|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | no question the CPR format of Hartman and the MAC is innovative and good. question, during the warmer times of the year?
- stress of the catch
- stress of the measure
- stress of the transport ...
... which is the problem??
a little time in an oxygenated livewell could be good for that fish ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From what I've heard from the biologists, it's the transport and potential release in shallow, warmer waters.
Obviously there's stress from catching the fish and releasing it after measure, but that's been determined to be acceptable. especially in light of the fact that's what we all think is best for fishing muskies in general. However, some managers will reject ANY tournament during the warmest periods of the summer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: North/Central WI | Jomusky- I thought we were staying focused on Pelican and the 50" size limit? Why bring up transport tournaments?
There is no harm done to the fish during transport if:
A. You have a properly filled, 48"+ livewell
B. You have a working aerator
C. You don't drive like a maniac
If you don't have the above items straight, then you shouldn't be fishing a transport tournament in the first place. In my experience, muskies are so lively after their oxygenated boat ride that the second you put them in the water they are gone. At least it was that way with the 7 fish we registered during WMT events and the Hodag last year. I think the condition the fish is in before you put them in the livewell has more to do with the fish surviving than the actual transport.
Edited by NateOz 12/8/2009 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There is no harm done to the fish during transport if:
A. You have a properly filled, 48"+ livewell
B. You have a working aerator
C. You don't drive like a maniac
If it's rough out there it matters little how you drive, the fish will take an unnecessary beating. I know, I fished the Hodag and ran transport events in the past and saw first hand the beating some of the fish took. If the surface water is considerably warmer than where the fish hit, that's a problem because that's what is in your livewell. Waiting at the dock with the fish in the livewell presents some issues. Releasing the fish in shallow, warmer waters presents issues.
I was present at FLW events several times when some folks who build a livewell accessory that boosts dissolved oxygen tested livewells, and the water next to the boat. In almost every instance testing livewells without that device the oxygen in the well was no higher than ambient, and in a couple cases, it was lower.
Another thing, if BN was transporting all his Madison Muskies to a bar on the lake for CPR, the general community here would crucify him. And in my opinion, they'd be right to do just that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | O-P-I-N-I-O-N
edit: i know it's winter, but let's not make livewells a bad thing based on the above
Edited by jonnysled 12/8/2009 11:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| RE: Redstone
I'd love it if this lake had a 50" size limit...and there certainly isn't any problem with limited forage in this lake. The fish I've caught over the years are generally above-average in terms of body condition. In communications with the local fisheries biologist, they've netted plenty of upper-40" fish.
There are a lot of bass an walleye fisherman who hit this lake, and they regularly tie into the lake's muskies. Unfortunately, there is some of the "muskies are eating all of our walleye and bass" sentiment, and quite a few muskies get kept.
In my mind, Redstone is a logical choice for a higher size limit. The lake can easily support it (forage, size, depth), and the fish are in need of protection. Yes, 50" is probably a bit aggressive. But I don't agree with the facts behind your logic in opposition, Mike. (If we weren't talking about Redstone, and instead we were talking about Day Lake or some other lake that clearly didn't warrant a higher size limit, I would see your point).
As compared to other areas of the state, Southern Wisconsin doesn't have very many lake choices. Enhancing the resources that we do have is a fantastic idea, IMHO.
From a more general perspective, in terms of riling up the anti's, I think that there are other ways to look at it. If we, as a collective group of muskie anglers, can win smaller battles, we can set precedent and create success stories. The more success stories that we can create, the better our argument will be to set the stage for further progressive muskie management...which I think most would agree that we certainly need. On the flip side, I'd think that losing smaller battles would do more to galvanize and encourage the anti's. (The analogy would be that it's easier for us to "win the war" so to speak, by winning as many smaller battles as possible...).
My $0.02... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled,
Who's 'Let's'? I didn't say livewells were a bad thing, I passed along information I received from speaking with biologists and from the folks at Oxygenator, and personal experience. I didn't even mention the additional handling, time out of the water, etc.
I don't believe transport tournaments that are not 'kill' events will be allowed much longer here in Wisconsin during the warm water period, but that IS opinion.
I'll ask this question, why is it it's NOT generally acceptable for an casual angler to livewell and drive his fish to shore for CPR ( bring a 50 into the resort up in Canada to measure, photo and release and publish the fact you did that...let me know what the response is), but it is OK during competition? If it's easy to rapidly CPR the fish in competition with no transport why transport?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | no disagreement with the innovation of Mr. Hartman ...
... transport and warm water are two subjects
... do "non-transport" tournaments get a free-pass during these same warm water conditions? and if-so, why?
EDIT: ... sorry for contributing to this one getting off the subject of the pelican 50" limit, but i saw the slippery slope in that "listing" and felt it wasn't a fair comparisson. my opinion ...
my answer to your question is that either way that 50 is finding it's way back into the water where it belongs and if handled properly under the right conditions has a good chance of being caught again somewhere down the line.
my guess is that the one going back to the resort is likely on a stringer or layin' in the bottom of the boat.
Edited by jonnysled 12/8/2009 11:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No they don't, necessarily. Minnesota, for example, will not allow ANY muskie tournament on a few of their waters during July. Wisconsin, according to the folks I talked to, say the reduced handling and near immediate release of CPR events create a more acceptable 'situation' in warmer water. Since it appears our lawmakers have more control over Wisconsin tournament regs than our own scientists, I'm not sure what changes will happen here....or when. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | I agree with Sled. Why lump transport tourneys in with size limit issues?
As Steve pointed out the state does not control the spearing. Why does everybody struggle to grasp that?
I've fished a few transport tournaments when I used to fish tournaments. We transported a few fish. They released great and actually got put back faster than waiting for a judge boat to find you. I agree that the MAC format is the way to go.
Joe, I understand why you want to keep the topic on Pelican. I suggest you keep the discussion to size limits. The other issues you bring up are not relevant to the Pelican size limit. |
|
| |
|
| would a Musky Stamp make many of these issues moot?
ie., if you bought a stamp it would authorize you to possess one fish per year, rather than a daily bag limit.
it would significantly reduce the harvest pressure on lakes regardless of size limit.
it would allow "Little Johnny" to keep that one trophy.
it would render possession/transport muskie tournaments obsolete.
Edited by lambeau 12/8/2009 3:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Just a question for those who campained for the 50 inch increase originally. I had read this was done by getting support from local businesses, resorts, lake association by letting them know, how it will increase there traffic when fisherman hear the reports. Will the support be there this spring from the same people considering the fact that, since it was passed there have been dramatically less reports posted.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Bytor - 12/8/2009 12:12 PM
I agree with Sled. Why lump transport tourneys in with size limit issues?
Joe, I understand why you want to keep the topic on Pelican. I suggest you keep the discussion to size limits. The other issues you bring up are not relevant to the Pelican size limit.
The two of these may be more related than one may think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | norm ... can a chew, beers at a northwoods tavern to hear the rest?
my point was hopefully that warm water and any tournament format is a combination that should be considered. transport and water temps. were being lumped together like garlic and mashed potatos to put it in antigo terms. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Sled, we should get together and have a beer regardless.
I am sorry that I posted this in two spots but it is important enough that I want all to see it.
A whole bunch of us will post on the internet about how this limit should never be repealed and the state should have higher size limits in general, but come April when voices really matter at the spring hearings, most of these same voices are oddly absent.
If you want to make a difference, and I surely hope you do this April, make sure you vote at the spring hearings. The vote in Oneida county will be very important to put these things to bed on Pelican once and for all and 25-30 people could make a huge difference. Please don't count on others, get there and vote. |
|
| |
|
| Size limits and transport tourneys are inter-related because of the WMT. There somebody said it...
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | A subject is allowed and even expected to progress, always has been part and parcel of the discussion process here. Not a problem, and never will be.
Transport issues are accentuated during the warm water periods. The answers were not lumping anything with anything, just offering up answers to questions and challenges.
Dramatically less reports? Where? I think Pelican kicked out some great numbers this year.
The WMT is a transport circuit. Is that a 'problem'? I don't see it that way, but I'll continue to ask the question.
In the meantime, we'll will need to generate some serious traffic to the Spring CC hearings in 2010 to address the Pelican Lake 50" limit issues. |
|
| |
|
| Dramatically less reports? Here and other websites, the number of reports prior to the size increase is substantially more then the reports posted since its increase. I am for the size increase and hope that it is not overturned this spring. My question though was merely will these local businesses provide the same support to the people who told them it will increase traffic to there businesses when people hear the reports, when there are less reports now then there was before.
The original post here asks where is the support coming from to have this overturned, I am merely giving a thought. |
|
| |
|
| My comment above about the WMT was not meant to slander them in any manner. I have fished their events. However I do feel transport tournaments and support for them sometimes is a factor when higher size limits on lakes come up. Basically, higher size limits make holding transport tournaments harder.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | If you bonk a fish at 36" it' has zero chance to make 40"
If you bonk a fish at 42" it' has zero chance to make 45"
If you bonk a fish at 47" it' has zero chance to make 50"
Look at lakes like Eagle, Independence, and Harriet and tell me that when properly managed they can't make it to large sizes.
Let us know when you need voices to call in on Pelican and you'll get them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think guest is correct there, Pelican kicked out some nice fish the last couple years and they were talked about. And, the overall average has gone up steadily since the limit was implemented. So, in short, yes, I think the local businesses will support the limit as it is.
John, I understand your point, and you are right. |
|
| |
|
| I hope your right!!
I wasn't saying Pelican isn't producing good numbers of fish, I have been impressed with seeing some different year classes of fish the past couple of years.
"A local Onieda County Lake" in my opinion is not a report for Pelican and that is how most of the reports start. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 623
Location: Bloomington, MN | Too much yelling going on!! It's like "All in the Muskie First Family!...Stiffles yourselves!". Personally, I hate killing anything . I have fished Redstone a few times, and what a rotten body of water that has been to me. A 50" size limit means squat to me, but I understand and support the premise of an increased size limit. Are that many people out there that can still drive a car/boat that do not UNDERSTSTAND that these fish are wonderful resource? I guess I'm just realizing that there are that many people that want to collect/kill fish as everyone states in these posts during these current times. "Hey Sweetie/sister I've got some PCB/Mercury laced muskie to feed you and junior growing in your tummy/Hey Ethel do you want a muskie patty or a can of Friskies for dinner tonight"...has it gotten this bad?? I'm a huge fan of Pelican Lake, Wisconsin!! That is where my Father's (4 ft. long balsa Viking ship containing his ashes will be launched toward the sunset set ablaze off the Big Rock...yes he is leaving me enough $$$$ to get my tukus out of DNR prison), and my ashes are going to be spread ( the bullrush cut off of Sabinois...have a drink on me before another drift!) whether the DNR or whomever doesn't like it! Otis introduced the Rusty Crayfish, and I'm going to toss in a bit of Anderson. Pelican does have issues, but I know very little residue of my Father or I will show up on the end of a spear...enough said. Put a 50" limit on every lake, and call it it day. The hooking of mortalilty/spearing dilly hoo of the elusive muskellunge will possibly even things out to the way they will remain. Hope & Change are what this country is counting on...insert Vanity Fair photo show releases/gut hooked/muck busting pronged memories gag refelx here!
Good Luck America, Clark "At least my skull will not be dug up and played Hackey Sack with!" Anderson
|
|
| |
|
| Wisconsin is not Minn. or Canada. The fishery needs to be handled in a different manner. The lakes needs more micro management as the rules cover so many lakes. I for one do not think a 40 inch limit is needed statewide. On some lakes yes and on others a 45 or 50. With the high number we have now of muskies being released most go back anyway. The effort should be made on the waters that can really be trophy waters and don't worry about the rest. Musky fishermen think more then any others that they know beteer then the biologist or experts. I see here that we fight them more then work with them.
Figure8's always |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the DNR has done a good job defining what lakes need more protection, and have acted accordingly when the public supports the move. There's the rub, I guess. They have responded pretty well to movements to further protect some trophy potential waters, and have worked within the process as it continues to move along as it has for a very long time.
I'd say in answer to the last post that the Muskie community as a whole works well with our State fisheries folks, and certain group's efforts really shine through. Results here are based on educating the public, getting the local DNR folk's support, and looking for what are considered reasonable actions as we move forward on the decade long experiment our DNR has in place for the state's muskie waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | guest - 12/8/2009 9:11 PM
"...My question though was merely will these local businesses provide the same support to the people who told them it will increase traffic to there businesses when people hear the reports, when there are less reports now then there was before."
Guest, I was one who worked hard to get that grass roots support from local businesses and property owners. The hard work was going out and actually talking to the people, no one needed convincing and no one was made promises. It was just an effort to get them to put there name on a list and show up and show support. Everyone I talked to kinew what the benefits of a 50" limit where because they see the pilgrimages to Mn and Canada every year. Heck many of these owners make thier own pilgrimages to those areas in search of giant musky.
The goal as presented, at least by me. Lets get some lakes in Northern Wisconsin to consistently grow large musky of our own. Pelican has a history and the forage to grow big musky, throw in the fact that all stocking of Pelican has been stopped it makes sense to protect what’s there with a high size limit.
As far as transport tourneys I remember a debate way back before Muskyfirst existed I believe it was on Musky Central. Pete Mania and Dick Pearson made comments to the effect that one of the big down sides to transport tourneys is that it will pit musky fishermen against musky fishermen when size limit issues come up as a means to protect these fish with regulation. During that debate I was firmly on the side, that transport tourneys during the colder water periods are perfectly fine.
During the original Pelican debate I found out exactly how correct Pete and Dick were. That was one of the biggest obstacles we had to over come. One tournament took our offer of help and changed to a judge boat format on Pelican and continues to run. Another did not and moved the event from Pelican, and in the process did a great job of politicking, drumming up anxiety about the 50" size limit. To the point where myself and Norm where flat out called LIARS,(and I still have those emails and threads saved) and there is still a perception by some of the people so influenced, that there was misinformation spread, these are the people that brought the resolution last year. They even claimed at the Spring meeting last year that the very first Property Association meeting vote was rigged. Until I told the guy it was a written ballot and I have a copy of all the ballots, and they could look at them if they wanted to, they then changed to some other line of reasoning. Of course without an apology for saying we rigged the vote.
During the original debate we even had people bring up in meetings that with a 50" limit you couldn't take a picture of an undersized fish. That is why I worked with the WDNR to redefine the CPR section of the rule book to include saying it's OK to take a picture of a fish being released, just to remove that argument from the equation.
So high size limits and transport tourneys are unfortunately connected but events can change for the overall good of the fishery. What’s really more important? I understand the arguments against judge boats and how in some cases they may be worse for the fish than transport, but what’s better for the overall fishery a high size limit that's in affect all year, or one or two events that have to change from transport to judge boats. Even if you think transport is better than judges, what has an overall better affect on the fishery. Many biologists think the best thing would be to get rid of tourneys all together and very few of us want that.
Probably more info than necessary but there is still A LOT about this topic that gets my blood pressure up.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/9/2009 10:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I am very appreciative that your blood pressure 'gets up', Mike. It's the hard work by reasonable folks like you and Norm, not looking one bit for accolades, that has allowed the rest of us to even have this conversation. |
|
| |
