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 -> More WI Musky Management ?s |
| Message Subject: More WI Musky Management ?s | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don’t want to let the Wisconsin Management issues die so I figured I would ask another question, based on the responses from the Problem post. Lets assume that we would all like Wisconsin Musky fishing to get better. I’ll ask two questions. 1 - What single item can be done that would improve Wisconsin Musky Fishing the most? 2 - What single item, that would improve Wisconsin Musky Fishing, has the best chance of being implemented in the shortest amount of time. The answers to these questions don’t necessarily have to be the same, in fact they most likely won’t be, but please try to answer both. My answer to #1 is increased size limits. #2 I am still not sure about. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I feel educating more fishermen and not just those targeting musky on proper fish handling. I feel most none musky fisherpeople don't have a clue how to properly handle a musky. It is these people who accidently hook into one that need to know how to properly handle them. How many times have you seen someone in another boat flop a netted musky to the bottom of the boat? These people were even targeting muskie too. I feel higher size limits on a select few more lakes would be a great step in providing more trophy musky water and it needs to happen. I don't get the set in there ways old timers and guides who are against higher size limits. Maybe the guides think if the size limits go up they will loose clients because bigger fish will be available to catch and then who would need a guide. I still don't get it though. | ||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1939 Location: Black Creek, WI | Mike, You ask a difficult question to answer since it depends on each individual's definition of "IMPROVE". For some, that may mean more fish. For others, it may mean larger fish. Yet for others it may mean more large fish. And then there may be those that want more lakes with muskies (expand the fishery). And.... dare I say... some may want fewer muskies??? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a blanket increase in size limits MAY lead to fewer but larger fish (in comparison to what is there now). If you believe that angling pressure increases the difficulty in catching a big fish..... then your overall catch rate may suffer with increased size limits???? Some people may be willing to give up numbers for quality.... but to assume everyone should have that goal isn't fair. Thus, the stalemate in WI as I see it. So many WI fishermen with differing needs...... Thus, I feel the best way for WI to "IMPROVE" its musky fishery is through DIVERSITY. Establishing a variety of systems based on each individual lake's potential should provide a good mix of quality vs. quantity in WI. HOW this would be achieved is the challenge. It will require a good balance of $$$$ and resources.... and in my opinion WI seems to be lacking both at the moment. And when those resources we currently have are limited on what they can do based on politics.... well.... ????? Despite these challenges.... think WI is headed in the right direction.... and we just need to be patient (and supportive). The number of lakes with increased size limits is increasing (too slow perhaps, but it IS increasing). And.... take the Spotted Musky Program for example. That is a program that has already demonstrated excellent results (numbers and size). Green Bay (part of the spotted program) also has a 50 inch size limit ta boot. So... the WI DNR is doing some things to achieve what "you" desire.... only it might not be in "your" backyard. Just some random thoughts.... jlong | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | I`ll go with increased size limits accross the board, period! No-harvest at all! The problem with diversity or micro-manangment is plain and simple, DNR does not have the money or the man-power to do this in Wisconsin now or in the future as they are cutting everything. Plain, simple, and easy, higher limits! No-harvest! | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| Graduated size limits by lake class, such as 40" statewide for C class lakes, 45" for B class lakes, 50" for A class lakes | |||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1939 Location: Black Creek, WI | OK.... Handyman says simplify..... and Muskyboy poses a thoughtful idea along those lines. Here's another option to consider. Progressive size limits based on the size of the water: - 40 inch on lakes smaller than 500 acres. - 45 inch on lakes between 500 and 2000 acres. - 50 inch on lakes over 2000 acres. As time and $$$ permit... continue with "micro management" for unique situations. jlong | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was purposely trying to be vague by just saying higher limits as I didn’t want to get into it deeply, but my good friend Jason called me out so I will explain my answer to number 1 a little better. In my opinion the WDNR’s Muskellunge Management report does a pretty good job of laying out the goals the DNR has for Wisconsin’s musky fisheries. They are general, but to me they sound good. WDNR classifies lakes into 4 categories, A1(trophy waters), A2 (action waters), B and C. These are then broken into Catigorys based on reproductive status, 1 - Natural Reproducition(NR) only, 2-(NR)+stocking, 3-stocking reqired. I think the single item that would have the best chance of improving the Wisconsin Musky Fisheries would be trophy limits (50”) on A1 waters and 40” limits on A2 waters, on cat. #1 & cat. #2 lakes. (In a perfect world this could get done as a single item) Let the trophy lake fish get big and let the action lake fish spawn once or twice more, before hitting the minimum limit. Don’t know how to handle the B and C waters, I’ll leave that alone for now. According to the above mentioned report, NR(Cat. #1) lakes show both a better catch rate and higher average length, than NR+stocked(Cat #2) which is better & higher than stocked(Cat. #3) lakes. Based on that and the fact that it costs nothing, it makes the most sense, to me, to protect the fish first. I am still not sure what to answer to #2 I just don’t know what would be the easiest item to accomplish. Maybe the elimination of swallow rigs. Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 1/10/2005 3:11 PM | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | id say get those size limits up. and like you said mike according to the type or body of water. we dont need a 50" limit on an "action lake" but a 40" limit wouldnt hurt anything!!! id like t see a more agressive stocking program done, it odviously works in places like indiana, ill, and minn. | ||
| mreiter |
| ||
Posts: 333 Location: menasha wi 54952 | I think Mr. Long has a good point. Maybe money should be a driving force in our overall goal. Lets say we have a "Musky" stamp that is required not only to fish for them but to also keep them. The money generated by the sale of these stamps could then be used for musky related issues. Kind of like a trout stamp. Only buy one if you want one. In theory the typical walleye or panfish guy is not going to buy a stamp and therefore not going to be able to "kill" the ski or skis he normally would. That would mean more and bigger fish for us and more money for the DNR to work with. Just a thought........... MR | ||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1939 Location: Black Creek, WI | MRoberts.... you didn't think I'd let you off the hook that easy... did ya??? Ha ha. Sorry for ruining your post (heh heh). As for the Stamp idea... it has merit... that's for sure. jlong | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | i guess i have mixed feelings about a musky tag. a tags design is for possessing fish or game is it not??? i think it would need alot of work. 1. people gotta fill the tag. its the mentality i know some people would take. 2. just because a guy doesnt buy a tag how will that stop him from "northern fishing". ideas??? | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | The Musky Stamp was proposed and passed at 4 Countys at the spring hearings in April..The Conservation Congress is going to sit on it for another year untill it has more support. The concept was for the Stamp to be for harvest only and not to fish for, to hard to enforce and our Wardens are overextended now. There are members on the Congress who are anti trophy minded (not the DNR) so you can see what your up against when it comes to internal politics. The Stamp could do alot for the resource,raise badly needed money for stocking, help reduce harvest, habitat protection and help the DNR track harvest. Its not a wash yet but just on the back burner for now, it has support with the DNR. Howie. | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | so to musky fish and cpr you wouldnt be required to buy a stamp. but if your intent is to kill one you basiclly buy the stamp. ? correct | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | People harvest Muskies now,yes if you wanted to harvest a Musky you would need a stamp. But instead of one a day it would be much more limited and at least the individual would be putting something back, as is not the case now. I would think most Musky(cpr) people would still spend the 10 bucks to not only support the resource but for other reasons also. The good far out weighs. The main reason this was proposed was to help fund stocking programs that were projected to be cut back, and that is not taking the resource in the right direction long term. Like I posted... any State wide Musky management proposal would not be recommended by the Conservation Congress to the DNR Right now. Better chances of raising lake size limits on a individual basis, like Jasons 45 inch limit on the Wi. River is all their going to give,(not to down play that great effort) and that took years. I should have gotten OUTDOORS FIRST permission to print a political agenda before I post anything more, sorry Steve/Slamr.. Edited by H.K. 1/10/2005 9:31 PM | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | muskyboy. Sounds like an easy solution, but a c class does not mean the lake won't produce big fish. Quite often the C's are in need of more protection than the A's and B's. Good starting point, but each lake has to be looked at before putting limits on. i wouldn't want to see a 50" size limit on a lake like the tigercat(need some harvest there), and that is a class A, though I would love to see it on some stretches of the WI river that are class C. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32954 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't see any issue as state wide, either 1 or 2. I see each region as having differing political structures, needs, and social norms in regards to muskie angling. I would break it down as North Eastern WI, North Central WI, Northwestern WI, Central WI, and Southern WI. Each area has unique management opportunities and strategies, and each area has it's own special interest groups we'll need to get to and educate up close and personal. Some areas will accept proposed changes to assist the DNR reach the stated goals in each, some will not. Those areas that have an entrenched group of folks who either are afraid of the consequenses to business, their personal enjoyment of the sport, or other issues will require more elbow grease than others. This is going to be interesting, to say the least. | ||
| ddfenner |
| ||
 | In reading back issues of Musky Hunter Magazine, circa 1996, an article was written about Trophy Musky Management and the content offers several points that are of relationship to this thread. Firstly, it stated that increases in size limits in the majority of Wisconsins lakes would, for the most part, be ineffective if a true trophy super-musky fishery is the goal. It stated that a few lakes could benefit from an increase in size limits, but not the majority. The basis for this statement reflects back on the genetics of the musky over the period of time when Wisconsin consistently harvested muskys beyond 50 pounds. This article researched the history of the musky during the late 30's, 40's and 50's and presented the following facts. Riverine (Muskellunge) Musky, which spawn in 7 - 15 feet of water, produce on average 215K - 850K spawn eggs, and have an average live span of 11.5 years and are known to grow to heavier weights than their lake specie strain counterparts. Lake (Maskinonage) Musky, which spawn shallow, in soft bottom bays, produce on average 146.5K spawn egges, and have an average life span of 8.5 years. Back in the mid 1900's, most of Wisconsin's rivers where not controlled by dams and the Riverine Musky presence was more so during this period. The brood stockings during that time came from the Mississippi River and were of the Riverine specie. According to Frank Pratt, Hayward Wisconsin's DNR Fishery Supervisor, many undocumented transplants via train tank cars containing winter rescue project Riverine Muskys were transplanted into northwestern Wisconsin. As time marched on, dams where constructed, reservoirs and lakes created, and the introduction of the Maskinonage or Lake Musky came more prevelant. In fact, in some waters, both species were present. It should be noted that Riverine Muskys fare very well in Lakes, but Maskinonage or Lake Muskys do fairly poor in rivers. With both present, a hybridization between both species evolved with the characteristics (spawn ability, life span, etc) being somewheres in between both pure specie strains. The essence of this article states that you cannot grow a stallion from a pony.... Curious to what you think about this mid 1990 article and how it may relate to today's issues and discussion. Edited by ddfenner 1/11/2005 10:55 PM | ||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | In answer to question number 1 I agree with JLong's original post. Each lake should be managed seperately by our states fish biologists. They are the ones that know best (or should) what is good for each lake, and they are the ones that should decide in which way to manage the lake. They will get help from others of course, but I don't think the general fishing public should have as much say in a lakes management the way it is now. I may be getting a bit of subject here, but it all relates I feel. The fish biologists can get an initial feel of what the general public want for a lake through surveys and such. At that point it should be left up to the biologists to use what resources they may need to determine if the management for the particular lake is correct. This would take a lot of money to achieve, but I think the lake management should be left in the hands of the people that are trained for these issues. Higher size limits across the board sound great to those of us who seek bigger fish, but it may not be the best thing for a lake. Not all lakes can support a large volume of large muskies. I have no facts, but I would think that trying to achieve too many muskies in a lake for a numbers water could also be detrimental if that lake doesn't have the forage to maintain the population. Kind of like a ton of bluegills in a pond only leads to stunted fish unless there was some harvest. My answer to question number 2 would be a musky stamp. Like mentioned already it was proposed in this past years meetings, and I proposed it in my county. As mentioned by H.K., it is being sat on right now to accumualte more support so that it may pass in the near future. This stamp would help support the WDNR financially just like the trout stamp had a great impact on the trout management. Ask any trout fisherman what the stamp has done for the fishery, and I'm sure they would tell you it helped out tremendously. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | J and Travis, I agree totally with you guys and will quote a couple items out of the 2003 Musky Management Update, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/pubs/muskydoc.pdf If you are interested in the DNRs ideas on Wisconsin’s musky management I really suggest reading this entire report. From the paragraph titled Fishing Regulations - Our overriding goal is to manage muskellunge as a "trophy". What constitutes a trophy varies from angler to angler, based on their personal feelings, and from water to water, based on the biological potential of the population. Our general strategy is to manage muskellunge waters on an individual, water-by-water basis. Within the scientific community, high length limits are generally accepted as the primary tool to manage for trophy muskellunge fisheries. Proposals for higher size limits in Wisconsin must 1) provide biological documentation of the potential for the population to meet the proposed length limit, and 2) must be supported through the public hearing process. From the paragraph titled Muskellunge Monitoring – There are three elements of our muskellunge monitoring strategy. First, we conduct angler surveys, with periodic mail surveys (about every 10 years) and annual creel surveys, which involves angler interviews at boat landings (about 20 lakes each year; results presented above). Second, we have established a network of 55 long-term trend lakes, where we conduct adult population estimates every 8 to 10 years. Third, we have implemented a Baseline Monitoring program, where we conduct fall electrofishing surveys (including young-of-year recruitment estimates) on every muskellunge lake in the state 100 acres and larger (with public access) once every 6 years. This information will be used to evaluate size limits and stocking practices and to track changes in muskellunge populations through time. I feel the WDNR has a pretty solid plan and they are already spending the money doing the individual lake monitoring. I almost answered question one like this. “Remove some of the power of the Conservation Congress and Spring hearings. Use them in an advisory capacity to determine major goals and let the people WE are paying make the biological management decisions on individual lakes.” I didn’t put it as my answer, as I think it doesn’t ever have a chance of being implemented as there are many people who feel empowered by the hearings and they would never vote to give the DNR more power regarding management decisions as they don’t trust the DNR to make the right decisions. There is definitely a I hate “the man” attitude that flows though the people who show up and vote at these hearings. Again I suggest reading the entire report the people who put it together have a lot on the ball, I think. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| 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 |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |