|
|
| I personally would like to see a slot size limit tried on some lakes. Minnimun 34 but all fish between 40 and 48 put back. These fish would be I belive would be prime spawners. In talking to taxidermists I also found out that this is the size fish mounted most often by the guy who caught one while fishing for something else. This would mean that if someone caught a 481/2 incher they could keep it. Lets face it that is a nice fish anywhere your catch it.
Don Pfeiffer
|
|
| |
|
| Although I would simply prefer a higher size limit, the higher the better in my opinion, I would support a slot limit if it came down to a choice between that or keeping our shameful 34 inch size limit.[:((] |
|
| |
|
| Don,the way I look at it is the 36`s,37`s,38`s and 39`s also due alot of the spawning!I like the 48" size limits but it seems to me that slots work good for table fair fish but will that work on musky`s?I guess each and everyone looks at this issue different.Hope that we as sportsman can find a way to make this issue a non-issue! Jeff |
|
| |
|
| I`d rather see higher size limits than a slot. In order for a fish to make it to that protected slot it first has to live through the years of being a 36" and 38"er. If you want to protect them, protect them to maturity. But first and foremost give them a chance to make it that far.
I know size limit questions will always draw the ire of some who will claim that the resorts will be hurting if we increase the size limit. I say BS. Resorts are disappearing and turning into lakeside condos wherever I go. It`s hard to find resorts anymore in areas that I fish. So I don`t buy that arguement.
Raising size limits is actually forced catch and release and will benefit us all.
We also have to educate the public that muskies are not walleye eating machines and are not to blame for declining walleye fisheries in northern WI. I`m tired of hearing that crap and people saying that they keep and kill every 34'er that they catch.
Increasing size limits won`t affect my fishing anyway since I don`t plan on ever keeping another fish anyway.
"But what about the poor tourist that catches his first ever and biggest muskie?" Tell him or her to take a camera along just in case.
Until the WDNR takes a stand and grows some ba//$ and changes it`s approach towards the mighty muskie and how the fishery is managed, it`s all just whistling in the wind anyway.
So until changes are made, I`ll just do all I can by practicing total catch and release.
Beav |
|
| |
|
| Due to lack of interest this response was removed to another thread [;)] |
|
| |
|
| Don,
I think a slot limit would help but what if this increases the number of fish under the limit that are kept? This could back fire and actually reduce the # of big fish for the future. I think the waters need to be managed better either way and take more of a look at overstocking, baitfish populations, strain, increasing the overall catch and release ethic and better tracking of the Native American spearing. This will do more than any slot limit or higher legal #. The "old" money of the Wisc. resort owners is slowly getting replaced with the sailboat, condo, jetski crowd. They don''t care at all and will slowly try to eliminate as much of the fishing that they can. (Remember the Fox Chain?)
It is unfortunate that the passion that we all share for this sport cannot be channeled into a way to improve it instead of us bickering about it. I thank you for bringing the subject up and hope everyone can keep this civil.
|
|
| |
|
| I think it should be explored. We all want better fishing and bigger fish. Personally I think a slot limit would be better suited for a lake with a higher fish population. Maybe they should beta test a few lakes and see how it pans out. One problem that would exist is how would it affect the overall harvest on the lake. Would it be more or less and how would you adjust stocking efforts. That may get complicated. I certainly would not be opposed to it if it worked. |
|
| |
|
| Slots already confuse too many folks. Just raise it and make it as long as an oar. Then every one will have a ruler in thier boat.
I still believe most the kill is done by first time muskie anglers and by those fishing for other species. Its much harder to catch a 48" on 6lb test then 50lb Tuf-Line.[;)] |
|
| |
|
| A couple of years ago when a slot limit was proposed at the Spring DNR hearings it was defeated soundly. The two major groups against it in Oneida County where the non musky fisherman and Musky anglers who just want to see higher size limits. To most of them the slot doesn’t make any sense. The feeling was why not protect all the fish under that 48" limit, or we don’t want anymore large Musky, because they eat all our Bass and Walleye.
I personally think it would work on some lakes. A slot limit sure has been beneficial on the Fox River Walleye population. Great trophy potential there.
Nail a Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| BTTT |
|
| |
|
| I guess to one this post is of no interest but I do think it is worth a try on several lakes. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE????? We are have several lakes with higher size limits. If you don't try you'll never know.
Jason you have oars in your tuffy?
Hope ya get one that big someday.
Don Pfeiffer
P.s. Remember we have to please all anglers not just the die hard musky angler. |
|
| |
|
| Don, I agree it probably wouldn't hurt anything to give it a try. The only drawback I see is one mentioned by Handyman...slot limits are usually used for "table fare" fish. We could actually give off the wrong message...we are protecting this particular size of musky but it is okay to whack anything bigger or smaller. I think what we are eventually trying to get across is that musky shouldn't really be considered tablefare but the rare, alpha predator beast they are. There will never be too many of them (for the most part). A slot limit almost implies we agree with keeping of the fish. Just some random thoughts. But heck, let's give it a try if nothing else can be done.
How about a slot limit from 1" to 48" [;)]
BrianW |
|
| |
|
| Don: Jason's point of smaller fish being kept by people fishing for other species has much merit. Just learned yesterday, that several resort owners on the Chip have been checking the fish cleaning shack and are finding MANY small legal fish being kept!
Jason, your "oar" idea "could" be a good one, but you failed to realize that there are MANY size of oars from 5 to 7 feet (for those that have/use them-have only a paddle in my boat-couldn't row the durn tank anyway!).
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell |
|
| |
|
| I personally would think a slot size would be a bad idea for managing muskies. While I think it has been great for walleyes, where you can catch and keep the smaller eaters and be forced to release the breeders,walleyes are a more abundant fish species than a muskie in most bodys of water.
I don't think there are the numbers of muskies in a lake to allow the harvest of smaller fish. I'm not sure, but I can't ever remember seeing a slot size ever put on a lake to help manage muskies (I could be wrong!). Seems to me that on a fish like a muskie where you do not have a abundant resource and are the top perditor, protecting them from being harvested from the waters would be the best way to go. |
|
| |
|
| I say go with the higher size limit. The slots are confusing enough for walleyes. Besides, when you compare muskies to walleyes you have to look at the sheer numbers of walleyes your dealing with. Just with the odds you have you're going to get a lot more walleyes that make it to, and through, the slot limit than muskies because of those numbers.
A muskie should be considered a trophy only fish. We as muskie fishermen need to forward that idea. I can't even imagine how someone could consider them tablefare anyway. They probably taste crappy. (Like Bald Eagle??)
Anyway, by upping the size limits and forcing that "trophy" fish mentality on people it will only help. I also agree that the DNR needs to grow some ba""s. They always try to do what they can to make the general population happy. They as "experts" should do what is best for the fishery population, not the human population. We as a whole need to get away from that "politically correct" attitude. Look where it has gotten us lately.
Good Luck and Be Safe,
Scott |
|
| |
|
| I agree with Bill on this one. Hey Bill, congrats on the young man's musky yesterday, he looks pretty happy in the picture I took!![:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| There are smaller fish being kept already and it I don't think it would promote keeping more small ones. If it does it it so bad?????? I would rather have a person keeping a 38 incher then keping a 46
You uys have made my point for me>>>>>>>You would be protecting the bigger more mature spawner.
Those 34 or 38 inchers they would keep may not have the genes to become 46 or biger ..........
The slot would protect that possably do.
You all want bigger fish to catch but are so unwilling to open your eyes and try something new.
If a person cannot understand slot size limits jason they are awfully slow> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand them
All I am saying is what would it hurt to try it on it several lakes>>>>>>>>>NOTHING AT ALL!!!!.........
Don Pfeiffer |
|
| |
