|
|
Posts: 31
| On the Wisconsin Outdoor News website www.wisconsinoutdoornews.com
Online Poll
The DNR is looking at the possibility of bumping the statewide muskie size limit from 34 inches to 40 inches (please see Page 7 of this issue). Would you support that rule change?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | you've got to add the http:// http://www.wisconsinoutdoornews.com
for it to LINK |
|
| |
|
Posts: 582
| does it really matter? i haven't seen anyone who kept a musky in years. maybe its happens but of all the lakes i have fished, all the people i run across, on the resorts i stay in, i just don't see people keeping them. but i would support it as long as there isn't any other rule changes that seem to get slipped in behind the scenes with the Wisc DNR. I am for 100% catch and release unless its the next world record that requires proof.
Edited by jackson 9/15/2009 1:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| I totally agree with increasing the size limits on muskies, no matter what, no matter where. If I'm not going to catch a fish, it's gonna be a big one I'm missing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 774
Location: South East Wisconsin | I read this article. Correct me if im wrong but doesen't say some waters would have special regs? So it wouldn't be 40 state wide?? It doesn't matter to me im pro catch and release. Matter of fact they should just make it 50.
S.Killips |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Madison, WI | Jackson,
My folks (now only mother), have run a resort in northwest wisconsin for 25 years. Class A musky lake that got KILLED in the late 70's and 80's. Trust me, Ive got the photo albums that show 40-50 inch fish, alot kept at their resort alone. And at that time there were 21 resorts on the late, you do the math. 1600 acres total. Ive been fishing it since I was 5 and through the years it has taken all this time just to get back to respectable, I spent many many years of my childhood catching 27 inch muskies, and just now, its start to get better, upper 30" fish are actually starting to show up with some low 40's mixed in....well, you think size limits dont matter......some people who were staying up there caught and ate a 37" and a 43", just a few weeks ago.
One of those fish would still be alive....yes it matters.
You can never get to a 45" state wide limit from a 34".....but you may someday get to a 45" from a 40"
I remember the fight to get the 32" raised to a 34" many years ago......40" from 34" would be huge.
Yes, it matters. |
|
| |
|
| Going from 40" to 48" here in MN. This is awesome because when some walleye or bass guys hook into a 41" fish they think it's huge and want to mount it. Hear about it all the time. I would like to see catch and release only lakes more.
-Jim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 727
| I hope they do, where I fish almost all the fish that are caught by accident are kept. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | yes!!!! 34" way to low be surprised at the people who keep 34" fish& up!! limits should at least be 45". i think 50" on the chip is great & wish that was state wide but 45" would be still a good limit for a guy or gal that would like to mount a fish! that seems reasonable . 40 is still to low but will take what we can get!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | There are a lot more people then you think keeping 34 - 40 inch fish. I hear about them everyday. For the once or twice a year fisherman a 38" fish is huge. A 40" min would be great. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| YES,YES needs to go to at least 40---48 in IL, now maybe 48 MN, come on WI. get with it--and I have seen fish kept under 40 inches every year where I fish in Iron Co. WI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I think the 40" is great as well but I think at the same time those 40" lakes that are allready in place need to go to 45" and there needs to me more "trophy" potential lakes that need to go to 45" and a few more need to go to 50". Maybe someday the upnorth WI resort mentality will realize that trophy fisheries will fill up the cabins. (this is not meant towards your parents resort PredLur)
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | Mr Musky - 9/16/2009 11:02 AM
I think the 40" is great as well but I think at the same time those 40" lakes that are allready in place need to go to 45" and there needs to me more "trophy" potential lakes that need to go to 45" and a few more need to go to 50". Maybe someday the upnorth WI resort mentality will realize that trophy fisheries will fill up the cabins. (this is not meant towards your parents resort PredLur)
Mr Musky
the mad chain is 45", so 50" would be great.
Edited by jay lip ripper 9/16/2009 2:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I love the argument that size limits don't matter because nobody keeps them anyway. WE don't keep them. People who are into muskie fishing typically don't keep them, but I can almost guarantee you that people who don't fish for them stumble across more of them than you realize, and when it's twice the size of the biggest fish they've ever seen, much less caught? What do you THINK happens to it, it goes on the wall.
I am all for increasing the statewide limit to 40". Many lakes should have size limits higher than that. But 40" is a start, and it will keep the fish that are caught most often (34" - 40") swimming! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Corning, Iowa | When people keep 4,5,6 lb. bass, and eat them, what makes you think they won't keep a musky? If they are meat hunters, they will keep anything. Just my thoughts. Good luck Doug |
|
| |
|
| I know a guy who keeps everything he catches that is legal. It peees me off so much I'm about to tell him I don't want to go fishing with him anymore. He always wants to use live bait all the time also which drives me nuts. A 40 inch minimum for Wisconsin is long overdue. It will only help. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | I understand why some say it doesn't matter to them b/c they release everything as I do as well, but one of the places I frequent will soon be void of muskies in a few years I'm afraid b/c of the frequency with which muskies are kept. This particular place has a 34" size limit, and is fished by a lot of people. Sometimes I go to the baitshop at this place to see friends when I'm in the area, and I almost don't want to hear the stories when the guys fishing from shore come in for more bait, b/c it seems it's always the same. They say they're catching muskies everyday and taking them home. I hesitate to look at the shore fishermen here b/c they've always got muskies on a stringer. This is a very good musky place, but I really don't think it's gonna be in a few years b/c of the actions of most of the people who keep them at this place. So yes, it DOES matter to me what the minimum size limit is mainly from what I see at the place I'm referring to. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | EA - 9/16/2009 3:23 PM I love the argument that size limits don't matter because nobody keeps them anyway. WE don't keep them. People who are into muskie fishing typically don't keep them, but I can almost guarantee you that people who don't fish for them stumble across more of them than you realize, and when it's twice the size of the biggest fish they've ever seen, much less caught? What do you THINK happens to it, it goes on the wall. EA has nailed it dead on the money!! This is EXACTLY what happens at the place I refer to in my other post on this thread! Go to any shore fishing location where there are muskies, and you'll see LOTS of muskies killed everyday because of what EA described above. It isn't the musky fishermen who need the increased size limit, it's the guys/gals EA describes that we need this for!! |
|
| |
|
| Ask the Wisconsin DNR if there is a size limit on the muskies the indians spear. I don't care if the limit is 50 for the sportsmen if they can spear everything in the winter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Supreme Court decided the Chippewa Hunting and Gathering rights case, and the WIDNR has no call over what is speared and what isn't when it comes right down to it. It's reality, we need to accept it, and do our best to conserve what is left in our hands. One thing is certain, there are fewer Muskies killed now in total than there were before the age of CPR. That, I hope, is the goal in increasing a size limit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Madison, WI | As for the northern WI resorts.....I refered to their being 21 resorts 25 years ago, well, there is only one (my mom's) left on the whole chain now. I know this is the case on many lakes up there. All the condos that were bought up have really helped hold off the "turnover" that you would see week to week. When its the same group of people coming up to the "cabin" week after week, they tend to not keep as many fish, especialy muskies and actually help the resource (well, they would have to get off the jetski to actually catch a musky). That is good news and it has made a difference.
If musky fishing was so d#($ expensive, maybe more musky guys could buy all these cabins up......but after a boat, 2,345 baits, 17 rod/reels, net, electronics, leaders, line..who has anything left for a cabin up there......
Edited by PredLuR 9/17/2009 11:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Forty inches isn't big enough. I watched guys keep 7 over 40 in 2 weeks a couple years ago below a dam in NW Wisconsin. Made me sick....They wanted them dead cause they were eating their walleyes. We need a 48 inch size limit like MN. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8863
| 40" may not be enough, but it beats the hell out of 34"! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Madison, WI | only chance to get a 45" or a 48" state limit is to get to 40" first. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | I would support the increase to 40", I would prefer it was bigger but sometimes we got to do it in small steps. |
|
| |
|
| I am not trying to be rude here or anything but you are missing the point. I fish a lake in Wisconsin that I know for a fact has had over 500 muskies speared out of it the last two years, with the majority of them being bigger fish. You know what is out there now, lots of 28 to 32 inch muskies with an occasional 40 or better showing up, and this lake actually went to a 50 inch limit this year. It doesn't do any good to raise the limit in this case because even though we can't and won't keep a fish out there they are getting creamed in the winter. I am not saying they shouldn't have the right to spear a musky but there should be a quota or limit in place. I know quite a few guys who aren't fishing the lake anymore for this reason and that costs the whole area money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is absolutely nothing one can do about that issue. We HAVE no say on the fishing, hunting and gathering rights given the Chippewa in the Treaties. I know the DNR has been working the tribes to at least get some reporting on what is harvested in the Winter, we'll see how that goes. |
|
| |
