|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i learn so much from the Minnesota elite ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | BNelson - 2/22/2012 7:46 AM
Shawn/MuskieTreats....some people that fish in MN a lot might argue this list of lakes doesn't exactly kick out 50s on a "regular basis":
Beers in Maplewood State Park
Little Wolf
Big
Lobster
Mantrap
Shaminau
Alexander
heck maybe even Cass in the mix
Ummmmm, with exception of Mantrap I know of plenty of 50's caught in all those except Beer (don't know anyone who fishes it). Mantrap is still developing but I have first hand experience in 50" encounters and know of a verified 57"er caught out of there last year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I remember when the best musky fishery in Minnesota was Bone Lake. Deer was a close second. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | The MN lakes that Brad used may not produce 50s like the other trophy lakes in MN but they are there. Average female length on Cass sampled last year was 48, biggest was 54. It takes 12 years for a fish to reach 50in in Cass. Big has lots of nice fish but dont expect your truck to be at the access when you get back. Mantrap has giant fish as well.
Like Steve stated WI fish and MN fish are very different and cant be compared. Growth rates, size struture, forage base, stocking, native spearing, oh yeah and the strain of fish. He also hinted at the fact that catch and the release ethic was already established in MN before the fish were even trophy size. I think this has more merrit than how the fish is caught (quickstrike rigs). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Moltisanti - 2/22/2012 7:45 PM
I remember when the best musky fishery in Minnesota was Bone Lake. Deer was a close second.
when was that?
Hudson thinks they're the best wrestling team in Wisconsin too ... until they run into Wausau West. the state is bigger than what you can drive to from Hudson Molti ...
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so you haven't caught one on Mantrap over 50 ? just "encounters".... ?
regardless, "regular basis" is up to interpretion I guess...some get a 50 in the net every 20 or so hours on the water, some 50, some every 100, some every 200 hrs..what's "regular"?.... or there is how many fish in the net for every 50 incher...some lakes might avg a 50 for every 5 in the net, some it might be 10, some 20....again "regular basis" might mean a lot of things to a lot of different ppl....
just because "they are there" doesn't mean guys are catching them either...Kevin you fish Cass..any 50s last season ? how about Big? Little Wolf? any over 50? you know what I mean...not exactly regular basis ...yah, guys can say some lakes are loaded with 50s...then you ask them how many they have actually put in the net for the # of hours they have fished the lake and then you get "the rest of the story".... ; )
WI waters will never be like MN ...regardless of size limits...just not gonna happen...and that's fine..both are fun to fish...like Brett said, some of the prettiest fish are WI fish...I think he's won his Muskies Inc clubs Lunker of the Month the last 2 years in May...with a WI fish! ; )
Edited by BNelson 2/22/2012 8:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Brad ... i'm pretty sure that Kevin was purely focused on fishin big pike when he was on Cass |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Sled- I think you missed something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Yeah Brad we got 50s last year from lakes that you wouldnt call "trophy" lakes. First two came last year came from lakes that arent thought of as trophy waters.
No doubt WI has some beautiful fish. Wish they would stock a few lakes in the state with WI fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Yes Sled only after the big pike. Red Eyes and Dr. Spoons were hot last year.
Edited by kevin cochran 2/22/2012 8:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | post some pictures of your big pike sometime kevin ... we get some pretty good ones over here in Wisco too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Maybe Brett is the only one to fish in Wi. in May from his (Fargo) Club
I go to Cave Run in March and April ( for the last 8 yrs) and have caught fish that are much bigger than anyone in the MI. club in Mpls.(except last yr.) So what? Big deal.
I don't turn in my catches for some obvious reasons.
What does the Lunker of the month prove anyway?
Well, I hope that size limits do improve muskie fishing everywhere. and yes Wi. fish are sweet to look at,.....But so are these 55 inchers .
Edited by Top H2O 2/22/2012 8:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | got a nice one from Cass on my facebook page. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Weeeeellll anyway, Wisconsin has a new statewide limit (sort of, some lakes will never be anything but put and take and will 'never' carry a large size limit), many of us 'Sconnies are and have been working on new limits on our lakes and rivers with the potential to kick out the big girls while our DNR begins a new era ( a decade into the process already, for you detractors who are uninformed) of low density/big girls population management for the big fish waters with NR. There's been a study underway here for over a decade that limited or stopped stocking entirely on high trophy potential WI waters that might show NR. Good for lower density, and bigger fish, bad for numbers and on some lakes, bad for both, but it's necessary to find out. Dr. Sloss's work has redefined our DNR's strategies for diversity, and proven that the genetics here are what they have been despite the 'concern' over stocking records. Wisconsin muskies do grow big, and are heavy when they get there, but grow a bit slower...even in MN waters. Nothing wrong with the genetics, in fact the MN DNR liked 'em fine back in the day but liked the local supply of Spots better and both performed well, which in retrospect with VHS and all, has worked out. Muskie stamps are too expensive to administer and would be counterproductive from a financial standpoint, and would never make it past the CC anyhow, and harvest isn't the issue it was in the 80's to early 90's here (or in MN where there WERE Muskies back then)....and new MN fishery came of age and a new generation of muskie fishermen came with it who have the decided advantage of fishing new muskie waters for the first couple generations of muskies as they reach the upper confidence level there so they catch big fish .......and every time we have a discussion about Wisconsin's long history and the management strategies over the decades the same batch of folks over there inevitably try to hijack the thread.
Been that way since we opened this place.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| throw leechers in a mudhole in southern MN and 12 years later multiple 50" fish.....wish we could stock some leechers in IA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you catch big pike in the weeds with spoons and red-eyes? i've always found the big ones to be deep in the colder water best approached with jigs or better yet through the ice. but, you're the pike guy i guess. i'm sure you catch lots of em each year ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'throw leechers in a mudhole in southern MN and 12 years later multiple 50" fish.....wish we could stock some leechers in IA.'
There's a clear statement of a total lack of understanding of the biology of the fish and the ecosystems in which they live. My advice is to contact your fisheries manager and go visit. Scientists have a way of clearing up misconceptions pretty quickly if you can pin 'em down for a conversation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| understand perfectly and have tried we even had the money raised.............. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The reality is, the 40" limit was/is a huge step statewide, with more work to be/being done on a lake by lake basis. 40" wasn't just a number that was picked out of a hat, and was a great compromise, as mentioned above. That said, there are plenty of trophy lakes in WI big and small, producing 50" fish each and every year, that could be producing more with proper protection/education. Will they ever be as abundant as on some MN waters? Gosh no, and why I also fish MN. Who doesn't like big dumb fish. However, at least on a couple of my favorite MN waters, I think I've seen the 'best' of what I might expect. While Multiple 50" trips were the norm for many just a few short years ago, seeing nary another soul chuckin plugs, it isn't a given on as many lakes over there anymore. Of course there are plenty of MN waters still producing like that and peaking as we speak, but as mentioned above, there are alot of factors at play as to whether they'll have staying power.
While some will tongue in cheek turn this into a WI vs MN thread, others will be working on writing the next set of advisory questions for the hearings, to further protect some of our favorite trophy lakes here in WI. And, as Steve mentions, the DNR has been taking steps for years now, to privide some of the trophy/NR waters the ability to manage themselves. Some of you, like myself, are aware of local dynamics and individual trophy potentials re: the waters you fish. If there is a lake that you feel needs further protection, based on historical production, harvest culture, creel data, personal observations, etc, by all means make an effort to make a change for the better. The good(and bad) thing about WI is that you CAN do it. And while there are still some glaring examples of lakes that I'd love to see the size limit increased on, many of the historical trophy waters of WI are being protected by higher limits now(45" and 50" waters are no longer as much the exception in WI).
There are alot of lakes that really took a beating when the limit was 34" and I'm certain that the 40" limit is going to open the eyes of many who were once opposed to higher limits on their local bodies. While detrimental to some bodies, it could be a springboard for others to realize potential. Besides, many of the very kids named little 'johnny' that many once thought would be the ones slighted by higher limits, are the ones praising the protection that many trophy waters receive, and the statewide 40" provides.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/22/2012 9:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | jonnysled - 2/22/2012 8:49 PM
you catch big pike in the weeds with spoons and red-eyes? i've always found the big ones to be deep in the colder water best approached with jigs or better yet through the ice. but, you're the pike guy i guess. i'm sure you catch lots of em each year ...
We are using downriggers Sled. Ever get that email of the one pike that tried to eat the other pike? That was caught on a red-eye off a downrigger on Cass. Dont tell anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you fish em through the ice? ...
i think i got the rainy lake pike picture ...
Edited by jonnysled 2/22/2012 9:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ice? Who in their right mind would fish through a hole in the ice? That's just crazy. |
|
| |
|
|
Beers has had 50's caught in it. Rare fish there, but they have been there.
Mantrap is not just developing, it's been stocked since the early 80's if I'm not mistaken. Jerry Younk once said he felt that lake would produce the next MN record.
To my knowledge, every lake that is currently still being stocked in MN has had a 50"er caught or netted in it.
For what it's worth, I seriously doubt that sucker fishing is any more of a muskie killer than any other tactic in MN. All lures can kill fish, and suckers are the least used of any by anglers for 90% of the season, and even in the fall most guys don't use them in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Guest - 2/22/2012 9:49 PM
To my knowledge, every lake that is currently still being stocked in MN has had a 50"er caught or netted in it.
JS
Agreed, Fox is a mudhole - nothing special about that lakes ecosystem or size and it pumps out fish into the mid-50" range...leechers simply get long. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Is it fertile and highly buffered? Sounds like it. What do you know about the water chemistry there?
I bet it's not acidic and sterile. Put those fish in Spider in Oneida County and they'd not get much over 44"...ever. Bass top out there at about 13". Same strain in Pelican hits 25" and over 8#, a giant bigmouth for the North. And yes, Spider is a stocked Muskie lake and I enjoy fishing it because it's little, full of fish, and a great place to fish on a blasting cold front. Water there is coffee colored and very acidic. Vegetation ends in about 4' due to crap light penetration. I've had 9 fish days there, but the average is probably 35".
Wisconsin has some very infertile waters. Not Bay of Green Bay, though, walleyes there get big and get big pretty fast, on Pelican they top out later and smaller, and on Spider they don't reproduce or grow for squat. And there it is.
You need to study what the MN DNR discovered about the performance of the Wi strain. Those fish performed very well long term (important part of looking in to this, no bias) and grew about as long as the Leech fish did, just took a bit longer to get there, and are openly recognized as being heavier at upper confidence. Put 'spots' in George a mile from my house, and long term they'd get big, just like the Wisco fish in there now. I'd love that, but they will have to come from WI waters...now a possibility perhaps in the future.
The WI strain fish in Mille Lax did pretty well, too.
It ain't just 'the fish'. No magic bullet.
Look at Ohio strain fish and what they can do.
And I'll say it again, this is about the new size limit in WISCONSIN. Go the the research board, REAMS of discussion on the 'it's the fish' dead debate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | BNelson - 2/22/2012 6:08 PM
so you haven't caught one on Mantrap over 50 ? just "encounters".... ?
regardless, "regular basis" is up to interpretion I guess...some get a 50 in the net every 20 or so hours on the water, some 50, some every 100, some every 200 hrs..what's "regular"?.... or there is how many fish in the net for every 50 incher...some lakes might avg a 50 for every 5 in the net, some it might be 10, some 20....again "regular basis" might mean a lot of things to a lot of different ppl....
just because "they are there" doesn't mean guys are catching them either...Kevin you fish Cass..any 50s last season ? how about Big? Little Wolf? any over 50? you know what I mean...not exactly regular basis ...yah, guys can say some lakes are loaded with 50s...then you ask them how many they have actually put in the net for the # of hours they have fished the lake and then you get "the rest of the story".... ; )
WI waters will never be like MN ...regardless of size limits...just not gonna happen...and that's fine..both are fun to fish...like Brett said, some of the prettiest fish are WI fish...I think he's won his Muskies Inc clubs Lunker of the Month the last 2 years in May...with a WI fish! ; )
Considering that I've only fished Manny for about 15 hours total I think it's pretty good.
Truth be told, the best ratio of adult muskies over 50 will rarely be more then 10% of the population at best and usually in the 5% range. At the end of the day, if they aren't there people will never catch them. So the more we act to protect and enhance the better chance we'll all have of getting one. |
|
| |
|
|
I don't think anyone has ever claimed putting Leech lake fish in every lake in WI will give you 50"ers.
But every lake in WI isn't acidic and infetile. There are plenty of waters that are just as capable as anything in MN to put out big fish. Maybe concentrating on why those big fish aren't there instead of making excuses for why big fish are in MN would be a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure where the figure of 90% of muskies are released in WI comes from, but the stories I've heard and read would not support that at all. Maybe among hard core Muskie anglers, but not among the majority of anglers in WI.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| I'll 'm not sure where the figure of 90% of muskies are released in WI comes from, but the stories I've heard and read would not support that at all. Maybe among hard core Muskie anglers, but not among the majority of anglers in WI
The "stories" you've heard, J.S.? Come on. The 90% number comes from creel surveys and research and its actually higher than that among average fishermen. Among dedicated muskie fishermen its over 99%. The dirty little secret no one wants to admit is that this is the same in MN...people are people everywhere. We've all seen the wall at the Emmaville store (or many other bait shops near muskie lakes). The biggest difference in harvest is size limits, not some distinction in the character of fishermen. Which is exactly why raising the limit to 40" is so important. MN's limit was 40" until VERY recently and fish were harvested all the time...grandmas on Mille Lacs ate pretty well. |
|
| |
|
|
Creel surveys and research of muskie release rates are estimates at best. People also like to lie to the DNR about what they catch. That's a fact.
If 90% of the muskies in WI are released, than the rest must be transported into space up to starship enterprise.
In MN the limits were raised again, because not as many fish are released as people like to think.
If you are saying you don't need higher limits because your release rates are so high, then you either need to teach people how to handle fish better, or you need to do some serious stocking in lakes that should have higher populations and more big fish in them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if only we could be as good at it as the guys in Minnesota ... please teach us JS. we're just a bunch of lying meat-hunters.
another Wisconsin expert |
|
| |
