|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Just wait.
The inevitable decline in the MN trophy fishery has already begun due to what is referred to as 'new reservoir' syndrome, intense fishing pressure/angling related mortality, and trophy harvest by the folks who might not share our self righteous beliefs. The reasons that will occur were discussed in great detail over the last few years in the Research Forum... and that was before the Muskie zone DNRs went near bust due to the recession. Only hope is to protect those waters with a size limit that basically forces C&R and restock them when needed so missing year classes are a not problem if NR drops off because of habitat degradation or just a bad year.
Many waters in WI are intentionally managed as action/no NR waters and if the interest in fishing them drops enough, the stocking will stop entirely, the fish will die off, and a muskie lake goes 'poof'.
With almost no pressure at all, many of these waters won't grow what you consider big muskies...ever.
I'll miss those little sterile stocked gems, where 5 to 10 fish evenings were not unheard of. I actually enjoy fishing those action waters catching multiple fish during the trip while trying to catch the biggest muskie there...probably no bigger than mid 40" class and one out of a hundred or more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| jonnysled - 2/21/2012 6:42 PM
if i were from Illinois i'd make my plans to fish Detroit Lakes, Bemidji and St. Clair (all of those lakes kick out 50's easily) ... no way would i waste my time in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a size problem.
I wouldn't call it a problem, as the word "problem" indicates that it is something that can be fixed. You can't fix water chemistry. You can't fix lack of a suitable forage base. You can't fix a lake ecosystem that will not support even a low-density population of trophy muskies. Not ALL the lakes are like that, but a great many of them are, and will never produce 50" muskies on a regular basis no matter what sort of management strategies you implement. You could outlaw fishing all together on some of the muskie lakes in Vilas County, and 20 years down the road, you'll still be lucky to see a 45" fish there.
|
|
| |
|
| You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Guest - 2/21/2012 7:27 PM
You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please.
Finally, some one who hit it out of the Park ,....Oh you fibs can come here any time you want,.........Lol. Wis. that is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Odd sense of humor, there. Not surprising. Muskie fishermen..... |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Shawn/MuskieTreats....some people that fish in MN a lot might argue this list of lakes doesn't exactly kick out 50s on a "regular basis":
Beers in Maplewood State Park
Little Wolf
Big
Lobster
Mantrap
Shaminau
Alexander
heck maybe even Cass in the mix
I don't think the fact we on average have smaller fish or less "big" fish, say fish over 48 on most lakes is from sucker fishing...or single hook rigs... quite simply some of our lakes will never kick out the numbers of 50s your lakes do no matter the size limit... sucker fishing when done correctly with quick strikes imo doesn't hurt a lake...now of course the key thing there is you don't have a bunch of newbies out there that have no clue what they are doing only to wait too long etc / poor handling practices etc...
WI will never kick out the 50s MN does imo no matter what is done w the size limit in the state...going to 40 will help, going to higher size limits on certain bodies of water helps even more.... some lakes just simply are never going to kick out 50s ...
having spent lots of hours in both MN and WI over the last 10 yrs I've been able to see and experience a lot of things .... I don't care who you are, Musky Magician or not you are simply going to spend 5 to 10 times (or more) the hours in WI to catch fish over 50"...(inland waters only)
are there big fish in WI...sure are...but it will take you a ton more time to put them in the net over the course of a season ...thats a simple fact. fun to fish both tho, they are just different..
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Top H2O - 2/21/2012 8:37 PM
Guest - 2/21/2012 7:27 PM
You guys are right on. No big fish in WI. Don't bother coming, please.
Finally, some one who hit it out of the Park ,....Oh you fibs can come here any time you want,.........Lol. Wis. that is.
Funny how you guys complain so much, when a lot of you would go bankrupt without the money we spend up there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| I have to agree with Worral and Nelson on this...some lakes simply will not be trophy lakes due to bio-mass and water conditions no matter what the harvest rate.
Size limits can and obviously do work...but they are not a "cure all".
I fish Wisconsin and Minnesota and I fish them both for different reasons. There is much more to muskie fishing than just catching 50" fish (and let's just say I have caught my fair share). Sure we all want to catch big fish or we probably wouldn't be muskie fishermen, but you can't ignore the fact that there is much more to the experience most of the time when you go muskie fishing than just catching a 50"er.
Some of the prettiest muskies I have ever seen have come out of WI waters and I find these fish highly desireable regardless of the size.
To each their own...but I guess I don't neccesarily think WI waters are "broken".
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I also agree with Nelson. Also the strains of muskies are TOTALLY different. Leech Lake muskys grow big and fast in a hurry, they hit 50" at less then 15 years. Some of our Wisconsin strains will take 20 to 30 years to hit 50" and that is if there are in the right bodies of water. 40" is a huge step for WI and I commend the efforts of all the musky clubs and all the folks that actually went out to the conservation congress hearings to vote this in!! Hopefully in the future we can get a few more of the right lakes that can produce big fish a higher size limit.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | how fitting...recieved an email a few minutes ago with pictures of an Indian who speared muskies on Lac Courte Oreilles in WI that was posting (bragging) about the 15 muskies he's speared in the last week or 2 on Facebook, two at 40 lbs and one at 38 with a mix of others...ouch. here is one of them
well within his rights I believe .??...yet another reason why WI doesn't have the big fish MN does
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 10:58 AM
Attachments
----------------
 big fish.jpg (115KB - 3365 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | What a shame |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good fish. Congrats to him. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| This is an interesting observation that I will throw out there. Some of the biggest muskies I have seen by weight (live and pics) have been WI strain fish from Mille Lacs. I personally believe this strain grows significantly heavier than ther faster growing Minnesota Mississippi strain and I would like to see that strain introduced into Mille Lacs again in the future even thought that will probably never happen due to VHS.
MN might grow em long...but WI knows how to grow em fat!!
Brett Waldera
Edited by Brett Waldera 2/22/2012 11:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Bnelson -
One of the reasons I am on this website is so I can better understand things like this. I am decently new to the muskie world. Have been in it for about 3 years now. I still have quite a lot to learn about the whole process. Your right I have no idea about the WI size limits as I do not live there and don't pay as much attention as I do for my own state, however that does not mean that i am not extremely interested. Every day i become more and more obsessed with the sport and would like to get as much information packed into my brain as possible. I talk to a couple guys who do a lot of WI fishing for Skis. I thought the 40" limit was installed last year and took part last year. Maybe if your willing you would be able to shed a little light on this for me, nothing long and drawn out, but I would like to further understand the process.
Thanks! hope to hear soon
|
|
| |
|
| Lac Courte Oreilles really puts out some monsters. That one looks bigger than the one Cal Johnson pulled out of there back in 1949. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | I think the reason for the 40" limit is so the females have at least one spawn before they can be harvested. |
|
| |
|
|
Brad I think your pic actually proves WI does have the big fish, but I know what you mean.
Comparing MN and WI is the old cliche, apples to oranges in many respects.
Different lake types, different genetics, different angling communities and philosophies.
One will never be the other, and I think that is a good thing.
JS |
|
| |
|
| "MN might grow em long...but WI knows how to grow em fat!!"
Lac Courte Oreilles does both. Just visit the Moccasin Bar if you're ever in the Hayward area and see for yourself.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe muskies mature around 5 years old and 35" or so, and spawn successfully from that point forward. The idea of the 40" limit is to make sure a decent number of fish make it to 40" before harvesting takes place. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 2/22/2012 9:57 AM
Funny how you guys complain so much, when a lot of you would go bankrupt without the money we spend up there.
i love that one ...
lol |
|
| |
|
| What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| MuskyBudda - 2/22/2012 6:21 PM
What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents.
I wonder if making people buy a muskie stamp would actually encourage harvest. "I paid $20 for this stamp, I caught a muskie, and now I am going to keep it!"... It's like the salmon/trout stamp. There is nothing that says you can't fish for them, or catch them. The stamp just allows you to kill them and eat them.
My initial reaction is that it's just going to be an additional expense for muskie anglers, most of whom release all their fish anyway, and a good excuse for everyone else to harvest fish because they paid extra for the priveledge of doing so.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Bnelson - of the MN lakes you listed, there are many more 50's being caught than 50's being "reported" caught on those waters. There are some real gems on your list but I'm not going to say which ones.
I do support the increase to 40in in WI and likewise the lake specific ones that are even longer than 40. I wish the best of luck to all the WI anglers and hope they enjoy catching those fish. I enjoy the lake experience as much as the next person and fishing is not all about the catching for sure.
Steve - I likewise enjoy the pursuit of trying to catch the biggest fish in the lakes I get to enjoy, just so happens that those fish may be 57 to approaching 60in vs maybe mid 40's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
Location: Mpls., MN. | This is why Mn. is doing better with muskies then Wis. Newer open minded sport fishing (CPR) to old way of harvesting a fish with no sport in mind. If you kill something it can not reproduce naturally. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's a crock. The release rate here is in the 90's percentage wise now and has been for nearly as long as MN has had trophy muskies widely available.
Thrax,
Your waters are completely different than ours here.
You are fishing a body of water my business partner Zach worked on before there were any muskies there at all. Pretty new fishery that fortunately for the folks who live on it or fish it regularly, is HUGE by comparison to anything over here, and yet definitely one that's being effected by the pressure.
We have hundreds of Muskie lakes over here, but still have WAY fewer inland lake surface muskie water acres by a large margin than MN.
Many of our muskie waters have never seen NR, and are muskie lakes only because of stocking. Those lakes will never grow a trophy for the reasons I and others who know these waters stated above. Sure, we have some good water around here, and some of us have been working hard over the years to get them protected because they are very small, and as is the fact over here, are very low density Muskie waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | esoxaddict - 2/22/2012 6:28 PM MuskyBudda - 2/22/2012 6:21 PM What about a musky stamp? This would keep the average panfish, walleye, bass angler from keeping them without the purchase of that stamp. Whats another 15-20 dollars to the thousands we allready spend? The stamp could also help with stocking efforts. Thats if the DNR didnt use it for making new paved bike trails though the Northwoods. Just my two cents. I wonder if making people buy a muskie stamp would actually encourage harvest. "I paid $20 for this stamp, I caught a muskie, and now I am going to keep it!"... It's like the salmon/trout stamp. There is nothing that says you can't fish for them, or catch them. The stamp just allows you to kill them and eat them. My initial reaction is that it's just going to be an additional expense for muskie anglers, most of whom release all their fish anyway, and a good excuse for everyone else to harvest fish because they paid extra for the priveledge of doing so. It's funny you mention this because the exact same thing came to mind when Scott Kieper mentioned this in his seminar at the Milwaukee Musky Show. He briefly touched on this and I can't say for sure why the DNR wouldn't entertain this idea.
I would certainly do whatever it is that I can do to help (within reason) to assist with obtain viable size limits and helping the fish population, genetics, etc, etc... I think the musky stamp idea could prove to be a great process. Or I suppose as mentioned above, it could backfire. I would hope if you're coughing up the cash to buy a stamp specifically to target musky, you're not going go out of your way to keep the fish if caught by the angler. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | lpmusky - 2/22/2012 6:42 PM
This is why Mn. is doing better with muskies then Wis. Newer open minded sport fishing (CPR) to old way of harvesting a fish with no sport in mind. If you kill something it can not reproduce naturally.
ummm ....
and, i'd like to argue that this is well within the posting limits. it's not a bash or personal attack, it's merely the re-statement of what he's already claiming.
|
|
| |
|
| I think it would be interesting to see of all who have posted on this thread...who were muskie fishing MN in the 80's. It was a whole different world back then...and I see so many new muskie fishermen on these forums bragging about MN who really have no clue how far the state has come in 25 years.
MN is a phenomenal fishery thanks to the hard work of the MNDNR, Muskie Inc, and many muskie enthusists...but lets not forget it wasn't always this way.
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Come on Sled...might be a fact within the context of the debate, but still can't say it here. Don't need the catfight that would inevitably ensue.
Brett has a good point which I will expand upon a bit...self righteousness is a little easier when you and the waters you fish are literally born into the CRR generation. I remember this picture of Muskies caught on Leech I saw once, though...thank goodness for MI.
I remember clearly when a 45" fish on Mille Lacs was a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | For me i fish muskies for the fun not food so for me musky should be a catch and release only fish. my biggest fish is a 50x26 took a pic let it go and and went back to fishing looking for a bigger one here in minnesota the only time ive heard of any one keeping a musky is when it did not make it for one reason or another. let them go so they can grow. |
|
| |
