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 -> Info On size limit increase |
| Message Subject: Info On size limit increase | |||
 |
| ||
| Hello All, I just spent some time on the phone with Steve Gilbert (Fishery Bioligest, Woodruff Wi) I asked his opinion on the two seprate issues that are under discussion on the other thread (state-wide 40in and slot limit 40-48in) In his opinion going with some scientific data a 40in state-wide would be benifical to the Wi muskie resourse, he also stated that there are some eco-systems that it would not benefit due to the eco-system or the lack of resourses (man-power and money) to manage it in a way that it would benifit. I then asked him how many eco-systems would that include, and without being able to give me an exact number without extensive research he felt that some where around 5% to 10% would not be helped. He also added that personally he is in favor of a 40in limit as long as those 5% or 10% eco-systems would have special regs put in place which he's sure would happen in the event of a 40 state-wide limit. I then asked him his feelings on a slot limit, and though he believes slot limits work well with other speicies (walleye-bass) he didn't think a slot would work very well for muskies due to the fact of there low numbers per lake which right now stands at 1/2 to 1 legal muskie (34ins) per acre of water. He also believes that other than a slot limit if you wanted to improve our fishery it would take a size limit on a lake by lake basis which is what would happen if the state limit rose to 40ins (again, 40ins with speical regs for the Small percent of eco-systems which the dnr would implement) Basicly his feelings on improving Wi muskie fishing is simple, HIGHER Size limits on most eco-systems along with a high catch and release format and a 45 to 50in limit on select trophy systems. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. Hopefully these findings will satisfy and lay this debate to rest for everyone concerned (I hope it does) Don, if you would like to discuss this on the air(I think it would be a good show) or via phone or e-mail it would be my pleasure. (715)477-0120 or [email protected] [:praise:] | |||
|
| ||
| Chuck, regarding the statewide 40", that is consistent with what I've heard from other DNR people that I've talked to. From what I understand, they intend to adjust on a lake by lake basis...up for trophy lakes and down for small lakes. The 40" statewide has support in the DNR, they want it because it's a good number for the baseline with which to start adjusting as needed. This is the first step. Thanks for the info! Jono | |||
|
| ||
| Wouldn't it be wonderful if this message would be carried up the "Food Chain" to the decision makers! | |||
|
| ||
| Chuck, Thanks for taking the time to contact Steve. The general atmosphere for a statewide 40" minimum excluding waters that would not be benefitted is positive now more than ever. [:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| Chuck, great to see some more views from fisheries biologists. We talked to several biologists from Wisconson and Minnesota before starting this 40" proposal and they said the exact same things that the biologist you talked to said. Just to clear up some statements that were made earlier and will come up again on the Bone Lake study. The fish increased length with a 40" size limit by 300% during the study. The average weight went down. BUT, the average weight was above average for the 10 sample lakes in Wisconsin. In other words the fish were healthy when the study started and were healthy when it was over. In talking to Terry Margenau last year he said it could have been a variety of different elements that slightly decreased the weight of the Bone Lake fish. The reasons for the drop in weight COULD NOT be correlated to a higher population of muskie. He felt it was due to a decrease in yellow perch(the big forage of muskie in Bone Lake) the later years of the study. What caused the decrease in yellow perch? Was it angler harvest, bad spawning years, harsh winters of the early 90's, higher muskie population, or building on spawning grounds? It's too late to go back and do a yellow perch study to find out. Direct quote from the Bone Lake study: "Anglers may have interpreted the larger length limit as an opportunity to catch larger fish on these new waters. Margenau found that the reputation or potential of a lake to produce large muskellunge was one of the main criteria used by anglers in selecting a lake to fish". That says a lot for the Wisconsin economy when we have lower minimum length limits than all our surrounding states. Actually I'm not sure what Iowa is at right now. Anyway, just wanted to clear up some of the Bone Lake results. I'm not trying to sound like a know it all, this is just something that interested me so I talked to Terry Margenau last year a few times about it. Terry is the fisheries biologist that co-wrote the study. I'm done rambling on. Nice post Chuck, Ty Sennett | |||
|
| ||
| Thanks Ty, I'm glad that the info I recieved from Steve G. has concured with different bioligests across the state, I think these concerns are better looked at through scientific data and opionion than what we as fisherman consider what's best or what we hear in bars or bait-shops. I.M.H.O. | |||
|
| ||
| Chuck and Ty thank you, Talked to ty on the phone last night and had a few questions answered . Thanks ty. Chuck thank you also. I am making some calls today if I have time, I am going fishing first!!! my main concern was that 5 to 10% of lakes. I was worried that these lakes were not going to be addressed and I think they have to be. I just want to let you know again I was not against the increase but hoped it would be more selective as to the lakes. In all my seminars I preach catch and release and have done much to promote it. As a tackle manufacturer (former) I also donated many baits to clubs for fund raisers. I am not antimuskie fishermen as the e-mail stated I recieved. Good luck with it and I know you and laura worked hard on this ty. Don Pfeiffer | |||
|
| ||
| Obviously this addresses the slot limit question and I had not been aware of this post until this AM. If I had been I would not have posted my questions on it. Since I don't read every post on the board and I usually don't scroll down to the next page I guess I live in ignorance sometimes. Doesn't change my opinion that we do not need to lower the size limit on lakes that rarely turn out a 40" fish. I think that is simply uncalled for. I think that the thinking that musky NEED to be harvested is unenlightened at times, and especially in WI with not one but TWO musky capitals of the world...let them take one out of these small lakes when they have captured one of the biggest in the lake, if they feel they want to. Then their trophy is indeed a trophy, and well deserved. ttt [:)] | |||
| 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 |