|
|
Posts: 8782
| What, in your opinion, has the most significant impact on the quality of today's musky fisheries?
What leads you to believe this?
What do you think needs to be done to improve/eliminate the problem?
I realize there will be some regional differences, but I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.
Edited by esoxaddict 11/3/2006 12:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | You forgot one..."all of the above". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | tfootstalker - 11/3/2006 1:15 PM
You forgot one..."all of the above". ALL of the above , Marv. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| They all play a role, that's for sure. But the question was which is the most significant... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| I agree with "all of the above", but what about positive impacts?
I believe angler education and CPR are having the greatest effect on the bigger and better fish that we are seeing.
I believe the tankers that we are seeing this year have all been caught before.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Missing is one of the more important problems, degradation of spawning habitat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 207
Location: Mpls, MN | I agree with spawning habitat. Not mention lake development in general, increased muskie fishing pressure not mention fishing pressure in general. People whine that they don't caught as many fish as they did years ago. More people fish, more people keep limits everytime they are out. Local agencies can't keep up with that, regardless if is a muskie or not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | They may all be of local importance, but there is no real 'right answer'. Each system is unique in it's ability to respond to perturbations from outside sources. Out here some of the biggies are alterations of the natural hydrograph caused by differences in irrigation demand and introductions of exotic species; also spawning habitat is abundant, but nursery habitat is often limiting. Those may show little or no effect in other parts of the country.
One of the things that has the most significant impact on today's fisheries has nothing to do with fisheries; it's public perception. Fisheries in many parts of the country are of higher quality now than they have ever been. With that rise in quality comes a subsequent rise in expectations...it's a vicious cycle!
S. |
|
| |
|
| The way its progressing in a few years I may have to say electonics!!! some of this G.P.S. mapping I think takes some of the fair chase out of things,,sure the argument is 'still gotta make them bite" but now that you can drive up to the reef.hump,inside turn you have more time to concentrate on getting them to bite,,Electronics must be really impacting on the walleye population where CPR isnt practiced all that much |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Steve that falls under water quality in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorno, well said. Addict, gotcha, but a water body can have great spawning habitat and bad water quality, and vise versa. Lotsa problems for our fisheries folks!
'perturbations'...got me a new word to describe what happens when my Grandsons are over and I'm trying to work. That one will make my Grandson go, 'What, Gampa? I'm a WHAT?' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | esoxaddict - 11/3/2006 12:34 PM
They all play a role, that's for sure. But the question was which is the most significant...
Chicken or the egg?
Is spearing bad because angler harvest already removes fish, or is angler harvest bad because spearing already removes fish? Which is worse?
As already said, these effects are additive and certain combinations of each will have varying results. In some situations they are compensatory. Harvest removes fish thereby eliminating a forage problem if one existed. Everyone is quick to point to a problem that needs fixing, but fail to realize in most cases another problem will replace it.
Here's another one to add to the list: Overstocking/stocking in general.
Edited by tfootstalker 11/3/2006 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Another aspect could be public view. Sure the "musky community" is pretty big as we see on this site and others, but I think the general public hasnt been educated on muskies. If the one weekend a year fisherman goes out bass fishing and catches a big musky, a fair amount of the time that fish will be kept, even if it is a 32" fish, to them that is a big fish if they are used to catching 12 inch bass, to us that is a dink. To some of the walleye guys muskies are a "nuisance" and are killed when caught because "they eat all the walleyes". So public view in my mind seems to have a big affect on the fishery. Fisheries people have to deal more with public viewpoints and try to find a compromising regulation/procedure that will please both sides of a proposed situation i.e. size limit increase. Just my point of view.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| "Those #*^@ muskies are eating all the crappies!! We used to come out here on Friday afternoon and get 50 crappies for our Friday night fish fry, and now we're lucky to get a dozen!!"
Yep, it's the muskies all right. Nevermind the fact that you guys were eating 50 of them a week, must be the muskies...
You're right Mike, it is perception, both on our part and from the anti-musky crowd. Once we know what those perceptions are we can be much better equipped to deal with it in an effective manner.
|
|
| |
|
| "degradation of spawning habitat"
sworral can you go in more depth on this. I'm sure its happening but havn't heard where or how.
thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure, but this isn't a subject that can be covered in a few minutes. Both physical changes and influences by other critters and plants can be a problem. Shoreline development that changes water flows, introduces pollution, run off, and nitrogen fertilizer from lawns. Bad septic systems. Farm run off. Docks and Piers. Marina construction. Overuse of the waterways by powerboats in the weedy shallows. Silt, a big problem. Global Warming causing lower water levels in many areas, maybe. Invasive species of plants, fish, and other organisms. All these and more I'm sure I didn't add can lead to eventual degradation of the spawning habitat for many gamefish, panfish, and other desirable fishes.
Rusty Crayfish have been a bane to many lakes in my area because they destroy the weeds by eating them after exhausting all other food sources, they eat spawn, and take over the natural population of crayfish that pike, bass, and walleyes feed on. They reproduce by the millions, and are unstoppable. Just one example. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| spawning habitat and runoff from housing and farmland.. its happening as we type. rivers and drainage from 100 miles away can kill. we percieve the great lakes as clean from sebra and quaga mussels. its the toxins you dont see. |
|
| |
|
| All of the above especially invasive species and development of spawning areas  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I don't know that there's anything we can do as anglers to prevent the water quality/spawning issues as they relate to runoff, development, and pollution, nor can we do much about invasive species once they are established.
23 votes for overharvest...
Personally, I can't see telling a 10 year old kid who just caught the biggest fish he's ever seen not to keep it for the wall, and I doubt we'll ever convince the meat hunters that muskies are not all that good to eat.
It seems the only thing left to do is to work towards increased size limits.
There's a lot of talk lately about inferior genetics, how "different" MN waters are from WI waters, how the fish in WI "just don't get as big"...
It's true, they don't get as big in WI, and it's because they don't have the chance. And the best way to give them that chance? Increased size limits.
So what does that mean for us? How do we get there? What can we do in conjunction with the DNR to get those petitions on the ballot and get them passed?
We need to speak up, we need to do it in a friendly, non-confrontational, and and non elitist way, and we need to speak up as a group.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Size limits are important if the fishery supports the proposed upper limit; I'd like to see a 40" minimum state wide limit with 'special bag and size limits' on lakes that plain need to see harvest, like Butternut. If the lake is 'put and take' I believe the DNR and local groups and anglers would need only present a majority opinion backed up by participation for a size limit increase. Lakes where NR is present may be a tougher challenge acquiring a consensus, based on what the waters are capable of producing because of forage, water quality, etc.
Folks living in areas where waters with strong trophy potential require a ton of grass roots education and local PR work to get a majority consensus, because there are so many different ideas out there as to what a 45" or 50" limit might mean to resorts, tournament organizations, local anglers, and the general public.
A Tournament organizer here fought the Pelican size limit change until the end instead of supporting a clearly positive conservation effort and changing his event format to judge boats on Pelican. We offered to provide judge boats, so cost was not at issue here. They moved that event to another area lake group instead. That's the sort of negative that is REALLY hard to overcome, because the negative or misinformed 'undercurrent' is always active and easier to spread, while the educational process, facts, supporting data, and work by a group trying to protect that fishery may not be.
Bottom line is implementing any changes in individual lake muskie size limits won't be easy. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I would have to say the Internet is the MOST significant impact. There is a band of gypsy's that travel from lake to lake in search of the hot bite. When the word gets out that a lake is hot they ALL hit it HARD for weeks until the bite turns off. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | I used to think it was a harvesting problem until Jed Pearson from the Indiana DNR did a presentation for our club last December. The Indiana DNR did a lake survey almost every day of open water last year on Webster. Out of the people they questioned during that time there were over 1200 muskies caught with only 10 of those kept. That is less than 1%. My thoughts of getting the size limit changed in Indiana took a back burner. I would much rather inform the people who are new to muskie fishing the proper handling of the fish. |
|
| |
|
| I chose "other" because I feel (at least from my experiences on the lakes here in MN) that we have an under abundance of lakes to fish with an over abundance of people fishing for them. To me, this reduces quality since it becomes harder to catch fish that have seen so many presentations that they only eat when conditions are prime. No doubt these fish can be tough to begin with, but try catching them when you are "next in line" (prime example...north shore of Mille Lacs on the weedline). Granted boats can spread out and different fish can become active, but at times, it can be down right crowded...
This probably can be tied into kept fish and/or mishandled fish which increases mortality (although not every proven from anything I have read or seen) and numerous other factors, but to me, quality starts with the experience of being out there, seeing fish, and not dealing with others right on top of you as you fish.
Steve |
|
| |
