Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> 50" slot. Why?? |
| Message Subject: 50" slot. Why?? | |||
Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | It seems to me that alot of people on this site and similar sites battle around a 50" slot on muskies. In MN it's 40, wisc, even less. I was wondering why not set the goals a little shorter, say a 45". 40's are not that uncommon but 50's are a fish of a lifetime. To me 45" would be about the perfect size slot. For guys who actually want to eat them, 45" are possible for freezer once or twice a year. Alot of guys won't get a 50, but maybe a 45-49 and they would like it on the wall. Maybe this has come up before, but what are your thoughts. Is this a bad idea for some reason?? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32935 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The bar for a trophy was raised about 15 years ago from upper 40's to 50 or bigger. The idea of a 50" limit is to make the waters the restriction applies to 'trophy only'. The debate in Wisconsin centers on the fact that there is no existing data to support the idea works or will actually produce enough 50" class fish. IF it doesn't on a lake the DNR selected as trophy potential water( I believe it will) the lake is then relegated to catch and release only. Is that a bad thing? Depends on who you talk to. Most people here would accept that limit on ALL waters, knowing that many won't produce many (if any) 50" fish, mostly because we release all muskies caught anyway. Selective harvest works to control populations of any gamefish, including muskies. The selection of the size limit, in my VERY humble opinion, shouldn't be up to the public. I think the fisheries management folks dedicated their lives to learing what is right for the waters they work, and the decision should be theirs. ANY decision will cause one group or another to disagree, but that is tough beanies. There aren't enough business owners, guides, promoters, website operators, magazine publishers, fishing pros, or general everyday anglers with a fisheries degree to expect a good decision from us. | ||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | I agree but, I think it's a obvious fact that if you take a 43" fish out of a system, Someone else no longer has a chance to catch it. I don't need to be a fisheries expert to understand that. I also think that the public should have a say, were the ones paying there salary, are we not? Our politions know much more about Forieghn Policy than me or you but I would bet you have an opinion on such issues as Iraq? Now I can understand that maybe if not having a smaller size limit would hurt other fish populations, I'm with you. I wouldn't have a clue about that. If it's a matter of what size limit can they put on to make sure there is a healthy population of muskies only, I think we, the paying publc, should have a say on what the size limits are. I mean there are stocked muskies for one reason, Money. It makes money and the ones spending it should have influence. Even if it's limited. Thanks for your thought out comments, they made me think into it a little deeper. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32935 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Politics and biology are apples/oranges, so that doesn't apply well. In Wisconsin, we have both in the same jar. Our Governor appoints the DNR Secretary, so the public doesn't get to vote on that issue, yet we ( the public) get to assume the role of a defacto biologist at the spring hearings to decide if a management techinque would be 'popular'. That is plain weird. The fisheries folks know what lakes would benefit from a 50" limit, and which would not, so it should be their decision as to which lakes are targeted for research trials. We are talking about a total of maybe 34 lakes, so there will be many waters out there with smaller size restrictions. Those lakes have the smaller restrictions as the biomass won't support a population of large muskies, and in fact generally won't 'grow' them that big; along with dozens of other considerations. The 50" proposal here this spring was soundly defeated BECAUSE of politics, not good biology or fisheries management. The problem was a near total lack of understanding on the part of a very vocal group of people who mean well, but didn't understand the proposal or the potential impact on the fisheries and the local economy if the plan was implemented. The debate created enemies out of friends, and strained relations among many muskie anglers as a result. No muskie population was 'damaged' out on the water comparing this year to last; it is all figurative. In my opinion, it is counterproductive for EITHER camp to react in anger and alienate those who hold a different view. That is what happened though, and THAT is why management of the muskie resource should be left to those who know how to do that in the best interest of the fishery. I talked to the Madison office of the DNR, and was told they felt that the proposal would have passed if there had been more time to present the facts carefully, and inform the public. An example: New panfish limits were implemented by the DNR over the LOUD objections of many, but have been the best thing that could have happened for the panfish populations. The old daily limit was 50, the new 25. I hope it goes to 15 soon. | ||
| Shep |
| ||
Posts: 5874 | OM, We(the public), do, to a point, have a say in this. The forum is the joke that is our Spring hearings. Haven't you enjoyed the Dove hunt the past few years, since it was overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 40 gazillion to 3? The spring hearings are a joke. Again, a joke. If we are going to try to get a higher size limit on some lakes, it has to be a lot more organized, and a lot more effort and time and money put into this goal than there was last year. Notice, I said some lakes. Only way I see this happening under the current rules of the game, is to pick one or two lakes that our DNR has targeted, and get out the vote. Even if we were to get it passed, it is not set in stone that it will change to the higher side. Too many individuals can still get in the way. I agree with Steve. Change the way we do things, and let the professionals do their jobs. Get the politics out of it! Edited by Shep 8/6/2003 1:42 PM | ||
| EViL0nE |
| ||
Posts: 109 | I agree that letting the public decide almost anything regarding wildlife is silly. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of biologists in this nation that are paid to do nothing but learn what is best for the wild life in their specific region. This includes available hunting tags to help match what the animal population can afford, and it includes size/possesion limits for what aquatic species can afford in any specific body of water. To think that joe schmo resident of x county who goes fishing can tell you that the population of a species of fish will thrive under x conditions is rediculous. | ||
| esoxjunkie |
| ||
Posts: 364 Location: in the white boat | A couple things in your initial post that haven't been addressed, and since I feel pretty strongly about the subject, I'll stick my neck out. "For guys who actually want to eat them, 45" are possible for freezer once or twice a year. Alot of guys won't get a 50, but maybe a 45-49 and they would like it on the wall." Anyone with any knowledge of eating fish, or any biologist will tell you that the smaller of ANY species are much better tasting than the big ones. I guarantee you that 2-24" pike would taste considerably better than a 48" muskie, and they are much easier to catch. This is true with any species, be it walleyes, catfish, pike, anything. As far as putting a trophy on the wall, the fiberglass replicas that the pros are doing now look as good, or in most cases, better than a skin mount, and will last much longer. They cost a little more, but you get what you pay for when you go to the taxidermist. Both of my counterpoints come down to education, as do many of the controversial issues in our sport. Anyone who keeps a 4-foot muskie to eat probably doesn't know that its going to taste like dead minnows boiled in coontail broth. Many of the people that keep a fish they consider a trophy, or is their personal best also don't know about replicas. The issue has been beat to death here and on other bbds, but I've always felt that politely informing people of these options will do much to help the future of the muskie fishery, and maybe gain some more respect for our sport. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | First off I think if the D.N.R had a another year to present it it would have still failed> The reason being it was just too many lakes and too big a jump. I have talked to many about this and feel if they had asked for a 45 on half of those lakes it would have passed. Wisconsin is I believe capable of having more trophy lakes but we have to go at it slowly and be presented in a better way then it was this last time. The general public felt that that it was motivated by those that would benifit in the pocket book from higher size limits. I don't believe that but do agree it was too many lakes and a 45 would have been a good jump. I am confident it will come up again and with more success. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Ranger |
| ||
Posts: 3913 | A few ideas to contribute, not sure if they are very valuable but here goes... First, I agree that the decision on slots should be the purview of the DNR fisheries bioligists. They are the ones who are best able to balance a lake's potential with the public's demand for quality/quantity fish. I spoke at length with a MI fisheries bioligist just this morning; I found him to be very interested in my angling experiance on the local waters as well as what I wanted as a dedicated musky chaser. Second, the public is, for the most part, stupid and uninformed on most issues. Most people take a small amount of information and jump to conclusions. Lazy thinkers, easily influenced by propaganda. Just consider our elected officials and the crap they easily sell to the public. Third, my home state has a 42" size limit and I love it. There are a lot of upper 30"s fish swimming around, and plenty of opportunities for 50"ers in certain waters. Personally, I would like to see 50" limits on a few selected lakes/rivers, and no harvest at all on a few more. Last, we've got to get a handle on the spearing and netting deal. Size limits are moot when indians can drain a lake's big fish population to dismal conditions over the course one or two winters. | ||
| Obfuscate Musky |
| ||
Posts: 654 Location: MPLS, MN | esoxjunkie, You Said "Anyone with any knowledge of eating fish, or any biologist will tell you that the smaller of ANY species are much better tasting than the big ones. I guarantee you that 2-24" pike would taste considerably better than a 48" muskie, and they are much easier to catch. This is true with any species, be it walleyes, catfish, pike, anything. As far as putting a trophy on the wall, the fiberglass replicas that the pros are doing now look as good, or in most cases, better than a skin mount, and will last much longer. They cost a little more, but you get what you pay for when you go to the taxidermist." I agree with you for myself personally. I wouldn't keep a musky to eat or for the wall. But some people do and legally they have the right to. Like the guy who keeps muskies from cass supposedly for meat. However true that is. You can't say because you don't like the taste that others shouldn't have the right to eat them if they do. My point is that if all the people I see on boards like these that preach a 50" limit, I'd think starting with a smaller goal would increase your chances of making something actually pass. I agree with steve about the biologists, but if increasing the size limit wouldn't hurt fish populations or affect the fishing from a buissness standpoint I'd be all for a, say, 45" size limit. With your logic nobody should keep be able to keep any muskie. We know that won't happen. | ||
| esoxjunkie |
| ||
Posts: 364 Location: in the white boat | I just read and reread my original post. From where I sit I couldn't figure out where I ever suggested that no one should ever be able to keep a muskie. I was simply pointing out a few aspects of the issue regarding the 50" size limit that nobody had addressed yet. I'll restate my original point, many of the people who kill and eat, or who kill and stuff a muskie do not know that big fish aren't the best tasting ones in the water. They also probably don't know that replicas are an option for putting the fish on the wall. If they do know these things and decide to keep a fish anyway, well then that is their right (provided the fish is of legal size, and they are not over the legal posession limit). I should have known better than to get involved in this thread. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
