|
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS, I hear you, but I don't think C&R gets all the credit. Do you?
Generally, IMHO, taking some things to an "extreme" can have a negative side that can be avoided with more realistic thinking.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Doug, are you sure you're able to be objective on the issue?
with full respect to your right to your opinion on the issue, is it possible that as a taxidermist you might have a stake in encouraging people to harvest/mount trophy class fish? you've mounted some impressive fish, but i see you also offer replicas. what percentage of your business is in skin mounts compared to replicas?
btw, your wood carvings are beautiful work!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I would beg to differ Doug.
C&R is the single most important factor in the change in muskie populations throughout the mid-west and Canada.
One only has to look at historical catch rates of anglers and DNR MNR data in NON-STOCKED waters such as LOW, Leech, Cass and a plethora of other trophy waters to see the difference.
What other factor can explain an increase in avg size and size structure in the face of ever increasing angling pressure than C&R?
JS
|
|
| |
|
| Do we stock more fish now than in the past? If so does anyone know how many more fish per acre we stock now than in the past?
Edited by BenR 12/7/2008 6:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | lambeau....thank you for the kind words, nice of you to say. I am biased. No question. I believe that a well done skin mount has more intrinsic value than a replica. I have always believed that and have tried to hone my skills and elevate my work to the highest quality I possibly can in producing any skin mount.
Replicas are great. They just don't have the same "value", IMO, as a real skin mount. They can't...they're pure "art". A fabrication so to say.
That said, I also have great admiration for a well done piece of art. We have many examples of terrific replicas being done today. I also have great respect for those who create molds from which these pieces emerge. That is no small task. It requires a lot of time and effort and creative ability.
Replicas and skin mounts are different....it's up to the angler to choose, I'll leave it at that.
I am in favor of education about C&R and not indoctrination. I am in favor of an angler making a choice between a replica and skin mount, when legal, without being chastised for choosing a skin mount.
As we all know, C&R is not a "no kill" proposition. C&R still kills fish.
Doug Stange wrote a while back that a prolific C&R fisherman can be more harmful to a fishery than an angler who catches and keeps his limit and stops fishing. I believe that to be true with muskies...
Thanks again for the compliment.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
The prolific C&R fishermen does less damage to the fishery than the prolific Catch and Kill Fishermen, that is the realistic comparison.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS... I think there are other factors to consider. I think stocking has certainly increased as BenR mentioned.The qualty of our waters is another, along with better and increased management in many states.
Gord Pysor wrote sometime back about the decline of the musky fishery in Lac Seaul due to the increase in fishing pressure even though 100% C&R.
Sheesh John, there you go again, to the extreme.....so who supports the prolific catch and kill guy???? BTW....what IS a prolific catch and kill guy?
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 6:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I agree with Doug on this one. Obviously c&r has had a tremendous impact on the populations of muskies increasing in numbers. Part of the reason I really could care less if an individual chooses to keep a personal best or record fish, is that for that person, it would probably be the only one they ever keep. How many fish do some of these so-called "c&r elitists" catch per year that expire from delayed mortality? I think I caught 10 fish this year, and although they were all released quickly, I can't say they all lived. There is no way of knowing. From what I've read, delayed mortality deaths can be as high as the 30% range under certain conditions. I just don't understand why c&r must be 100% for some people, no matter if the fish was a personal best, record of some kind, etc. for the angler who legally harvested it. As far as mounts, I haven't looked into the costs for a couple of years, but the last time I did it cost MORE for a replica than a skin mount. I don't think that is much of an incentive to pursue a replica as us c&r supporters would like. If the costs have since changed, I'm sure Doug can correct me.
For those who do feel that every muskie ever caught should be immediately returned to the water and never harvested under any circumstance, can you list the reasons for that belief? I have already seen a few posts from people stating the new Kentucky State record should not have been kept. If that scenario doesn't warrant the harvesting of a fish(as a State Record), is there one at all in your opinion? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | sknmnt - 12/7/2008 6:45 PM
JS... I think there are other factors to consider. I think stocking has certainly increased as BenR mentioned.The qualty of our waters is another, along with better and increased management in many states.
Gord Pysor wrote sometime back about the decline of the musky fishery in Lac Seaul due to the increase in fishing pressure even though 100% C&R.
Sheesh John, there you go again, to the extreme.....so who supports the prolific catch and kill guy???? BTW....what IS a prolific catch and kill guy?
I have met a couple of the said profilic catch and kill guys. The ones I have encountered will do anything in there power to catch a legal muskie to take home. Neither of the guys I know get mounts done, they specifically are fishing for them to eat them. I have witnessed both of said guys attempting to take fish illegally. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| I respect the improvement in musky population in the mid-west and Canada (lakes)...but where's the love for those of us who never been to those places...like out East! CPR on the St. Lawrence should be mentioned in this discussion, it's natural producing musky waters and it is important to keep those big hogs in there producing more big hogs  |
|
| |
|
| Part of the reason I really could care less if an individual chooses to keep a personal best or record fish, is that for that person, it would probably be the only one they ever keep.
in some ways i can understand how someone might think that harvesting one trophy fish has a limited impact on a fishery. it's just one fish, right? and it's old anyway, right?
as a high-profile representative of Muskies Inc, it saddens me to see you take this position, Brad. it's Muskies Inc that has served as the catalyst for catch-and-release of muskies, an approach that has spread to many other areas of sport fishing.
the problem comes in when many people start to think that way, and are defining "trophy" in smaller and smaller terms...suddenly we'd be back to the days where "catching a legal" 34 inch fish was noteworthy. it's also a very real problem in areas such as Green Bay or Mille Lacs where harvesting true trophy fish can definitely have a negative impact on the possibility of the fish in those waters reaching their ultimate potential.
for example, just this morning my neighbor relayed a story to me about catching a 39" muskie through the ice on a local lake and running around celebrating the event. in his mind, that was a "trophy" catch. publicly encouraging the harvest and mounting of trophy fish has a trickle-down effect of encouraging smaller "personal trophies" such as that one to be harvested.
in a time of increasing pressure on a limited resource, the example set by Dale MacNair of releasing even record-class trophy fish is the responsible course for us to follow.
and yes, Brad, i can imagine a situation where harvest would be warranted: overpopulated lakes full of stunted fish, where the taking of _small_ fish would be somehow encouraged in order to thin the population. there's one in my back yard. it's a rare anomoly however...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | lambeau, I forgot to respond to your question about my volume of replica vs. skin mounts. I have always had a much larger volume of skin mounts for all species of fish. I am not a mold maker and choose to not pursue that avenue.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 7:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | Personally, I am for the most people being able to enjoy our waters and our sport with tolerance for excercising the legal ability to keep fish without jeopardizing the proper management of those particular waters.
I am less interested in "protecting" certain or all, waters from harvest in order to grow fish to their greatest size potential so they may be caught over and over only to die at some point along the way. These fisheries are, with many exceptions, renewable resources that belong to everyone......to enjoy as they see fit within legal parameters.
I am also in favor of one of the espoused precepts of MI which is to promote good fellowship and sportsmanship.
Edited by sknmnt 12/7/2008 7:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
A guy who kills every muskie bigger than the last PB is a prolific C&K.
A guy who guides his clients to fish and lets them keep them is a prolific C&K.
The fact that fish will die from delayed mortality is not news to anyone.
You've spun this rhetoric before Doug. You think that C&R is as or more damaging than people killing trophy fish.
Lac Suel is declining due to increased pressure from anglers. Nobody expected a different outcome from increased pressure. That's exactly why it's C&R only, because killing them would only make the decline in trophy fish more noticable.
You can try to spin your logic to make C&R proponents out to be hypcritical all you want to, but at the end of the day released fish have a better chance to grow, breed and be caught again than any trophy kept for the wall.
As I stated before, if you want to catch a 55+"er than you have to let it go when it's 55", not whack it and gawk at it.
Regards Doug.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
Location: Saint Charles, IL | JS......nice speaking with you again too.
Merry Christmas to all!! |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, I think what really saddens you is the fact that my position happens to differ from yours slightly. You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is obviously wrong in their stance. As you say, MI has done numerous things to increase muskie populations all over the country, but they don't require anyone to leave their personal opinions at the door. I'm all for c&r, yet I have no problem with an individual keeping a legally harvested muskie. Why that statement irritates you so much, I'll never know.
I think what Dale did with that fish was awesome. The issue I am bothered by comes from the people who would have bad-mouthed and berated him had he chose to do the opposite, such as those who take c&r so seriously that they feel no mention of harvested fish should ever appear on tv or in a magazine or any other media outlet, because it would "promote the killing of fish". That is what is sad. Lead by example, but understand that others may not always feel as you do, and they won't always be willing to change. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Derrys - 12/7/2008 7:03 PM
I think I caught 10 fish this year, and although they were all released quickly, I can't say they all lived. There is no way of knowing. From what I've read, delayed mortality deaths can be as high as the 30% range under certain conditions.
The Beggs et al. study you are referring to has quite a few flaws in it. Calculating delayed mortality under laboratory conditions is INFINITELY different than looking at delayed mortality in a more natural setting (i.e. "in the field"). You introduce a lot of variables when doing things in the lab.
Take that study's findings with a grain of salt. |
|
| |
|
| The 30% figure was the extreme end of the spectrum. I have seen numerous figures from 2% all the way to 30%, which is why I mentioned in my previous post, "as high as". I never implied that 30% was the actual figure, as I strongly doubt the number is that high in all actuality. It would be very interesting to find out what the actual munber would be, although it could never realisticly be determined. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Derrys - 12/7/2008 8:12 PM
The 30% figure was the extreme end of the spectrum. I have seen numerous figures from 2% all the way to 30%, which is why I mentioned in my previous post, "as high as". I never implied that 30% was the actual figure, as I strongly doubt the number is that high in all actuality. It would be very interesting to find out what the actual munber would be, although it could never realisticly be determined.
My post was more to raise awareness about the study as its numbers are a bit "misleading," and my understanding is that study's data is thrown around by both fishermen and biologists who aren't advocates of increased size limits (but I definitely don't consider you someone in that "category," Brad!)
With today's sampling methods and technology it is possible that we could get very close to calculating a "realistic" number. Is anything perfect? No, but there are a whole lot of things that are "near perfect" which, realistically, is about all anyone can expect.
And, just for the record Brad, I agree with you completely that if it's legal to harvest a fish someone should not be brow-beaten or begrudged that opportunity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | may i assume muskies have y-bones too? |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau, I think what really saddens you is the fact that my position happens to differ from yours slightly. You seem to think that anyone disagreeing with you is obviously wrong in their stance.
i couldn't care less whether or not you agree with me, Brad. yours, mine, wrong or right, any person's opinion is just an opinion...something that i work to make sure is allowed to be presented here on MuskieFirst as long as it's done respectfully.
what i actually do care about is the damage that influential people can do to the future and potential of the fishery. YOU are in one of those positions.
for example, Muskies Inc has been intrinsic to the efforts to increase the size limits on Green Bay. why? because so many people were harvesting their "personal trophies" that it was putting the fishery at significant risk. likewise with the impact of increased pressure (and therefore harvest) on Canadian fisheries that depend solely on natural reproduction. the looming threats posed by invasives makes it all the more crucial.
you've been endorsing the practice of harvesting "personal trophies" and asking for reasons why it shouldn't be done. i listed some in my previous post, and there's a couple more. Green Bay alone is a case study in the bad that can happen when "it's just one fish" that gets harvested...over and over again by lots and lots of people. it's especially true anywhere that populations concentrate making them more accessible to more people.
so yes, considering your position, it saddens me when influential people use their power to encourage the completely unnecessary and arguably harmful harvest of trophy fish.
Lead by example, but understand that others may not always feel as you do, and they won't always be willing to change.
yes, Brad, lead by example...when you're in certain positions that can involve leaving your personal opinions at the door for the sake or the greater organizational good. ie., make sure you're leading in a direction that isn't irresponsible and that supports the efforts of Muskies Inc to preserve and protect fisheries such as Green Bay that are threatened by unnecessary harvest.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| So what's the answer to the original question? Do you need to kill a fish to have a legit world record?
So far I've read a few answers then some how this thread turns into C and R vs. somebody's legal right to keep and fish.
Then John Skarie " Good will ambassador of Musky fishing" jumps into further relations between us novices and the musky gods like himself. That was funny to read.
Here is my take. If I caught a fish like Dale's I would have let it go. Five years ago I would have said "Where's my louisville slugger" and you what it would have been within my legal right to do so. The reason for the change of attitude is two fold. First I don't feel the need to have a mount. My photographs and notes are enough for me. Secondly, I think I've mature as a man and a fisherman. I really don't care either way who keeps or releases a fish as long as its done legally and in a sportsman like fashion. Guys like you JS hurt the promotion of catch and release. I think your approach to Catch and Release sets us back. People don't like being spoke down too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| Extremism isn't good for any issue. While C&R should always be recommended and promoted the laws that are in place are the final word on the issue. It is sad that it is so much easier for people to attack and degrade an individual for keeping a fish that was within their rights/beliefs, than it is for that attacker to get out there and work on changing the laws/size limits. No one can say that 50 years down the road, that 100% c&r won't have negative effects on fisheries. Fisheries management is an ever changing evolving challenge, and taking an extremist view now could create similar issues to the ones we face now and in the past with over harvest. I don't think that there is any wildlife expert that will tell you that letting a top level predator go completely unregulated, is the best answer, especially in every environment. |
|
| |
|
| "you've been endorsing the practice of harvesting "personal trophies" and asking for reasons why it shouldn't be done"-Lambeau
I think this is quite funny. I'm not advocating that every angler who legally catches a muskie that meets that body of water's minimum length restriction should harvest it. My point is simply that they shouldn't be chastized if they choose to do so. Muskies Inc. members annually release over 99% of the fish they catch, while at the same time they're working at getting minimum length restrictions increased and so forth. We are NOT speaking ill of those who keep legally harvested fish. That is leading by example, in my opinion. You believe that every single muskie caught should be released, and seem to feel that everyone else should adapt that same philosophy. I lean more toward promoting and spreading the idea of c&r, yet letting the angler who legally caught the fish make that decision for himself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Talking down to novices?? Who would that be?
The only person I directly had any response to was Doug. He's not a novice.
I don't think I talked down to him. We have differing view points and have debated them before.
Hunter if you don't like what I say that's your problem.
But either say something about the issues that have relevance instead of attacking me or keep your thoughts to yourself.
I didn't start the thread, or control where it went. So don't try to single me out because of a personal issue you apparently have with me.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| My point is simply that they shouldn't be chastized if they choose to do so.
i agree completely, that's actually counterproductive as it alienates people.
at the same time, generalized public support of harvest by influential/visible people sets a tone of acceptance.
take for example Musky Hunter magazine's willingness to publish many photos of harvested fish in their reader's photos section: that creates an incentive, a reward for doing so that impacts many people who read the magazine. (or at a minimum it doesn't reward release over harvest.) they're influential and imho they do a great disservice to the sport by this practice that isn't undone by the occasional c/r article.
You believe that every single muskie caught should be released, and seem to feel that everyone else should adapt that same philosophy.
no, i actually support harvest in unhealthy stunted populations to thin them out.
and it's quite ironic that you say that, considering that i've personally been castigated in the past by some on the far end of the spectrum as "dangerous" for not advocating the protection of muskies strongly enough in my little position of influence here at MuskieFirst. lol...
yes, i strongly believe that release should happen for every fish in most fisheries. yes, i'll continue to advocate it loudly. yes, it's my personal opinion that anyone who accepts high-visibility positions in the sport should do the same.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The answer to the original question is:
If one wants one of the record keeping organizations to recognize the fish officially and place it in the records as a WR, as of right now and as far as I can figure all this out, yes, the fish would have to be harvested.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks Steve.
I beleive that was the original question.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | sworrall - 12/7/2008 9:33 PM
The answer to the original question is:
If one wants one of the record keeping organizations to recognize the fish officially and place it in the records as a WR, as of right now and as far as I can figure all this out, yes, the fish would have to be harvested.
Finally a good answer to the original question. I don't mind if you use my thread to battle about C&R vs keeping fish, so back to it but place nice. I love how cabin fever brings out the best in everyone... LOL
Edited by muskyhunter24 12/7/2008 10:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Obviously a fish this big I would take a ton of pictures of but I don't see how a person could watch a fish like this die in thier boat. The fisherman I respect the most don't even measure fish or take pictures of fish. As soon as you Donk the fish you are thinking soley about your own ego and showing the fish off for personal reasons.
I RESPECT THIS ANGLER MORE FOR RELEASING THE FISH THAN CATCHING IT TO BEGIN WITH! Anyone can throw 6 planer boards off the side of thier boat and catch fish. This does not take a lot of talent.
Do you think Dick Pearson is measuring his 30" fish? No
I would only meausure a fish over 48" other than that they don't leave the water.
It's a very selfish stance to justify killing any animal to mount on a wall.
Its all about the release. Whatch Grumpy old men! |
|
| |
