|
|
Posts: 152
| I forget...which state holds the world record? and the most NFL championships?!!? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I think the 1 rod per angler is the way to go----Mn has a great musky fishery and it may very well be in part due to this rule... I wouldn't change it--and when I go to MN fishing I have no problem with it--I am mostly a caster so it really doesn't affect me----and I think everyone can live with it--- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| Just to be straight on this, it was not my opinion (nor the others I'd guess) that this one particular restriction was responsible for Minnesota's success with its musky fishery. On the contrary, I believe the size restrictions mean a whole lot more and I was truly happy to see my state go from 34" to 40" this year in what I think will prove to be a boon for bigger Wisconsin fish. It's the whole package of a lot of separate good ideas that has produced a good fishery. They just deserve some credit there and I am happy to give it. Now, with respect to the Green Bay fishery: (1) That's the one place where meaningful size restriction was introduced early on, (2) This really is "Great Lakes" water, and I (IMHO) don't really consider it "Wisconsin" water really....and (3) This fishery is likely to benefit from the lower pressure due to the natural resistance of the IL and MN folks feeling uncomfortable in this particular town---not saying why  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| happy hooker - 10/30/2012 6:48 PM
if we were allowed to use 2 lines here in Minn I would have two out,,,casting for muskies and one with a slip bobber and leech for walleye and I would keep the walleye,,,wouldnt increase pressure on muskies but it would increase harvest on wallleyes ,,,how many walleye guys would do the reverse on Mile Lacs,Vermilion,leech etc,,,have a walleye rod and a sucker on the other one,,,or two rods helps you get your walleye limit faster,now lets go fish muskies for the rest of the day
Seriously? I'm as big a walleye angler as muskie, and in the 25+ years I've been chasing muskies, I have never once had a extra line out for a walleye. Or the opposite. I've never had a sucker out while walleye fishing, hoping to catch a muskie.
The closest I ever came was prefishing a walleye tourney, and saw a big swirl near some cane beds I was pitching to. I picked up a rod that had a big jig and a plastic worm, and casted out toward it. I causght a 42" muskie. Only used one rod at a time there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| So just to make sure I understand the argument against 2 lines, it's because one feels that there will be more dead muskies from a second line? That doesn't seem to make any sense. I sure hope there is an argument that has a better foot hold than that. A second line would not kill muskies like catching one in 75+ degree water, but that doesn't seem to stop anglers from pursuing muskies, so why the nonesesnse argument against a second line that proves nothing more but more success? Also, I feel the fight would not last as long, seeing that the sucker is right at boat side, so the fight should be shorter than at the end of a cast. I do argee with multiple posts about Wisconsin's fisherie and how reaising the legal minimum will have a bigger impact than two lines. If Minnesota would start to allow two rods and then find out in a year or two that it is not a good idea, then just stop allowing it. Is that no different than what Minnesota has done towards our stocking program? I do not have all of the answers, and will not act like I do, but to not hear a decent argument against allowing a second rod leads me to believe that I may be on to something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| palerider - 10/31/2012 8:59 AM
"So just to make sure I understand the argument against 2 lines, it's because one feels that there will be more dead muskies from a second line? That doesn't seem to make any sense. I sure hope there is an argument that has a better foot hold than that."
The second line increase's the opportunity to catch fish = more fish caught...the number of fish caught is a component in angler influenced fish mortality. It would have an impact. There is no way around it.
In addition the fall influx of uneducated and under equipped once a year hang a sucker under a bobber guys is well uder way locally...let them fish two lines and they will have even better odds. Example: I passed an angler fishing off shore in a channel yesterday....big bobber dangling a sucker. Sitting on a cushion...no tools...no net in sight. What do you think the odds of a successfull release were ? I saw the same scenario on a dock.
Like it or not sucker fishing draws these types out for the easy muskie fix as they need almost no additional investment in gear...a rig a bobber and a minnow that's it.
Edited by bturg 10/31/2012 1:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| That is everyone's right to do so, and I would never take that away from anyone. This one man without a net and tools sitting on shore has a limited chance to catch a muskie, let alone 2 on separate suckers 30 feet away from one another. This is an unfair argument because the argument is now turning towards not being prepared to catch a muskie. If this person had some basic knowledge about this fish, the success rate skyrockets, and that is a different issue than having two lines in the water. If the key ingredient here is humans catching and releasing the fish properly, then we as muskie anglers, the DNR and Muskies Inc are responsible for teaching others how it should be done, regardless of how many line are being used. To eliminate all tragedies of fish dying is impossible, regardless of the law. So now the argument turns to trying to prevent them as much as possible. Well that comes from knowledge about the fish and experience, which you can only get by catching one.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points.
1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing.
2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment.
3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death".
4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage.
Edited by bturg 11/1/2012 9:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
| bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM
3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death".
Interesting with all the other factors like weather, year class/stocking recruitment and everything else contributing to the natural peak/valley curve of fishing success the last couple years that pressure would be blamed as the main culprit. I think your quote a bit strong and if there is tangible evidence of pressure causing "many" lakes in Minnesota to "crash" I'd like to see it.
Everyone starts the game with insufficient knowledge and equipment and most people have to pay for their own stuff. Blaming the guy soaking in a sucker in a channel and the other "uneducated" shore anglers on a 14,000 acre lake as your main reason not to support two lines seems a little shortsighted in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points. 1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing. 2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment. 3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death". 4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage. I 100% agree with bturg. Many muskie lakes in MN are not as good as they were 5 years ago due to fishing pressure. Fishermen are getting better and technology keeps advancing. These fish don't stand a chance... Keep it at 1 line.
Edited by Baby Mallard 11/1/2012 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Junkman ,
Love your sense of humor, as I am a FIB of the worst kind, I gave up hatin' , love the "Pack", like the vikes, sometimes I even like the bears; have a yearning to hang my hat in either "hey dere" Minnesota or "cheddarhead" Wisconsin, all you's are blessed...
wishin' I was fishin' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| Baby Mallard - 11/1/2012 12:24 PM
bturg - 11/1/2012 9:14 AM Without getting into a long explanation but to address your points. 1. The shore fisherman had a great chance of hooking one...I'm not sure how you would know he didn't if you don't know the specific location he was fishing. 2. The argument is unfair ? the whole point was the uneducated once a year fisherman targeting muskies using live bait with insuficent knowledge and equipment. 3. Catching more fish WON'T result in more mortality ? especially by un-educated anglers as I noted above ? Many lakes in MN have crashed due to angling pressure...it is a reality, as I say in my seminars,"we love them to death". 4. I get the education aspect...believe me. Reality is it always falls far short when it relates to the mass's not the die hards. And that is where mutiple lines can potentially cause the biggest damage. I 100% agree with bturg. Many muskie lakes in MN are not as good as they were 5 years ago due to fishing pressure. Fishermen are getting better and technology keeps advancing. These fish don't stand a chance... Keep it at 1 line.
Could it be these lakes are no longer in the early cycles and turning into mature fisheries? Any thoughts? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Thoughts, sure some lakes are maturing and density of the top line predators evens out as things balance out...that is how nature works...on it's own. Stocking does change that dynamic , many MN lakes have a steady influx of new fish added to help balance out mortality from anglers...intentional or unintentional so those fluctuations won't flow exactly on natures own rules. For sure some lakes will be hot one year and cold the next....thats just the way it is as weather etc influences activity and also access to the fish for the average angler fishing "normal" patterns. Some years the fish just aren't available where most anglers want to fish for them...so the lake is labled "off" or "tough" that season.
A prime example of a metro lake crashing due to angling pressure is Waconia. After super strong spring tourny results two years running the word got out and the lake got hammered. Floaters were a daily occurance as anglers caught and improperly handled larger than average fish. I think it's very realistic to say the population of 40" plus fish is half of what it was 5-6 years ago. Scenario: a casual angler catch's a really large fish, maybe a deeply hooked one, the insufficient net is pulled onboard with fish inside and the angler looks at the head of by far the largest fish he has handled and freaks a bit, unhooking goes slowly but happens, even though far to much time has elapsed there is no way that fish is going back without a bunch of pictures...maybe with everyone in the boat taking turns. This is reality and it certainly happens every day, even with the best skills a few fish die...it's part of the deal. Adding lines simply increases the fish/angler encounters and adding live bait and inexperienced anglers to the formula adds in more negative factors. Thats my beef with muliple lines.
I would love to troll multiple lines when the situation was favorable for that...I'm willing to forgo it for the above reasons.
Quote:
"Everyone starts the game with insufficient knowledge and equipment and most people have to pay for their own stuff. Blaming the guy soaking in a sucker in a channel and the other "uneducated" shore anglers on a 14,000 acre lake as your main reason not to support two lines seems a little shortsighted in my opinion."
1. I NEVER said shore fisherman were the issue...I only used the one angler as one real life example of the people who fish live bait rigs in the fall as their only muskie fishing...it's easier than most other methods and and at the lowest level requires very little investment of time and muskie specific gear vs traditional methods ( you can't throw a pounder on your ugly stick spinning rod but you can float a sucker) and they are rarely geared up properly. My example is just one of the reasons to not allow it...it's not shortsighted it's my opinion...mind you there is a fair amount of fishing time and observation that goes into that forming that opinion. I'm also not talking about a specific 14,000 acre lake or basing my opinion on what I see out there...the isuue being discussed is the statewide use of mutiple lines, not just Minnetonka (14,500 acres BTW).
Reality: no one is changing any laws based on this discussion...just opinions being banter'd around on an internet board.
|
|
| |
|
| bturg, sounds like all you want to do is limit fishing opportunities for the sake of a fishery. Perhaps MN should outlaw the DCG because too many uneducated anglers are catching fish with them! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | How about allowing 2 lines but make live bait over 10" illegal?
Edited by Flambeauski 11/1/2012 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
| Flambeauski -
just how long do you think it could take for a decent fish to inhale and swallow a 9.875" sucker? I'd wager not too long... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| Guest says (very bravely from his anonomous keyboard)
bturg, sounds like all you want to do is limit fishing opportunities for the sake of a fishery. Perhaps MN should outlaw the DCG because too many uneducated anglers are catching fish with them
You must not know me very well...I'm pretty fond of The Cowgirl Clan. I spend a lot of time trying to catch them (muskies) and helping others to do the same. I try to educate the uneducated so they are able to catch and handle fish well.
Some limitations ARE required to protect the fishery, history shows that to be 100% the case. States that fail to enact reasonable restrictions fail to have top quality fisheries. Seems funny to argue otherwise.
I like catching fish...as many as I can. I also feel reasonable regulations make fishing worth the effort with better quality and numbers available to chase. If it turns into a skippy fest with a handfull of last seasons fresh stockings to chase it hardly seems worth the effort.
Edited by bturg 11/1/2012 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| i won't argue a lake like waconia has been affected by pressure after the last few years, but one or two metro lakes falls way short of "many" lakes "crashing" due to pressure.
you can't just throw it out there that the number of 40" fish in waconia is half of what it was 5 years ago, you have no science to back that up.
great to argue about important issues concerning the fishery but let's keep be honest withourselves and stick to the facts. it hurts your point when you throw out unsubstantiated numbers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| I already threw it out, I don't need science to state my opinion...should we net all the fish and count them for you to be happy with generalized comments based on years of observation.
done: position explained and posted....carry on anonymous one |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Ebenezer - 11/1/2012 3:33 PM
Flambeauski -
just how long do you think it could take for a decent fish to inhale and swallow a 9.875" sucker? I'd wager not too long...
Probably not as long as it would to swallow a 4 inch chub. My point was/is, is sucker fishing the problem or is multiple lines the problem? Sounds like sucker fishing is the problem, from what Bob is saying. And when the trolling issue comes up every winter the minnesotans are quick to point out that trolling doesn't hurt the fishery. And since you can't cast 2 Supermodels at once, I assume suckers are the issue here. So make them illegal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| bturg I have a response to your posting but it will have to wait until I get some more info. Does anyone know if artificial baits can out fish live bait in the warmer months of the year? I would say they do just for the fact thta you can cover twice as much water with artificial than with a sucker. Anyone ever tried a sucker in the summer time? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Bob is talking numbers, odds, and accessabiltiy. two lines in the hands of a properly equipped and competent fisherman is probably not a marginal increase in the mortality rate for Muskies. However, you can't limit two lines to just the diehards. So more lines = more encoutners = more chances for fish to be killed. That is simple probability.
Now throw in the fact that not every angler is a diehard. Livebait is the prime example because of all the ways to catch a musky it is the least expensive gear wise and if you have the patience, probably the easiest. (No offense, I like my suckers too.) The reality is that a guy can get into all he needs to catch a musky on a sucker for maybe $50 plus the cost of the sucker. What are the odds that said guy is going to drop $100 for a musky sized net? How about $70 for a Knippex? What about another $30-50 for the appropriate gear to have even a chance at unhooking a deeply hooked fish? My guess is not very high. This situation already has a higher chance of killing the musky. What if he doesn’t know how to use his sucker rig properly or doesn’t know what a quick strike rig is? More odds against the fish. Now this guy has two suckers... what happens if one goes and he’s dealing with it and then the other one goes off. Is that guy going to set the hook early to try and save both fish? Not very likely…
Livebait by itself isn’t the problem, just like 2 lines by themselves are not the problem. The problem is what it enables. More uneducated/undergeared fisherman contacting more fish invariably = more dead fish. I don’t think you need some double blind study to believe that will pan out.
The real debate is about the risk of higher mortality vs. increased opportunity to put a fish in the net. When I first advocated for this issue I was thinking about my own catch totals. However, after reading from people wiser than me like Bob and Treats I see the wisdom of what they are saying. Over time my extra fish in the net = less fish for everyone overall due to our buddy in the example above. If more encounters are your goal, maybe you should do what BTurg does for all of us and try to help educate the uneducated.
As an aside: I highly doubt Bob is advocating that only the select few get to fish for Muskies. I’m a prime example of that. He took my completely uneducated rear end and after 3 years has almost turned me into a semi competent angler. If he really didn’t want more people fishing for them why would he do that? Also, when you cast your saltwater reel think to yourself how much BTurg doesn’t want you to catch a fish.
Edited by Brad P 11/1/2012 4:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Reality: no one is changing any laws based on this discussion...just opinions being banter'd around on an internet board.'
OK, everyone, remember that next time anyone from any State asks for your support to stop, change, or create fisheries based law.
No disrespect intended, Just sayin'... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| None takin...getting involved at another level is what is required for legislative issues. Unfortunatly many of the regulatory changes considered are political in nature as you know...special interest bills get introduced and are voted on by a senate or house wih very little actual knowledge of the impacts vs letting the DNR do their job managing the resources. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| sworrall - 11/1/2012 7:10 PM
OK, everyone, remember that next time anyone from any State asks for your support to stop, change, or create fisheries based law.
No disrespect intended, Just sayin'...
That's quite an overreaction to a harmless (and true in this instance) statement now isn't it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 553
Location: deephaven mn | the point made that a man fishing from shore with a sucker on a light tackle rig and no release tools has potentional to effect the fishery and if he could have 2 suckers on 2 light tackle rigs he may have a larger effect. Now if you could troll 2 two baits this would make trolling a really efficient way to catch fish and i am pretty sure you would see alot more trolling in minnesota like you see in other states.
one line please! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| From what I have read on MuskieFirst, I thought MN was a trollling state and WI was the sucker state?
Here is my 2 cents as a native Minnesotan who has paid his fair share of taxes and various license fees before moving away... MN should adopt whatever regulations that insure the long-term survival of fishing waters. Would anyone want to catch however many more musky by dragging a sucker while they also cast, if it will eventually decrease the willingness of the fish to bite in the long run? Isn't that what the fishing pressure does? Simple logic would dictate that 2 lines per angler means more pressure, which may mean more catches short-term, but then in the long term means smarter fish that are less likely to bite. It's disenhearting to now specifically target muskies for 10 days in the summer and this fall (when I can make it home) and only have 7 follows and 1 miss. Whereas 10 years ago I had them hit hooked eyes and SM 3-4 many times in the same period of time on Vermilion. Allowing 2 lines also means more guys accidentally hooking musky they were not intending to hook, or have idiots who are intending to hook them on their 2 lines but are not prepared to land them appropriately. Again logic would lead one to assume there will be more mortality with that scenario. This is a musky forum with responsible fisherman, Being responsible myself, the first things I bought for my summer and fall excursions were release tools and proper tackle. After that came all the lures I rarely get to use.... As others have noted, not everyone is responsible and informed. Even if 5% of the total musky catch came from irresponsible fisherman and most of those fish die from allowing more lines in the water, that means close to 5% less fish for the next year... It adds up over time and will ruin the sport eventually. Is it worth the short term gain of boating more fish per year for 5 years if the fish then quit biting as much? Or even if the fish that bite are "ONLY" 45 inches? Remember basic evolution, "survival of the fittest". If you catch more and only the smart survive, it seems logical catch numbers will decrease over time. That's not just my opinion, but also a friend who lives and has guided on Vermilion for the past 10 years. Also remember, if the fishing isn't as good, you won't want to fish as much. Then you will have to find find another hobby... But from my short experience in this addiction, I can guarantee it will not be near as fun as being on the water relaxing while you fish for a PB that you never know when it is going to hit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | sucker fishing is a blast...and there's def. a part of me that would love to get out in MN in the fall and fish like you can is Wisconsin.
However..I think Bob is right. I do think the extra line is simply going to cause more mortality. And if anyone doesn't think pressure is not a factor in MN at present time they are kidding themselves. There just aren't enough musky lakes to meet the demand...Quality of fish aside, WI simply has way more lakes to choose from and spread out the anglers. |
|
| |
|
| So let me get this straight. Allowing the guy who sits on the dock with a sucker out while chewing on a piece of straw, the opportunity to put out one more line, is going to cause the lake more harm than the guide who absolutely pounds the same lake 80-100 days per year, with 2-3 anglers tossing affective lures in just the right places, and catches a whole lotta fish? Oh yeah thats right, allowing 2-3 lines in WI and Michigan has absolutely murdered the fisheries there.
As an aside, it's funny how when I fish MN each fall, I get to watch the different ways the locals employ the 'Derek Cheater'(sucker line out with no rod in sight, while casting)...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 79
| I will admit that a second line from inexpereinced angelrs has a chance to lead to more mortality, that is a given. But it also should be said that humans are the main reason muskies have gotten in the waters they have and if we put them there, we can surely add more. Fishing pressure will continue to rise as we promote this fish and try to attract more people to the sport, regardless of the second line. Possible solution that will take time to develop would be more waters, which is easier said than done. Honestly, people who think the second line would be an increase in fishing pressure and mortality might be using it as a crutch to try and preserve the waters humans have created. This form of preservation could also be interpreted as a prevention of possible future muskie anglers who accidently catch one and then get hooked, just like we all did. To promote this wonderful fish, shouldn't we try to attract more anglers and in doing so also be granted to stock them in more lakes, decreasing pressure on lakes that are getting pounded right now? A second line could help this cause. |
|
| |
