Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Minnesota 56 inch minimum debate |
| Message Subject: Minnesota 56 inch minimum debate | |||
muskymaniac4ever |
| ||
Posts: 34 | Well said Brad, best posting on this subject | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | Thanks guys. I'm just trying to apply some logic to this. In running those numbers, the thing that jumped out to me is that it is easy for a regular fisherman, like me, to look at this on a fish by fish basis or a lake by lake basis. The one lake/one fish arguments against this attitude have been stated, basically that if there are a 150 trophies in Tonka then it doesn’t take much over a 6 month season to wipe out or severally damage the very limited resource. Even if you are replenishing at a rate of 45 per year, that is a very tight margin of error to avoid damaging the trophy population without sound CPR practices. (I know that is simplifying it.) The thing that changed for me with the numbers was to look at the cost across the whole state. If the DNR is already low on funds and needs MI’s help plus we pile on bonked fish, then we are on borrowed time. In short, where is the money going to come from to replace our 50s? That is the big issue to me. Yes, Average Joe pays taxes and/or buys an out state license and completely deserves his shot at that trophy. But the cost of keeping that fish is prohibitive given the low fingerling survivability rate and the cost of stocking them, let alone the 12 year growth period. It would be one thing if a skin mount was the only option, but in the era or replicas it isn’t. So the question to me on the topic really comes down to this: Is the difference in cost for the Replica vs. the Skin Mount more important than the potential harm to the fishery and cost to the stocking program (12 years and $467). IMO, the answer is No. I think the biggest challenge the MN fishery faces is education. In the metro sucker fishing is exploding and the cost of equipment to soak a minnow is extremely cheap compared to other forms of musky fishing. This presents a challenge in that the preferred tools to release a large musky probably cost 3-4x as much as the gear needed to soak the minnow. (The stocked fish costs 9-10x as much) Is a casual shore angler going to invest in the proper tools? The economics say not likely. So how do Musky enthusiasts educate this growing segment in order to prevent higher mortality rates and great damage to a fragile resource? That is a huge challenge. I do not think a 56” limit is a solution to this issue, but it does do some good: It will provide a legal means of incenting said angler to release fish <56”. Assuming the angler knows the rules, they will at least be thinking “release” when they catch their trophy. Right now they do not “have” to think that way at all. Hardly a total solution, but it is a start and much better than nothing. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | No idea Sorgy. The main problem points as I see them is 1. It equates to a "harvest stamp". Who's going to get one except to harvest a muskie. 2. The logistics of both managing the stamp and tracking the harvested fish would be cost prohibitive. 3. What are we getting for our money? I'm not a fan of how the money from the walleye stamp is being used at all. It's covering their regular stocking when in fact it was supposed to provide supplemental stockings above and beyond the normal plan. 4. When only a few people who want to harvest a muskie buy the stamp and we have 5000 sold we lose all credibility when it comes to getting new waters/stumping for any conservation issue. IMOP, there's not a single good reason to have it and I fight with many others over this and will till I die or stop caring. MI and the HCB Fund provide more then enough supplemental funds for anything the DNR has ever requested. We aren't getting new lakes at anything short of a snails pace. All the added revenue gained (probably a neg flow due to Gov't inefficiencies) would probably be used to give us the program we currently have. | ||
| jasond |
| ||
Posts: 187 Location: West Metro, MN | Brad I think you hit on some very good reasons why the protection of true trophy fish is needed. I think that keeping this whole discussion in the context that our muskie waters in MN are for the most part currently managed as a trophy fisheries (with the exception of the tiger lakes in the metro) and that is something that I would like to see continued as would a large number of muskie fisherman I would contend, then the increased size limit makes a lot of sense. Given the number of different MN lakes that show up in the lunge log every year with 50"+ fish caught out of them the genetics and forage seem to be in place to continue to grow trophy caliber fish, so why not protect a 52" trophy fish so that it has a chance to be a 54" trophy fish the next time someone is lucky enough to catch it. I also agree with Treats that if a muskie stamps becomes a reality it woud likely be used as a way to fill the gap that would have been created by decreased funding to muskie related programs, so we have to be careful what we ask for. If there is a stamp or anything else that is created that will positively impact stocking new waters then sign me up! | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3147 | I want the 56,,but I know there will be some after effects,, has a life long Minnesotan I know how my fellow Minnesota bass,walleye,panfish fisherman think they "WILL" raise the point that less muskies per acre should be stocked in current lakes now that 99% will be released,,Weve already heard this point brought up on local fishing shows like 'fan outdoors' and "Bear facts and fishtales"-muskie anglers release all their fish why stock has many,,,, even the smallmouth on Mile lacs are getting the same treatmeant-its a released species they will take over the lake,,, With the DNR budget strained this less stocking may get a look. One executive Minn DNR rep told me that even if the public opinion seems wrong compared to our opinion on an issue we DO have to listen to their concerns I hope we are SURE that delayed hook mortality isnt higher then we want to believe it is because if stocking numbers go down we could have less of a muskie fisherie. I hope we get some assurance that stocking quotas in the future wont change if the 56 gets passed | ||
| 123 |
| ||
| A couple of years ago, I was having lunch at Bayview Lodge on Lake Vermilion. Waitress asked if we were fishing. We said 'yes, musky fishing'. She replied that a guy from out of state came in a couple of days earlier showing off a photo of a musky he caught and kept and the fish was bigger than the guys 6 year old, who was in the photo for a size comparison. She told me the next day, he caught and kept another fish from the same exact spot, which was even bigger than the first. She was amazed. "Isn't that incredible?". Sorry, but that left me feeling a little sick even though perfectly legal. But laws evolve everyday for a reason and I think the musky laws in MN should change to reflect our modern times and a valuable slow growing public resource. Brian | |||
| Sorgy |
| ||
Posts: 304 Location: Lino Lakes, MN | This discussion has really taken a postitive turn. Great Job to all that are fighting this fight. There are alot of you guys- To many to count to thank. Brad P- you have some very solid discussion items that are vey well communicated - great job Hooker, Your point about delayed mortality is a really big one. It emphasizes the reasoning behind educating people on how to correctly handle and release fish, not fishing ourselves when water temps are high and also Brad P's point on educating the Sucker fishermen around the state and elsewhere. Thank You for this solid discussion Keep it up Steve | ||
| Captain |
| ||
Muskie Treats - 2/2/2013 10:58 AM bigred2198 - 2/2/2013 8:07 AM How many of you are going to let the 150" buck walk so some one else can see him. There is really no difference. There's a huge difference. It took 4-5 years to make that buck but a 50" muskie takes 12-15 years. You can have 3 year classes of that buck for every 50" muskie. That 50" muskie can also live and be enjoyed for an additional 5-10 years as well where that buck is likely dead by 7-8 tops. How many of you would let a 150" buck walk on PUBLIC land? We fish public waters right? So, because I release a fish enables someone else the opportunity to catch (and hopefully) and release it as well. But I would be willing to bet that 90% of you would shoot a 150" buck if it were on public land because most everyone else on public land would. Private land? Completely different story. Back to the musky talk... To me 56" limit essentially makes it catch and release only. It stops just shy of it, but its close. I dont think setting a "statewide" limit at 56" is a good idea for ALL lakes. I could see some lakes like Mille Lacs, Vermilion, Leech, etc get a 56" limit, but other lakes have something in the range of 48 to 54 would be more appropriate. I think angling pressure and capabilities for the lake to produce a fish of those calibers should be the main consideration for setting the limit. We already have differentiation for Shoepac lakes. I think we should consider similar rules here. Not all lakes will produce fish to and beyond 56". Far more are not capable of doing it than can. I would never keep a musky in the first place, but I wouldnt get completely bent out of shape if we had reasonable limits in place that would protect our fisheries and allow the potential for keeping a giant if someone so chose. A giant on one lake may be an up an comer on another. | |||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | Captain I follow your reasoning, but I do not agree. Here are my thoughts: Given that Graphite Replicas are available there are only 3 reasons I can see to keep a fish under the proposed 56" restriction: 1.) The angler wants to eat the fish 2.) The angler wants to save money by getting a skin mount vs. the more expensive replica or prefers the skin over the replica 3.) The angler has an abnormally girthy fish in the 54-55" class that might compete for a record For item 1, there is no recourse, the right would be lost. However, I think those who are concerned about losing this right are in a very small minority. Item 2 seems to be an issue for some. I think the regulation is fair given the costs of the stocking the fish. At the end of the day the regulation is essentially asking an angler to pay the difference in cost between a skin mount and a replica. My opinion is that it is a fair price to pay in order to help sustain the trophy potential of the fishery. It would be much different if there were no alternative to a skin mount. Then it would be a situation where you cannot have a mount without a rare fish which would be a bum deal. However, with replicas you can get any fish mounted as long as you take a picture, so you are not losing the opportunity for a mount, it is just more expensive. Again, I think the additional cost is fair given the benefit to the fishery. Item 3 I can see a point being made. Case in point would be the 2nd Hammernick fish this fall which was shy of 56" but had a legitimate shot at breaking the state record. Kudos to the angler for releasing that fish, but I can see a case for a very upset angler being legally forced to release a record breaking fish. In that respect I could see going to 55" vs. 56" and still maintain the spirit of the regulation, I'll defer to people who know more about fish size than I do on that one. These are just my opinions on the subject. Edited by Brad P 2/6/2013 1:41 PM | ||
| Captain |
| ||
| Brad P, You forgot one other obvious answer to keeping a fish under 56. 4) Angler wants to bonk any musky he/she catches because they hate them Tongue in cheek a little bit, but you know there will be people grandstanding about not allowing anyone to keep any muskies and what that means to other fish. It happens all the time. As mentioned by others MN Musky fishing was established to allow a "Trophy" fishing opportunity. Nowhere in the long range plans does it talk about numbers. So, to me it boils down to what is considered a trophy then and that I feel varies by lake. I dont know what the cost differences are between skin mounts versus replicas, but there are a LOT of people that want "their fish" on the wall and now some reproduction. I guess that is #5 now. | |||
| 2labradors |
| ||
Posts: 125 Location: Barnesville MN | Brad P #6 reason. You catch a big fish say 53-55" and you try to release it but it dies on you. do you just leave it floating or do you keep it illegaly. | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | #5 still comes down to the same type of question as the Replica vs. Skin Mount thing, IMO. It is different framing, ie “they want their fish” but it is still ultimately a question of one angler vs. the fishery as a whole. Is it is worth killing a 12+ yr old stocked trophy so somebody can have “their fish” on the wall vs. a replica? I get that someone might take that view, but I do not find it persuasive. It is still basically a question of selfishness, IMO. Yes, you have that right, but at what cost to the fishery we all enjoy? I generally do not like taking the utilitarian view at the expense of liberty since it is almost always a bad trade. However, in this case I can see a strong reason to limit the freedom of anglers, ie skin mounts vs. replicas, when it has such obvious benefits to everyone who uses the resource. “Their fish” could be 50 people’s fish over the course of its lifetime and the individual in question will still have the option of the replica for their memory of that fish. That is simply more effective use of the resource overall. #4 is pretty much ridiculous, which is how I think you meant it. The important thing there is to recognize that while a size limit change will alter how law-abiding anglers handle the fish, poachers are another story entirely. That is an enforcement concern. | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | 2labradors - 2/6/2013 3:55 PM Brad P #6 reason. You catch a big fish say 53-55" and you try to release it but it dies on you. do you just leave it floating or do you keep it illegaly. I get what you are saying, but at that point does the reg really matter? This is a red herring IMO. Look at the corroloary, are you really going to advcate against the size limit on the basis of this argument: Someone has a bad day and a 53" dies on them during CPR, therefore we shouldn't protect the entire fishery so they can keep their floater. Also, if you put an exception in for a fish that died while attempting release wouldn't that create an incentive to just bonk the fish and then when you bring it in say "hey sorry, it died in the net..." IMO, you jsut take the licks on this. It is better than having bad policy with a bunch of caveats that all lead to unitended consequences. That is the same problem with having different size limits on different lakes. What if you fish 20 different lakes, are you going to remember which one is 42, which is 48 and which is 56? Simpler is better, it makes it easier to communicate to all anglers and get them thinking more about releasing and protecting muskies which is the whole point. Add a bunch of If this, maybe that, and the base message gets lost in the confusion. | ||
| 2labradors |
| ||
Posts: 125 Location: Barnesville MN | Brad, I agree with the 56" inch limit and fish die I just know how peeed off some people get when they see a big fish floating dead. Also I don't see a real serious problem with different size limits on different lakes. There are slot limits for walleyes, crappies etc,on different lakes that I fish, but it would sure be alot easier if it was all the same. | ||
| Captain |
| ||
Brad P - 2/6/2013 3:59 PM Brad, you are right it was intended to be ridiculous, BUT there are people I know personally who openly comment like this and are completely serious. Thankfully they are not equiped to fish for muskies or have any relative skills so they are not very successful, BUT, they have killed pretty much every legal fish they have caught. Granted at one point that was fish 40" plus, now its 48", but the fact of the matter is it is done and no, they do not do it for the sake of eating it (though the fish are consumed) that isnt their intent. #4 is pretty much ridiculous, which is how I think you meant it. The important thing there is to recognize that while a size limit change will alter how law-abiding anglers handle the fish, poachers are another story entirely. That is an enforcement concern. I would stop short of saying these folks break laws in doing this meaning, i dont think they keep sub-legal fish, so a higher limit would protect more fish, BUT, my point was there will be negative feedback by walleye, panfish and other anglers in essentially making muskies catch and release and they will likely push for lower stocking numbers since the fish will not be harvested. I do agree with your thoughts however. | |||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | I do not know if those with baseless opinions are persuadable or even if it is worth trying. The thread about the Hey Day of MN being over is similar in some respects: Are there really less fish or has pressure changed the game? I think our friends in the fishing community that chase other species are perhaps falling victim to the same mindset. They like catching their beloved fish in one way and do not want to broaden their skillset. The fish get pressured and adapt, the angler doesn't adapt and then decides to blame Muskies or some other conveinent bogeyman that can't fight back. (My father in law does this, he will only fish for Walleyes with a spinner rig, which doesn't work well for him in Todd County MN, so he drives 9 hours to Sakaweah (sp?) in ND because his tactics work there. I admit to finding this funny, since Miltona is 35 miles from his house, but he is a good guy so I don't say anything to him.) If I could figure out how to fix this problem I'd have a heck of future in politics. Edited by Brad P 2/7/2013 12:43 PM | ||
| 123 |
| ||
| BradP No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize. Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish): #1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them. #2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught. That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN. Brian | |||
| DLC |
| ||
Posts: 82 | I had walleye guys tell me the same thing about the muskies eating all the walleye then told them my buddy cought over 40 the other night so they must just suck. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I am not going to go into specifics... But I know for a fact that there is a bait store in the Metro MN area, where one of the workers is an avid panfisherman. He has expressed his personal hatred for muskies to me before he knew my stance on them. He also expressed to me that he tells all of his customers to kill every muskie they catch and he does the same, because they are eating all of his panfish. Well, after disclosing some of this to me, I expressed who I was and what I try to do for the sport. We had a friendly debate over muskies and because I could back up some stuff with facts, he had no argument. I don't go to that bait shop very often unless I have to for whatever reason. But I believe 100% that there are many different types of people out there that are blatently miss-informed about muskies and their habits. A lot of those people already formulated an opinion that is dam near impossible to change. However, we need to try because that crap is stepping over the line. I don't like carp all that much, but I don't try and catch em jsut so I can slit their throats. Some people just deserve a few knuckle sandwiches from time to time. EDUCATION goes a long way. We just need to continue to educate these people in hopes that they don't kill all of our fish. because as we all know, there are people out there that do and will Edited by FAT-SKI 2/7/2013 4:10 PM | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | My statement that it is ridiculous has more to do wit the behavior being obnoxious that to the truth of hte existance of the mentality. In terms of the size limit restriction, it would only help. With that law in place, any of these guys bonking a fish under 56" would be considered poaching. Obviously this becomes an enfocement issue, and that is a whole other set of problems, but in terms of hte proposed limit, I would think that case #4 would only support the case for the stricter restriction. Education is the key on folks that have the mentality you guys are describing. Not much else you can do. | ||
| Baby Mallard |
| ||
Use T.I.P (Turn In Poachers) when you see/hear guys abusing our natural resources. Write down their license plate # if you don't know their name. My buddy just turned a guy in for bragging about all the crappies he had caught/kept that day. CO showed up to his house and sure enough there was 60 uncleaned crappies that he kept that day. Point is quite a few of these guys that break the law are often not very smart and like to brag about what they have done. At the very least it will give CO's names of people in their area that are linked to such abuse. TIP works. | |||
| 4amuskie |
| ||
123 - 2/7/2013 3:38 PM I absolutely believe this is the #1 cause for decreased populations in some of those lakes in minnesota. Combined with spearing and netting these are problems that can not be controlled. I have witnessed muskie in whitefish nets and heard the net owners complain that the muskie are tearing there nets up and eating there whitefish and tulibee. I have seen them muskie floating with a knife wound in their stomach and a net ring around their nose. I have heard the comments from walleye guys and cabin owners. They hate the muskie and 100% blame them for decrased walleye population. BradP No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize. Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish): #1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them. #2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught. That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN. Brian I have heard the cabin owners cuss at them for scaring there kids while hiding under docks. The only thing that is saving these lakes is the big muskie can usually break those little walleye lines. I bet those walley guys, cabin owners, whitefish netters, and panfisherman will not be in favor of any 56" size limit. Might as well put walleye eating sharks in their lakes and then try to tell them they will just be eating suckers and wont bite your kids. Edited by 4amuskie 2/8/2013 10:23 AM | |||
| DLC |
| ||
Posts: 82 | This arguement is lame.I was at the dnr round table and no one said a word when this was discussed. In fact most walleye guys that know anything realise the the muskie lakes provide the best walleye fishing. And we have the proof. | ||
| Propster |
| ||
Posts: 1901 Location: MN | You may feel it's lame but it's a fact that many of the uneducated non-muskie fisherman out there hold this view. | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | The discussion is relevant in terms of protecting the fish, but it is not really relevant to the 56” size limit proposal beyond what has already been stated. To recap: If limit is enacted, bonking a fish <56” will be considered poaching. As far as this discussion is concerned that should be the end of it. Not trying to dismiss the concern, it is a valid concern, but this thread is about the 56” size limit, and as far as that is concerned the above is pretty much all that needs to be said with regard to this topic. | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | Has a harvest tag already been discussed? Countless times I suppose. I know it's kind of off-topic, but I've never heard what other musky fishermen think of this. $100 (for example) tag must be purchased prior to keeping a fish, 50" minimum length, limit one per angler per year. C&R permitted with just the state fishing license. Much like big-game saltwater fishing. | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | That might be a good option. I can't imagine many would be sold, and I'm sure it would eliminate pretty much any chance of a new record though. | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | ammoman16 - 2/8/2013 11:54 AM That might be a good option. I can't imagine many would be sold, and I'm sure it would eliminate pretty much any chance of a new record though. Why? I think most people would buy the tag who are [being honest with themselves and legitimately] after a state/world record. One [of probably many] flaw is that it might make someone MORE likely to keep a low 50 than if they didn't have the tag. Let's say Jo intends to keep a musky someday for the wall. And let's say Jo catches a 52" this year under the current laws. It's legal, but he thinks he'll catch a bigger one someday, so he let's her go. Next year Jo has to buy a $100 tag, and does, because he's confident he'll get a big one. He get's another 52" but keeps it because (A) he spent the money on the tag, and (B) he doesn't think it's likely that he'll catch bigger in that season. | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | I would think that would be better option if it was done in conjunction with a raised limit. That said, I'd be shocked if even 25% of musky fisherman bought the tag. I think most go out with the intent on C&R and would like to tell themselves they would release a record fish so they wouldn't even buy the tag. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | One of the many problems with a musky stamp. The only people that are going to buy one are those that 'plan' on catching and keeping musky for whatever reason. The stamp would not be a situation where "you have to buy a stamp in order to fish for them legally". You might as well have to buy a seperate license just for musky fishing. Which would never pass. I am not the best one to way in on a topic such as this, but "MuskieTreats" has all sorts of info about this topic (some of which whave been discussed on this thread) and very valid points to why it is a bad idea. I have heard a ton of them, but now that I am on the spot of course I can't think of any. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |