|
|
| I support the DNR, and will be talking with one of their representatives later today. I gave my personal opinion, which I didn't think was in any way "bashing" or "throwing stones". Sometimes I think they could do a better job than they currently are. I'm not sure why stating that is so offensive to some people. I know their hands are tied, and there's only so much funding to go around. I meant no disrespect to the MN DNR. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh in my earlier posts. Good day. |
|
| |
|
|
I would tend to agree with Hooker that Milfoil doesn't hurt the fishery per se, it just takes away the "swimming" pool that lakeshore owners want.
Now we might be singing a different tune 50 years from now about milfoil, but so far it hasn't had a harmful effect on fish populations that I'm aware of.
|
|
| |
|
| Oneida Esox - 5/14/2007 8:39 AM
With all the talk about milfoil, VHS, size limts and such I was wondering what you thought is the biggest problem facing the musky fishery today.
Now keep in mind, I think that the fishery is in great shape and love the fact that I can drive 1 1/2 blocks and be on awesome musky water and will fish for many more years!
I think one that is overlooked a LOT is shoreline development.
Take the poll!
Selling/trading 80% or better of your DNR hatcheries fish out of state, while pretending that your own state program is in good shape. |
|
| |
|
| bad handling |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| Considering the number of 50" fish coming out of MN compared to WI, IN, IL, IN,KY, VA, WVA, OH and NY COMBINED, I'd say MN's musky program is the best there is...
|
|
| |
|
| I talked with the DNR personel today about the netting done on two area lakes. Two of the three lakes that were netted produced 4 fish at 50 inches or better. One lake had 91 fish in the nets, with a 53" being the largest. The other lake was rumored to have produced a 54 inch fish in the nets weighing 44lbs., but that was not confirmed. Looks pretty promising for the 2007 season. I think the Fargo-Moorhead Chapter lead Muskies Inc. for the 2nd year in a row with about 40 fish at 50 inches or better. Not all were caught in this area of MN, but I belive quite a few were. None were caught by yours truly of course, but maybe I can change that this year.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | happy hooker - 5/15/2007 9:11 AM
TFOOTSTALKER
you bring up some good points about leech,,,however would you concede that milfoil might be the best thing that EVER happened to the metro fisherie based on what it was 20 yrs ago,,,Tonka bass have NEVER been healthier and lakes on the HWY 5 Mitchel,Lotus, Ann etc on a stable weather day is possible to catch 20 -30 bass in the 2-3 1/2 lb range, And has you mentioned the state record bass came out of a milfoil packed lake ,Also its been an absolute BOON for inner city lakes that would be devastated by harvest from all the Imigrants that have moved here and were raised in a culture where all fish regardless of size are food,,Milfoil limits the shore acess they have to the fish otherwise everything would go into their ice cream pales for dinner,, Take a look at the Ron Schara tourney held on the city lakes in the late 70's winning stringer was 6 bass for a total of less then 12 lbs this was a tourney with the likes of Al and Ron Lindner, Capra,Bolig an invitational field of whos who etc, That would be a pretty so so day out there today, On the flipside theres no stacked milfoil on the Ford Dam section of the Miss River and fishing isnt a shadow of what it was 20 yrs ago, Milfoil Rocks in heavy pressured Rural areas
Point understood. Aquatic systems are complex and they virtually all respond differently. While I understand your point, it is a dangerous one. One that could be perceived out of context.
Something else to consider Mitchell winter killed this year (I think we are talking about the same one), although the extent is not known. Winter kills occur when the large biomass of vegetation decays (among other things). Was this increased/caused by a higher plant biomass composed of milfoil? Tough to say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 468
Location: Not where I wanna be! |
Selling/trading 80% or better of your DNR hatcheries fish out of state, while pretending that your own state program is in good shape.
this is too true!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Good point man, I voted Catch and Keep becouse in my local water that is the biggest problem. Shoreline developement came before the musky stocking program, and even though the 40" length limit is also a negative if people wouldn't keep them than it wouldn't matter. Also stocking could be a way to offset the harvest of fish. THis 3600 acre lake got a wopping 129 muskies stocked in it for that past two year period... total! The up side is that few people waste there time trying for muskies there so I've found that they have no fear of large musky lures becouse its the walleye jigs that get most of them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1058
Location: Medford, WI | Oneida, glad to see that you brought up shoreline development! I just did a big paper on the economics of shoreline development and the environmental problems it causes for my Environmental Economics course. Very interesting stuff and I believe educating the landowners is the main key to helping decrease it.
As far as musky-fisheries specifically, I'll say size-limit.
-Jake Bucki |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Beware of the DNR Visioning Lake Management Planning that they are conducting with the Lake Associations. We had a session on Solberg Lake (Phillips, WI) with Dave Nueswanger (DNR - Hayward) and Jeff Scheirer (DNR - Park Falls). It is an excellant planning exercise that that they conduct with one major flaw, a small group can decide the future management plan for a lake. That's my only beef, not the hard work they put in or how they conducted the exercise, just that the people there had to much influence into the results and I'd rather let more of the managing fall to the DNR professionals.
The exercise prioritizes the species of interest, identiifies the relative importance of numbers versus size and catch versus release. It was understood that professional fishery managers would select the most appropriate strategies once goals and objectives were developed with "help" from local stakeholders and adjusted to incorporate statewide angler preferance and capacity of the lake to produce what is desired.
The "help" part apparently turns out to be the major influence in what is done.
Coming to Solberg Lake from the Sayner area I was unprepared for the hatred for muskies coming from a group of residents that live on the lake. They complain about the large population of small walleyes but in the next breath blame the muskies for eating all the walleyes. How you can have a large bunch of walleyes if the muskies are eating them all escapes them. I've talked about muskie diet studies at our meetings but I could never sway the gang of 20 to see the light. In spite of this approx. 5 years ago we voted about 45 to 25 to raise the size limit to 40". But in a blow to democracy the gang of 20 talked our Lake Association President into vacating the vote because as he told me "they didn't think it was a good idea".
Here comes the rub. This group was out in force with their wives for the planning session with the goal to get rid of or diminish the population of the dreaded muskies. Some of them rarely fish, I'm not sure some of them even have a license. Unfortunately I was the only one of what I consider Solbergs 8-10 hard core muskie guys at the meeting. Plus none of the fishermen at the county campground that come here to camp and pursue muskies were there either. No one from the two trailer parks, three bars, or two resorts either.
Still the muskie vote went - Fishing interest: High 11, Medium 9, Low 10, None 9 and for Numbers versus Size went: Numbers over size 0, prefer balance 18, size over number 9. and Catch and Release went: C & R 17, Balance 8, Maximum Sustainable Harvest 2. As stated in the Draft of the Managent Plan "some of those that expressed no interest in muskies actually had highly negative feelings toward muskellunge. These preferances are in stark contrast to the preferances of anglers at many traditional muskie waters in the Upper Chippewa Basin. Because muskellunge are held in lower regard and not valued as a trophy fish in Solberg an objective was chosen to maintain a low to moderate population density and reflect the interest in conservative size structure but not necessarily trophy-sized fish". What about the 40" limit we wanted? Why wasn't historical interest taken
into account?
In the end the 20 that expressed a high to medium interest lost out to the 19 that had a low to none interest. So much for the majority wins. The moral of the story is to make sure that if your lake is having one of these planning sessions to get everyone there to shift the vote to whatever your group wants.
It was decided that Solberg is now a lake that will have the major emphasis put on bluegills even though traditionally this has been a poor panfish lake.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the gang of 20 hates all weeds of any type, also any logs, stumps or any other fish cover habitat. But they want more bluegills.
Deliver me from evil.
Buddy
Edited by buddysolberg 5/16/2007 9:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I support us stopping this crap the fish will never have a break from the spear it's on the docket as far as I can see
Sec. 37. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 97C.335, is amended to read:
15.3397C.335 USE OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS TO TAKE FISH PROHIBITED.
16.1 A person may not use artificial lights to lure or attract fish or to see fish in the water
16.2while spearing, except that while angling or spearing, a person may:
16.3 (1) affix to the end of a fishing line a lighted artificial bait with hooks attached to the
16.4end of a fishing line; or
16.5 (2) use a lighted decoy for spearing.
16.6 Any battery that is used in lighted fishing lures cannot contain any intentionally
16.7introduced mercury.
HF.1116
|
|
| |
|
| This is what I've been pouring over for weeks and days, we have no lobbyist we have no Frank anymore, so we all need to keep an eye on whats happening at the capitol, it really sucks but this is the only thing that will keep another French Lake from happening, all you do is put in Key words 1 is best (Spearing, Spearing Ban, Designated Lakes or Muskellunge) and scan the results I freaked when I saw the lighted amendment LOL I need more sleep.
http://ros.leg.mn/revisor/pages/search_status/status_search.php?bod...
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/stat...
Please help, so far Ive found nothing really other than they want lighted decoys I suppose this helps in low light conditions for the discriminating spearer and the Dark House and Ice shacks going to a 3 year and changing the dates the Lic is valid through.
VHS could prove total devastation
Edited by Muskiefool 5/17/2007 4:30 PM
|
|
| |
