|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Makes sense that it would be catch data with those numbers. thanks for the clarification, Monk and Mike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Thanks for clearing that up - that makes WAY more sense.
S.
It looks as if there's either a reporting bias or catching bias reasonably strong against the 30-34" fish. I doubt the long-term sustainability of a fishery comprised of a population structured similar to that catch data. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorno,
The catch data from MI is interesting, but I feel WAY to much emphasis is placed there to make any decision or base any conclusions. I'm a member, but haven't registered my large fish (over 50") unlees i got her in Canada since I joined. Why? because I don't want to lie as to where I caught them, and I don't want to broadcast it, either. There are TONS of fish caught by MI members that are misreported, too. It's an engrossing and wonderful database and well worth the study and read it offers, but not one I'd base management decisions on, not anymore. Maybe in the 80's, but even then it was a bit shaky as to accuracy of reporting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I was trying to delicately make that point...
The MI data is interesting, but anecdotal at best. Might be useful for presence/absence information, but beyond that, I'm not sure. And in light of what you just wrote, maybe not even that! 
S.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Monk, if I may ask, what was the sample size of the angler catch distribution from Leech Lake that you were kind enough to share here? I'd like to know how many angler-reported fish are represented by that 4% over 50 inches. Also, if you can find out, what year was that? Thanks.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Dave
The data was from all fish reported from Leech to M.I. since 1970. Percentages listed for the size distribution were rounded to the nearest 1%.
Leech Lake
Total fish reported = 3,361
30” – 34” – 19%
35” – 39” – 31%
40” – 44” – 31%
45” – 49” – 15%
50” & up – 4%
Total fish harvested = 174
Harvest rate = 5%
Release rate = 95%
Total number over 50” = 142
Percent over 50” = 4%
Total number over 45” = 646
Percent over 45” = 19%
EJohnson
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Eric Johnson provided the following records from MI's Lunge Log records for Leech Lake, Minnesota (thank you, sir):
MR. JOHNSON: The data was from all fish reported from Leech to M.I. since 1970. Percentages listed for the size distribution were rounded to the nearest 1%.
Leech Lake
Total fish reported = 3,361
30” – 34” – 19%
35” – 39” – 31%
40” – 44” – 31%
45” – 49” – 15%
50” & up – 4%
Total fish harvested = 174
Harvest rate = 5%
Release rate = 95%
Total number over 50” = 142
Percent over 50” = 4% [This represents 134 fish over a 35-year period -- Dave N]
Total number over 45” = 646
Percent over 45” = 19%
EJohnson
DAVE N: I calculated the average length of fish REPORTED by MI members above to be 40.2 inches, assuming the 134 fish over 50 inches averaged 52.5 inches themselves and fish were distributed evenly within the 5-inch length intervals reported. That's a pretty impressive size distribution. I'm not sure how it compares with the average length of muskies REPORTED as CAUGHT by MI members from some of Wisconsin's better-known musky waters, but it beats the average size of harvested muskellunge actually measured by WDNR creel clerks during 1990-2001 in Wisconsin's Class A1 trophy waters (39.5 inches) by almost an inch. It would be more appropriate to compare the average lengths of fish reported caught, including those released, by MI Lunge Log contributors on those Wisconsin waters. That comparison would have to be done by a Muskies, Inc. member with more time to crunch those numbers than me.
What CAN be compared legitimately on a side-by-side basis is the average number of fish over 50 inches REPORTED as CAUGHT (and mostly released) by MI members since 1970. Here is the comparison:
Leech Lake, MN: 111,527 acres -- an average of 4 muskies >50" reported per year during 1970-2005 (134 fish in 35 years).
Wisconsin Class 1A Musky Waters: 118,173 acres -- an average of 4 muskies >50" reported per year during 1970-1990.
Wisconsin Class 1A Musky Waters: 118,173 acres -- an average of 9 muskies >50" reported per year during 1990-2003.
So here in the CRADLE of the highly touted Leech Lake strain muskellunge, the Lunge Log data our friends like to cite are showing us that there are no more trophy (>50 inches) muskies being reported caught by MI members on an average annual basis than in a roughly equivalent acreage of Class 1A Trophy Musky Waters in the State of Wisconsin. Please read that again. Mull it over...
If Leech Lake itself cannot keep up with the per-acre production of trophy fish reported from Wisconsin waters, how can this issue be ALL ABOUT THE FISH??? Leech Lake has a very fine musky fishery, just like Wisconsin. And just like the Wisconsin waters I am comparing it to, the fishery is LONG ESTABLISHED. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is an apples-to-apples comparison folks -- the per-acre reports of trophy fish from ESTABLISHED fisheries. (If anything, Wisconsin trophy catches are under-reported due to member reluctance to call attention to small "honey hole" lakes.) Comparing the performance of long-established fisheries in Wisconsin (or Minnesota) against the virtually new fisheries created when Shoepac fish were replaced by Leech Lake fish in most Minnesota waters is not legitimate. If you don't believe me, start poking around Leech Lake, talking to guides and resort owners there. They'll tell you that many of their former trophy musky hunters have left there (for the moment anyway) to fish Mille Lacs, Vermilion, and other hot new waters. Leech Lake itself cannot compete with these newly developed fisheries. But the Leech Lake tourism folks need not worry too much. Fishing pressure, incidental mortality, harvest, and other factors will eventually take their toll on the hot new waters. They'll cool down, and trophy hunters will return to Leech Lake, and to Wisconsin's Class 1A waters. The question is, what will we have waiting for them upon their return? Hopefully improved musky populations with better size structure based upon adjustments to stocking and regulation, and continued diligence in stemming the tide of habitat destruction.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 2/21/2006 7:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
Even in the "mature" Leech Lake, the PERCENTAGE of 50"ers and fish over 45"'s dominates over Wisconsin. On the Chip over the last 7 years, between 35-40% of fish caught were over 40". Not bad, a clear sign that C&R has increased the size structure of the lake from 1979 when less than 3% of all fish caught were over 40". Where the numbers start to "show their stripes" per se is when you look at the top end. Based on catch data from the last seven years on the Chip, around 7% of all fish caught were over 45" and ONLY .004%, 4 fish out of a THOUSAND, were over 50". So based on PERCENTAGES, you would have almost three times the chance of encountering a fish over 45" and a TEN times better chance encountering a fish over 50". This on a "mature" Leech Lake.
AND if we hold Leech Lake %'s against WISCONSIN as a total, this same argument continues. Per MI data, 213 50"ers from 1970 caught in Wisconsin. Out of over 65,519 FISH!!! Doing the math, that puts the percentage at .0035%. EARILY similar to what we see on the Chip. And at Leech Lake, 134 divided by 3361 equals.... 3.9%.
Moral of THIS story, even on a "mature" lake like Leech, you will generate a TEN times greater chance at a 50"er than what is currently present in Wisconsin.
Talk to the guides in your area Dave, and they will tell you the same thing. The story is the same, size structure of the fish in Sawyer county has improved with C&R, but the fish are maxing out in the mid 40" range and 50"+ fish are rare.
And I'm having a real hard time understanding your argument. The "fad" of MN will not go away. If I ran my business that way, I would be looking for a new job. When you compete with someone, you don't wait until their product becomes outdated so customers return to your own outdated product. Nobody is rushing out to buy Beta tapes because VHS tapes have been superseeded by DVD's. I know it not "apples to apples", but SOMETHING needs to be done. And the fact that we are not addressing GENETIC principles as the primary cause for the underperformance of some of our fisheries is absolutely beyond me. Breeding principles. Again, I don't give a rats behind where the fast growth fish comes from... but they are out there and its frustrating they are being ignored.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking to a well known Leech Lake guide this winter at the Extreme Muskie Show in Medina, MN. He said he had much of Walker Bay to himself last fall, and that angling pressure on Leech was definitely down. I would not assume every angler choosing not to fish Leech last year chose Mille Lacs or Vermilion, but I bet many did.
The acreage comparison of Leech to Wisconsin's Class A water is interesting, as is the reporting from MI. I know that there are about a dozen unreported from my family alone in that period of 1990 to date, and one was a Leech Lake fish. As the focus tightens on the agenda changes from the WMRP, I believe the issue will be more of a SCMRP, and that will focus on a few lakes there that have problems. I might be wrong there, but issues like this tend to boil down to finite.
I believe the following to be pretty close to dead center:
1) The fishing pressure and resorts specializing in Muskie and Walleye angling began suffering badly after the unbelievably sensationalized coverage of the beginning of Native American Treaty Rights exercise and the resulting drop to 1, 2 or 3 fish daily walleye bag on many of Northern Wisconsin's waters. Many muskie anglers responding to the tourism call to Wisconsin were/are multi-specie anglers, and are not strictly interested in a 50" muskie. for awhile, Bay De Noc was hot as a $2 pistol, and crowded, too. It is still a destination for many, but not like it was when it was 'discovered'.
2) Muskie fishing, especially in the average size catagory has improved over the last 20 years on many waters, and declined on others. Where it's declined, the blame goes all over the map in Saturday evening bar room biologist discussions from the Native Americans, to Little Johnny, to the Conservation Congress, and to the DNR.
3) VERY few average anglers have any sort of even rudimentary grasp on the intricate and confusing science of fisheries management, and like most other bar room biology sessions I have heard, for some reason there is an inate desire to blame someone specific for perceived difficulties. Ask anyone who gets into a discussion about harvesting does, and earn a buck.
4) The culprit, when actually identified, sometimes is the very source one listens to in those discussions, the angler him/herself. Ask any lake side property owner who wants to poison the weeds by HIS dock because they are bad for swimming and does so despite the fact it's illegal, clears the shorline of brush and trees so the view of the lake is better, and three times a year, fertilizes the lawn heavily so his is greener than the neighbors. Two docks reaching into the water 60' or more, many taking out large sections of underwater vegetation, are more common every day.
5) Ask any DNR field tech watching the decimation of a crappie population on a 300 acre Northern Wisconsin lake when the 'word' gets around it's hot how fast the population is reduced, and how fast the declining fishing is blamed on that same filed tech out on the water. In 1990, a creel on Pelican in Oneida indicated that 14 muskies were taken by Native American harvest. Over 140 were harvested by 'the rest of us'. The safe harvest is about 45. Many were harvested the creel clerk didn't manage to certify. Those fish, had they been released, would by averages account for a significant increase in 50" muskies currently swimming in Pelican Lake. I am sure the harvest is smaller now, but the effect on the 50" class fish from the high harvest in the early 90's is showing up RIGHT NOW. I am willing to bet that same process was and still is in place on many Wisconsin waters, and those that cannot sustain that pressure are in trouble. We tried to get some protection on the low density high quality waters a few years back with the full support of the DNR, the PUBLIC resoundingly voted it down. The same resorts complaining back then that a size limit would stop tourism because little Johnny couldn't keep his 35" fish are complaining now because they feel they are losing business to opportunities for a 50" fish, amazingly the size limit we were seeking, in another state. Do you think for a MINUTE little Johnny isn't headed to Minnesota, parents in tow? As I have repeatedly said, I hope Minnesota protects those fish now that the word is out. Imagine 140 fish in a year harvested from, say, Bemidji.
5) There's much more to the management issues than meets the eye to us 'simple folk'. I'm glad we can carry on a discussion here exchanging critical ideas and information; we are all better educated from that process.
Monk,
Do that same math using Class A waters alone. Just curious what you come up with. The above comparison was Class A to Leech, a Class A. We have TONS more Muskie water in Wisconsin, but many are little numbers lakes lkke Spider in Oneida. 6 fish to 10 fish days sometimes, but the lake is sterile as a toilet tank, the fish plain don't have much to eat, are skinny, and don't get very big. One can fish for panfish all day without getting a keeper. Is it fair to compare catch data from that lake to catch data on Leech? For that matter, is it fair to compare catch data from that lake to Pelican? I don't think so, no. |
|
| |
|
| A few thoughts from your post Steve.
Why does the DNR have to sit back and watch the decimation of any lake? Don't they have the power and authority to put in an "emergency bag limit" reduction on any lake they think is being decimated? Isn't that part of their duties and responsibilies and the DNR? Why did they sit back 4 or 5 years ago and watch hundreds of thousands of perch taken out of Lake Mendota thru the ice? It hasn't even yet rebounded...Yes it's the fishermen taking them out but why does the DNR not put a stop to it...
As regards to harvest...why is the "musky stamp" not being looked at more ? Seems like such a simple and easy way to one, get more money directed into musky stocking programs which seem to be taking a hit year after year as the DNR's budget keeps getting lowered...and 2, it would probably curb ALOT of harvest by little jonny off the pier or Joe Angler from IL coming up and hooks one incidentally walleye fishing....
Just a couple thoughts.... |
|
| |
|
| "There's much more to the management issues than meets the eye to us 'simple folk'. I'm glad we can carry on a discussion here exchanging critical ideas and information; we are all better educated from that process."
On that, I can DEFINITELY agree on.
And one thing will be certain, in 5-10 years, the decisions and assumptions that are generated now will be proven to be correct or incorrect. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Thats why I posted the Chip numbers, Class A to Leech. I personally have fished the lake for 20+ years. Love it. My family has a cabin in the Hayward area and I hope to continue to fish there until I'm old and grey. But I want things to improve. The largest fish in our boat during that 20+ year time has been 46.5", average length of fish caught 38.9". Have I seen huge fish out there, yep. During those years, me and my fishing partners have probably had on (and sadly lost) four fish that might have been over 50". Two I know for sure where WELL over 50" (one could have pushed 50lbs.) and two might have pushed 50" but were definite 30lbers. So does my experience mirror what has been going on in the Chip... more than likely. We have seen improvement from C&R, we see the average fish from 36-44"... but over 45" is getting uncommon and over 50" is rare. And if someone gives me stats in which 1 in 5 fish are over 45"'s, I would say that far beyond what I've seen on the Chip. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
The DNR did react, by lowering the panfish bag to 25. I bet you see it lowered again to 15 someday soon. That won't even slow the overharvest down on some waters, we simply don't have enough wardens to stop the two limits per day two trip harvest I see now and again. It's usually too late to 'react' when a 200 or 300 acre lake gets slammed. What are they supposed to do, close the launch? You overestimate the responsibility, reach, and power the DNR has. It's OUR responsibility to conserve our resources, all the DNR can do considering our current structure with the CC is the best they can to rebuild what's been beat up. Also, it isn't as easy as one might think to control what happens to habitat, etc. I would counter with this; why did almost NO ONE show up to support the 50" proposal a few years back in many of the CC centers and get it passed? I didn't see any proposals for the Madison Chain brought by a concerned public to limit panfish to 10 a day, either. No one cared, and many didn't understand the idea, that's why. Yes, I know, I know, some lakes HAVE a 45" to 50" limit imposed, and some are improving, some are not. If Pelican had a 50" limit imposed in 1990 or so, the 52" RESULTING FISH WOULD JUST NOW BE SHOWING UP, and that only if NR or stocking and survival of the fingerlingswas really good that year and the few years previous. 3600 acres, and 140 harvested in 1990. Wow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | My question is this: the WMRT puts forth that the WI Strain muskies dont have the GENETICS to get large, but there are obviously SOME large fish inhabiting these waters. If they genetically CANT get that big, other than using the "remnant population" argument (which doesnt hold water, because there are fish coming out of lakes that have been stocked in the last 20 years that have big fish [see Mr. Worrall's 51"+ from Lake George as an example]) how are these fish growing beyond their genetic abilities?
My point is this: LL strain fish might grow faster, that is a fact, but we're seeing big fish in WI, but not as many. So, are we saying that WI fish DO have the ability to grow big, but just dont? If thats the case, is it possible that there MIGHT be other factors involved?
WI strain fish get big in Mille Lacs, as big as the LL strain fish do. How do you explain that?
The same fish are getting bigger in NE WI, than they are in NW WI, how do you explain that?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
Do you have creel data for harvest from the Chip back 12 to 15 years ago up to the year classes that are now in the 40" to mid 40" size structure? That would be interesting to view. The brochure from the 60's I saw certainly was depressing. Also, is there creel data from Minnesota as to harvest from any timeframe one might then compare MI records to? How about angler hours, etc, and numbers, from the 1990 to 1992 timeframe. What was the angling pressure like over there at that time? Did it equal that of Wisconsin waters? That's when it would be important to look at it, because the fish that were 30" then are todays 30# 'trophies'. I'm sure you can't compare Mille Lacs or Vermilion, those are relatively 'new' waters and wouldn't have had much if any pressure back then. i remember clearly the beginnig awareness of the 40" class muskies in Mille Lacs, I used to stay at Eddies when on the road up there or working an MWC, PWT, or other walleye event and talk to the guides there who were 'outside the box' and guiding muskies instead of walleyes. Mr. Bentely was one of the early very active muskie guides, I remember looking at his picture book. During that same timeframe, one could go to Herman's Landing on the Chip and see, what, 10 to 12 giuide rigs at the docks at 4PM? |
|
| |
|
| Yep, Hermans was bit busier back in those days. I remember many meals and drinks there, trying to bend an ear to the guides sitting next to me.
I would say in the 90-92 timeframe, the C&R rate for fish under 40" was pretty damm high, If I had to guess, well over 90% among musky fisherman. Over 40", I can't remember off the top of my head. Some 20lbers. were still getting the club in the early '90's, but C&R was definitely trickling upwards. To me, the key time frame and fish size would be 1995-1999, 40-44". Its those sized fish that would have been the 50"ers from 2000 on. And if I had to guess, from 95-99, the C&R rates for 40-44 would have been high.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | WI strain fish get big in Mille Lacs, as big as the LL strain fish do. How do you explain that?
The same fish are getting bigger in NE WI, than they are in NW WI, how do you explain that? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
My point was that I thought that CPR on Pelican was much higher at that time, and I wasa definitely wrong. I was on the road alot that year, so my time on the water was down from when I was guiding full time out there. If the harvest was ANYTHING like it was on Pelican, the fish caught in the 1990 timeframe and harvested would not ever make it to 2005. Was there any creel done in that timeframe at all? |
|
| |
|
| Steve, I have no clue if a creel was done or not in that timeframe. If there had been, I might have remembered reading something on it. But to my knowledge and reading of the Chip, can't recall anything written or discussed about a creel in the early '90's. Maybe Dave could help us out with that one. The only information I can recall from my memory was of the musky charts of the time. And of course I'm sure the "bar" charts didn't register all fish caught, especially the incidentals that were caught and kept. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | OK- let's get off the WI fish genetics can't produce big fish! How big is big? To most in the muskie fishing world today a " personnal trophy" seems to be somewhere around 50", then it increments from there as you go for the next level. I agree whole heartedly with others here. We have big fish, but we also have a lot of harvest mentallity and lots of abuse of our resources. The vast majority of 50" and over fish are never reported for as whole variety of reasons. Some good ones have already been mentioned.
Here's a local WI River fish that got harvested last spring, supposedly by a walleye fisherman. The date on the photo is wrong because I took this photo of a polaroid that was hanging on the baitshop wall. The net doesn't look like a walleye net. The clothing and the high water tells me it had to be early spring, we had a relatively dry spring.
But does this fish meet most folk's expectation of a trophy. Obviously it did for this fisherman.
There was another 51" fish harvested in late July, about two miles south of this location. The bait shop owner told me that fish died from heat stress. The WI River temps wre approaching 80F. Throuhout the 2005 year I saw an increase in bank fisherman (folks from Ill, Milwaukee, etc.) with bobbers out all the time. In October I stopped by for few casts and there were 5-6 boats with big orange bobbers out- it looked like a minefield. I put my gear back into the truck & left. In November, I fished this spot for the last three days of November. in ~ 24 hrs of fishing effort, I didn't see a muskie. The year before (2004) I caught 9 fish up to 44' in 7 hours of fishing effort over the last 7 days of November from this same spot and probably lost 20 (probably including the big girl in the photo) because I was netting them by myself. In comparison to Leech, Cass, Mille Lacs, this is an extremely small spot- less than 50 acres. I wonder where all those fish have gone! Maybe they just went down river, headed for Minnesota.
Yes!- no big fish in Wisconsin. You're going to have too go to Minnesota to catch big fish!
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 2/21/2006 1:34 PM
Attachments
----------------
 100_0226-1.jpg (53KB - 175 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| i'm someone who believes that in general, muskie fishing in WI is good, and that trophy potential exists if you get a bit "outside the box". to me, getting outside that box has meant looking for un/under-fished waters, and most especially avoiding known high-harvest areas, by both spearing and angling.
at times i've been critical of the WMRP for both their approach, and what i've viewed as their "soft" science. that being said, it's important to acknowledge and thank them that their efforts have advanced the discussion by forcing the issue into the public eye.
one of the key criticisms levelled against the WMRP has been that their tactics have been inflammatory, tactless, and dismissive of professional scientists and fishery managers.
imho, if we are going to engage in productive dialog, responding in kind is unhelpful. it's tempting to be dismissive and inflammatory back, but shouting "look here! it's a big muskie from WI! hahaha!" is exactly the type of thing people complain about when the WMRP does it.
yes, there are "big" muskies in WI, trophy muskies. that's really not the debate.
however, i think it's a case of putting one's head in the sand to deny that there are real quality differences between WI and MN waters. we can quibble about statistics of fish caught over 50", but change the conversation to fish caught over 54" or fish caught over 50lbs and it clearly skews things towards MN.
it's also clear that there is something preventing fish from reaching desired sizes in the Hayward area, the anecodotal evidence provided by the people fishing up there is just way too strong to brush aside - especially considering the area's history of producing big fish. (also in WI more broadly, but it seems particularly so in the NW.)
so, imho, the real question is "how come?"
at this point i'm unconvinced that it's genetics (from a non-scientist's point of view.) i'm open to the possibility, and i'm willing to let the scientists figure it out through careful side-by-side testing in WI waters. i know this approach may not satisfy those who say "i'll be dead before then". while unfortunate for those individuals, the wise approach is the right one. i believe it was Mr. Ramsell himself on this side who said he was doing this for future generations, not his own self-interest.
at this point i'm very interested in learning more about the impact of forage base, water nutrient contents, lake size, etc. on ultimate fish size. is it realistic to compare a 50lb fish from Mille Lacs or Vermilion to fish of the same length that's 35lb fish from an 800 lake in WI? what would happen if fish of the different strains were both in that 800 acre lake? i guess it'd take a little time to find out. does every lake in MN pump out endless behemoth LL strain trophies. absolutely not. why not? what will the GLS fish in Winnebago be doing in 6-10 years? is it even realistic to aggregate WI class A1 lakes to compare to a lake like Mille Lacs? it makes the numbers look nice, but there are SO many variables that aren't controlled for when you do that (miles of shoreline, biomass, etc. etc.).
i'm interested in learning more about the real harvest numbers and their impact on trophy fish production. what'll happen on lakes in WI when higher limits start to trickle down through the population?
anyway, my point in all of this is to encourage us all to focus on the real issues and engage in less rhetoric designed simply to make the "other side" look bad. there doesn't have to be a winner or a loser we're more interested in genuine inquiry than in proving each other right or wrong. |
|
| |
|
| great thread |
|
| |
|
| Lambeau,
I really appreciate your post. In everything I have ever written or had a chance to talk to people I have always stated that Wisconsin has tremendous fishing and that a lot of the opportunities we have would have not have ever existed if not for the work of the WDNR.
We still believe that using large fish in the breeding process makes sense - and I personally am disappointed that the Wisconsin river is not an option for future brood stock choices. We know they are there - anyone who has taken the time to actually read our website would see that. I hope every one really reads your post with an open mind.
For all the talk by some people on this website of the WMRP's "singlemindedness" every member (all 3 of us) firmly believes that limiting harvest, size limits, management of the overall fishery (density) and forage do play a factor in fish size. With that said when all factors are the same - some fish grow larger than others. I believe the MS and GL strains do indeed grow larger than Wisconsin's brood stock in the same environment. (I base this on what biologists have studied and written in WI and MN, and on the opinion of anglers who fish for different strains) I also believe that we have some fish right here in Wisconsin, that grow as fast and as big as the other two strains. I do not believe we can get them out of Bone Lake - or the Tiger Cat flowage, Callahan Lake,Big Spider Lake or any of the other brood lakes now being considered as NW Wisconsin brood lakes. I don't think these fish need to be "eliminated" but they also don't need to be stocked in every lake for 150 miles either.
You have some valid points about taking things slow. There are some areas that things should proceed slowly, and other areas that they should move a lot faster. When you have a fish that grows bigger and faster,what is the rationale for not stocking them in lakes that are not native lakes and/or do not have natural reproduction? What is the rationale for going slow there? What is the rationale for not doing this when all the Muskie clubs of NW Wisconsin support it and want to work WITH the DNR on making things better? Is the rationale - "Because the DNR says so" like they told the town of Hayward?
The great Lakes project was started quickly and is expanding quickly - why no side by side studies? Why no 4 years of DNA testing of every bay in the great Lakes looking for the native Green Bay fish? It took the DNR one day to stop stocking Boner directly into Lake superior, yet they still stock them into every lake that drains into Lake Superior.
The WMRP really has the positive message here - we believe that things can be better! We believe our lakes can compete with Muskie lakes anywhere. It's the WDNR that issues press releases sayiong "we'll never be as good as Minnesota". I've seen a small 700 acre lake in Wisconsin that was every bit as good as Minnesotas large lakes. It will be unbelievable what a positive day for Wisconsin it will be when the DNR shows a willingness to have an open mind towards working with the people of NW Wisconsin.
Thanks,
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | It seems to me as this debate continues, the truth becomes more thought out, intellegent and properly communitcated. It seems to me that the beliefs in past weeks have went from start from scratch to lets gradually improve the waters we have through biology and management, not anger and emotion. Kudos to those of you who are making efforts that will improve our waters. I personally think we need to let our fish grow up. It's easy to look inside our small musky community and feel comfortable with catch and release but the sad reality is muskies are harvested daily out of waters that have damaging effects on it. Lets work together and make Wisconsin great so we may one day look back and be glad we put the blood sweat and tears into something our children are excited about. The better musky fishing in Wisconsin is, the worse a Playstation looks. Increase size limits where needed! |
|
| |
|
| I have seen muskies in WI as big as anywhere across the states or provinces. I spend lots of time in Wisconsin for good reason, and if you care to fish elsewhere, so be it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
Location: Verona, WI | We can discuss this all day and then some. I think that the WDNR should increase the size limits on the lakes that can handle it. I would love to see a state wide limit of 50 or maybe more. I also would love to see a musky stamp required to harvest. My reason for wanting both is to stop the accidental harvesting of muskies that happens every year again and again. How many times does it happen where a walleye fisherman hooks into a 40 - 45 incher and somehow gets it to the boat, then beats the hell out of it and either kills it that way or keeps it because it might taste good or it is the biggest fish that they have ever seen. It happens every year over and over. If the limit was put to 50+ inches there would be fewer kept "just cause they can". There is a huge difference in getting a 40 inch fish into the boat with your walleye rig and getting a 50 incher the same way. Along the same lines, if you must have a musky stamp to harvest a musky of legal size the number of harvested fish would also drop. The price would only need to be 2 bucks, people are cheap, if they are not musky fishing then why in the world pay an extra two dollars to have a terrible chance of getting a 50 inch fish in the boat with your walleye gear. Plus, what musky fisherman would not pay the two bucks to help the fishery.
I know that not every body of water that contains muskies will support 50 inchers. Our class A waters will, and so will a few others that might even be secrets. There is so much biology that goes into it that I have no business even thinking about it. Same with those super strains, that everyone wants planted into Wisconsin waters. Will they even live? What if they have some goofy, genetic defect that ruins a lake that they were not meant to be in? Who knows? Way too much for me to get into, there are people that get paid to figure that stuff out and for good reason.
What can I and the rest of the serious musky fishing world do? We know how to catch them, we know how to release them, we know things about muskies that only we care to know. Things that other people, even other fisherman, roll their eyes at. We are elitests, we want more and better and will do whatever we need to do in order to get it. The thing is, we need to educate the others that do not know. We need to teach the people that are just getting into our sport, we were all new at this at one time and look how much we have learned. Look at how much we still will learn. We need to teach the walleye fisherman and the rest of the bait chasers that our game is a little different, it takes a very long time to make a 50 inch fish as opposed to a school of bluegill. I really think with all the people that we could be showing and teaching, that the most important are the kids. It is no doubt important to get kids hooked on the outdoors in general for many reasons, but maybe the biggest reason is because they are the future. They are the ones that will need to know what tools to have in the boat for releasing a musky, the proper holds if ya need a picture and so on and so forth. Maybe if we get to them and show how awesome a topwater strike can be and how good it feels to watch a trophy fish swim away to fight again sometime, they will also be able to pass it on to others and we can start to have our big musky utopia.
I take guys out fishing every year that want to bring their kids. I never ever turn down that opportunity. What better chance to get them hooked. What better chance to make the future of our sport brighter. I really think that we should be doing some sort of talks and demonstrations at schools. I remember having to go to a few that were boring as all hell. I wish I could have gone to a few that had to do with fishing, or something fun.
I am looking forward to getting some sort of response on all of this. Maybe some of you know a good way that we can get some of this done, or at least started. I would be more than happy to volunteer. I am a musky nut, and want to see nothing but the best for our game. I just don't think that doing nothing is the way to go.
Thank you
Bobby Orr
www.geocities.com/orrsfishing/Muskie
|
|
| |
|
| I thought that I would add something to the Wisconsin River portion of this thread.
My wife came home from work one day with a stack of pictures that she got from a walleye fisherman who was fishing with his buddies below the dam using magnum Huskie Jerks for big walleyes. In three weekends of shore fishing, they caught 18 muskies from 41 to 48 inches, with 10 of them in the mid-forties. I saw the pictures, and they all appeared to be pre-spawn females. None of them were netted, they were all "beached" and then released. They swore that they weren't targeting those fish, but they also told her of other groups of guys catching an additional dozen muskies during those same weekends before the water got high and dirty.
They didn't catch many walleyes....I guess the lures were too big for the walleyes......but they showed the pictures just to taunt me and asked why I bothered to fish for muskie up north when there were so many so much closer to home.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | AND, I would kindly suggest to those gents, that after 3 or 4 muskies in the same spot without a Walleye, one might change their tactics. 18 in a few outings is a shame. I live on the WI River, and have come into contact with Muskies this time of year while targetting walleyes. When multiples are contacted, I simply move on. I know where they hold at this time of year now, and adjust accordingly. Adjusting to the size down in lures will often help, as magnum Huskys are more Musky than Walleye lure.. That is telling of the size range of the fish we mistangingly deal with this time of year, as they often fall into the low to mid 40 range and are most often the females too. We never seen any real monsters(4' or so), but some good ones nonetheless. If they are ever to have a shot at reproducing on this river where they do have an honest chance if water levels maintain, one needs to take care in not disturbing them pre/during the spawn. Good luck to your friends on the Walleyes next time out!
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/1/2006 8:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
| They aren't my friends.
They simply work with my wife. And I can't wait for the next work-related function. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Sorry about that. I just said friends in passing. Don't get yourself in trouble at the next work party over it though, as those types usually don't change. Would be good to catch them in the act of targetting them thouhg, then say something. We see it enough here, and they don't think anyone can see what they are doing. Tossing Bulldawgs and Suicks in mid April in WI on a lake with no Pike is not Walleye fishing. Don't like to come accross as holier than thow, as I don't mind when a Musky grabs my jig, just feel that the season is closed for a reason, and until otherwise stated in the regs targtting them is B.S. |
|
| |
