|
|
Posts: 149
| I'd just like to expand on the notion that Wisconsin is 'behind the times' in musky management. As has been pointed out, nothing could be further fron the truth. looking at the list above kindly provided by lambeau, I figure the total to be about 191 waters with a 40" or higher size limit in Wisconsin. Now, a few of those are doubles as there are a few waters that border more than one county and are listed multiple times (Winnebago as one good example). So for the sake of argument let's say there are about 175 - 180 true individual waters in the state with a 40" limit or higher.
How many waters are there outside Wisconsin with those kind of limits? Probably not 180. Minnesota has 80 some waters total that contain muskies and a statewide minimum higher than wisconsin, but a net total of close to 100 fewer waters with a 40" limit than their neighbor to the east. Most other states I would say are in the same boat but with far fewer musky waters over a 40" limit than even Minnesota has.
I dare say that Wisconsin right now today very likely has far more waters with a 40" or higher limit than the rest of the United States combined, and has had so for quite some time. Even in Ontario there are still vast areas with 36" limits.
Whoever said it earlier was right. What's severely lagging behind in Wisconsin are people's perceptions. |
|
| |
|
| esoxcpr the list lambeau provided is a bit deceiving. (But thank you Lambeau for putting that up there)
On the list they are waters listed by county, there are many duplicates on that list, heck I counted 4 x for the wolf river alone. As well as many of these waters being part of the same system. So it depends how you read it.
We have come along way since the days of the 30" statewide limit, the days of the .22 in the taclklebox.
But I do see us going backwards as far as the early season goes.
I for one will not be participating or guiding during the new proposed season, except where it is legal to do so prior to the screw job. Politicians should not be deciding seasons. Sorry, just the way I see it.
I have yet to see any biologists sign off on this one, untill they do, my position will remain the same. |
|
| |
|
| A couple of things I find interesting on this list are the number of lakes that have protective size limits in Vilas county and neighboring counties where this will be I think most effected by it. But we will just use Vilas for example because that is where Rep. Meyer and the two guides I believe that are behind this are located.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to begin drawing parallels here. Wasnt it these very same "tourism people" that lead the charge against higher size limits in the past?
lambeau that list when you read between the lines says more for our argument than I think most realize.
Where are the majority of waters in Wisconsin that are self sustaining fisheries? I want to see a list of how many waters in Wisconsin are considered self sustaining. And compare that against waters that will now be fair game, not always but at least sometimes during the spawn.
I would like to see a list of the % of lakes in the newly effected area that already have a higher protective limit compared to the ones that dont. I think those are the numbers that speak volumes about this.
Just because it will be legal doesnt always make it ethical. Heck its legal to kill a musky and eat it everyday. I am glad we have progressed beyond that, but it is legal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 303
Location: WI | What would one do if.... 1) It's an unusually warm spring and lake temps are warmer than normal....you believe the muskies are now in post spawn, but it's only the early C&R season?? Go ahead and fish becasue the spawn is over? Boycott because the way it was implemented?
2) It's an unusually cold spring and the spawn has run into the 'regular musky season opener'....Do you stay off the water to protect these fish? Would some guides call there clients and cancel? Fish anyways?
3) There are bodies of water that has a population sustained by stocking only? Is it okay to fish there because you won't be harming fish that can't successfully spawn anyways?
I think there are going to be many 'what if's'.....
Personally, I'm still sitting on the fence....I don't like the way it got passed.....I don't like interferring with muskies that are spawning (successfully).....people that are snagging muskies don't care if there's a new C&R season or not (they'll do it regardless if that's what they do 
I, just like everyone else, just want some scientific data (one way or the other)... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I've been waiting for this conversation to hit this point before I posted this, and the last post and a few really heated exchanges last evening pretty well got us where I had hoped we'd end up. Mike Roberts already pointed alot of this out, but it was missed by quite a few of us, apparently.
Shane,
Here's a link to the Wisconsin Muskie Lakes, and a listing of classifications.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/muskywaters_countylist.html
Vilas has 7 lakes that are confirmed no natural reproduction and are managed totally by stocking, and a number more that where NR isn't known but the population is managed by stocking.
Class A1, A2, and B Classification 1/2 will be waters one needs to make sure the spawn is over to fish by the definition you supplied of ethical, or choose to not fish at all during the early season. These waters, if it's been a very cold Spring, may be wise to avoid until Mid June, if we are to assume that some of the concerns posted to this thread are viable. I don't know too many folks who would avoid them opening day of the regular Muskie season, but that's a standard no one here has decided to take on as a personal ethical mantle; although the question HAS been asked.
Many of our lakes up here have populations of Muskies that are maintained totally by stocking and offer upper confidence levels in the 40" class or even less, because of water chemistry, forage, and more. See the Research Forum for a massive discussion on that front last year and the year before. See Dr. Casselman's opening speech at the recent Symposium
for a revealing take on what those little gems can mean to an adventurous muskie angler if one's perspective is based in reality. I fish a couple lakes here that are totally maintained by stocking, and a really big fish is 40". I can and do experience multiple fish days on these lakes, and I find that quite a bit of fun.
We don't know the motivation of the folks who got this law passed, but I see opportunity to fish what are 'put and take' or stocked populations during the early season.
No one has complained about the lakes and rivers south of HWY 10 where NR IS occurring and asked that we all avoid disturbing the Muskies there until late May in the event of a colder than normal Spring.
Each Lake is classified by population density and expectations of trophy/good fishing and some trophy potential/ etc. and NR catagories. Look at the link for an explanation of terms.
As an aside, I think there have been some folks who have posted here who do not have a good grasp at all of our Muskie waters over here. Oneida County, for example, has over 150 muskie destinations ( That's right, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PLUS if one counts all the rivers/dams and sections and lakes, plus unlisted waters I know of) with many sporting a stocked population with little or no natural reproduction, and many with an upper confidence of perhaps low 40" class due to the overall ecology of that water. A fellow who fishes Mille Lacs, for example, might be a bit more inclined to hit the 'elitist' button by our standards, and shriek that the end will come from this legislation, strictly because his 'reality' is based on that water, not the 150 lakes in Oneida County, Wisconsin. Minnesota has, in JUST a couple waters, more Muskie acreage that ALL the Inland Wisconsin waters combined, and the population of Muskies over there in several of the large waterbodies and many of the remaining smaller waters is just now coming to age. We've discussed this ad nauseam, read the Research Forum. 'Protection' of the fish on Mille Lacs, for example, is a COMPLETELY different thing than protection of the fish on 104 acre stocked to maintain the population Oscar Jenny Lake in Oneida. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to sit with a fisheries biologist and ask alot of questions...and then LISTEN to the answers.
As another aside, the term 'elite' seems to stick in some folks mind as a negative; that's horsehockey. What units are, for example, the United States Elite Fighting Force in the services? Wasn't Michael Jordan among the Elite as a Basketball player? Elitist doesn't describe what is right or wrong; the term describes many things and should not be taken to be an insult. If one DOES take the label as an insult, stop a minute and ask ,"Why?". If you indeed ARE a 'releaselitist', is that entirely a bad thing? AHHHH, there we have it, right back to where you are from and you perspective, which forms one's personal 'reality', and what muskie populations you are trying to protect. One's ethics, if applied by FORCE to EVERYONE on any single Muskie water out there, might be just what the Trophy Doctor ordered, and might also spell the end of Muskie management on that water.
All too often, polarization on a topic like this occurs not based on what is really the reality of THIS water at THIS time and THE muskie population there, it's based on... |
|
| |
|
| If you want to know who is behind him, look at the people that contributed money to his campaign fund. It is public record, that is where you will find the answers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| Steve Worrall, you said "I've had plenty of opportunity to fish early season muskies. The season didn't always open later than the regular opener."
I have only lived in Wisconsin for 15 years since moving from North Dakota. I have not seen the opener any earlier then memorial day north of hwy 10. But from your comment, it sounds like there was an early season before.
Some questions for you?
If there was a early season before,when was it?
When did it change?
Why did it change?
What is your opinion on maybe just having it south of hwy 8, instead of hwy 10?
We sure have had more trends of warmer springs, since global warming is coming into the focus. I have already seen water temps in the mid 70's before memorial day weekend in central Wisconsin.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 303
Location: WI | There was an article in the Minneaopolis Star Tribune today about an attempt by some to start the MN opener 1 week earlier.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/13287951.html
Edited by PEteacher44 1/6/2008 4:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32951
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | NNW,
Yes, Muskie season opened the same day as walleyes. Changed about the time you moved up, I think. Not sure on the why, I think because of rumored harvest totals during the early spring and a desire to let those fish spawn. The law is now the 'North, where the season was closed, opening south of Hwy 8 won't do much even if we could get it changed, and then where are we? I'd rather have a C&R season on Pelican than open her with the 'eyes, but that's me. |
|
| |
