|
|
Posts: 1168
| guts - 3/21/2007 2:55 PM
in my opinion i think they both have muskys so its cool. I think alot of people are just defending the state they grew up fishing in and miss the point of fishing. having fun ,thats it people have fun!
...but guts, I can have more fun in MY state than you can have in YOUR state so ha!! 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I would venture a guess that muskies anglers are way less then 5% of the anglers in wisconsin. I'm sure the d.n.r has a number they feel is in the ballpark.
There is alot of things going on that are good in wisconsin. You really have to be here in the north to hear of the big fish being caught that are kept fairly quiet. I think that by going slow in wisconsin we will get things done and by going slow we should get it right. 54% on the bay is a great plan. I think that keeping all those fish is crazy and I would not support him or his business. I would not hold it against him if he had just kept the 54 and it was the fish of a lifetime for him.
Not going to compare the two states. I do know that since I have moved to the northern part of wisconsin and get on the water more I have seen more big fish.
I think if many of the minnesota anglers put in as much time on our water in wisc. as the lakes in minnesota they might be surprised.
Let the clubs and d.n.r do what they are doing and give it a chance to work. I read some of the post and have to say you cannot push and shove to get your way. You have to work together and I see much improvement in that area in wisc between clubs,most muskie anglers and the d.n.r.
I guess bottom line is if you don't like fishing in wisconsin then don't. Know the facts and learn whats going on here. I think any muskie angler that feels he needs to catch a 50 incher everytime out is reaching for the stars. Its not going to happen here,minn. or canada. Make the most of what you have and try to make it better.
I think wisconsin is being realistic in the goals they have set and are on the move in the right direction. Not fast enough for the star chasers but they are getting there.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | "There are several people in this sport who are responsible for GETTING THINGS DONE that help ALL of us catch more fish and bigger fish wherever we go. Those people don't seen to be bickering back and forth about what the issues suppsoedly are, arguing about what's wrong with WI, etc. "
-We do laugh every now and then as well as get frustrated by the people who have no clue. The problem with most people is that they start bashing instead of asking what the status of things are. If anyone has questions on what's going on, just throw up a post and ASK. There are lots of people here who are up to speed on the situation(s) in their respective muskie communities.
"They really dont have a clue how big this sport really is and what it's potentials could be! So much potential with all the water and it's going at a snail's pace as far as stocking programs, research, and size limit's."
-We're in the process of getting this changed in MN. This year the UofM will be doing a professional study to quantify the number as well find out the current oppinions of the muskie fishing public (both in state and out). If this survey comes to any of you please take the time to fill it out and send it back.
"It's going to be interesting if it happens when a Minnesota records turns out to be a Wisconsin fish."
-I doubt it will. Most WI fish were stocked over 20 years ago and very few are still alive. What's more is that most of the Mille Lac "WI fish" are in-fact Leechers. I've had this discussion with some MN biologists and they say that the coloration of muskies changes depending on the water they're in and may appear to be from a different origin. They've done tests on fish to confirm this.
In the end I hope ALL states muskie programs continue to improve. IMOP WI should have all eyes on it to see how they proceed. WI has the most potential for improvement, but also has the most resistance to change. If you live in WI you'd better get involved now so you can start enjoying the fruits of your labor 10-20 years from now. You've got all you need there, you've just got to work with the right people to get it done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Shawn, I DO have a question for you... (and anyone else who feels they can answer with fact and research based observations)
It's more of an observation followed by a question actually.
First the observation:
There is no one thing that is responsible for th difference between the WI and MN fisheries. Water composition, forage, acreage, genetics, size limits, stocking, watershed management, spearing, over harvest, delayed mortality, fishing pressure... ALL those things combined are what makes the difference between MN and WI muskie fisheries.
Now for the question: Do you feel that WI has the potential to produce the same caliber of muskie populations that MN has achieved, or are there unalterable geological features of those WI lakes that limit what they will ultimately produce in terms of size and numbers? (i.e. MN's aquatic ecosystems are simply more conducive to growing big muskies)
Thanks
Jeff
|
|
| |
|
| you might do well to narrow that question down a bit more Jeff.
you're lumping things together waaaaay to broadly.
is Green Bay the same as Bone? they're both in Wisconsin.
is Winnebago the same as Butternut? they're both in Wisconsin.
is Pelican the same as Moens? they're both in Wisconsin...heck they're both in Oneida county.
is Mille Lacs the same as Little Boy? they're both in Minnesota.
is Vermilion the same as Mantrap? they're both in Minnesota.
or is Winnebago more comparable to Mille Lacs than other lakes in Wisconsin?
you see my point?
i think Wisconsin is on the right course by _selectively_ developing and protecting fisheries that have the potential to both numbers of trophy fish.
this is a sea-change from the old approach of dumping large numbers of fish into any lake they could find and then not having an informed size limit system that protects fish in lakes where real potential exists.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Let me rephrase the question:
Generally speaking, are there natural limitations present in the most comparable WI lakes to the lakes in MN that are producing troply class fish that would prevent them from ever putting out the same caliber of fish?
I realize that nobody KNOWS this for certain, as WI's full potential has yet to be seen, but certainly those who have read and studied more than I have have formed some opinions, and I would like to hear those opinions.
Edited by esoxaddict 3/22/2007 9:35 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave Neuswanger answered that question in fairly good detail during the debate in the research forum last winter.
From what I have gathered talking to multipe fisheries managers there are lakes here that will not grow numbers of large muskies. Water chemistry and forage issues, if I remember correctly. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | EA, I think that many WI lakes could produce fish like MN but there's a ton of variables that most people don't consider.
1. Most WI lakes have had muskies in them for years if not centuries where most "Trophy" MN lakes are coming into their own with the first couple generations of fish becoming trophy sized. I think the question that nobody's asking is "will MN lakes end up like WI once they've matured?"
2. MN wouldn't consider stocking most of the lakes WI does. If the MN DNR doesn't think it has trophy potential they won't waste their time on it with their limited resources. If a lake proves to be a "dink factory" they'll abandon it. It's happened to a couple that I know about over the last 20 years.
3. I do think that there are SOME genetic issues in WI. Not nearly as many as most people say. I just sat through a presentation on pike presented by our DNR last week and they've concluded that many of our hammer handle lakes are being affected by the natural reproduction of stunted pike. There are studies with short-lived species such as guppies and silver salmon where it's been shown that when multiple generations of small fish are reproducing that it has had an overall affect on the population. If I can get those studies I'll pass them along.
4. WI typically stocks at a higher rate then MN and they also tend to have better natural reproduction so forage may be an issue.
I think that it'd be interesting to see what happens in a WI lake that never had muskies in it and to do an experiment. Take a lake with appropriate size and forage, use Bone Lake fish and stock to the levels that MN does and see what happens. I would bet that you'd probably see some pretty similar results.
But then again, look at my tag-line. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Thanks Shawn.
I find #1 particularly interesting. It makes sense that a "first introduction" would have a greater potential for growth than future generations. More available forage, no competition, no predators...
|
|
| |
