|
|
| Now, do I feel that there are more miles of the river that need help? Of course. And the stretch you mention is one of them.
perhaps a chunk starting from the Castle Rock dam down through the Dells, Portage, Lake Wisconsin, and past the Prairie du Sac dam as far as the Hwy 12/78 bridge in Sauk City?
below the Prairie du Sac dam seems to be another of the places that some bigger fish get taken every year, especially in the spring and fall when they're concentrated in an area that's relatively easy to fish. Lake Wisconsin is known to produce fish over 50".
i'd be happy to help in any way needed - especially in Columbia and Sauk counties. the Columbia Co. DNR folks are pretty reasonable, and one of the key Conserv. Congress members is the owner of the local sporting goods store in Portage. there was general support for muskie issues at the last couple Congress meetings, and the local non-river muskie lakes already have 40" limits.
Jason, could you send me the info you talked about?
Al, perhaps you could tackle the Adams/Juneau Co. side?
i'd also like to chat with them about opening a couple more of the lakes in Columbia Co. to motor trolling.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Amen to those of you that woke up and see slots as the way to go on some lakes. I have preached this for years now and written many letters to people about it and got input from many sources. It can be a very valuable tool in muskie management.
Statew wide 50 inch limit, no way would this ever pass. As said it could harm some lakes. On some lakes yes but a hard sell. Thats where I believe slots come in. Slot limits be a much easier sell to the general public.
Now my question is why all of a sudden are people saying slot limits is the way to go. What changed your minds or turned the light on for you?
Pfeiff
Ulbain ty for bringing it up and I to am surprised that you not get all kinds of crap about it.
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 5/25/2007 11:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Many people are still unaquainted with the reason and whyfore to slot limits. Re read this thread and you will note that there is no widespread acclaim for slots.
I think the problems with slots are very real and the value in slots very questionable when looking at the big picture. I am not surprised to see Pfeif still cheerleading the slots as the way to go( he has been in favor of them for some time). I still feel that most really vocal proponents of slots are tourney fisherman rather than the larger set of musky fisherman, and I can understand, slots make tourneys much more viable when you can claim all the 30-39 1/2 inch fish as legal, and don't have to write off the majority of the population as non tourney eligible. I consider this a selfish but fair motivation and I believe most of us are motivated toward our own image of what we believe best for the resource, within the boundaries of how we each utilize it(selfish also, even mine). Obviously tourney fisherman have different views, and regs that would serve them specifically might not serve the resource best as a whole.
I still feel that slots require a lake with excellent natural reproduction, an actual overabundance of fish, and insufficient habitat and food resources for those fish to grow large. Yes there are some lakes like this in WI, not enough, but some. The next critical question that I would ask is, "What is wrong with this type of lake?". Personally I am very happy we have these types of lakes and view them as good places for beginners to go and experience the musky as an achievable goal, perhaps several times in a trip. These limited high NR lakes are still a resource in my opinion, not a problem to be solved. I don't feel we need every lake to produce 50" musky. I don't see it as a need nor as a viable goal in the management plan. It aint broke, don't fix it.
If you extend slots to other waters without excellent natural reproduction you find, #1 population is not a limiting factor on growth #2 a slot limit would have just eliminate females outside the slot at a young age, and these will be just as dead as those harvested at 42" to 48" and you can't grow fish that have already been harvested. #3 the fishing public is varied in the education and enlightenment of its many factions, it is difficult to disseminate information about the harvest of small musky without at least some cognitive interference with the long expressed message of catch and thrill, not catch and kill.
With the current regs there are many different allowable harvest sizes for varying fishing goals and I once again do not see the need to fix something that is not broken. There are many waters in WI that have 40" or better size limits for harvest, and some of these waters are probably stockpiling the majority of males in the population for long periods of time or potentially for ever in many cases because they are just not reaching 40" or taking extended periods to finally reach it, and in most cases they aren't being harvested even then. As a selfish musky fisherman, I don't mind this at all but realize to an occasional fisherman or a tourist fisherman visiting once a year for a week, a 34-40" musky may still be a heck of a trophy. As a onetime tourist weekly fisherman I can understand that view too, and sympathize with that particular fisherman. I don't really know that my needs and desires are any more important than theirs, but in my selfish self interest, I will try and impose my goals on them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5161
| I am glad to see the support of the slot limit,I really am shocked.I have never kept a fish, but there are lakes in Wisconsin that need some selective harvest.It is really great to see the evolution of muskie minds throughout the years.Bill Ramsey
Edited by 0723 5/28/2007 7:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Firstsixfeet as usual you are way off base. Tournament fishing never has had one thing to do with my reason for slot limits. You should also know by now that I've NOT said on every lake slots should be applied. This is a tool that could be used on some lakes and even possibly only for a matter of several years. It has been said by D.N.R biologist that it could be a valuable tool.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What happened to Mr. Musky? Asked to take some initiative and he disapears...I guess changing those limits on the lakes he mentioned only need changing if someone else will do it. The resources are there for you to get the ball rolling Mr. Musky, instead of complaing about it, why not actually DO something about it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg- Thanks for the offer. I've got to come up to WI Rapids later this week to see Mike H. Perhap's we can meet at your favorite watering hole. I'd be happy to buy you a PBR. Please call me at my home office # 608-847-6123.
The owner of Dan's Dam Bait Shop at the CR Dam is 100% behind getting the size limit below the dam boosted to 45". I'm also getting some of Brad Waldera's (Derrys on MF) "What Muskies Really Eat" flyer's printed for Dan to pass out.
Lambeau- I'm up for getting it on the table & passed. I'd personally like to see it at 50". But that's probably a hard sell- But I think 45" should be reasonable for those sections.
Al |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| 0723 - 5/26/2007 1:48 PM
I am glad to see the support of the slot limit,I really am shocked.I have never kept a fish, but there are lakes in Wisconsin that need some selective harvest.i\It is really great to see the evolution of muskie minds throughout the years.Bill Ramsey
Really? What lakes in WI NEED selective harvest by hook and line fishing for musky. Interested in your answer. I would like to know. Remember that these same lakes could be selectively managed by netting without a net loss of fish population. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Don Pfeiffer - 5/26/2007 5:52 PM
Firstsixfeet as usual you are way off base. Tournament fishing never has had one thing to do with my reason for slot limits. You should also know by now that I've NOT said on every lake slots should be applied. This is a tool that could be used on some lakes and even possibly only for a matter of several years. It has been said by D.N.R biologist that it could be a valuable tool.
Pfeiff
Don you put that shoe on. I don't see anywhere that I accuse you of being in favor of it for tournaments. Your motivation could be for guiding purposes, publicity, cookouts, or you may just feel it would benefit the resource. I would be interested in your take as to how this would benefit the resource and the major consumers of the resource, ie musky fisherman. I continue to hold that encouraging musky kill, like you want to do, is a self defeating path in the overall management of the musky resource. For years we have all made dedicated efforts to stop or slow kill, and in this one missguided(my opinion)management path we can reverse all those years of education and enlightenment. I have yet to see you explain the problems of heavy musky populations in certain lakes and WHY they would need to be reduced by killing fish, in the first place. I continue to hold that lakes like Tiger Cat, Teal and LLL, Day, Ballard and some of the few other high population, limited trophy lakes, are not problems to be solved, they are delightful pieces of the complex and widely varied waters comprising the greatest musky resource in the WORLD. I highly respect waters where I can put 8 muskies in the boat in a day and have, and I question whether I would ever want that resource tampered with in any way. Nope, wait... I don't question it, I really don't want that resource tampered with at all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | First of I did not say or claim there was a widespread acclaim for slots!!!!!!!!
2nd I am a tounament angler and you accuse them of wanting slots so I guess thats me!!!!!!!!!!!
3rd you twist everything I say.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Spider Chain in Hayward needs some selective harvest. There is one lake, I'm sure there are more, just ask Dave N.
Selective Harvest is effective if implemented on the correct lake
Slot Limits are effective if implemented on the correct lake
Trophy Classificatioin is effective if implemented on the correct lake
I would be up for raising the statewide limit to 38 inches, after that have special regulations for various bodies of water, whether that special regulation be a slot or trophy classification would depend on the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure I will have an article By Dave Neuswanger about this very subject soon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/27/2007 6:49 PM
Spider Chain in Hayward needs some selective harvest. There is one lake, I'm sure there are more, just ask Dave N.
Selective Harvest is effective if implemented on the correct lake
Slot Limits are effective if implemented on the correct lake
Trophy Classificatioin is effective if implemented on the correct lake
I would be up for raising the statewide limit to 38 inches, after that have special regulations for various bodies of water, whether that special regulation be a slot or trophy classification would depend on the lake.
Once again, WHY does the Spider Chain NEED "selective harvest"? You state this like it is a known fact. My feeling is that the Spider chain is just another facet of the many faceted musky resource. Is there a management credo or some unspoken rule somewhere that states lakes with great populations of smaller musky need to have fish killed, and that there is something wrong with heavy populations of smaller fish? Is the abundant musky population impacting some other gamefish in the lake in a negative way? I don't think fish managers automatically come to this conclusion, or at least they shouldn't. Good numbers, of smaller musky often represent a great action resource for beginning fisherman. There should not be a knee jerk reaction among fisherman, and certainly not among managers that this is somehow a problem. I think the idea of any high population density of musky being a problem is very questionable in the first place and really requiring some well thought out discussion before there is a move to change the population structure of such water, and then if such decisions are made, there needs to be real thought put into whether killing fish is the answer or whether transfer could be used as an alternative. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Why do you think it doesnt? What are you basing your opinions on? My opinions are that remove a significant amount of the muskies in the Spider Chain and produce some bigger fish. The common theme around the vast majority of the musky world is to produce the biggest fish, in the least amount of time. How do you know that the Spider couldnt support some trophy muskies as well as a good population of smaller fish to make it a all around great fishery? Do I know that it could do this, no but I do believe that a 35" fish shouldnt be conisidered the big fish of a body of water.
As to killing vs. transfering fish, this seems all well and good but now that we have a panic of VHS it is likely that this would not be a viable option.
|
|
| |
|
| Firstsixfeet,
HOLY COW!!! I can't believe what you wrote about the tournament angler being in favor of the slot limits because of some sort of selfish reasons. I can remember a few years back, when the proposed 50" size limits on many lakes in Wisconsin was defeated and there was a serious discussion shortly after on another popular muskie fishing web site message board and those folks, some very well known in the muskie world, said that the slot limits would also never pass due to the opposition that slot limits would get from tournament organizers and tournament anglers. I will repeat...HOLY COW!!! Here we go again. The muskie tournament guy must be the biggest villain in the world of muskie fishing by some folks reckoning.
Firstsixfeet, I don't know who you are, your background in muskie fishing, or where you reside but it is apparent to me and to anyone who knows about the rules governing muskie tournaments here in the state of Wisconsin, that you are certainly not familar with Wisconsin rules for tournament fishing. As far as muskie tournaments go in Wisconsin, it doesn't matter if the lake has a 34" limit, or 40" limit, a 54" or 50" limit or a slot limit for that matter, all muskies of any size could be registered in a muskie tournament if the muskie is not possessed no matter the size limit or if the lake has a slot limit. You are way out of line accussing tournament anglers and tournament organizers of putting their own interest before the resource, just because they have a different idea of what is best for the muskie fishery. I can't believe that you have actualy implied that you have your finger on the pulse of the muskie fishing world and you know what most of us are thinking and what we want...A very bold statement indeed!!! I can tell you one thing...I know Don Pfeiffer and his integrity should never be in question and if he says that he feels that slot limits would benefit the muskie fishery, then that is exactly how he feels, without your implied ulterior motives. I will say that I do agree with Don that slot limits can work for all muskie waters but I don't think Don and I see eye to eye on the protected slot. I have a little different take on how the slot limits sould be implemented that would infact mimic what would happen naturally on any given lake that would be more in harmony with the ecosystem than any randomly chosen un-scientific size limits that are inflicted on the lakes today.
Thanks and I hope that you all have a great season,
Tom McInnis
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sheesh. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion |
BURRRRRRNNN!!!!!!! Oh I mean Sheesh, sorry
Sworrall, thats a great word . thanks
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/27/2007 8:58 PM
Why do you think it doesnt? What are you basing your opinions on? My opinions are that remove a significant amount of the muskies in the Spider Chain and produce some bigger fish. The common theme around the vast majority of the musky world is to produce the biggest fish, in the least amount of time. How do you know that the Spider couldnt support some trophy muskies as well as a good population of smaller fish to make it a all around great fishery? Do I know that it could do this, no but I do believe that a 35" fish shouldnt be conisidered the big fish of a body of water.
As to killing vs. transfering fish, this seems all well and good but now that we have a panic of VHS it is likely that this would not be a viable option.
Once again, WHY?
Is there a biological NEED to do this? I would think that if anything, the musky population is robust. You are inferring that all musky waters need to be managed with the same end goal, large fish in the least amount of time. Not true. No need to do that, particularly in WI with the many varied waters available. I don't think there is a NEED or REQUIREMENT for all lakes and waters to produce large muskies on a regular basis. I don't think that having a multitude of smaller fish in a body of water represents a problem to be solved or some kind of management failure that needs correcting. I think it is a darn good place to fish for musky.
I would caution and remind many of our "fish managers" here(I include myself)that "doing NOTHING" is a viable course of action, and often the correct course to follow, particularly when things are going well and sustaining well.
If every fisherman was bright, easily educated, skilled in understanding the nuances involved in fisheries management, I could even see fiddling with musky kill as a management tool. However, they aren't, and I have seen the long term and sometimes difficult process of education succeed to at least a moderately high level over the years and I feel that this is also something that is NOT broke and doesn't need fixing. The message is fairly simple, and imo we do not need a group of confused anglers running around telling their friends and walleye/panfish anglers that there are too many muskies now, and that they need to kill some. Thinning muskys will be jumped on by the anti musky group in a big way. They will love the message it sends. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5161
| My first choice for selective harvest is callahan/mud lake close to the Chip flowage. A bunch of fish there many never get over 30 inches that would be a great place to take fish out and put them in another lake.If you have any more questions six feet feel free to ask.0723 Bill ramsey |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| To Don P and Tom M,
I think it is fine for you to disagree with me, and I welcome your input anytime in musky discussions. I would have replied "sheesh" myself to your diatribe, however, dang that Sworall, he used it first!
I think when getting on these boards and getting into a discussion which obviously interests both of you, it would do you well to take the time to closely read other's comments, and reply to what is actually stated, rather than replying to what you think might have been stated. Both of you have gone off on tangents, starting with a reply to "your interpretation", at best, of something that I did not actually state anywhere in the posts. I am not offended particularly, but what I have actually written is much less antagonistic than your missinterpretation of it. Please take enough time to make valid responses to what is ACTUALLY posted, rather than immediately escalating things into some kind of personal back and forth based on misscomprehension or a quick and less than thorough reading of my message. If you feel some of my points are ambiguos or need further clarification, I will be happy to restate and clarify.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| 0723 - 5/28/2007 7:20 AM
My first choice for selective harvest is callahan/mud lake close to the Chip flowage. A bunch of fish there many never get over 30 inches that would be a great place to take fish out and put them in another lake.If you have any more questions six feet feel free to ask.0723 Bill ramsey
Is there a biological need to thin this population out? Are the fish stocks distressed or suffering in some way?
I still think people are jumping to an unwarranted assumption that abundant small muskies in a limited number of waters is somehow a bad thing.
Why not accept these waters as a viable portion of the overall resource?
If I want somebody to just catch a musky I am not going to be taking them to Couderay or Round lake if I have a choice.
If I want somebody to catch a 50 inch musky, I am not taking them to Mud lake if I have a choice.
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
Edited by firstsixfeet 5/28/2007 7:58 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | firstsixfeet - 5/28/2007 7:55 AM
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
:)
Because the general fishing public has no education in the field of fisheries management. If a lake is only producing fish that grow to no larger than 30 inches, biologically something is wrong. Why is there something wrong? Because muskies can reach upwards of 60 inches. Fish that only reach 30 inches are not the fittest muskies. They are weaker fish. That is what is biologiacally wrong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Your post about addressing the issues discussed rather than an emotional tangent is REALLY relevant to the discussions here the last couple weeks. It's like folks are emotionally back in January.
I know of one lake for which a slot has been under discussion; Butternut. The DNR originally wanted to transfer fish to LCO but decided not to after genetic tests by Dr. Sloss's lab. I think local meetings, a signature of Dave Neuswanger's refreshing approach to managing waters across NW Wisconsin (which I personally believe the rest of the state could try out) and the surveys recently on that water, indicated the lake that HAD produced trophy fish and good numbers which is the desired goal, but is now overpopulated to a degree that something needs to be done to meet the management objectives the public and DNR like for that water. That's the process I think you are looking for, correct? Management based on goals set by the DNR in concert with the public.
I believe the number of adult fish that were going to be transferred was 500. Some had suggested that those fish be captured and transferred to waters that do not have any muskies right now. Imagine what needs to be done (again, nothing to do with FISH management and biology) to make THAT happen...
Fisheries management is as much an exercise in sociology/psychology/public relations/politics as actual management of the fishery. Especially here...... thanks Aldo.
One hurdle I see is the strength of the C&R ethic out there. It's obvious that the anglers fishing Butternut are not harvesting fish in sufficient numbers right now, so what would motivate them to do so later? There may be a few folks that actually catch enough fish to make the difference, but how many will be harvested? This is more than (and less than, as you eloquently pointed out) a strict management issue, it crosses over into social issues and our behavior as Muskie fishermen.
Dave is forwarding an article on the subject to me soon. I'll let everyone know when it's posted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 5/28/2007 8:16 AM
firstsixfeet - 5/28/2007 7:55 AM
Why not leave the fishing public with that choice? Why assume things are broke?
:)
Because the general fishing public has no education in the field of fisheries management. If a lake is only producing fish that grow to no larger than 30 inches, biologically something is wrong. Why is there something wrong? Because muskies can reach upwards of 60 inches. Fish that only reach 30 inches are not the fittest muskies. They are weaker fish. That is what is biologiacally wrong.
Once again, I believe you have reached a conclusion unmerritted by the facts. You are not dealing with cause and effect here(imo). They are, from everything I know about them a fit and vigorous population. They are vigorous breeders, have filled their niche to the brim, overwinter successfully year after year, strike lures and fight like any other musky of similar size. Is there logic in your claim that the fish in Tiger are not fit, or your claim that they are weak? I think it is a mistake to equate size with so called "fitness or strength". I believe that is an unfortunate plate handed out by the group trying to influence WI musky management, by pointing across the border at MN and suggesting WI muskie strains in comparison are somehow weaker, and mutts(based primarily on mature lenght). Ths Shoepac strain is not an unfit or weak strain of musky, though ultimately smaller at maturity. They evolved to fill a niche and fill it successfully.
I still don't get over excited with any definition that defines the "goodness" of muskies, by the bigness of muskies. Many populations, many enviroments, many biological inputs on those populations are naturally going to produce different population "profiles" for each body of water. I think we are shortchanging the resource by deciding that one "profile" is automatically desirable for all waters, and I think ultimately any such decision could cheat musky fisherman and particularly beginning musky fisherman.
Too many muskies. Not a problem in my boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Also, Butternut is an interesting situation. It will be an interesting case study as it proceeds, but imo, it is not a blueprint for WI musky mgmt of all high population, smaller sized fish.
Somewhat interesting is the fact that there is NO real hard data as to what has gone on in that lake other than a rise in the population. There are still a lot of questions as to the root of the problem imo. Was this a problem of one or two great hatches of fish causing a major shift in the size structure or something else entirely? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | I'm surprised this horse has any recognizable features...
FSF, excellent points. I happen to agree totally. The other side of the argument may be taking an elitist turn??  Those overpopulated populations are anything thing but lacking in fitness, actually the most fit. In ecology the currency of fitness can take many forms, but it most commonly refers to reproductive output as Darwin intended. Just a little semantics. I think the armchair biologists see a problem like an over abundance of small fish, and immediately cry wolf without taking the approach as FSF describes. Sure you might be able to manipulate things enough so that the populations grows "normally", but perhaps this is the only fishery of its kind in the area. Why ruin that?
Take any given day in Vilas Co. There will ALWAYS be more rigs parked at Ballard or Wildcat than at Star which is just down the road from Ballard. Why would this be when the first two lakes are loaded up with "dinks" and Star is "normal". Oh yeah, because you can pop 3 fish in a trip and see a dozen more. There are probably more angler hours on the first two lakes every year than the top five big fish lakes in the whole county combined. Now if nobody fished these lakes because the fish were small, then I could see a need for mgt action.
Edited by tfootstalker 5/28/2007 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the age and size structure in the lake prompted the DNR to believe Butternut was 'overstocked' for a number of years. I'd have to go back through the literature, but I remember that from a couple conversations.
I don't see anyone saying they believe Muskie slot limits to be a needed widespread management tool; I think what is being said through the thick veil of all the personal infighting is some feel some waters would benefit based upon the goals the local folks, regular anglers fishing that water, and the DNR have in mind for the Muskie population there. Others are saying 'Why do you think that? From my perspective, that lake is fine as a "fill-in-this-blank-" lake.
FSF is asking for proponents of slot limits what the end gain and goals might be, and are the goals what is 'best' for that water.
Undercurrent of all of this is the idea that slot limits are a trophy management tool for Muskies. I'll let the working fisheries managers managing muskies in the field talk to that. As I have said, Dave is submitting an article soon.
What did I miss? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | FSF,
You ask me to bring up facts of why I think that selective harvest should be implemented on Spider Chain. I dont have facts, but then again, do you have facts on why it should not be implemented? Can you say for certain that other game fish are not being affected by an overabundant population of muskies? My point is, that if the other game fish are being affected by the large population of muskies than something should be done to reduce the population of muskies.
I do agree with you that action lakes, such as Spider Chain, are great lakes for the beginner or for someone out to just put some fish in the boat, but if this comes at a cost to the other game fish in the lake, then something needs to be done. We all get sick of hearing the muskies are eating all my walleyes, perch, gills etc...but if the people who have formulated that opinion are seeing this on lakes that have an overabundance of muskies, then it will be tough for us to switch that opinion. I am not saying that I believe muskies are eating all our walleyes etc., we are eating all our walleyes.
I dont have the facts about Spider Chain, but the people that I have talked to that fish this lake would love to see some fish removed in hopes to get some bigger fish in there.
It will be interesting to read the article by Dave N. A good debate no less!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| I would like to be the first to thank Dave N for continuing to partcipate in these discussions despite the bickering, misinformation, babbling, diatribes, accusations, insults, and other various "my panties are all in a bunch" responses that always come up when we discuss WI's musky management strategies.
Why did I post that?
Because having a real life biologist around to tell us what is really going on is 10 times more valuable to me than 25 unfounded opinions.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled p---ing contest... |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 5/29/2007 10:45 AM
I would like to be the first to thank Dave N for continuing to partcipate in these discussions despite the bickering, misinformation, babbling, diatribes, accusations, insults, and other various "my panties are all in a bunch" responses that always come up when we discuss WI's musky management strategies.
Why did I post that?
Because having a real life biologist around to tell us what is really going on is 10 times more valuable to me than 25 unfounded opinions.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled p---ing contest...
None should get too attached to their opinions in these discussions, and for the most part, I don't see this as a p contest. Is every conflict of opinion doomed to such interpretation from certain posters? I guess.
Fortunate or unfortunate, I don't believe there is a biological "need" to change management on most of these waters, and I would expect Dave N to confirm that. The question will become that of opinion, and I am in favor of getting my opinion out there early. I also think both sides of the issue are important to consider.
I think there is too much investments in the "big musky good, small musky bad" school of thought and I don't think it is fair to fisherman and their many goals, nor to the resource itself. |
|
| |
