|
|
Location: Madison, WI | in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer.
and that is exactly the point. they can limit harvest and they get bigger deer.
if you raise the limit on muskies ("highly managed") you'll get bigger muskies.
get it? got it? good.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
| Fat-Ski, a wr could be a 55 incher depending on the girth. Ex. Lazarus+Barbosas 58lbs--. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 397
| lambeau - 2/2/2013 1:55 PM
in response to lambeau, the person was hunting PRIVATE land in what is probably highly managed land with people that have money to "GROW" big deer.
and that is exactly the point. they can limit harvest and they get bigger deer.
if you raise the limit on muskies ("highly managed" ) you'll get bigger muskies.
get it? got it? good.
Last time i checked all the lakes are public and not just for a few select to use as they see fit to get what they want. what is with the get it, got it, good remark. Are you not able to have a civil chat with such a tort remark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | ski - 2/2/2013 2:16 PM
Fat-Ski, a wr could be a 55 incher depending on the girth. Ex. Lazarus+Barbosas 58lbs--.
-----
I understand that, but the increased size limit (if accomplished) will further concrete accurate assessments of potential state and world record class fish. In short, there is no reason not to raise the limit |
|
| |
|
| The low information walleye crowd who are convinced the Muskie is wrecking their wallet fishery will be thrilled with a new 56" limit. They are going to catch bonk and release even more. Something to think about.
One more thing, how does this affect stocking? I mean why stock as often if the limit is 56" these fish will live forever. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Last time i checked all the lakes are public and not just for a few select to use as they see fit to get what they want. what is with the get it, got it, good remark. Are you not able to have a civil chat with such a tort remark.
wow. a 56" limit would mean essentially all the fish are released...kinda like well-managed private hunting land: they get to keep growing.
muskies are a trophy species; if you want something to tug your line fish for pike or smallmouth or bluegills, they're plenty fun on light gear. but if you want big, you've got to let the fish get big, and size limits are clearly one of the best ways to increase the percentage of very large fish being released.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for? |
|
| |
|
| At first I was put off by the arrogance of 56" size limit. I thought 54" would still make it reasonable. The PR on this endeavor has been poor so far, but I agree with the size, but hope for more reasonable presentation. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Ben still lot of 54 being caught, 56" is kind of that the next level of fish that is just not be caught be alot of fisherman and truly is a special fish. I know that at 53 is going to be very special to alot of people. But alot of fish being harvest in the 50-55 range. Kind of like a 130-150 buck compared to a 170 class.
Troyz
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What's been poor so far? It's a recommendation and hasn't progressed beyond that. There is no "plan" as of yet to present, only the idea and a recommendation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for?
well, let's be realistic, Mike. people get told what to fish for all the time. you work for a DNR that does it: who is the Utah Wildlife Board to say that i can't take home a cutthroat trout if i want to?
"big red" is saying that people should be allowed to keep a big muskie, something that more and more places are starting to disallow, or at least think about preventing.
for example, if you're on Lake of the Woods with a 54" size limit you pretty much can't do what he says should be allowed. Ontario is in effect saying: "muskies are a trophy species, if you want to keep a fish, try one of our lovely pike or walleyes."
- 1986 limit raised from 28" (36% harvest rate) to 40"
- 1992 limit raised from 40" to 48"
- 2001 limit raised from 48" to 54"
that progression looks almost identical to the path that MN is on right now, and for exactly the same reasons: evolving attitudes towards viewing muskies as a catch-and-release trophy species.
and there's good evidence that it's working. since the 54" limit went into place on Lake of the Woods, the average muskie catch size for my chapter of Muskies Inc has gone up by 4 inches. let me say that again, our average catch size has increased by 4" in 11 years just since changing from a 48" limit to a 54" limit (with a sizable n of over 500 releases). that increased average reflects more fish being caught on the upper end of the range. anecdotally, friends of mine who have lived and fish up there for decades report more very large muskies in the 52"+ range than ever before. this is all at the same time that LotW is experiencing more angling pressure than ever due to the increasing popularity of the sport.
Minnesota has the opportunity to do the same thing, with fisheries that can and do produce muskies of trophy caliber.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2013 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Muskie Treats - 2/3/2013 1:07 AM
What's been poor so far? It's a recommendation and hasn't progressed beyond that. There is no "plan" as of yet to present, only the idea and a recommendation.
The two threads I have seen on it thus far have been more divisive than educational, that is all. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | lambeau - 2/3/2013 7:48 AM
Since when do musky anglers get to tell people what they should fish for?
well, let's be realistic, Mike. people get told what to fish for all the time. you work for a DNR that does it: who is the Utah Wildlife Board to say that i can't take home a cutthroat trout if i want to?
"big red" is saying that people should be allowed to keep a big muskie, something that more and more places are starting to disallow, or at least think about preventing.
for example, if you're on Lake of the Woods with a 54" size limit you pretty much can't do what he says should be allowed. Ontario is in effect saying: "muskies are a trophy species, if you want to keep a fish, try one of our lovely pike or walleyes."
- 1986 limit raised from 28" (36% harvest rate ) to 40"
- 1992 limit raised from 40" to 48"
- 2001 limit raised from 48" to 54"
that progression looks almost identical to the path that MN is on right now, and for exactly the same reasons: evolving attitudes towards viewing muskies as a catch-and-release trophy species.
and there's good evidence that it's working. since the 54" limit went into place on Lake of the Woods, the average muskie catch size for my chapter of Muskies Inc has gone up by 4 inches. let me say that again, our average catch size has increased by 4" in 11 years just since changing from a 48" limit to a 54" limit (with a sizable n of over 500 releases ). that increased average reflects more fish being caught on the upper end of the range. anecdotally, friends of mine who have lived and fish up there for decades report more very large muskies in the 52"+ range than ever before. this is all at the same time that LotW is experiencing more angling pressure than ever due to the increasing popularity of the sport.
Minnesota has the opportunity to do the same thing, with fisheries that can and do produce muskies of trophy caliber.
That's all well and good but not remotely related to what you posted.
You essentially, in so many words, told someone to go fish for something other than muskies because his views weren't in line with yours.
Where we manage for big cutthroat, we do so for biological reasons. Usually Utah chub pop number reduction. Studies have shown that cutts of larger size have the ability to reduce chub numbers. Do the anglers benefit from higher size limits? No doubt, but the fishery wasn't created for giant trophy cutthroat.
At a time when license sales continue to fall, it seems anglers should be promoting the sport not pouting because there aren't 58 inches around every piece of cabbage. It isn't that I don't support higher limits, it's the way some go about pushing for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Let me be really clear:,,,, I'm FOR increasing the size limit to 54 inches in "the state where nothing is allowed",...Minnesota
I hope I didn't confuse anyone,.....Bigger IS better. How can I help ?
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Location: Madison, WI | That's all well and good but not remotely related to what you posted.
i think it's related in the sense that we're all told what to do all the time...and it's often based on someone else's views. the Ontario MNR made a decision that is different than some people's views - and 10 years later we're seeing the results in Ontario in ways that should inform the discussion on size limits in Minnesota.
You essentially, in so many words, told someone to go fish for something other than muskies because his views weren't in line with yours.
well, to be clear, "big red" wasn't saying he wanted to harvest muskies himself, but was advocating that others be allowed to do so. it's a version of the "little Johnny" argument and it's a distortion of the value of muskies as a trophy sport fish.
and absolutely i stand by my suggestion that those folks whose goal is to harvest fish should find a different species to target. they'll have more/easier opportunities to reach their goal with other species and they won't harm the muskie fishery in the process.
in the past 10 years members of my Muskies Inc chapter have caught 243 muskies 45" or larger (the legal limit) on local waters. imagine the condition our fishery would be in today if they'd all been harvested! it's an easy slide back to the 80s if we adopt laissez-faire attitudes about the harvest resiliency of muskies.
Edited by lambeau 2/3/2013 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
| You can put the limit to 58 or even 60 inches. Fact is that the majority of muskellunge DO NOT have the genetics to reach 54 let alone 56inches. There are over 350,000,000 people in the USA, only a very small percentage reach 6'6 or even 7ft for that matter. I find it concerning that one group feels that they have the right to dictate what everyone else must do. I also wonder if anyone is taking into consideration what effect this is going to have on the forage base. On large lakes like Nipeeing or Huron for example it would have a minimal effect, on a smaller lake once your predator numbers get so great the forage numbers will feel the pressure. Lake St.Clair has larger muskie then ever before. A few years back it was hit hard with a vhs outbreak. Muskie numbers went down, the forage had a chance to really increase and look at the results. I fish the Kawartha lakes, years ago they held healthy populations of 25lb fish and above, many in the 40lb class. Now because of an extreme view of catch and release numbers are at an all time high, the only problem is that walleye and sucker numbers and average size have dropped dramatically and it's much more difficult to come by those 25lb class fish and above when compared to 30yrs ago. Bottom line is that a lake can only support so many top predators and (only my opinion) some of these smaller trophy waters will start showing the end results, and quite possibly we may change some of our views in the next ten to fifteen years. For the record in all my years every muskie I have ever landed was released but one. Should someone decide to keep a muskellunge it is their choice to make and as long as they obey the laws not my place to judge.
regards John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 130
Location: Duluth, MN | John K - 2/3/2013 5:57 PM
You can put the limit to 58 or even 60 inches. Fact is that the majority of muskellunge DO NOT have the genetics to reach 54 let alone 56inches. There are over 350,000,000 people in the USA, only a very small percentage reach 6'6 or even 7ft for that matter. I find it concerning that one group feels that they have the right to dictate what everyone else must do. I also wonder if anyone is taking into consideration what effect this is going to have on the forage base. On large lakes like Nipeeing or Huron for example it would have a minimal effect, on a smaller lake once your predator numbers get so great the forage numbers will feel the pressure. Lake St.Clair has larger muskie then ever before. A few years back it was hit hard with a vhs outbreak. Muskie numbers went down, the forage had a chance to really increase and look at the results. I fish the Kawartha lakes, years ago they held healthy populations of 25lb fish and above, many in the 40lb class. Now because of an extreme view of catch and release numbers are at an all time high, the only problem is that walleye and sucker numbers and average size have dropped dramatically and it's much more difficult to come by those 25lb class fish and above when compared to 30yrs ago. Bottom line is that a lake can only support so many top predators and (only my opinion) some of these smaller trophy waters will start showing the end results, and quite possibly we may change some of our views in the next ten to fifteen years. For the record in all my years every muskie I have ever landed was released but one. Should someone decide to keep a muskellunge it is their choice to make and as long as they obey the laws not my place to judge.
regards John
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that if we take more big fish out of the lake, we'll have more big fish in the lake? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | 56 inch min is better than catch and release only! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2325
Location: Chisholm, MN | Is there a good way to show support for this? MMPA usually has some sort of link to send out to government officials so we can show our support. I'm all for it, though I think it will take a lot of effort to get it to go forth. Seems like there are a lot of people bummed out about this too. I read in Outdoor News letter to editor today that the guy is so bummed that he will keep and eat every legal musky he catches now. Hopefully he isn't a very good fisherman.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Maybe start with a few lakes to get traction? It would nice to at least see the big pond and V protected to at least 54". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Ben, there isn't a proposal yet and this thread wasn't started by those that had the input from the DNR.
Right now the DNR is reviewing this recommendation and will come back with their own. I doubt that they will come back with 56", but who knows. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Kirby Budrow - 2/3/2013 8:42 PM
Is there a good way to show support for this? MMPA usually has some sort of link to send out to government officials so we can show our support. I'm all for it, though I think it will take a lot of effort to get it to go forth. Seems like there are a lot of people bummed out about this too. I read in Outdoor News letter to editor today that the guy is so bummed that he will keep and eat every legal musky he catches now. Hopefully he isn't a very good fisherman.... But with that said I think this should show why its time. Also the guy that was so concerned about over population you have no clue how Mn manages it's fisheries. First off how did these natural lakes ever get along before humans harvested fish? Second the stocked lakes get surveyed every three years to see what the density is so if it's too high or to low the dnr will adjust but it will take 17 years give or take to replace those big fish that bring so many to this sport and state. There is and hasn't been a problem with muskies eating all the forage in Mn and this will not create a problem here. Our dnr does too good of a job managing our muskie fisheries.
Edited by DLC 2/3/2013 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | John K: I don't buy the fact that forage will be impacted with a higher size limit on muskies in MN. Muskies are stocked at such a low density that it wont have a negative impact. Again the majority of lakes in MN are stocked and rely on being stocked at a low density to have a fishable population. That being said MN won't be overrun with small fish. The larger fish will be protected and released to be caught again. I am not saying go fish for another species if you are looking to keep one. It will just have to be a big one.
Kirby: Right now there isn't a voter voice set up nor is there any type of legislation written concerning size limits. We gave the DNR a suggestion. That's all it is. There might possibly be a call to action in the future.
There is very little if any opposition that we have heard.
IAJustin: The DNR wants a blanket size limit for the entire state. They don't want seperate sizes on different lakes. We have one catch and release lake right now but that is part of an intense series of studies for muskies. We have also talked about some type of "Master Angler" award for muskies caught and released. Still not really sure what that would consist of. I am sure we will explore into this more this weekend.
PointerPride: Muskie fishing in MN is the only avenue of angling that is continuing to grow. (Fulton study)
The MN muskie program was created to produce angling opportunity to catch trophy muskies. No lake in the state is managed for numbers. Opinions of the definition of "trophy" by muskie anglers have changed once many lakes peaked and larger fish were caught. I understand that the perception of what defines a trophy muskie varies greatly among muskie angler and non muskie anglers. I am guessing the DNR is leaning towards the side of anglers that come to MN to strictly angle for muskies. Not from a biological standpoint but from a economical standpoint. I understand that biologists don't have a degree in economics but it is easy to see what happens to a local economy when large muskies are present.
BenR: There is not a PR campaign with the 56in minimum. We have suggested it to the DNR and they are reviewing size limits among other things at the internal muskie/pike meetings.
Edited by kevin cochran 2/3/2013 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The MN DNR is funded by all anglers and the licenses they purchase. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 117
|
+1 for raising the limit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| Pointerpride102 - 2/3/2013 11:00 PM
The MN DNR is funded by all anglers and the licenses they purchase. True, hence the reason they propose it to them. Then a dnr technical committee looks at it and dnr biologists and fisheries managers see if it feasible. Then the last step is public support. At least those involved are good enough people to let the masses know what is in the works. Better then some fishing orgs. |
|
| |
|
| I like it and think it's also good for other states who are currently having trouble getting higher limits accepted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Some musky can grow bigger than 56 inch then its 56 inch min and some lakes cant then lower limited. If someone is not happy with 56 inch min then fish other musky lake! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| This is a very rough “yellow pad” financial critique of the position that the “average Joe” who catches a 50” should be allowed to keep the fish for his wall. Consider Lake Minnetonka. An aggressive estimate of its adult population is 1500 fish, of which perhaps 10% are above 50”. (My guess is that <1% of the population is over 54”) Consider the following:
12 years – time it takes for a Fish to hit 50
1500 – avg. number of Fingerlings stocked each year (this number can vary widely depending on hatchery success and funding)
$14 – avg. cost per finglering
3% - aggressive estimate of fingerling survival rate (to 50%)
These numbers are estimations/approximations and are not exact. I just wanted to run the figures to point out the cost of a trophy fish. Using the above, it costs $21K today to produce the potential for 45 50” in 12 years. In that respect, you would be replenishing roughly 1/3 the population of the 50” class fish, or ~$467 per 50”. (Don’t forget the 12 year growing time)
Currently, if MI doesn’t pick up the slack, the Fingerling buy can be much lower. If you look at Tonka, there have been years where the stocking has been greater, but also years it has been far lower. This is also why the private hunting land comparison is not valid. Stocking fish in many MN waters is a cooperative effort between the DNR and clubs like MI, however use of resources is 100% available to the public. HUGE difference.
Now some might say, hey $467 isn’t that expensive, we can stock them every year and allow bonking. Now consider that is one 50” per 100 acres. (lots of assumptions there). How many acres of Musky water does the MN DNR manage? Many of the MN waters are over 3,000 acres. Tonka is over 14K, Vermillion is over 40K, ML is 130K. Sure, some of the very large basin lakes are going to have a lower fish per acre, but the point is that in order for MN to have a trophy fishery across its current 80 or so stocked lakes it requires a very significant cash commitment to keep the pipeline of 50s rolling. The DNR already does not have enough $$$ to achieve this, hence the efforts of local MI chapters to cover the gap. Increasing the size limit would mean, among other things, more efficacy for the dollars already being spent and perhaps create room for more lakes to be stocked in the future. I also think that 2-3% is a far lower number when you change 50 to 55.
Bottom line is this: Huge sums of money are being spent so anglers, including the “average joe”, can have a reasonable chance to catch a 50. Given that Graphite Replicas are available which allow an angler to mount the fish without killing it, is it too much to ask for the angler to spend a few extra dollars for a replica vs. a skin mount? I do not think it is. IMO, the real fight in MN is about getting more waters stocked to fish. (Which is very expensive and very difficult.) That means we need more financial resources. Part of that is doing things to make sure that our current investments are achieving the best bang for the buck in terms of the fishery. A 56” limit would have relatively low cost to the “liberties” enjoyed by current anglers (give the prevalence of CPR) while helping ensure the bounty of MN continues into the future.
As an aside: The North Metro Chapter also gives away a mount to the annual big fish in the club. There is also a mount rewarded to the biggest youth fish.
Edited by Brad P 2/4/2013 9:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Brad,
Very well stated!!!
Treats,
Do you have any links to the muskie stamp discussions/explanation with why there is not one in MN. I understand the reasoning why there isn't one- but many on here are new to muskie fishing and may be unaware of the past discussions.
Thanks
Steve |
|
| |
