|
|
Posts: 1168
| Does the "what would you do with a world record" change if it wasn't a muskie? Perhaps you caught a 30 pound largemouth. Does that same "I'd bonk it" or "I'd let it go" mentality still take hold? Not trying to cause a ruckus but just curious as to how what is done with a potential world record fish would change if it was a different species.
What I would do if I caught a true, without question, world record muskie has changed in the past 24 hours. From a position of trying to do whatever I could to release it to my new position that. After reading Larry Ramsell's account of world records in another thread from start to finish, if I land a muskie that is without a doubt 80 pounds (just to give a little leeway) I would drive myself, the fish, a fisheries biologist or two, a certified scale expert, and perhaps a few police officers or a couple of judges up to John Detloff's front door in order to pay a friendly visit. Chances are it still wouldn't be accepted but it sure would be fun. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: Kildeer, IL | I'd be reluctant to keep the fish, because that means the rest of that day and possibly the rest of the trip is blown. From the time you turn in the fish to the time you are done filling out paper work and answering questions is probably a couple of days. If fish to get away from paperwork and meetings.
I don't get out that often, and would be upset about the time lost. |
|
| |
|
| JS- "Plain and simple, what works for trout is different than walleyes. What works for small mouth is different than muskies. etc. etc. "
That's pretty much the reply I expected, and its entirely accurate. My point was that to many Muskie fishermen catching a Bass, Walleye, or Trout would be no big deal, and they'd probably not really care if they lived or died. There are fishermen of other species who feel that same way about catching a Muskie. Those are the people we need to educate. In a way though, I do feel it is somewhat wierd that some 100% c&r Muskie fishermen will keep limit after limit of other species, such as Walleye. I believe a MN DNR officer told me once that something like 80% of their resources are geared around Walleye stocking, and other Walleye related projects. Imagine if they didn't need to stock as many Walleyes as they currently do, because of more Walleye, and Muskie fishermen releasing them. Maybe that ratio would come down and allow for more funds to be spent on Muskie related projects?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | what always amazes me is how some musky fisherman are looked at by others who only pursue lets say bass or walleye. like your boat is in the way or something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | whynot - 5/2/2008 2:13 PM
I don't mean to be a putz, but I am wondering if I am the only one who thinks this whole thread is an exercise in futility?!? Odds are the world record will be caught by someone fishing for crappies or walleyes anyway! 
Good thing there is only another month until season is open just about everywhere!
-Chris
NO! you are NOT the only one. I attribute it to a long winter, maybe soon we can actually talk about catcing muskies rather then handling them/measuring them/releasing them/not releasing them blah blah blah |
|
| |
|
Posts: 395
Location: NW WI | If it was a 60 = BONK
If was a 70 = BONK
|
|
| |
|
|
Walleye stocking in MN is mandated at current levels by the legislature.
Much of the walleye stocking is not needed or in many cases a wasted effort, but the DNR is forced to do it.
Think of all the money we could save in the muskie program if more fish were released than there are now.
That would have a greater positive effect on the muskie budget more than anything. More lakes could be stocked with lower numbers of fish if more restrictive harvest (is higher size limits) was put on them.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
I'd think MN would get that done across the board eventually. Do you see the possibility of a 50" limit or more happening? |
|
| |
|
| JS- "Think of all the money we could save in the muskie program if more fish were released than there are now."
In the area you and I fish, are there really that many fish currently being taken? The only Muskies I've ever seen anyone harvest while I've been fishing were ones which were hooked too deep and could not be revived. I personally have never seen anyone at the access saying "Look what I got" and showing off a harvested fish. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I doubt there are currently countless numbers of fish being harvested, at least in our area. I'd like to see the minimum length restriction higher statewide, just to ensure there won't be as many harvested fish, but from my personal experience it doesn't appear to be as big of issue as some make it out to be. I'd like to find out just how many fish are taken annually from our areas waters. It would be interesting. |
|
| |
|
|
Two years ago one taxidermist in the DL area mounted 29 muskies, the largest was 49".
Most of the fish were under 45".
Ask Jerry Sondag about the taxidermist in the Pelican area.
Remember Killer? He's personally killed over 30 muskies in one lake, not to mention the other people he's helped out.
There are many muskies being killed in our area Brad.
Most of them are targeted, and not incidentals according to the taxidermists I know.
JS |
|
| |
|
| Steve;
I see more and more chances of higher size limits, especially on lakes like Leech and Cass, native waters.
We've jumped up to 48" on more lakes, and probably more to come.
I think Vermillion and Mille Lacs would benefit from a 54" limit.
I don't think it would be that hard to get that done, we've got a lot of good people working on this with the DNR.
John |
|
| |
|
| I remember "Killer" very well, and I know he keeps many fish. I don't recall him illegally taking any fish though. I know he was one of the reasons we tried to get the minimum length restriction raised on that lake, and although we were unable to get that done at that time, more fish are now being stocked in that lake as a result. If I remember correctly, the DNR said something to the effect that to get a 48 inch minimum restriction on that particular lake would be hard to do unless the entire State of MN went to a 48 inch restriction. Is that correct John, or did I not understand their answer at that time? In my earler post I was talking about my personal experience. I know fish are being taken, but I was talking about the fact that since the early 90's when I started fishing Muskies, I have never seen a fisherman at the access with a Muskie he took to fillet or to mount. Not one time. It's kind of odd that in all that time it hasn't happened. It's just a wierd coincidence is all, I wasn't implying it didn't happen. Sorry if I mis-stated my thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | OK musky peoples, what is the difference between say dropping or not the new record whitetail and or putting a 70 pound fish back in the water or on the wall ???? You can pull or not pull the trigger or release that arrow right?? Just curious as to peoples thoughts on this aspect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | yep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania | Muskydr - 5/4/2008 10:10 PM
OK musky peoples, what is the difference between say dropping or not the new record whitetail and or putting a 70 pound fish back in the water or on the wall ???? You can pull or not pull the trigger or release that arrow right?? Just curious as to peoples thoughts on this aspect.
depending on how old that record whitetail is, it may have stopped being able to reproduce. you can't be sure though but i'd pull the trigger as just about any hunter would. i don't see me crossing paths with a 214 inch typical anytime soon nor a 70 lb musky but you never know. musky stop producing too at a certain age if im not mistaken. |
|
| |
|
|
I guess the easy answer for me is that we don't exactly have a problem with the deer population as far as numbers.
We could go a long ways to manage for better trophies here in MN though, but that's as much in the hands of the hunters as anything.
Every square mile of land in MN is inhabited by deer. We are struggling to find new lakes that we can stock muskies in to keep up with the pressure put on them by new anglers.
I haven't hit any muskies with my car lately either, don't think they will overpopulate our state any time soon.
Are you looking for any more reasons why deer and muskies are different?
JS
|
|
| |
|
| I hunt Deer in North Dakota, and the population is controlled. The number of licenses available are in direct proportion to the number of Deer that area is able to support. I've never been turned down for the area I hunt, but I know some guys who didn't get a Deer tag for 5 years. As John states, Muskies will probably never overpopulate a lake. Bass and Walleye may be more apt to do that, depending on the lake and the restrictions. The sportswriter for my hometown newspaper fished Walleyes on Mille Lacs a few years ago when that seemed to be an issue. He caught 105 Walleyes in two days, many of which were hooked numerous times before and were abnormally thin for their size. By the regulations in place at that time, he could only keep 3 of those 105 fish. That is an instance of the regulations not meeting the current needs of the lake. Something like that will never happen with Muskies, at least in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| Not a comparison between deer and muskies, but a comparison between perceived "trophy" or "world record" status. Population comparison? Of course that's a much different story. Oh, and maybe someone did hit a muskie with their car as evidenced by the 53" that was found in a ditch last year off the highway a few miles from Mille Lacs.Pics were in the Mille Lacs Messenger. It's a sick world and I'm a happy guy. Tic. toc, tic, toc,tic, toc. Is it June yet????????????? Steve |
|
| |
