|
|
| "C&R [...]" is a term that should make all of us think.
it's considered extremely bad and ignorant internet form.
it stops discussions, it doesn't "make all of us think".
don't do it...see below:
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 170
| Back to the original question...if a 54" limit was put in place (crossed fingers) and someone kept a 54.5", No, I would not slam that individual. BUT, if that same individual caught a 54.75" and kept it, then a 55" (recognize that pattern?) yes, then it would be time to call him/her out and at least make it public knowledge (like this past years multiple 50's by a certain...well, I won't go there).
Hey...the days are getting longer, we should be over 32 degrees this weekend, and the calendar will soon be flipped to February...we're getting closer!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Bad form, huh? So at the end of the internet when the judges hold up the cards with everybody's score on it, I'll get points decucted from my score? 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
Extremists are not always labeled that way necessarily because of their beliefs. I believe some waters should be 100% C&R.
It's tactics, public displays of belligerent behavior, anti-social displays of angry rhetoric...these and a combination of other things will earn the label, and rightfully so. Now some days extremists rule the day and get what they want by political pressure or other legal, reasonable but noisy channels. In the case of 100% for all muskies everywhere, I'll be sure to say again and again, be careful what one wishes for, one may get it.
Addict:
No, lambeau was trying gently to inform you it is unacceptable to use that term here. I'll do that a little more forcefully; don't. I'll use 'self appointed Muskie Cops', as in enforcers, not a derogatory word if interpreted as I mean it. There is no 'other' interpretation of the term, 'Nazi'. I know what you mean, and a few of these guys do bring that mental image forward, but it just is a little over the edge to use that Noun. |
|
| |
|
| The musky regs on big fish waters here in the U.S. are a joke.
Don't believe me? Well, lets say a particular guide on Vermilion or Mille Lacs legally kept all of the 50" fish they caught this past year and the year before and before that. The numbers of over 50" fish that this single fellow could have harvested LEGALLY is astronomical. Few here would say something like this is acceptable...even though perfectly legal and within his rights.
When it comes to big fish, we are self-governed. I think that is why Hulbert and others keep beating the drum of pure CPR.
Guest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It isn't 'us' who is the problem.
It's folks who don't know all what we THINK we do, or care.
It's folks who abide by the law, but don't realize that by taking a49" fish off Mille Lacs, they are killing 'our' future trophy....wait, maybe some DO know from experience listening to some of us.
Maybe that's why they don't care.
Ask your fisheries manager why he/she hasn't asked for a higher limit on 'your' lake. Go ahead, make the call. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Steve,
After listening to the response of the Great Lakes board about the size limit at Green Bay "when will you musky guys quit" would it be safe to say (right or wrong aside) that 'they' think we're as nuts as we think they are? |
|
| |
|
| Steve I liken this to the 'Do Not Pick the Flowers' laws in state parks. It's a natural asset on public land for all to enjoy. There's so many, what's the harm in taking one home? The harm is that everyone wants to take one home. Soon enough there are none. Only after that happened did the laws have to be invoked. Big muskies are like those flowers, except they take 15 or more years to grow. Similiar to my example, I suppose the big-fish fisheries need to be ruined before there is motivation enough for those in power to make the changes we are calling for. And the length limit is only part of the issue on trophy waters. To have 'the right' to keep one per day is absurd. I know this is preaching to the choir...but newbies who frequent here just might be influenced by these discussions. BTW, I have called. Many times...and sent letters and emails. No response. No call back. What else do you suggest? Seriously, I'll do it. Guest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
In this case I need to know who I am talking to. Drop me a PM.
Great analogy, no argument from me to any of it but the 'absurd' comment; which was a perfect example of what I was pointing out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
Location: Puyallup, WA | I'm with you Mike H. Release em all.
I'd feel a lot better about some one keeping a 34"er over a 54"er. I've heard the excuse many times about how it's on it's last leg. One more spawn is one more spawn with giant genes. Can't spawn if it's dead. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Can't spawn if the spawn doesn't work, either. While this is a "put and take" fishery, the biggest reason I supported the efforts to increase the limit from 50" to 54" is because I feel that too many fish between 50 and 54 were being killed. Including 5 by one greedy individual two years ago. He also kept a 58" fish. At the time, I offered my congrats on the 58", and supported his keeping that fish. I also voiced my disapproval of his keeping the other 5. I was accused of being one of the reasona there are no big fish in WI. This by people who have done nothing to promote and fight for raised limits here.
So to answer the original question. If someone caught a 54+ fish, and decided to keep it, I would offer my comgrats on a great fish. I would also mention that I hope they will consider releasing any fish over the limit that they would be fortunate to catch in the future. No way do I raise my voice and cause a big to do. It is just a fish after all.
As for the 100% C&R advocates? Some waters will not support that notion. You'll end up with a lot of stunted fish. Just like a lot of pike lakes. There's a lake up by Eagle like that. Go catch 10-15 fish per day, but they are all less than 34". And they all get released. I think lakes like this would benefit from a slot limit of some sort. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
| Just thinking out loud here....here's a general framework: the WI DNR sets aside 25 $500 replica credits per year for anglers who catch 54"+ muskies that are released.
Now all of a sudden instead of keeping the fish and having to pay for a real mount, anglers have an incentive to release a fish they could otherwise legally keep. The angler is rewarded with a nice credit towards a replica and the fish swims and is hopefully caught again by a lucky angler.
There is the $12,500 annual cost that would have to be addressed, but I'm guessing a private/public partnership could be agreed upon.
-TW |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| REDCHAMP - 1/28/2008 12:34 AM
I'd feel a lot better about some one keeping a 34"er over a 54"er.
I agree with this statement. On lakes that require harvest to prevent overpopulation I think a slot or maximum size limit would be an OK tool. I do not believe selectively removing the largest fish from any given body of water is a positive thing. Stunting is a phenominon that occurs on only a small percentage of waters in the muskies range and we must be careful not to lead people to believe by harvesting big muskies they are preventing the population from stunting. In fact many of the stunted pike fisheries are a direct result of people harvesting the largest pike in the lake. Removing the top of the line predators can throw a stable fishery off balance which then requires US to act as the dominant preditor by keeping fish.
I think a 54" length limit is awsome, and you folks that fish Green Bay should thank a fisheries guy every time you see one.:-)
Edited by musky-skunk 1/28/2008 2:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| I say we leave management strategies up to the people qualified to make those decisions. I do have a question though...
If this is all about preventing harvest, and we DO manage to get a 54" size limit put in place, what happens when those fish reach 54" and are caught? Is anyone here going to be any less upset when so and so keeps a fish? Unless you put the size limit above a length where muskies just don't grow, there is going to be harvest. Admittedly there would be a lot less at 54", but we're still going to be here griping about it either way.
What I want to know is who is it keeping these fish? What is the incentive to keep the second or third one? I can understand keeping one, but two? More than two? What the heck do you do with them?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | jeff ... that is precisely what they are trying to do ... promote the "potential" for the growth of a world record fish ... which when computed usually needs 54" to carry the load. if they go prior to 54" we'll never know ...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| I get that, Sled -- you'll never know how big they can get when they get whacked before they get there. That's something I'd consider a statewide area of concern in WI.
I'm just wondering if we're going to be back here in a few years wanting it to be 56" or 58" when we find out that Green Bay is unique enough in its forage and habitat that muskies regularly grow to tremendous size.
If we're 5 years down the road and 54"ers are getting harvested... THEN WHAT?
High size limits work, no doubt. But if the goal really is to see how big they will get, than no harvest seems like the way to go. Or one per season per angler, or a ridiculously high size limit, like 60".
But then sure enough, someone will whack a 60" one of these years and we'll be right back where we started... |
|
| |
|
| This subject is beat to death. MY opinion does not matter to anyone but myself but i would say "nice big dead fish" but the fishermen would get NO congratulations.
Just because the law states its ok does not make it right.
DUIs were not inforced until about 25 years ago. the cops would pull you over and make you get a cab or take you home. How many people had to die to get the law changed.
I know some of you will come back with its people vs fish. I understand. But Change is the only constant in our lives and some of these so called laws or rights as some call them need to change.
Release [...]. nice wording. calling people this or even bringing it up just makes me and others draw the line in the sand and nothing gets done.
Why is it our right to keep the fish? Did we ask them? Did we personally put them in there? Where did this right come from?
EGO is the driving force behind killing a fish. nothing else.
again this is just my [...] opinion.
Brian Maxey
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/28/2008 3:03 PM
I get that, Sled -- you'll never know how big they can get when they get whacked before they get there. That's something I'd consider a statewide area of concern in WI.
I'm just wondering if we're going to be back here in a few years wanting it to be 56" or 58" when we find out that Green Bay is unique enough in its forage and habitat that muskies regularly grow to tremendous size.
If we're 5 years down the road and 54"ers are getting harvested... THEN WHAT?
High size limits work, no doubt. But if the goal really is to see how big they will get, than no harvest seems like the way to go. Or one per season per angler, or a ridiculously high size limit, like 60".
But then sure enough, someone will whack a 60" one of these years and we'll be right back where we started...
Wouldnt this be a good thing, showing that the higher size limits are working and we can push it up higher and higher, making bigger and bigger fish?
If we are back in 5 years trying to push the limit to 60 I think that would be phenominal. There will always be people against higher size limits but if we push it 54 and 54+ start popping up more frequently why not go higher? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
as Larry Ramsell stated before too ... there are bodies of water where there needs to be a harvest ... i know of one i'd like to see some fish come out of ...
balance ... moderation ... keys to logic ... which it seems is void in most of these arguments.
a guaranteed outcome is the result of thinking with your heart ... i could take this into politics but would end up being deleted, but ... apply principles of balance and moderation to any situation and you can achieve better results.
i doubt there will be an issue with an out-of-control population of 56"-60" fish ... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 3:10 PM
it's a bell-shaped curve ... the 54+ are outside of 3 sigma and it won't be as high a percentage so similar to Eagle Lake you establish "potential" ... i would be surpised if you run into a problem but it's worth putting out there i suppose ...
SNIP...
I'd like to see your math on this sir, because I don't necessarily agree with it.
In order to define standard deviation, you need a mean. And in order to calculate a *valid* mean, you need data points. And herein lies the problem...we don't yet have enough data points. So while a 54" fish may currently be larger than the average fish swimming in Green Bay, is it because a) they simply don't grow any larger that they are now; or b) there is a "size cohort" of fish that are aging, and the average size of the fish within is increasing? These are fish of varying ages that are all near the 50-53" range, and (as their growth rates may have slowed as they have aged) now tend to comprise most of the fish in the current legal harvest range.
The bottom line is that only time will tell the true tale here. Sorry, but when there's only one data point over 50" in a model that is now being used to determine the "average ultimate length" the fish can grow, I'm not quite willing to bet the ranch just yet. And if you talk to the guys who have been out for years fishing muskies (Shane Mason and JoMusky are just two that immediately come to mind), I think you will find that they will tell you how the "average size" of the fish they have been catching has been increasing steadily--and that 2007 was pretty much the best year they've seen for big fish.
So I take issue with the statement that the low 50-inch range is the biggest these fish will attain. It hasn't been proven just yet, and the whole thing just smells a bit "fishy" to me...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/28/2008 3:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
| so you are saying that all the other big waters that have very high or all C&R regulations those fish are somehow inferior because there are fish RARELY ever caught over 55"? That smells fishy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if you re-read it tbetka you will read the same thing in my words as those written in yours ... outside of 3 sigma means that <97% of the fish are currently "allowed" to grow which is what i've been reading behind your efforts. if you allow the fish to grow past 50" you will realize the potential.
math is math is math. on a stocking and harvesting system you are putting in and fish are dying (whatever way) ... correct? ... and then there are genetics, male vs. female, forage availabilty, natural growth progression and competition among other variables so the pool of fish are stratified and not all are the same size right? ... you don't "have to have a mean" ... median may be more descriptive ...
if you re-read it you will see i'm in support of the effort [...]
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | a corellation to the wisdom of the increased limit proposal on gb being compared to similar success eagle to allow the full potential to be realized [...]
emotion loses ... logic wins
pointer answering your question ... you'll then continue to deal with a smaller and smaller percentage of course and have to in the end deal with the reality of the actual population and the ability of the species to grow over a lifetime ... there is a point when the population of the data is zero at a given size or above ... and the potential is met rendering your "size limits" as essentially no harvest. there is a limit to potential for all species ... aberrations exist as freaks for sure ... but also within limits ... ie: ... what are the chance we see a 10' tall human? ... i met the 8'er ... he was on the same plane as me a few months ago (at least i think he's like 8' or something crazy like that) ...
did i say that the 54" limit should allow the potential to be best understood and that i agree with the proposal ??? .... i thought so ... in the words of worrall .... sheeeeeesh
Edited by jonnysled 1/28/2008 4:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I agree sled.....I was merely addressing Addict's post....and I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to no harvest. With the indeterminant growth of a fish, we dont truly know what size they can grow to....We are all out there looking for that one 'freak' that lived a bit longer and grew a bit bigger.
Live long, grow slow, grow big! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | bulldawger - 1/28/2008 3:29 PM
so you are saying that all the other big waters that have very high or all C&R regulations those fish are somehow inferior because there are fish RARELY ever caught over 55"? That smells fishy.
Bulldawger, I mean this in the best possible way but the only thing that comes to mind when I read your post is... Huh?
Please restate your point, because I don't know what you are trying to say.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/28/2008 4:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| tb, from your post a above you are somehow trying to say (at least to me) that somehow these fish in GB are going to attain some above avg. lengths that the majority of fish in other big fish waters that either have all C&R reg's or 54" size limits for example are currently NOT attaining...at least that is how I read your post. Are fish caught on those other waters over 55", sure but isn't it very rare? Um yah, it is. So why would fish in GB commonly grow to lengths above 55"?
To me 54" should give us a very good indication of what is possible up there. But I'm not biologist, I only play one on T.V.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you don't seem to be able to understand what anyone is saying tcbetka ...
read, listen ....
your "reactions" will not help your cause. guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting. your challenge of trying to improve the potential at green bay are going to come with a huge amount of politicing, listening and reading from both your supporters and detractors ... here you've misunderstood support for something otherwise with a quick sharp-tongued response (sans edits) ... i only hope as you guys move forward that you balance the approach and take away the quick reactions because chances are there might be some people out there that have more than half a brain and won't listen to rhetoric and/or emotion.
it would be great to see a green bay stand alongside georgian bay, eagle, the st. larry as a potential house for the next world record ... but the name of bucher and maina alone won't do it ... it's going to require finesse and the ability to stand strong in a series of tougher debates than happen on this or any other forum ...
good luck ... this is only criticism from someone who hopes the cause wins ....
yet, somehow it's misunderstood ... i'm still trying to understand how that could have happened after reading and re-reading ... |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I am not saying that at all, actually... I am simply saying that, while they might not reach an average of 55, 56 or 58 inches--it is quite probable that they will reach an average size LARGER than the current model suggests. But if we don't give it some time, how will we know?
I make no claims as to the maximum potential size these fish can reach. My only assertion is that, to date, these fish seem to be able to exceed expectations. This being said, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words into my mouth, or speak for me in any way...because I really do not agree with everything you are saying.
But we are each entitled to our respective opinions, and that I *do* respect.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 1/28/2008 4:29 PM
you don't seem to be able to understand what anyone is saying tcbetka ...
read, listen ....
your "reactions" will not help your cause. guys like dan meyer get laws passed because they are smart and able to listen and understand what the overall constituents are wanting. your challenge of trying to improve the potential at green bay are going to come with a huge amount of politicing, listening and reading from both your supporters and detractors ... here you've misunderstood support for something otherwise with a quick sharp-tongued response (sans edits) ... i only hope as you guys move forward that you balance the approach and take away the quick reactions because chances are there might be some people out there that have more than half a brain and won't listen to rhetoric and/or emotion.
it would be great to see a green bay stand alongside georgian bay, eagle, the st. larry as a potential house for the next world record ... but the name of bucher and maina alone won't do it ... it's going to require finesse and the ability to stand strong in a series of tougher debates than happen on this or any other forum ...
good luck ... this is only criticism from someone who hopes the cause wins ....
yet, somehow it's misunderstood ... i'm still trying to understand how that could have happened after reading and re-reading ...
No, in fact I understood what you were/are saying quite well, Mr. Sled. And while you seem to feel you know what *I* am trying to say, I certainly don't know where the "sharp-tongued response" thing comes from. But, with all due respect, you might try to use the edit feature once or twice yourself--if for no other reason than to clarify just exactly what you mean.
In my opinion, the thought process in your posts (except the last one) have been somewhat fragmented, and your lack of attention to proper punctuation makes it extremely difficult to follow your train of thought--and I had the same problem with Bulldawger's post; and indicated so. But certainly, I could be wrong and maybe everyone else understands your point completely. Sorry, not me. In any event, please don't interpret my inability to comprehend these types of posts as an inability on my part--rather it's more like a plea for proper use of the English language. If the post is written in a haphazard and confusing form, then how can you criticize someone for not understanding it's true intent? What kind of message does a poorly written and ambiguous post send to those who are trying to make an informed decision on the facts of the matter? I know the message it would send to me...
So with all due respect sir, if you really want to support the issue, then I suggest you concentrate on making your points clear and concise. That's all I am trying to do, and there is no ill-will or malice intended towards yourself, or Mr. Bulldawger for that matter.
TB
|
|
| |
|
| agreed, I was just trying to understand what exactly you were trying to say.
good luck fishin.
BD |
|
| |
