|
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | For those of you who don't know me, my name is Joe Junion, I live in the Appleton, WI area and am President of the C & R Musky Club of Dale, Wi. www.CRMuskyClub.com
On the Wisconsin Conservation Hearings Agenda for this year is a vote by specific lakes for a 50" size limit on 34 lakes. Of these 6 already have a larger size limit then the standard 34".
Our club is 100% for larger size limits in WI.
I am also the Wisconsin Musky Clubs Alliance Representative for our club. Certain representatives and board members of the Alliance are completely against this size limit increase. Our Spring meeting is this Saturday and it will be the major topic of discussion.
I am writing this post here in hopes of getting SERIOUS reasons why the state should go through with this proposal. The more ammo I can bring to the meeting Saturday the better.
In my opinion, 34 lakes out of the hundreds of Wisconsin musky lakes is miniscule. The agruement is that some people(especially children) have a lower trophy standard then the hard core musky fisherman and should be allowed to kill a fish if they want. My answer to this is what about a graphite? Then the arguement is that they don't know how to properly handle the fish and it would die anyways. My answer to this is they should be properly equiped and educated before they pursue this sport, and I would like to see some DNR literature published and available to the general fishing public.
In the February 14 issue of Wisconsin Outdor News it was writen that in 1992 the Muskie Inc records showed 13% of the 50"+ fish were caught in Wisconsin and 5% in Minnesota. In 2002 Wisconsin accounted for a shameful 5% and Minnesota 37%. Isn't this proof enough that Minnesota's higher size limit is working and Wisconsin's 34" limit is not?
Thank you very much for you time and input.
Please be sure to get to one of the county Coservation Hearings, every vote counts!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Hello,
Befor one can reply is this is this an additional amount of lakes over those being asked for higher limits on now? What lakes are you talking about? That article you mentioned I think was not a good accounting for the musky population. If its the same one from resources magizene. Not against this on selected lakes but I have to ask will it stop at that number or will you ask for more next year or the year after? It would certainly take years to see if it is working. Again I'm not against this on a few select lakes but need more information. Thanks jo.
Don Pfeiffer
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | I attended a workshop on Mercury contamination and cleanup regulations today. The DNR stated that no women that want to have kids, women nursing, or kids under 15 should ever eat any muskie. Currently 8% of all women giving birth have blood levels of mercury high enough to put their newborn baby in danger of significant health risks. Why eat hazardous waste?
For those that want a mount, just get a reproduction. They look great and a real mount only uses the skin and then they paint over it anyway. It's not like you're really mounting the fish you caught. Isn't it kind of wasteful to mount the skin and throw the rest away? Seems unethical to me. I sure don't want to teach my kids to mount a 35" fish and then throw the rest in the garbage.
Buddy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1294
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Jo, the issue of W.O.N. you mentioned had a good pro and con artical by Kurt Krueger. Use those cons to your advantage when debating this issue. The best offense is a good defense. Good luck! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| Don`t get me wrong as I am all for higher size limits and trophy waters, but if these waters are not removed as being spearing lakes I fail to see what good the 50" size limit will accomplish. Kinda seems that we are going about this bass acwards,we need those political changes before we can create true trophy water sheds,or maybe try and create some other trophy waters in areas of the state that are not being speared.I just can`t get over that gambling can`t be used as the pawn,all I can do is my part for now and not gamble,I think many more should too! This is going to take much,much more then 50" in northern Wisconsin.The numbers and the size ranges that have been speared in the last couple seasons is disheartning! Good luck in your quest though! Handy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | One good reason is competition. Keeping up with the Jonses. Other states have higher limits and bigger fish. If you don't keep up, you lose business. Pretty simple. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| ToddM, In my opinion it is not that simple! If say for example we start several trophy waters with 50" limits, those waters will probably get less D>N>R attention then they already receive plus if after a extended amount of time and creel surveys if there are not more 50"`s caught then before this started these projects will be deemed UNSUCCESSFUL and could hurt the rest of our state in the future of musky fishing.So no, its not pretty simple for those who reside in Wisconsin,all I am saying is that we should be very careful what we wish for or we could suffer the consequences for a very long time.Wisconsinites really need to know what they want before they go jumping into something without forseeing all the facts first! Handy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | bttt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Handy brings a good point, and it is being addressed as we speak. DNR fish managers are meeting with tribal members about making spearing concessions on the proposed 50" lakes. this would really help us see the real picture, and further our chances at getting more help with furture waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 212
Location: Madison, WI | Handyman, I can't agree with your logic. Less attention from the DNR? Considering the time and effort put into getting the size limit increased, they will actually be doing more for these lakes than in the past. They and we, have to know whether the increase is a success. That means studies, samples etc... We are suffering the consequences now from the state wide 34" limit. Ask anyone looking to catch a muskie of a lifetime, where they are going to go and try. I bet you Wisconsin isn't in their top 3 choices. Lack of tourism dollars hurts local and the state economy. The trickle down of that money does also hurt the fish in a very indirect way. I could go on but will save that for another day. I think a new age is finally dawning for trophy Muskie hunting in Wisconsin. It is going to be a glorious ride. Peter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Here is what I came up with. Thank you for your help.
Reasons to implement the 50” musky size limit on select Wisconsin lakes:
By Joe Junion, President of the C & R Musky Club, Dale, Wisconsin
Representative to the Musky Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin
1. 1992 Muskie Inc. records showed that 13% of the 50”+ fish were caught in Wisconsin and 5% in Minnesota. In 2002 Wisconsin accounted for a shameful 5% and Minnesota 37%.
2. If catch and release truly is the answer on it’s own, why have Minnesota’s waters (including the smaller bodies) been producing larger fish then Wisconsin’s?
3. Wisconsin is loosing many musky fishermen tourist dollars. Non-residents choose to go elsewhere and our own residents travel out of state to target larger fish. After all, even Illinois has a 48” size limit. Larger size limits will not impact the musky size structure for 10-15 years. We need to act now before it is to late, our tourism industry is suffering. This means Wisconsin jobs!
4. Musky anglers provide vital fishing dollars to communities during the off-season of tourism in October and November, because it is the prime time for large fish.
5. Sport shows and magazines highlight Minnesota and Canada far more often then Wisconsin as musky destinations. This was not the case just a few years ago.
6. “The 50” size limit will apply to only 10.2% of the musky waters in Vilas and Onieda counties. If you want to thump a musky and it’s a legal-sized fish on the other 89.8% of the lakes, it’s your legal right to do so there.” - Steve Heiting.
7. The 50” limit may not produce many more 50”+ fish, but it certainly will produce more 34”-50” fish.
8. It has been said that a larger size limit is just the DNR’s way of not having to stock a lake. It has been proven time and again that a self-sustaining population of muskies has a larger size structure.
9. If the DNR doesn’t have to stock a self-sustaining lake, they will have the room in their ponds to raise fish for new introductions, like Green Bay and the Winnebago Chain.
10. Some feel that many of the mishandled releases will just die. Why don’t we (the clubs of Wisconsin) put more time and money into educating the proper release techniques? How about a publication? Canada has a very nice brochure on catch and release techniques.
11. The DNR has made provisions for registering undersized fish in tournaments.
12. The DNR fish managers are meeting with the tribal elders to gain some concessions on the 50” limit lake list. It is true that spearing is a major impact on musky populations, maybe higher size limits can help us in this battle. Nothing else has worked so far.
13. The mercury levels in musky exceed the safe consumption levels for women wanting to give birth, women nursing and children under 15.
14. I don’t understand the viewpoint of a child needing to keep the first musky. Young people are capable of comprehending and enjoying the event of a musky swimming away from a proper release.
15. A mounted musky is just the skin of the fish over a foam form with a fancy paint job. Quality graphite reproductions are easily available from many taxidermists.
16. Of the thirteen of the Alliance clubs to reply to the recent survey, eleven support a 45” and 50” limit on select lakes.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Who do you blame here? Who are the people opposed to bigger size limits? The resort owners? Guides? Who? Spearing is a whole different issue and I imagine just about everyone is against spearing.
Personally, I don't even care to fish Wisconsin anymore. I've been going to Minnesota on a family fishing trip ever since I was born, and I would NEVER, EVER go to Wisconsin for a week's trip. NEVER!!!! The only time I choose Wisconsin is for a weekend, because it's closer. Many people on the lakes in Wisconsin are rude..... kids, or many adults for that matter, don't respect other boats, whether they are fishing or not....everyone thinks they own the lake. I rarely see this in Minnesota. Plus you really can't compare the quality of fishing.
Okay, rip away. Nobody can change the way I feel.
Anyway, whomever the people are that don't support bigger limits must be sacked. If they won't support bigger limits, then don't support them. If you know of a resort that won't support bigger limits, then don't support that resort and stop going there. Tell others. If a guide doesn't support higher limits, then don't use them as a guide.....Tell others.
This is a free country. This country is full of people who constantly complain about everything, but do nothing. If you feel that strongly about these issues, then make a constant effort not to support those who don't support higher limits.
We go to the opener in Wisconsin every year. I honestly don't know if the resort we go to supports higher limits. I am going to call and ask how they vote on these issues. If they vote against higher limits, I WILL find a new resort to go to. That's a start I guess. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| edit
Edited by MuskieBum 3/16/2009 10:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1294
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Joe, what are the 2 alliance clubs that do not support the higher size limits? I think it's important to let their members know that their club is not in favor of this. Often times the representatives of organizations do not truely represent the majority feelings of it's members, much like our government! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Recently there was a survey sent out by the Alliance asking the club's stance on the size limit increases. It was voted on by club members of 13 of the Alliance clubs. The 2 which didn't agree with higher size limits actually had vote counts on their survey. I feel that 11 of 13 for a higher size limit is pretty darn good, considering how a certain few of the Alliance Board members and club representatives speak badly about raising the size limit on just 34 of the 800 musky waters of Wisconsin.
Today's meeting went very well. The new Secretary of the DNR - Scott Hassett - talked about his view points and heard ours. The good news is that he is a long time avid musky fisherman and has been a part of the Capital City Musky Club. So we have someone in office on our side and knows where musky fishermen stand. The DNR and the Alliance will be working together in stocking efforts and intentions to improve on the musky fishery in Wisconsin. Two other DNR representatives where also at the meeting today, Mike Staggs - Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection and Tim Simonson - FH/3. All attendies received a copy of the reason's for a 50" size limit, which I put together with the help from the internet forum responses.
Once again, thank you for your help.
Please remember to vote April 1st for your hunting and gaming rights, and at the Conservation Hearings for the 50" size limits on April 14.
Edited by Jomusky 3/8/2003 7:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | JIm I am sorry that you have run into some rude anglers in wisconsin but don't feel we are all that way. Some guides do not support the 50 inch limit but yet paractice catch & release. I don't think they should not be used as you say,they have a right to express themselves as we all do.
The reason I feel this proposal has some backlash is that wisconsin anglers feel it will eventually be a rule for all musky lakes and we all know this would not be good on some lakes. I am for a higher size limit on some lakes but it has to made clear that it will be only on some lakes and not later be pushed to all lakes. We have over 800 musky lakes in wisconsin and we need to manage to the best of each lake and thats hard. The d.n.r has grouped these lakes and are working on different things for different groups.
In grouping these lakes they can best handle them I am told. I am also told it will not ever become a rule for all musky lakes in wisconsin.Wisconsin does have waters that it will benifit and some that it would be not work on. Have to give it a try and see what happens. We also have to keep our minds open to try other things as well and see what works.
I know this,musky fishing is very good in wisconsin and is getting better. Support the musky clubs in wisconsin as they are doing a great job.
Don Pfeiffer
Edited by Don Pfeiffer 3/10/2003 12:52 PM
|
|
| |
