|
|
|
So if I'm understanding this, lakes are stocked where muskies only obtain small sizes, and the feeling is that they are "put" and take fisheries due to low or no natural recruitment?
Why stock them at all? Can't people catch and kill pike to eat?
Isn't muskie stocking a little on the expensive side to be using them for put and take purposes?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Does anyone know when the spring hearing results will be available? I believe today that results should be known. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | The site currently says the results will be available this afternoon.
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
So if I'm understanding this, lakes are stocked where muskies only obtain small sizes, and the feeling is that they are "put" and take fisheries due to low or no natural recruitment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, some lakes that are stocked to maintain populations don't kick out what you would consider large fish. That doesn't mean that the population of muskies in that water is not valued locally and by tourists. Those waters are known as numbers lakes. Many lakes in SE Wisconsin are stocked or there would be no muskie population, and kick out big fish...those lakes are in need of a 50" limit, IMO.
------------
Why stock them at all? Can't people catch and kill pike to eat?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, and many do. I can think of several lakes around here stocked occasionally with muskies that have an insignificant pike population where I've seen very few fish over low 40's. And, the general practice is C&R, as well into the upper 90 percentile of muskies are released now. Not everyone demands 55" muskies to enjoy the sport.
------
Isn't muskie stocking a little on the expensive side to be using them for put and take purposes? '
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goes back to value, I'd guess. Not all WI lakes are managed as trophy fisheries. Some used to have NR but no longer do because of habitat loss, yet are still destinations for plenty of interested muskie anglers. The expense depends on how well sucker stripping and raising goes to a large degree, last year Keith and the rest of that team statewide knocked it out of the park on a couple lakes and the hatchery in western WI avoided a possible shut down.
WI is in the ending stages of a more than decade long study that will determine what waters get maintenance stocking, which get none at all, etc. My favorite lake in Oneida hasn't been stocked in 10 years, and has a 50" limit. Numbers have dropped off ALOT, and quality has gone up steadily. I have been told that If the numbers from NR don't hold up, the lake will be stocked in the future no matter. Dr. Sloss's work has shown that the native populations are somewhat unaffected anyway....in some cases it appears stocking creates a two story population.
If WI adapts a 'one size fits all' management program with a few lakes added to the list of 45" to 50" trophy waters we have now, I'd bet some of the 'numbers lakes' won't be stocked any more, and we will lose some opportunities.
One of the top muskie managers in the US has suggested a slot on the waters that do not support any sort of 'trophy' fishery. That idea has been rejected, as far as I know, which is unfortunate. I'd like to see it in place on a few lakes up here at least for study purposes.
Look up Escanaba Lake, it's a study lake up here. Interesting stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
I guess was refering to the lakes where a 28" size limit is being proposed.
While not everyone needs/wants to catch big fish, when you consider the resources the DNR has in any state is limited, and that WI has hundreds of muskie lakes, it would seem dollars could be put to better use than funding lakes where fish only get to 36".
I guess I would question the economics of those action lakes being a big tourism draw. It would seem to me that much more money is being spent by anglers who travel the mid-west looking for trophy opportunities for muskie/walleye/pike than locals who could catch other fish to eat than muskies.
But I'm not a local and maybe don't see the whole picture.
'
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Why involve biology at all? The program is largely about providing a fishery managed for anglers so lets look at it from the perspective of maximizing the program's effectiveness.
What is wrong with a business case for a 40" limit? There is a demand for Muskie fisheries. These fish are expensive to stock. They take a long time to grow. People like larger fish and 40" to many is "large". Protecting them protects the investment and provides more opportunities to realize the desired outcome for the consumer. The more the fish are caught and returned, the return on the stocking investment increases. In NR lakes, keeping what is already happening in place preserves the balance and avoids additional costs to maintain.
Letting little Johnny keep a 35" might be great for little Johnny but in the big picture is a lower return on the investment while the cost to the state to run the program isn't getting cheaper while funding is tighter.
Jono
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 393
Location: Hopefully on the water | As far as the "Little Johnny" comments on keeping a fish. it all comes down to the parents teaching their kids about our resources. Yes I take my kids out fishing and there are days that they want to keep every panfish they catch. But we don't and why. I tell my kids that if we let some fish go and only keep what we will eat (and they love to eat fish) there will be fish to catch again another day for us or someone else to have fun reeling those fish in. My kids already at 6 & 8 understand that dad will never nor will they keep a Muskie. If it hits certain sizes for our standards there will be replicas of those fish. As for other species they know also that the small ones will get let go and some of the big females to make more baby fish. Teaching is what it comes down to as to what to keep, what to release and why we do it both ways IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| Thanks for the update, hopefully we will hear some good news later today (although I don't believe this vote by itself guarantees the regs are changed).
Some more great points and discussion. Teaching/educating is key. My daughter caught a 41" fish last year at the age of 9. The thought never even crossed her mind about keeping the fish, but she couldn't wait to ask about getting a replica mount (I think she asked while the fish was still in the net). Joe Fittante did an awesome job with the replica and even had it delivered on Christmas Eve. My daughter couldn't have been happier on Christmas, and she is just as proud of the fact that she let it go as she is about catching it in the first place. The pictures and memories alone are priceless.
I like the economics discussion as well, as ultimately we do get more for our money with a higher size limit.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Why involve biology at all? '
The original question taking us down this path was why biologists don't openly support our desired limits at the CC meetings.
If there was or is something structurally wrong with a statewide 40" limit with minor exceptions, the DNR will let us know what they intend to do once they've seen the results of the CC vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Flambeuski - I know the very people you were referring to and I am friends with some of them and we've been butting heads on Solberg Lake for years regarding muskies. I originally came from Vilas County and married into a Solberg Lake family. I was shocked that the people on Solberg had feelings about muskies that was the exact opposite of what I was customed to in Vilas County. In Vilas muskies were considered the king of fish but on Solberg the muskies were thought of by many as trash fish that should be destroyed. As a result of a Lake Visioning session the Lake Association and DNR wanted to keep Solberg as a 34" lake, they didn"t want to raise it to 40" so the only other option was to include it as a 28" lake. The DNR said someone can try to change it back to 34" next year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Results are up!! Quick set and 40 inch passed!!
All results: http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/201...
Buddy, I hope they shoot for 40 inches next year!! 28 inches on Solberg is a joke!
Edited by KenK 4/13/2011 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1142
Location: NorthCentral WI | Quick Set Rigs passed in all counties. 8 counties rejected the 40" proposal.
With that, can we expect to see the 40" min go through? Does it really depend on what these 8 counties are and what they have to say? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I believe the overwelming statewide majority rules on this since it is a statewide resolution. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| That is great news on the 40" minimum size limit passing! It passed by more than a 2 to 1 margin (3,221 Yes / 1,485 No) so I would sure hope it becomes the new statewide regulation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | imo single hook "kill rigs" being outlawed will have a greater positive effect than the 40" size limit..don't get me wrong, both are great ...but it will be a nice sight to see all the single hook rigs banned and no longer being sold in the stores...great news for muskies in WI...
nice to see all the 50" size limits passing as well!!
I like the fact one of the most lopsided vote was for shooting a cougar who is harming a domestic animal....why not add wolves in too! 
Edited by BNelson 4/13/2011 2:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Buddy, I don't think 34" will be an option if statewide it changes to 40 (which I hope it does before the 2011 muskie season) I think it's going to have to be 40" or higher. My understanding is if and when 40" is approved no lakes anywhere will have 34" size limits. I personally would love to see Solberg at 45" but as you can see by the county by county vote, Price voters don't even want the 40" size limit, by a fairly wide margin. Just like last year, when I showed up I looked for any of the 25-30 guys I know who live and breath muskie fishing and are residents here and saw 2. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ditto |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8795
| Good to see a lot of the regulations passed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 196
| BNelson - 4/13/2011 1:49 PM imo single hook "kill rigs" being outlawed will have a greater positive effect than the 40" size limit..don't get me wrong, both are great ...but it will be a nice sight to see all the single hook rigs banned and no longer being sold in the stores...great news for muskies in WI... nice to see all the 50" size limits passing as well!! I like the fact one of the most lopsided vote was for shooting a cougar who is harming a domestic animal.... why not add wolves in too! isn't the first step to delist it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8795
| That's what they've done with the wolves. Makes me wonder how many "nuisance" animals will now be shot. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seems like things are changing for the better in WI.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | It's really cool you guys in Wisconsin get a say in fishing and hunting regulations. I wish Iowa had a similar system. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah, it's great that a whoppuing 2500-3000 wisconsin outdoorsman and women partake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 5574 attended the meetings, actually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | sworrall - 4/13/2011 3:27 PM Seems like things are changing for the better in WI. Amen! This is fantastic news, you guys! |
|
| |
|
| 5500 votere out of 1 million license holders! WOW! |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | At least you have the OPTION to vote. Not many of us get that option. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 9:54 AM 5500 votere out of 1 million license holders! WOW!
At least those ~5500 of us that voted care enough to vote and are also afforded the opportunity to do so. It's free will for people to choose to vote or not. Like Brad said in his opening statement to those that make the conscious choice to not vote, they need to keep their pie hole closed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32901
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And it's also an indication of how easy the vote would be to win if there was a concentrated 'get out and vote' effort extended. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Amen to that......perhaps as we see good results from the efforts, more effort will be made.......nicely done guys.....
I also know several of us made it up to vote from the flatlands of Ill.........we hope it helped........as I think we are all in this together.
JR |
|
| |
