurrect some of the old pig producers, protect some current ones, and create some more. hail! hail! hail! | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember who 'we' are. The anglers interested in protecting the tremendous potential on the Bay and the Fox focus there. Reef Hawg focused on 'his' water, as did Norm, Mike, and I. That's how things get done, most times, with the support of all attending the CC Hearings in Wisconsin. YOU may not think an issue is all that important, but the next angler may find the issue a primary focus. Your primary battle may be totally back burner to another 'activist'; proving neither goal less attainable or laudable. And I might point out an agenda doesn't have to contain only one or two issues. It was considered ridiculous not that long ago to even suggest a 48" limit. | ||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | ok, two more cents here. If the guy needed a mold of a 58", maybe. Does he need 6 molds? Not that Shep needs me to speak in his behalf, but Shep is one of the greatest guys on this board. I put him right up there with muskymaj and K-bob, sworral, gotesox, chuck nelson, saint, ulbian, pointer, Norm Wild, Shane West, Gerry Caroll, Howie Meyer, and more. His opinion counts, as far as i'm concerned, and if you hate him, you hate me. We (or most of us on this board) take more pride in watching the fish swim away than we do of the pics of the fish. We feel like we watch a best friend die when we cant get her to get going (if it aint happened, it will). When I see her swim away, I look at the camcorder and say "I live for this $&!t" Do not trample on those who uphold our resource, and dont be a hog. Lori asked me when we are going out after walleyes again. I told her "as soon as there are no more fillets in our freezer". Love me, hate me, i do not care. Shep and others who voice their opinions for what they believe in are the folks that make history. No followers are in history books. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
| The DUI analogy is very appropriate...A person who acquires one whether they have done their time or not has little regard for the lives of others or is willing to gamble on it. A person who has no time or debt to pay, because they did not brake the law...his character was put for debate. I thought perhaps this would bright to light to pettyness of the arguement. Steve, you mention that if it was 6 dif. anglers you have no issue with it...So you are concerned with the individual and not the fishery...because at the end of the day there is no difference...statistically that is:) Shep, if you don't like the size limit...protest it...but don't mention I don't keep walleye of 10lbs so why should he keep muskie...not impressed. Most of us do release the majority of what we catch. A single guy caught 6 very large muskie...more than most do in a season...Perhaps we just wish we would have caught them as well:) Elitist..no perhaps complainist/alarmist...perhaps...Ben | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | BenR - 5/25/2007 3:57 AM The DUI analogy is very appropriate...A person who acquires one whether they have done their time or not has little regard for the lives of others or is willing to gamble on it. A person who has no time or debt to pay, because they did not brake the law...his character was put for debate. I thought perhaps this would bright to light to pettyness of the arguement. Steve, you mention that if it was 6 dif. anglers you have no issue with it...So you are concerned with the individual and not the fishery...because at the end of the day there is no difference...statistically that is:) Shep, if you don't like the size limit...protest it...but don't mention I don't keep walleye of 10lbs so why should he keep muskie...not impressed. Most of us do release the majority of what we catch. A single guy caught 6 very large muskie...more than most do in a season...Perhaps we just wish we would have caught them as well:) Elitist..no perhaps complainist/alarmist...perhaps...Ben Wait, Ben, I know several folks who have a DUI who simply made a mistake, are not abusive drinkers or social misfits, had no intention at the time of taking a risk or putting someone else at risk....they were just momentarily stupid.... and are fine people. I know several who have DUI arrests who are not well. You are attempting to compare a law designed to protect PEOPLE VS a law designed to protect the MUSKIES, and are passing judgment on folks who have a DUI with no prior knowledge of the event's details.... That's a poor analogy no matter how you present it. Why would you tell Shep what he can or cannot say about his personal conservation ethics? This discussion was originally brought up on the walleye board, and many from there are following it. His commentary has context you may not understand, but that doesn't give you personal critical license. Most of us HERE do release most of what we catch. The point being made is that some folks feel ONE person is clearly abusing the upper confidence limit of fragile trophy population by over harvest of really big fish, that this person is clearly motivated by 'business' issues, and that this person has publicly stated he has little regard for the debatable conservation issues surrounding that harvest. His 'character' is not being called into question, his conservation ethics in the arena MUSKIE are. I'm sure he's a nice guy to fish with, and a nice guy in general. I'm sure he runs an entertaining and enjoyable Walleye tournament. That is exactly how change is acquired...those who over harvest albeit legally are educated and socially corrected, or that debate is a portion of the motivation to change the law correcting the behavior in a different manner. Trying to separate the issues in this case doesn't work. In any case, none of this is 'petty' to my mind. Look up the structure of conflict resolution, and what needs to happen to either effect change or accept the status quo, everything that has occurred here fits. This is EXACTLY how a 50" limit was acquired on Pelican. The debate was at times contentious, that's inevitable when emotion enters debate. Corrections were made when that occurred, but not all the time were those social. The final result was hailed by many and #*^@ed by a few. that, sir, is democracy. it's now law, and those who wouldn't have conformed in the past have to now, to the betterment of a fragile and heavily pressured potentially trophy class muskie population. If indeed the 6 big fish had been added to the numbers caught and ratio released/harvested by all the anglers fishing the area last year, there statistically would be 5 still swimming. The facts are that the majority who fished that water released fish over 50", but an alarmingly large minority did not, and this fellow was the apex predator. I know of no others who took more than one, but there may have been others. The total kill is still alarming, which is why there was a push for an increase in the size limit; obviously there are some of us VERY concerned about the resource and that group includes Shep. The logic and facts stream very nicely here. You state that anyone objecting to this fellow's behavior is a complainist/alarmist, that's YOUR opinion. Note I refrained from calling you a single name, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | Ben, If you think the arguement is petty, then why are you in it? | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | tcbetka - 5/24/2007 1:24 PM John, I am not so sure about this issue of harvesting top predators as a management tool--I think that you might find many fish managers that would debate this with you. However (as I said above), it's been so long since I was at all active in the field of aquatic biology that I really am not the authority on this matter. Maybe Dave Neuswanger will see this thread and comment. I have gone on record in this thread of favoring a "tag" system, whereby an angler is allowed to harvest one fish over a certain size per year. While many anglers would choose to not harvest any fish at all, the ones that did want to harvest multiple trophy fish would be significantly curtailed in that respect. While this may not be the perfect solution, or one that you agree with personally, it most likely would have saved several large last year...even if we are just talking about one angler. (I enjoy your posts, by the way.) TB Tom, I saw this post after our phone conversation and have this to offer... First, as rare as 50-inch-and-larger muskellunge are in ANY system, there is no "need" to harvest them. Fish that big will always be so rare that they will be incapable of impacting the rest of the food pyramid beneath them in a biologically significant manner. So it would be incorrect for anyone to claim it was "good" to harvest lots of fish at the very top of the food chain (50-inch-plus muskies) in Green Bay so the rest of the fish community could thrive. And frankly, I think it was piggish of one person to kill six of them in one year (or one lifetime for that matter). And I'm definitely NOT an elitist. I'm a proponent of slot limits and selective harvest of muskellunge in appropriate situations. This isn't one of them. Second, I hope one angler's ego and gluttony does not cause us to create an entirely new bureaucratic system for registering fish that would occupy professional resource managers' time when there are so many more significant issues to address. I believe (though I admit I don't KNOW) that VERY few serious and capable musky anglers are keeping even ONE trophy fish annually, let alone six. Let's not panic and create new laws and red tape because of the selfish acts of one person. Just my opinion, but there you have it. It was good talking to you, Tom. Keep in touch. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| greenduck |
| ||
Posts: 354 | I believe BenR was attempting to say that folks are getting thier undies in a bundle over a fish. Some of these very same people complain and yet say or do nothing about those who have done offensive, ILLEGAL, unethical things to PEOPLE. This guy did nothing illegal. We may find it offensive but what is done is done. So maybe you don't like the analogy or are uncomfortable with it but I see his point exactly. Maybe there are folks on MF, I won't mention any specific names, where the DUI thing hits to close to home? I'm sure they are good people too. Granted they may have endangered the lives of innocent PEOPLE but I don't have the details or the reasons behind it. So I should excuse their momentary lapse of judgement. I will instead focus my attention on a guy who followed the law and kept a fish. I guess that is a sound argument? | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8781 | Were this Peoplefirst.com, or Soberdriving.com, MADD.com or some other site I could see the reference, but this is Muskiefirst.com. The focus here is muskie fishing. Some feel it is their responsibility to speak out against a practice (the harvesting of 6 large muskies) that they feel goes aganst what the owners and visitors of this site strive to protect. Unkowingly supporting a tournament run by someone who apparently does not shere the conservationist mentality is something I suspect most of us would want to aviod. It seems like an appropriate discussion to have on a muskie fishing website, doesn't it? I'm not saying I (or anyone else) don't care that he or she may have engaged in dangerous and or illegal acts, but that's not what the discussion is about. | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | I don't know anybody who dismisses the DUI issue, but this is a Muskie Fishing board. There are lot's of social issues that do not get brought up here, for that very reason. For every issue related to muskie fishing, I'm sure there are many social issues that could be brought up to try to justify not talking about it. Guns, war, drugs, etc. You want me to go on? The discussion is about muskies. Keep it there. You want to talk about other stuff, start another thread, perhaps on Oprah.com. | ||
| gtp888 |
| ||
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | The DUI was an analogy, not something to be taken as a separate point. He was simply trying to give an example of a selfish, reckless, unacceptable act, regardless of how great a person is. | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | A bad analogy. | ||
| seaman |
| ||
Posts: 128 Location: ontario canada - Well Anderson Indiana now | So...it's some weather we're having huh fellas? | ||
| 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 © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |