|
|
| I saw this on another website and voted. Can't hurt right? Just an opportunity to voice your opinion. Thought I'd share.
http://www.wisconsinoutdoornews.com/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 547
Location: Oshkosh | Cant @$%#@ if you dont vote! Thanks for the link!
Peter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | TTT |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | thankes for the post!!!!  |
|
| |
|
Location: Suburban Chicago | "Increased beyond 40" is the correct answer.
Nobody should be keeping any muskies. Not anymore anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Cheech - 12/21/2009 11:45 AM
"Increased beyond 40" is the correct answer.
Nobody should be keeping any muskies. Not anymore anyway.
Actually some lakes really need some heavy harvest...... |
|
| |
|
Location: Suburban Chicago | Pointerpride102 - 12/21/2009 12:15 PM
Actually some lakes really need some heavy harvest......
OK, then PLEASE point me to THOSE Wisconsin lakes. Certainly none of the lakes I have been on are over run with muskies that i know of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Cheech, there are about 15 lakes in WI that have a 28" minimum size limit. These are all lakes that are considered to have high populations with few fish exceeding the mid 30" range. I'm sure these are the lakes Pointer is referring to.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Location: Suburban Chicago | OK, so I guess I am wrong. But just fifteen lakes with too many small muskies seems like a small number compared to all the water in the state.
Wisconsin professes to have 15,081 lakes. However, 9,037 of these lakes are unnamed and average only roughly four acres in size, leaving only 60,44 that are large enough to be named.
If fifteen lakes need special regs then so be it. I just started doing this but the places I have been in northern IL and southern WI all seem to have 40"+ minimums already. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Cheech you are correct that many would benefit from having higher size limits. Aaron is correct in that there are a handful of high density musky fisheries that I'd be interested in seeing what happened if there was heavy harvest to lower the density consideribly. With that said I would still love to see a statewide 40 with special regs on the bodies of water that need it. In a perfect world I'd much rather see the DNR sample each lake and determine limits for each and every body of water but in reality this is not feasible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
Location: IL | ttt |
|
| |
