|
|
Location: WI | Gerard, I agree, and it was not just you, and it has been whispered about for a few weeks, And I know it may have been said in Jest, at least from you. It was a pleasure to meet you in our brief walk to the bathroom. You are someone I have a high amount of respect for, and I know many here share those thoughts, but we all know that sometimes things said as a joke, are not taken that way by everyone. But thats why I thought it needed to killed before it grew wings.
I would love to accept your invitation, and I hope the Good Doctor (Tom) will also.
I would also like to extend an invitation to you as well, it would be an honor if you would consider coming up and sharing a boat with us for a day next year.
Jay, I also forgot to thank you for all your hard work. Those in the know, are very much aware how much you have helped through this whole issue, and it does not go un noticed.
Steve, I realize this is a different age than what you, I and many others were raised in. And I realize this is the information age, but I would like to think people should realize there is a "choice", just ask Ryan and Fuse if they had the chioce today would they still share it with the world.
I also realize it is in your personal best interest to encourage the sharing and flow of information, that is a choice. And its great that there is a site like this and a few others where guys can come and learn.
I dont want it to seem like we do not help people out there. I have helped MANY get their start on Green Bay, and will continue to do so to the best of my ability. But there is a line I will not cross, but that is my "choice"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Shane do you have an e mail address? The one on the post didn't work.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | [email protected]
715-850-0573
Phone rings 24/7
I am a bit slow to get to some emails at times, I am buried right now but I will get to them all.
I also corrected the profile email
Edited by Shane Mason 12/31/2007 10:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shane,
Some folks would like to pretend that the word would not have spread by rumor alone; that in my opinion is water-over-the-dam 'wishful thinking'. And to then use the same media blamed for the problem to attempt to solve the problem I find a bit ironic, just an observation. It also seems ironic that some folks who use the 'net to promote Guiding, Tackle, or other businesses then decry it's use for other information exchange, especially when it's a fishing destination they would like to keep 'secret'.
I don't post every fish caught or locations either, of course that's a personal choice. I was observing that the fox was in the Green Bay hen house already and has been for a couple years. There was an excellent presentation at the recent Muskie Symposium by Kevin Kapuscinski we videotaped and posted quite a while ago.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_flash.asp?clip=482
Alot of work went into and is going into the effort to preserve the trophy fishery there by precious few folks; that's something I would like to throw MuskieFIRST's full support to. |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Steve, I guess we just had a bit of a misunderstanding, because I do agree with what much of what I think you are trying to say.
Yes I do guide.
No I do not guide the Bay, never have, most likely never will. I have friends that do guide the Bay, thats their choice and I will support my friends even if it means its not in my best interest. And also continue to share information with them. Even though its not in my best interest.
As far as promoting, I would like anyone to show me anywhere where I have ever promoted my guide service online. I have a different philosophy than most when it comes to promotion. Word of mouth, that is the best way to promote. If someone wants to fish with me, they will find me.
As far as promoting baits, the baits I promote are from friends of mine, but I will never promote something I dont 100% believe in, that would not be in friends best interest in the long run. I have been very successful in doing things my way so I dont see a need to change, and trust me even friends whos baits I promote have pictures of fish that I have caught on their baits that they have never put online. Not because I asked them not to, but they know why those dont see the light of day. But they also make good enough baits they dont need to put every pic caught on their baits. If I catch a fish on their baits I usually send the picture out of gratitude for building such an awesome bait. Roger has a picture of my heaviest inland freak slob caught on a nitro from an 8 fish "day of the giants" I had a few years back. All 8 caught on a nitro (thanks Roger)
I usually get the first or one of the first of all of Rogers prototypes, you guys havent seen anything yet. And he has some of the top guns in the musky world promoting his stuff. But I consider it an honor that he would select me as his field tester/tweaker. But I would like to think there is a reason for that other than the fact we are friends. Dude makes an awesome bait plain and simple. That is why I promote his stuff. As well as George from Beast Teaser, also one of the nicest guys I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I just wanted to get this out there, it may help give people a better understanding of me. And my personal motivations here I think this snippet of a post on Petes board regarding this issue say it best, sorry if some of this has been repeated.
"I dont guide on the bay. Never have. most likely never will. My time out there is for hanging out with my friends that I dont get a chance to spend much time with during the summer. I do guide, but only on inland waters and I dont ever see that changing. I could make more money if I did. Since I am down there anyway, but its not about the money, or even about the fishing. My favorite part of each day is usually back at the landing where we all stand around packing up and we all have a beer and tell our stories before heading out for the night. Its the one time of year many of my buddies are all in the same place at the same time.
I am in constant awe of how many great people I have met and that I am friends with because of a fish.
This is not what I would consider a "selfish" endeavor. I dont plan on having kids, my line stops at me. I have every reason to not voice my opinion. To go with the flow. Most of the effects of our actions this year wont be felt for a few years down the road. Why should I care?
I would say its mainly for all those great friends and their kids and grandkids. We have a chance to do it right for them.
I bring nothing to the table on this matter other than extensive knowledge on the Fox River and Green Bay from a fishermans viewpoint. And through the years I made a few mistakes that have contributed enough in getting the cat thrown under the bus. But I also have a chance to help make things right. So instead of sitting around doing nothing, because I can just as well do that too. However since I have a credible voice on the matter I have decided to use it. But its not for me."
Shane Mason
Edited by Shane Mason 12/31/2007 12:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was not referring to you personally, sorry if it seemed that way.
It's a general comment from several folks I see frequently, and it just flies in the face of reality, IMHO.
So what's the next step, and how can we help? |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Steve Worrall - 12/31/2007 12:41 PM
I was not referring to you personally, sorry if it seemed that way.
It's a general comment from several folks I see frequently, and it just flies in the face of reality, IMHO.
So what's the next step, and how can we help?
Thank you Steve. I know exactally what you are saying, now, lol!
And I echo your thoughts on that, but hey, you said it before, this is a different age and its just something we got to live with. The posers arent hard to spot and will usually end up exposing their hypocrisy's for what they are.
I know you by reputation only, I know we share many of the same friends, and I have always respected your "voice" even on the occasions I disagree with what is said.
I think that may be the most important thing to come out of this issue
We are starting to do less fighting amongst each other. As we have seen musky as a sport grow, and with its many growing pains that have been involved. But I really do see this as a turning point in Wisconsin as far as attitudes. I think the time is finally here where we can do some good, for the better of the sport. I have been floored on the amount of support this issue has received. and its just in its infancy imo.
What we can do when we put "all of our voices" together, put aside our personal differences for the betterment of our beloved sport. I think that time has finally arrived for Wisconsin, and we owe alot of it to this board as well as Petes.
One of my new favorite pictures is the one of Pete and Tilky, man snuggling
on the first page.
For those that dont know Tilky is part owner of Roberts Outdoors, (Joe Bucher stuff) and Pete " Mr Musky Maina. These two put their egos aside and filmed a show together this fall. I wish to see more of this in the future, guys putting aside their personal agendas and putting that energy towards the "greater good".
As far as where do we go from here, good question. I am new to this, so I would like to differ this to someone with a better "voice" in this regard.
Steve I know you are no stranger to taking on stuff like this, what are your thoughts? |
|
| |
|
| been wanting to get on here but my brother came up to snowmobile so i had to entertain guests since i arrived back from the meeting.
I was absolutely floored by the support we got on this. Excellent job by all.Especially the good dr. tom betka. i was very proud of how it went. the info put in my mind and the overall impression that we can do something and will if we work together. i also agree with shane , this is the tip of the iceburg of what we can accomplish if we put our minds and support together.
i had a phone call back in nov. from the dr. after being very mad about the proposal being shut down by the great lakes committee.the good dr. and i talked for about 45 min. he assured me he was working on some things to get somethinbg done. and boy did he.
again way to go my friend.
and all who helped with the meeting. lets now keep the ball rolling.
dannyboy
dannyboys guide service
musky crazy
laona,wi
715-674-2061
[email protected]
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| Hey guys, I have to say the meeting was very enjoyable(I may have enjoyed it a bit too much). It was great rallying the troops! I'm very happy to have had the opportunity to meet with everyone, Shane Mason, Pete Maina, Rick Lax, Tilky, Jeff Wallace, Jeremy VanErt, George Crum, Justin Gaiche, Jeremy Fusek, and everyone else(I'm missing many names) it was a pleasure to have a beer with you all.
At the meeting I attempted to address the point of educating new anglers, unfortunately I was just kinda thrown up there and was very unprepared(not to mention I may have had a couple too many beers in me, oops!). Education is going to be one of the biggest factors to the future of this fishery. If fish are improperly handled when they are 45 inches they will not make it to 50 inches or hopefully 54 inches. We have all seen the guys out there with the little green walleye nets, letting the fish bounce around the bottom of the boat for five minutes.
I would like to ask for everyones help in order to put together some signs to post at all of the Green Bay boat landings. I'm considering two separate signs, one about proper release methods and another about why we should release these fish. If any of you would like to give me some input on either sign please add your ideas here or email me at [email protected]. I will pay to put the signs up and contact the Brown County Parks Department to get them posted. Anyone who wants to donate money to these signs please contact me. Also I plan on putting together a presentation in the near future so I am a bit more prepared when it comes to speaking about catch and release methods.
Happy New Year Everyone!
Brett Jolly
www.wisconsinanglingadventures.com
[email protected]
Edited by BJolly 12/31/2007 8:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I badly wanted to get to the meeting but a funeral kept me away.
What is the status of 54" for the Bay? I authored Manitowoc County and have a more than passing interest in this getting on the CC ballot. Is there a plan of action to get this done?
I was not aware of the suggestion for a C&R moratorium. Is that the new focus over the 54"?
Are the videos posted or viewable yet?
Thanks
Rob Howe
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Rob,
The 54" resolution is basically dead, as far as the Conservation Congress goes--it was defeated in committee (Great Lakes Committee) back in September. So right now, all we can do is wait until February's meeting of the Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team, to see if they pick it up from the DNR side of things. If not, then we will have to go through the CC again this spring. But the other option (and it is an immediate option, at that) is to go straight to the NRB with an emergency resolution. That could obviously happen before the WMMT meeting in February, if that is what is decided, but there is no guarantee that it would be received favorably, of course.
I forwarded the PowerPoint presentation to Steve Worrall a couple days ago, and so he is working on getting the file converted and uploaded to the site. But I don't know what the status of the video is, to be honest.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2
| I sure hope they didn't raise the minimun length to 50". 99% of the fish will never reach that length. They will be dead of natural causes first. This 50" stuff is just for those who want to turn everything into a [...] contest. Now they want to do the same with musky fishing. You want to stop the catch of "too many" big fish....then stop the motor trolling.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Big Ones, that is an argument that doesn't stand up to the facts, including the fact the size limit on Green Bay is already 50". This proposal requests a 54" limit and a moratorium on any harvest until enough study on the Bay can be completed to indicate the actual overall health of the trophy Muskie fishery and it's potential.
Please watch the video from the recent Muskie Symposium:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_flash.asp?clip=482
This '50" stuff' is about protecting Wisconsin's (and Ontario's, and Minnesota's, and other trophy waters) fragile status as trophy Muskie destinations, and in light of the fact this water is probably subject to VHS infection and other threats VHS represents and in light of adjustments in the management strategies by our DNR (wider perspective including waters like Pelican Lake in Oneida County), perhaps the very future of a viable muskie population.
The insinuation that the attempted and successful conservation measures and actions are otherwise motivated indicates a lack of understanding, please study the details of the proposal and the History of the reintroduction of a solid muskie population in the Bay and read the documents out there about current and future muskie management plans in place in Wisconsin since about 1998.
No one is suggesting stopping the 'catching' of 'too many big fish', the idea is to curtail the HARVEST of too many big fish. There's precedent for management adjustments like this; witness Wabigoon and Lac Suel in Ontario. Both are now success stories in a big way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Isnt it the goal to catch big fish? I guess I've been fishing the wrong way for years now....wish I would have gotten the memo!
Without quality regulation, we cant have quality fish. Keep up the good work guys! Tom you know how to reach me, I have a lot of free time this month of January if you need me to help out with anything, dont hesitate to ask! |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Tom for carrying the torch and doing a great presentation by the sounds of it. Let me know if our FRV Chapter 39 club can help your club in any way.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| tcbetka - 1/1/2008 7:12 PM
The 54" resolution is basically dead........ But the other option (and it is an immediate option, at that) is to go straight to the NRB with an emergency resolution. That could obviously happen before the WMMT meeting in February, if that is what is decided, but there is no guarantee that it would be received favorably, of course.
TB
So, I guess I'm missing what the next step actually IS. The 54" resolution sure looked promising but it imploded....and now this NRB thing, which Tom makes sound like it could be a long shot.
Tom, Jay, Titletown et al, and others involved with Saturday's meeting.......kudos to you. Getting the ball rolling is the first step. I wasn't able to attend the meeting, but after speaking with a couple folks who did, I guess I was expecting to hear some sort of a 1, 2, 3....-step plan to come from it, like I asked Tom about on an earlier thread. Maybe its there and I am not reading between the lines for it. If so, please forgive.
I guess my question is: what IS the plan and how do I (we) each roll up our sleeves and do our part? I'm eager to help, I'm just not sure how/where to direct a message.
What's next and where do we stand now?
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2
| Like I said 99% of those muskies will be dead of natural causes before they reach 50 inches, and they want to raise the size limit to 54".....it is BS. Just a bunch of guys who could not make the H.S sports team and want to turn fishing into a competition.
Then this nonsense about protecting the resource....pure rubbish. How are you protecting anything? Please explain the reproductive difference between a 50" muskie and a 54" muskie. You want to protect the resource then make motor trolling for muskie illegal. Then a guy will have to work for his fish, but you will never see it happen . Guys don't want to get all the gear to fish musky and then they can only keep a 54" fish.
You price the average Joe out of even trying to fish musky. You guys are as bad as those TQM deer hunting guys....let it go so it can grow nonsense........it will be dead before it is trophy size.
Not to mention 50" is the fish of a lifetime to 99,9% of the guys on the water.  |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Bob Smith?
thats the best you could come up with?
I will not dignify that post with a response, if you are not man enough to at least include your REAL name in your post. If you insist on remaining anonymous, feel free to use contact me using email or phone number I provided a few posts back and we can talk. |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Nah, screw it, I'll bite.
And again with the deer argument, how many 25 year old deer do we see running around. If you are going to compare something, you might want to use something remotely relative.
And again with the trolling, well it wouldnt hurt me that much if trolling were eliminated or even restricted. On a personal level, I would like to see a line restriction per boat at least. For safety reasons more than anything else.
In fact I find every sentence in your post complete nonsense. And I am sure you will get enough responses pointing that out. When someone like you jumps in with a doozie like that, I think you only help the cause.
And the attacks on this as a sport, I realize I might have put on a couple since H.S. but I was a 3 sport athlete all my life. My sports career was cut short by a stray bullet to the leg. And I would consider many of the guys I fish with much better athletes than me. And have been fortunate enough to have fished with a few professional athletes, and they have asked "how do we do this all day everyday?" when they are taking 15 minute breaks every 2 hours.
What else you got? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Eric,
IF we elect to proceed in this fashion, the plan would be something like this:
1) Request an emergency moratorium this month.
2) Await the results of the WMMT meeting in February.
3) Reapproach the CC with another size limit increase resolution in April, if nothing has been resolved by that time.
The goal here would be to at least get some sort of a resolution to the level of the NRB, because it didn't make it that far last time--largely because there were questions asked by the GLC that were not adequately addressed at their committee meeting in September. I have spoken to some of the GLC members over the past month and can assure you that they now know the answers to the questions and concerns they expressed 3 months ago. And as such, I strongly believe that the outcome of another GLC meeting would be quite different and (at the very least) this matter would be forwarded to the Natural Resources Board.
But I have to caution everyone that just because a resolution gets proposed in several counties within the state, and then gets voted through to the CC...doesn't mean that it automatically makes it to the level of the NRB. The matter MUST have merit to make it out of the CC committee and get forwarded to the state level. Now I certainly believe that this matter has merit, and hopefully when my presentation is published here most folks will feel the same (if they don't already). But the fact remains that the various CC committees get bombarded with so many resolutions and CC business, that they really need to hear their concerns addressed when they vote on an issue. And at last September's meeting of the GLC there were concerns expressed by the DNR liason, but they were not answered to the satisfaction of the GLC members--and thus the matter failed.
Believe me when I say that I have spoken AT LENGTH to a couple of the members, and two of them attended the meeting this past weekend. Both of them have told me that my presentation has helped to shed light on this issue. So you'll have to trust me when I tell you that I understand what went wrong before, and I believe I know how to correct it--and in fact I feel that we are well on our way to getting it corrected. But this is a process, and it takes time. Thus we have to keep doing our homework, crossing the T's & dotting our I's, and keep the faith.
But whatever way the wind blows here, we *must* ramp up our efforts to educate anglers on the value of C&R, and we must also establish a system whereby we can support the on-going process of data collection within the system. A moratorium or an increased size limit is not the magic bullet here--these things are only a start. We need to be working with the local DNR Fisheries personnel in any way possible--whether this means volunteering for creel survey duties, furnishing boats & manpower for on-the-water work when asked, or undertaking fund-raising activities to support research activities (such as I discuss in the presentation) to benefit the long-term health of the fishery. We need to prove to them that this isn't just about getting a larger size limit put in place--it's about the overall long-term health of the musky fishery. And that depends upon many things...not just a further-limited harvest.
But it can happen, and it will happen...if we simply stay focused and keep at it. It's not an "Us vs. the DNR" type of a thing, and we cannot make it about that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/2/2008 7:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Big Ones - 1/2/2008 1:54 AM
Like I said 99% of those muskies will be dead of natural causes before they reach 50 inches, (
I'd like to know what study was done to determine this? It just sounds to me like you are pulling these numbers out of thin air. I may understand that 1/2 the population might not reach 50 (meaning the males), but I think a few may. Most of the females should reach the 50 inch mark if not harvested prior to reaching that.
So Big Ones please cite where you got this information for me please. If you are indeed correct then I am against the 54" size rule as well. If you can't, then I suggest you change your handle to Fast Ones.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Thanks, Tom. Please keep us all posted and let everyone know what we can do, where to be and how we can help.
Maybe MIst and/or Titletown can get some sort of a link or an anchored post going with contact names, numbers and what "our" message is and the proper PR angle to take...the right words/phrases to use, etc. I think getting the message out and letting our voices be heard is of the utmost importance....but 1000 messengers with different messages being delivered maybe isn't the best????
I know names and numbers have been posted about a few things, but the post itself tends to get buried in the thread....and then eventually the thread gets buried, making that info hard to dig up again. My dad worked about 30' from Kevin Kapuscinski (sp?) before Kevin left. Dad has since retired, but I know several of the folks in that office and I guess I can start with some conversations there.
On a different note.....will somebody please nuke "big ones?" He/She is just going to get us all bickering amongst ourselves and have everyone venting on off-topic items. This is a person just trying to stir the pot, or they'd have started a new thread.
Thanks,
Eric Young
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Eric,
A few people have emailed about seeing a copy of the presentation, but I know that Steve was having a bit of trouble getting it uploaded in the correct form. So I burned a copy to PDF and posted it here:
EDIT: LINK REMOVED--SEE BELOW
...until Steve can get it uploaded to this site. Please have a look at it, and advise me whether or not the font looks OK on your screen. The font I chose worked well for the live presentation, but it may need to be changed again for an internet presentation. This can be easily done if need be. So have a look and post back here if you would.
Thanks!
TB
EDIT: I should warn you in advance that it's just over 3MB in size--so be careful if you have a dial-up modem. But I just verified the link and it does work...it simply takes a bit of time to download it.
Edited by tcbetka 1/2/2008 5:34 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's keep in mind folks like Big Ones may actually not understand muskie management in even a rudimentary form, and allow a voice (within reason) to those who might disagree. Big Ones needs to pay a little more attention to the word 'reason', but let's answer concerns and questions with facts and data.
Tom, we hope to have the article up today, Zach is very busy. it's on the list, sir.
Big Ones:
1) You are addressing a very large core group of Muskie anglers when you post here. First and foremost, we have strict posting permissions. No more rude rhetoric, please.
2) '99% of the muskies won't reach 50"' is a pretty broad statement. If that were true in a strict sense, no one would be catching ANY fish 50" or larger. Study what happens to a year class from inception to 15 years of age and what numbers are left, and perhaps you will get a clearer picture of what these folks are trying to do.
3) If a 50" or 54" limit ' prices most anglers out of fishing Muskie, why is it the resorts and campgrounds on the Trophy lakes of Ontario are packed with Muskie anglers, and many of those from Wisconsin? In actual fact, data shows that when a 50" limit or more is placed on a body of water, muskie fishermen pay MORE attention to that water, not less. Ontario set the bar in managing muskie waters with true trophy potential as they do, this proposal asks that our WIDNR and the anglers and sportsmen and women in this State look at the huge overall success Ontario has had with the 54" regulations.
3) Unfriendly comments will not work here. High School sports has nothing to do with the debate. Offer facts and data to argue your point; rude and immaterial commentary like that will get you nowhere. This is not a QDM Deer Management issue either; you cannot compare the two in even an oblique manner.
4) Trolling for many species of fish on the Great Lakes is a tradition that the Sportsmen and Women in this state value deeply. It isn't at all likely or remotely reasonable to expect that trolling would be banned. I think you offer that argument because you have no other, show me I am incorrect.
5) 50" might be a fish of a lifetime for many anglers, but in the world of Muskie angling, many feel that considering the low density of muskies present, and the even lower density of large muskies, that quality fish can and should be released so ANOTHER angler can CPR her. A Reproduction can be created of that fish and hung on the wall, so the memory and bragging rights are intact. You can't seriously encourage anyone eat a Muskie that old out of that water, the negative impact on one's health alone would dissuade most from even thinking about it.
6) Did you watch that video I asked you to take a look at?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No problem Steve... I will take that link out as soon as it's on this site, as it's better hosted here anyway. We appreciate all that you (and MF) have done to help in this matter.
By the way--please have a look at the copy I posted and let me know if you think the font should be changed. I could do that today and email you a new copy of the presentation, so Zac would only have to post it once.
Thanks!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/2/2008 8:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Big Ones - 1/2/2008 1:54 AM
Like I said 99% of those muskies will be dead of natural causes before they reach 50 inches, and they want to raise the size limit to 54".....it is BS. Just a bunch of guys who could not make the H.S sports team and want to turn fishing into a competition.
Then this nonsense about protecting the resource....pure rubbish. How are you protecting anything? Please explain the reproductive difference between a 50" muskie and a 54" muskie. You want to protect the resource then make motor trolling for muskie illegal. Then a guy will have to work for his fish, but you will never see it happen . Guys don't want to get all the gear to fish musky and then they can only keep a 54" fish.
You price the average Joe out of even trying to fish musky. You guys are as bad as those TQM deer hunting guys....let it go so it can grow nonsense........it will be dead before it is trophy size.
Not to mention 50" is the fish of a lifetime to 99,9% of the guys on the water. :(
You just illustrated perfectly why a 54" size limit would help protect the fishery, do you realize that? If it's really only 1% that survive to 50", doesn't it make sense to protect those fish from harvest? You are right, a 50" fish is a fish of a lifetime to most anglers. All the more reason why you should release it, don't you think? So someone ELSE can catch a fish of a lifetime, too?
And this:
"Guys don't want to get all the gear to fish musky and then they can only keep a 54" fish. "
That's why nobody ever fishes for muskies on those lakes that have high size limits, right? Like Eagle Lake for example, nobody wants to fish it now because they have a 54" size limit?
If that's really true, than why is there ANY support for this proposal? |
|
| |
|
| Why is the DNR not stocking because of VHS when they have their own brood stock? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, the PDF of the entire presentation is up and archived on the OutdoorsFIRST Server. Look here for the complete document:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/01.02.2008/1277/Green.Bay....
Guest,
I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Guest - 1/2/2008 1:09 PM
Why is the DNR not stocking because of VHS when they have their own brood stock?
Currently the WDNR only has Fox River/Green Bay muskies as brood stock and that area has been found to have VHS earlier this year. The WDNR does not want to take a chance of contaminating any of the hatcheries with VHS. If that happens the hatchery will not be able to be use until it is disinfected and that could take two years to get it all and have it deemed safe.
Long Lake is not longer a brood stock lake as there are very few if any left in there.
Edited by muskie! nut 1/2/2008 4:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Steve and Zach... It looks great!
I removed the link to the copy I posted. And on behalf of the GBMC, thanks again to MuskieFIRST for all the support in the recent weeks!
TB
Wow...the hypertext link even works. Zach is a magician!
Edited by tcbetka 1/2/2008 6:06 PM
|
|
| |
