Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... > Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay: Alarming trend... |
| Message Subject: Green Bay: Alarming trend... | |||
Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Gander Mt Guide - 11/18/2007 6:54 PM So let me get this straight...the 50" limit isn't good enough now? So they raise it to 54" and people keep 55's...are you going to be upset then too? People..Its a #*^@ fish. The 50" limit was to protect a potential trophy fishery..its happening as planned. So let somebody keep a trophy if its their right to do so. When the fishery has so much more potential, no it isnt good enough. | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | It does have potential...potential for somebody to mount one. These are just fish, think outside the box. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Gander Mt Guide - 11/18/2007 11:51 PM It does have potential...potential for somebody to mount one. These are just fish, think outside the box. Why mount one when you can get a replica done? Please explain that. | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Cost for one....not everybody does skin mounts and replicas for the same amount to persuade anglers to toss them back. A college kid like you knows #*^@ well that a skin mount at $9.00 an inch is alot more appealing than 12-13.00 an inch. Secondly, what if a fish isn't going to make it after release? Want them to toss back a dead fish just for the sake of replica? Third, because it's legal to keep one. If somebody wants to keep THAT fish to mount or eat, that's their right. | ||
| bturg |
| ||
Posts: 716 | Yep, and then we'll be able to talk about the good ole days some more............. I don't even fish there and it makes me ill to think about it. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | First of all, I want to say thank you to Gander Mt. Guide for posting in this thread--I realized that I had not done that last night. You all might think this is strange, but we need to have opposing points of view expressed to have any sort of meaningful discussion. And I can assure you that for every person who expresses these viewpoints, there are many others who share them...but do not speak up. We need to involve as many of these people as possible, and thus I don't want to suppress anyone's opinion on the matter. As long as that person will take ownership of what they say--they can say whatever they want. Anonymous posters are another story however, but that isn't the case here. As far as I am concerned, Gander can continue to speak his mind at will--as he is only saying what others want to say. And by the way, I respect him for taking ownership of his comments. Now to address his last post... I will admit, the cost differential is an issue. That's why we have started working on some potential countermeasures against that hurdle--but it's going to take a concerted effort between the anglers, the taxidermists and third parties that may want to help subsidize these efforts. Obviously no one is going to pay for an angler's mount...just because they said they released a fish. These are OUR resources, and we can all benefit from their conservation. If an angler catches a magnificent fish and wants to mount it, then they have made the decision to spend a certain amount of money to pay for that mount. So we are really only talking about the cost *differential* between the skin mount and the reproduction, correct? While it is too early to detail some of the early measures being considered, there are things that can be done to make this less of a burden. Secondly, Gander raises an EXCELLENT point about the angler-induced (and delayed) mortality associated with the catch of a musky. That's why MuskieFIRST has started a project to educate anglers on the proper C&R techniques--and in general about the physiology of angled muskellunge, as well as the pathophysiology of delayed mortality. Anyone that knows me knows that I am extremely interested in the physiology of the fish in response to angling--and the pathophysiology of delayed mortality. In fact I have written an article about it, and this will be published in the January issue of "Muskie," the MI monthly publication. But I would ask you John--how would an angler know which fish weren't going to make it? If that were the case, there really wouldn't be much of an issue--but when the delayed mortality is anywhere from 5-30% (depending upon time of the year, health of the fish, and a myriad of other factors), how does the angler know which fish is not going to survive the angling process? Obviously, in certain instances this may be readily apparent and the decision can easily be made (bleeding heavily from the gills at the time of release, etc). However, you must admit that the risk to sub-legal fish is just as great, if not greater, as there are more of them being caught...relatively speaking. And if we are able to educate more anglers on the process of proper C&R practices, maybe we can reduce overall mortality--for ALL muskellunge. As such, I applaud MuskieFIRST (and Steve Worrall in particular) for undertaking such an endeavor. So hopefully the mortality issue will start to become less & less of a factor. Now to perhaps the most difficult point to address--that of the legality of keeping a 50" fish. On one hand, this won't be an issue if the limit is increased to 54"...end of problem. But is that the *best* way to handle it? I can honestly say that I don't think anyone knows. But in many parts of Canada (where they rely on the sport fishery for economic health to a much larger degree than we do here), this is exactly what they have done. People want to go fish where there are BIG fish. And as CPR has grown in popularity over the past 10 or so years, there seem to be more 50" muskies being caught. While I feel that it's a tremendous accomplishment to say the least, it doesn't seem to be heralded as much as it was in the past...but THAT IS GOOD! That means that overall angler satisfaction is higher, and the fisheries management folks are doing their jobs! But the next obvious question that should be asked is "just how big can these fish get?" While we don't yet know the answer to this question, one thing is for sure--every dead 50-54" musky represents one less potential 55-60" musky...and dare I say, one less potential WR fish! We simply don't know what we don't know, and as such we should take any necessary steps to protect the fishery while we sort all of this out. We can always decrease the size limits again in the future, if it appears that this is indeed the best course of action. So once again I want to thank all of you who have participated in this thread to this point--especially those of you who have expressed opposing viewpoints. These types of things need to be aired publicly, and thank God for places like MuskieFIRST for allowing this type of exchange. While we are not able to reach anglers that do not frequent the musky forums--we ARE able to reach people who know people who probably know some of these people. So it WILL make a difference, and we should keep discussing it. We should hear all objections and concerns, and address them in turn--because this is how a compromise can be reached. And thanks for keeping it civil fellas... Tom Betka Research Director Titletown Chapter, Muskies Inc. Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 6:53 AM | ||
| Beaver |
| ||
Posts: 4266 | I remember seeing dumpsters full of carcasses of 8-10 pound walleyes at Bay de Noc after word got out about the trophy fishery. Most guys were CPR fishermen, but you don't hear much about 12's and 14's anymore. I don't visit the walleye boards anymore, so I don't know what's happening up there. Just talking to Walleyes Unlimited guys, they report that trophies are getting to be more rare occurances. I think we're preaching to the choir here. Most of us carry cameras, not clubs. The Eagles said it best......."You calll someplace Paradise....Kiss it goodbye." | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Why release a 50" Muskie from a totally stocked system with little recruitment and the Muskie is legal to keep? According to the MNDNR it costs about $2890.00 in stocking funds and from 12 -15 years to replace a 50" Muskie in a totally stocked system. That's why. When are Muskie going to achieve a "Sport Fish" status that Bass have already attained for decades? Muskies are an apex predator just like Blue and Black Marlin and Sailfish. Most professional ocean Charters don't sell the fish anymore, they sell the thrill of catching it and release regardless of condition. That's why you don't see hanging from the tail root from the wharf shots anymore. They are just to valuable and rare to kill. Simple as that. Steve Voigt | |||
| dcates |
| ||
Posts: 462 Location: Syracuse, Indiana | Tom I agree with the 54" concept, but in my view the GB fishery deserves more. Increasing the size limit won't prevent meat-hogs from taking multiple fish (although it will be more difficult). In addition to increasing the size limit, I would personally like to see a tag system. Harvest your fish of a lifetime. Enjoy it. Have my congratulations. Just let the next one go so it can grow. Dave Cates | ||
| Wisconsin Wade |
| ||
Posts: 194 Location: Lincolnshire, IL | Gander Mt Guide - 11/19/2007 12:04 AM Cost for one....not everybody does skin mounts and replicas for the same amount to persuade anglers to toss them back. A college kid like you knows #*^@ well that a skin mount at $9.00 an inch is alot more appealing than 12-13.00 an inch. COST? Come on...in this sport or any other like it, well that is a poor excuse. Using your model the difference between a skin mount vs. a replica is $208.00. Now if the angler travels 120 miles round trip to the taxidermist to drop off said fish, and his truck gets 15 mpg, at $3 per gallon he now has $24.00 in gas. So now we are down to $184.00(plus he'll probably stop to get a soda and head through McDonalds Drive thru). What is that? 10 less baits(hey sell a few that you are not using)? One less rod/reel combo? Skip a Muskie show next year, etc. etc. It is all about choices. But cost is a poor excuse. Tighten the belt somewhere else....I'd be willing to bet 10 dimes to a dollar that every fisherman/sportsman has $200 worth of gear that they don't use that could hit the buy/sell trade boards or ebay..Now there is an idea for the Outdoor Channel...kind of like HGTV's Clean Sweep....Don't anyone try to sell me on COST! Equipment, Boats, Gas, Vehicles, Food, Sheesh, what's another $185 to have a mount that will last a lifetime! Let's even take it a step back/further...If the guy can't afford the $676 for the mount, my guess is he is going to have problems with the $468 as well and probably shouldn't be spending the money on the "luxury item". Therefore, why not take the measurements and wait until he/she is more financially stable to make the purchase. Edited by Wisconsin Wade 11/19/2007 8:53 AM | ||
| PIKEMASTER |
| ||
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | CATCH PHOTO RELEASE all fish !!! It makes me sick when I see someone keep a fish today.The good old days are gone. Replica mounts, no skin mounts, when I see a skin mount today it makes me MAD and SICK to look at it. Think for the furture not live in the past. | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Here in Michigan we have a tag for Sturgeon. I've been trying to push for years that this system would work well for muskellunge management. Here is how the sturgeon tag works: Current law requires an angler of any age to obtain a sturgeon tag prior to fishing for sturgeon. Please remember the following when fishing for sturgeon: - Regardless of whether you intend to harvest a sturgeon or practice catch/release, you must obtain this tag before going sturgeon fishing. - The sturgeon tag is free and is not a substitute for a fishing license. - While fishing, the sturgeon tag must be in your possession. - In addition to possessing the sturgeon tag, all anglers 17 years old or older must have either a restricted fishing license or an all-species license to fish for sturgeon. - When you register and receive a sturgeon tag, you are helping the Department of Natural Resources collect information on the sturgeon population and the number of people fishing for them. - The sturgeon tag allows you to harvest one sturgeon, and each angler shall only receive one tag in a fishing season. - Registered anglers that elect to harvest a sturgeon during the open possession season must tag the fish prior to bringing the fish in for registration, but they may continue to fish for sturgeon (catch/release only) during the remainder of the open seasons for sturgeon. - Sturgeon that are to be released after capture do NOT need to be tagged. | ||
| Wisconsin Wade |
| ||
Posts: 194 Location: Lincolnshire, IL | tcbetka - 11/19/2007 6:48 AM I will admit, the cost differential is an issue. That's why we have started working on some potential countermeasures against that hurdle--but it's going to take a concerted effort between the anglers, the taxidermists and third parties that may want to help subsidize these efforts. Obviously no one is going to pay for an angler's mount...just because they said they released a fish. These are OUR resources, and we can all benefit from their conservation. If an angler catches a magnificent fish and wants to mount it, then they have made the decision to spend a certain amount of money to pay for that mount. So we are really only talking about the cost *differential* between the skin mount and the reproduction, correct? While it is too early to detail some of the early measures being considered, there are things that can be done to make this less of a burden. Tom Betka Research Director Titletown Chapter, Muskies Inc. I just read this...Tom, are you saying that we need a subsidy program to have a fish mounted? I am all for keeping discussions civil, but a that is a bit ridiculous. It is a "luxury item" and I don't think that taxidermists/sportsmen/philanthropists shoud be forking out money so that someone can get a reduced rate to have a fish replica mounted. Where does that stop? How about a subsidy program where I can buy Bud instead of Busch? I really respect many of your ideas and efforts but am not for this type of "entitlement". | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wisconsin Wade - 11/19/2007 8:45 AM SNIP...If the guy can't afford the $676 for the mount, my guess is he is going to have problems with the $468 as well and probably shouldn't be spending the money on the "luxury item". Therefore, why not take the measurements and wait until he/she is more financially stable to make the purchase. I hadn't thought of that Wade--that's an excellent point. I just read this...Tom, are you saying that we need a subsidy program to have a fish mounted? I am all for keeping discussions civil, but a that is a bit ridiculous. It is a "luxury item" and I don't think that taxidermists/sportsmen/philanthropists shoud be forking out money so that someone can get a reduced rate to have a fish replica mounted. Where does that stop? How about a subsidy program where I can buy Bud instead of Busch? I really respect many of your ideas and efforts but am not for this type of "entitlement". I am not sure of just *what* could be done, or what SHOULD be done in this capacity Wade. Your point(s) are well-taken. I am only trying to facilitate discussion and invite ideas to flow...and involve as many people as possible in the process. The way I see it, if we can learn about all possible objections to increasing the size limit *before* we put it to the vote--then we will be much better prepared for the debate that is sure to come. I appreciate your participation in the thread. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 10:45 AM | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | First off right now the size limit on GB is 50 inches so anyone fishing it has the right to keep any fish 50 inches or larger nobody is disputing that. It doesn’t mean people can’t fight for a higher size limit to further protect those fast growing fish. Last year the people who attended the spring hearings, where a 54” size limit was proposed vote overwhelmingly in favor of it. Those voices should not go unheard. Wisconsin has an emerging fishery in Green Bay that has to potential to compete with the best waters Canada has to offer, doesn’t it make sense to protect this emerging fishery at least to the same level of protection as Canada has provided. They enacted these high limits a number of years ago with no detrimental effect on the economies of the local communities. They have the science that backs up these high size limits, and since most of this science pertains to Great Lakes fisheries why do we have to re-invent the wheel lets use there examples and run with it to our own benefit. As to "why release a fish that is going to die anyway?" This is the same argument many use with any higher size limit weather it’s increasing from 30, 34, 45, or 50. Please read the following: From: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/faq.asp?id=69 Q)Most serious musky fishermen today release all of their muskies, Why do we want to regulate something the public is already doing voluntarily? A)An estimated 92 % of all muskies are released, but the mean length of harvested muskies is only 37 inches (Simonson and Hewett 1999). As a fish grows larger than 40 inches, the odds of its being kept instead of released keep increasing. Based on data in Casselman (1999), it takes a female musky an average of 9 years to reach 40 inches and another 7 years to reach 50 inches. It may be caught many times during this time, but each fish can only be harvested once. Casselman et al (1996) suggest that with a 2% increase in mortality, recruitment would need to be doubled to maintain the number of trophy muskellunge in a population. Relying solely on voluntary release is not an effective way to grow big muskies. Q)Higher length limits won't do any good because too many fish will die after they're released, especially if they're deep-hooked on live bait. Besides, unhooking a large musky is dangerous! A) Some hooking mortality is bound to occur any time fish are caught and released. However, with a minimum of handling and some common sense, most released muskies will survive, without undue risk of injury to the angler. Proper catch and release techniques are already being practiced by many anglers. Efforts to educate all anglers on these techniques should continue, and again anything that reduces angling mortality will improve the quality status of the fishery. Great discussion! Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| brad b |
| ||
| "Replica mounts, no skin mounts, when I see a skin mount today it makes me MAD and SICK to look at it." No offense intended, but its amazing how much your attitude mirrors that of PETA, isn't it? I understand your desire to promote C&R, but please remember that musky are still just fish. When you guys take such a hard line approach to subjects like this, you tend to look a little out of touch with reality and end up doing more harm than good. For me, I don't think I would ever keep a musky. They stink too much for me to think about eating one and I won't pay to have one mounted. But that should be my choice, not yours. Lastly, I would urge caution on this topic... to me, once you have established that a population of fish is too delicate to sustain ANY harvest, I think you have made a real case for not allowing anyone to target them in the first place. | |||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | brad b - 11/19/2007 11:14 AM No offense intended, but its amazing how much your attitude mirrors that of PETA, isn't it? Not at all, Peta promotes fishing being banned. Alot differant than saying people should let trophy fish go. | ||
| TJ DeVoe |
| ||
Posts: 2323 Location: Stevens Point, WI | Brad, I think the main concern for most is about the future, and what kind of future Green Bay may have down the road if muskies are getting kept on such a regular basis. That's what the concern is about from what I can gather. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wade, This morning I called both Rick Lax and Joe Fittante. Both charge identical amounts for muskellunge skin mounts and reproductions, and both charge about the same per inch (around $12). So there's certainly no cost incentive there... However I do realize that guys might be only charging lesser amounts for skin mounts elsewhere--or they may not even offer reproductions, so the only choice is a skin mount. And if they are trying to make a name for themselves in the business, then their rates would probably reflect that. Rick Lax told me that is not uncommon in fact, but he didn't elaborate on the names of those taxidermists...nor did I ask. Suffice it to say that guys could get skin mounts done cheaper than reproductions, so that may remain an issue--though I fully understand the points you were making in your previous post. TB | ||
| bjb360 |
| ||
Posts: 20 | will it really matter if vhs kills all the fish anyway? Edited by bjb360 11/19/2007 1:10 PM | ||
| brad b |
| ||
| "Brad, I think the main concern for most is about the future, and what kind of future Green Bay may have down the road if muskies are getting kept on such a regular basis. That's what the concern is about from what I can gather." I disagree. I think the concern here is NOT over harvest of a ridiculously insignificant portion of the fish population, it's about some guys not wanting anyone to ever harvest a musky. The original post on this thread was from a guy that knew of 8 fish being harvested this fall. Not 8 last weekend, or 8 this month. 8 this fall. In my two or three trips to the bay for musky, I've been in the boat with about 9 fish. None of them were over 50 inches. Therefore I can predict with absolute certainty that at least 1/2 of the population of musky in Green Bay survived this high rate of exploitation and will be there for walleye angler to incidentally catch next spring. And I'm equally as sure that someone will start a thread either here or on another web site to complain about that. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | VHS isn't going to kill *all* the fish--but it will take some, presumably. It's unfortunate, but that's nature. But as anglers, we can and SHOULD do our parts not to hasten the process. But even with the best precautions theoretically possible, wildlife vectors are still going to spread the disease. This would include water fowl, other water-oriented birds, migrating fish, etc. But you have made a good point, perhaps without even realizing it... If VHS has yet to fully rear its ugly head in the bay, shouldn't we be even that much more proactive in taking measures to protect the fishery? If VHS takes 25-30% of the large fish (my numbers for the sake of argument--I have no hard data on that), then do we want anglers to harvest another 5 or 10 percent...or more? Certainly VHS may not take that many fish--but it could take more! And if we wait until we know for sure how many fish it does take, the horse is going to be out of the barn and the barn just burned down. Dead fish are dead fish, and it may take another 12-15 years to get back to where we are now! As I mentioned in a previous post, sound fisheries management dictates some degree of fluidity in management strategy--and this includes regulation. So to the opponents of the 54" size limit I ask...if the authors of the current 50" size regulation had known about VHS several years ago, do you think they would have settled for a 50 inch limit--especially if they'd known how many large fish would be harvested? We'll never know of course, but I bet not. In other words, times change, and so must we if we want to continue to see positive results towards meeting our goals. I have said it before and I will say it again--we simply do not know what we don't know about: The population of fish in the bay; migration of the fish throughout the bay system; the impact of harvest on that population; the future impact of VHS on the fishery; and the size potential of these fish. That's too many unknowns for one equation, the last time I took math. It's hard enough trying to predict things that are (for the most part) out of our control, so why not do something about the things that we CAN control? TB Edited by tcbetka 11/19/2007 1:54 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | Welcome to our annual winter disagreement between the "it's fine look at the fish being caught who cares if people keep them" crowd and the "more and more people are going to pound the snot out of it and what's going to happen 5 years down the road if we sit idly by and do nothing?" crowd... As the discussion becomes further polarized, it will likely disintegrate into "It's just a fish you PETA freak" vs. "I saw 250 dead muskies over 50" floating just last week, and anybody who even thinks of keeping one of these fish should be castated and shot!"... After which the thread, like all the others, will slowly fade down to page 2 and beyond... So let's just be honest, shall we? Half of you are afraid that if we don't bump up the size limits or something the Green Bay musky fishery will soon become a has-been, and you won't be able to catch as many fish. The other half just want to be able to whack a fish and not feel guilty about it because you have kids, or you think skin mounts are better than replicas, or you just plain want one and really either don't believe or don't care that people harvesting a trophy fish might just have an impact that goes beyond a shiny "look at what I did" on the wall... | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | A couple thoughts here. No, I repeat NO, muskies have been found to have died from VHS in Green Bay. It's a cold water disease(55 degrees or so), and I've not heard of any die off since the water temps finally made it under 60. This year, or any previous year. So, yes, it would matter. A tag system isn't the answer. You have to carry a tag if you are fishing for muskies. But if you use your tag, then you don't have to carry one? Huh? Yelling at people isn't the answer. Whether they are mishandling(in your eyes) a fish, or keeping a fish. Public ridicule at a MI tourney was tried, and it appears, had no effect on one guy. In the past, when the subject of skin mounts came up, I suggested that one of the reason for live mounts was cost, and that the taxidermists could help by RAISING the price of skin mounts to the same price as repro's. While I am not taking credit for it, I do know that Joe, Lax, and Artistic Aglers have taken that step. Financially there is no reason to have a skin mount by these three. Repro's look so much better, IMO. If you want to see how bad a skin mount of a Green Bay fish looks like, I can advise you on where to see one. If you want to see how great a repro GB fish looks like, well, I can help there, too. Look, this is a relatively new fishery. I've been fishing it longer than most, and I've introduced many people to it. Pretty sure none of them would actually keep a fish, but I could be wrong. Kept fish are going to happen. But we need to educate, as well as work towards getting the limit raised. I was on board with Dennis last year on the 54" proposal. I agree with it. I am a bit concerned that the new biologist doesn't not appear to agree with it, if I am hearing right. I will talk with him, and try to get a read on his actual position. If this is not on the spring hearing questionaire this year, after overwhelming support last spring, I will be finding out why. Nick, the 50" limit didn't happen last year. It's been there for quite a while. Last spring was a resolution to add the 54" limit to the ballot on next April. It was a nonbinding resolution. Most fish caught in the Fox, and on the lower bay, were palnted in the Fox. I have received info from probably 25 Fox caught fish, and so far, everyone was released in the Fox. I agree on relaeasing in more diverse locations in the future. How many people catch and decide to keep a "fish of a lifetime", only to toss it out in the garbage when they do their annual freezer dump? I bet it's more than you think! They call the local taxidermist, and get a quote for a skin mount. When they come to after the shock, they put it in the freezer til they "save" the money. They never seem to be able to pull the trigger on that mount, and the fish is wasted. Edited by Shep 11/19/2007 2:31 PM | ||
| bobp |
| ||
Posts: 6 | The real problem here is that this area is seeing way too much pressure from way to many people fishing it. This was brought on by the recent tournament and the discovery of this area by the " for profit fishermen". There are several guide boats bringing people out there everyday. In my opinion size limits are not the problem. The problem is too many people brought on by the profit fishing. Bob | ||
| Musky_Slayer |
| ||
| Here is a hypothetical question. Why does there need to be a size limit at all? Make it all CPR. Either the Tax payers or the Clubs are paying for these fish. If you don't want to fish a CPR system stay home. This is my simple solution. The clubs should promote this. Especially if they are paying for the fish!! Also catching big fish trolling is not a very big accomplishment. Sure i'd love to catch a 50 trolling but I'd prefer a 40 casting. | |||
| C_Nelson |
| ||
Posts: 578 Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | How many guides do you think are really guiding on the Bay? Are all of these "guides" legal? If not, call the Coast Guard. It is a hefty fine along with the possible loss of boat, equipment and tow vehicle. Along with that, you have dealt with the feds so now you will have the IRS crawling up your butt to see if you are filing all necessary paper work. If they are NOT licensed by the Coast Guard, are NOT on a random drug testing program, do NOT have flares, do NOT have a throwable floatation device with a rope, do NOT have an anchor, do NOT have their captains license accessible on-board the boat at all times they are working and do NOT have Type I life jackets for all people on-board then they are NOT a legitimate guide for the Bay and Fox River System. Turn them in and get them off the water. One way to rid your waters of some pressure. If they are legit with all the necessary requirements and paper work, leave them alone. They have invested a lot of time and money into becoming legal. If others want to earn some extra money, they can take the time, energy and money to become legal and make money as well. Or, try to pass a law that would not allow guiding to be done. They could then run "charters" and not "guide trips". LOL I know some of the legitimate guides that work on the Bay and Fox and they know how to handle fish and TEACH people how to handle fish. Please do not blame the success of the Bay on guides. People can hear about a place, but they have to learn how to fish it to be successful. This is a prime example of that. I have been fishing the Fox successfully for musky since about 1988, but kept my mouth shut about it because I did not see others doing it. It has gotten better and better, even with the added pressure. Capt Chuck | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Musky_Slayer - 11/19/2007 7:18 PM Here is a hypothetical question. Why does there need to be a size limit at all? Make it all CPR. Either the Tax payers or the Clubs are paying for these fish. As far as I know, there is no precedence for this sort of thing in the musky world--but maybe someone will correct me if I am mistaken. But this is not simply a matter of "vote for the most popular option, and that's what we'll do." We must be realistic in terms of requests made to the DNR (the regulatory body for our fishery, as you may recall), and thus these options have to be a compromise between having both biological & sociological validity. While some may support a total CPR fishery, I don't think you're going to sell that to the DNR. And without selling it to the DNR, it isn't going to happen. Why should it? How *could* it? (Short of a budget bill, I mean...) If you don't want to fish a CPR system stay home. This is my simple solution. The clubs should promote this. Especially if they are paying for the fish!! Just because special interest groups make donations to benefit a natural resource, it doesn't mean they have ownership of that resource. Don't forget that groups like Muskies Inc. were conceived and developed to assist in the welfare of the resource--they were never intended to negate the need for the regulatory agencies that are mandated (by law) to "take ownership" of the resource. They have to maintain it, and under scrutiny from all directions while doing so. This is about altruism...not about being materialistic. Also catching big fish trolling is not a very big accomplishment. Sure i'd love to catch a 50 trolling but I'd prefer a 40 casting. LOL, good one. Tell that to the 20 or so boats out there on any given weekend that *don't* catch a fish. I think they might have something to say about that... TB | ||
| davidd |
| ||
Posts: 65 Location: De Pere Wisconsin | Guest - 11/19/2007 7:56 AM Why release a 50" Muskie from a totally stocked system with little recruitment and the Muskie is legal to keep? According to the MNDNR it costs about $2890.00 in stocking funds and from 12 -15 years to replace a 50" Muskie in a totally stocked system. That's why. Steve Voigt If the dollar figure above is anywhere near that for the Green Bay/Great Lakes Spotted muskies per individual fish...........WOW. The question is then where do those monies come from? If it is all DNR then they make the call - but if it is raised funds do those groups have more heavily weighted input on conservation decisions such as size limits? Or do you hand the money to the DNR and trust them? Not sure how that works and would be interested to hear if anyone has any insight there. Maybe instead of tags, if want to keep a fish you just have to pay to replace it  | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Sled hit the nail on the head without even being serious about it...maybe this resource should be treated like Vilas/Onieda cos. NO MOTOR TROLLING. I bet you see a lot more of your 50+ fish NOT caught. Boom, problem solved, no need to raise a limit that was just raised. | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... > 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 |