Spearers Perspective on new muskie waters

[merkman]

I agree with Huey, this discussion does not belong in the darkhouse spearing thread. And yes, it is much bigger than this thread or anyone here.

Muskie Inc. and the Minnesota Muskie Alliance:

Muskie Inc. says "keep spearing closed"

Click for article

Here is the legislative testimony from this year, you decide for yourself.

The testimony in the senate:(Begins at 23:25)

http://stream1.video.state.mn.us:8080/ramgen/SenateAudio/cmte_env_030110.MP3

The testimony in the house: (Begins at 01:02:30)

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/audio/ls86/game030810.asx

I firmly believe that Muskies Inc and the Minnesota Muskie Alliance would have alot less problems trying to sell their muskies to the fishing public if they could simply apply the same logic they have for spearing bans on "new waters" to the "old waters".

If we never let go of the past; it is very hard to move forward into the future.

MnDNR

Q: Muskie anglers and darkhouse spearers don't agree on lake management. Muskie anglers want muskie protection, but spearers feel they're getting pushed off lakes. How do you make both groups happy?

A: It's a real challenge. You have to look for middle ground. Spearing bans, per se, go back to the beginning of active muskie management. On the other side, spearing has always been recognized as a legitimate way to take northern pike. I think there is room for understanding.

-Dirk L Peterson, -MnDNR's new fisheries chief

Click for article

People want to unjustifiably ban my sport... please tell me where is there "room for understanding?"

I do understand that banning spearing is "just what we have done in the past" but that is no reason to continue banning darkhouse spearers unless there is real scientific data performed and peer reviewed by biologists that supports keeping the ban.

Why does the MnDNR feel that banning darkhouse spearing = muskie protection anyway?

There is no scientific study that shows darkhouse spearing sportsmen kill more muskies than anglers, and furthermore I have yet to find a biologist who will state for the record that the 14 THOUSAND darkhouse spearing sportsmen (targeting northern pike during the daylight hours of the 3 shortest daylight hour months of the year) kill more muskies (intentionally or unintentionally) than the 1.4 MILLION anglers killing at least 1 in 20 (5% hooking mortality quoted in the long range plan) 24 hours a day 7 days a week for most of the year.

Yet darkhouse spearing is banned and angling is allowed.

There are some out there that want you to believe that the status of the muskie fishery on lakes that allow darkhouse spearing is in the gutter, "it just has to be" they say.

Yet, according to Mr. Younk from the MnDNR in 2006:

The netting of a 57-incher on Lake Bemidji in 1998, was the largest muskie the DNR has netted so far, guess what, darkhouse spearing is allowed on Lake Bemidji.

But how are the northern pike doing on the Lake Bemidji many will ask?

According to lakefinder:

Northern pike abundance has never been high in Lake Bemidji, but the lake has the reputation for producing quality-sized pike. Pike sampled in 2006 ranged in length from 16 to 36 inches with a mean length and weight of 25 inches and 3.75 pounds. This average weight is the highest since 1989.

-http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showreport.html?downum=04013002

Banning darkhouse spearing on muskie lakes for the purpose of muskie protection has as much scientific basis as banning people who drive red pickup trucks from muskie lakes for the purpose of muskie protection.

There is no doubt that banning either darkhouse spearers or people who drive red pickup trucks could reduce the number of unintentional muskie kills (though misidentification and or hooking/delayed mortality), but banning one is just as silly as banning the other.

Why do we always forget that darkhouse spearers and anglers are currently coexisting on 100+ muskie lakes right now? Those 100+ are the same type of lakes that are part of this "special 26".

"The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has classified Minnesota's lakes into 43 different lake classes based on physical and chemical characteristics. Lake Bemidji is in lake class 22. Lakes in this lake class are typically large in size, deep and clear. Other area lakes in the same lake class include Cass, Pike Bay, Plantaganette and Kabekona."

-http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showreport.html?downum=04013002

Since darkhouse spearing is allowed in the similar muskie lakes of the same lake class and the muskie fishery is the best it has ever been, it makes a guy wonder, why is the ban needed on the "other 26"?

Well it must be the fact that Cass Lake is a non-stocked native water and maybe darkhouse spearers and muskies can't coexist on non-stocked native waters?

"The 95 pure strain waters include 44 lakes or lake systems and 8 rivers that are considered native waters"

-MnDNR Long Range Plan

44 lakes that are considered native waters (non-stocked) and only 26 state wide darkhouse spearing bans?

Yes, the truth is that darkhouse spearers and muskies anglers curently can and do coexist well on native (non-stocked) and non-native (stocked) muskie lakes without darkhouse spearing bans.

The current MnDNR long range northern pike goals are:

Northern Pike Long Range Plan Goals

To provide high quality angling opportunities for large northern pike.

To provide opportunities for spearing northern pike.

Would it be so wrong to have the following MnDNR long range goals?

Northern Pike Long Range Plan Goals

To provide high quality angling and darkhouse spearing opportunities for all northern pike.

MnDNR studies clearly show that darkhouse spearers and anglers targeting northern pike harvest northern pike at similar rates, however since there are more anglers, angling harvests clearly account for more northern pike harvest.

Is responsible harvest via darkhouse spear or hook really incompatible with providing high quality angling and darkhouse spearing opportunities for all?

Or

Is this really an issue of responsible harvest vs. catch and release only?

If you have problems with harvest via darkhouse spear and ignore the MnDNR studies that prove anglers take more northern pike than darkhouse spearers, yes more big pike, more medium sized pike, and more little pike, that IMHO is a very weak stance however, if you are against responsible northern pike harvest all together (via hook or darkhouse spear) then you need to put your cards on the table and stop hiding behind the darkhouse spearing issue, and clearly state you are against the responsible harvest of all northern pike.

If you lay your cards on the table and honestly say you are against all harvest then I have an easier time "seeing" your view.

Darkhouse spearing as a method of release is far superior to angling using catch and release since with catch and release 100% of fish are injured before being released and look and released fish are never removed from their environment.

Darkhouse spearing as a method of harvest is very similar to targeting northern pike via angling. MnDNR studies prove this.

Neither spear or hook chooses to harvest the fish, it is the fisherman or darkhouse spearer that holds that power, no mater the method.

On Slot Limit Lakes:

Most darkhouse spearers have a problem with the implementation of slot limit lakes.

MnDNR studies show that 45 of 48 darkhouse spearers are "removed" from slot limit lakes though "their own choice".

For the MnDNR to identify and document an issue like this then repeatedly ignore it in meetings across the state, now.. that becomes a problem.

Let's fix the problem that removes 45 of 48 darkhouse spearers from slot limit lakes so we can all enjoy them. Instead of continuing the current mentality of acting like the slot limit lake rules were implemented before darkhouse spearing, and can't be changed, no matter what.

We have found ways for slots to work with angling, now lets work together to find the ways that slots work with angling and darkhouse spearing. Outright bans of darkhouse spearers or slot limits (with thier current implementation) that have nearly the same impact as outright bans are not acceptable as a solution.

On more muskie lakes:

Before last year I had little to no issue with muskie lakes.

I felt:

If a city, it's residents, businesses, lakes, and fish want to be "owned" by the muskie crowd, much like we are seeing in Cass Lake right now, have at it, as long as they check their "ban of fellow sportsmen" attitude at the door.

Then came last years legislative process.

After the unenforceable legislation last year to close catch and release of muskies in the winter, I am now much closer to being against the spread of muskie lakes. I am still not there because I am a firm believer in managing the resources for all, but I am closer.

Many will say:

"Catch and Release of muskies is not closed. The Muskie season ends at the end of December, and if you accidently catch one you need to release it!"

But when the rubber hits the road, we all know it is illegal to target a species when their season is closed.

Now tell me how can a CO know if you are targeting a muskie or a northern pike?

You use the exact same equipment and methods in the winter to target northern pike as you use to target muskie.

Targeting northern pike in winter = legal

Targeting muskie in winter = illegal

The only way to change this law so that it is enforceable is to also make it illegal to target northern pike in the winter.

I personally would not support that change, nor would many who enjoy fishing for northern pike in the winter.

I do question the end game of those who put laws like this in place though.

Is the real end game to make it illegal to target both a muskie and a northern pike in the winter? It seems that is the only way to make this law enforceable?

Why not allow catch and release of muskies in the winter rather than closing the season?

Since we can't tell the muskies not to bite, and if they do we will release them anyway, what the heck is the difference?

I am a firm believer in look and release and catch and release as a valuable tool in the method of responsible harvest.

They should not however, stand on their own as the only fishing methodology, once they do; we are only one step away from the anti's taking away all fishing.

In the end:

Muskies Inc and the MnDNR have successfully created a summer time catch and release only esox species, the muskellunge.

Not satisfied with that, they have moved on to following the same road map to create the second summer time catch and release only esox species with the northern pike.

When is enough enough?

We have one summer time catch and release only esox species, do we really need two?

[Laska]

We can only take one over 30" now moving it to 35? dont see much of a change... Behindthe head has a point about the local revenue and Ive seen it personally they hardly by anything there Ive seen it with the jet ski and baoting people that come from around the cities, I dont live there but Ive been there quite a bit over the past 15 years to see it happen year after year. Tetonka- Summer time, much like all the lakes in the area swarm with jet skiers and plain ol big boat drivers, have fun trying to fish for anything on the weekends, I wont... Guess the muskie guys can figure that out for themselves.

to merk; Get-er-done merk... Thx for the info merk, I agree with ya!!

"The group, Muskies Inc., says it is opposed to opening spearing on Cass Lake for a variety of reasons, including studies that show that spearing would severely affect not only the muskie population, but northern pike and many other types of fish." --- From the Cass lake times-first paragraph- what is that crapola...

According to Tony Kennedy, large lake specialist for the Bemidji DNR, in his spring 2009 newsletter he wrote that the fall of 2008 northern pike population assessment showed that it is at normal levels of abundance with good numbers of fish in the 26-30 inch size range. The population, according to the newsletter, has changed little over the past 25 years and continues to exist at moderate densities with a stable or improving size structure.- from the same article, sounds like a lot of what I read about on the lakes I spear, populations havent declined from spearing or angling.... kinda funny- 25 years so the lake hasnt changed much since spearing was closed... Whats that tell ya...

Im not getting a very good vibe about Muskie INC, maybe its just me but sounds like they(some not all) talk out there

butts bout caring for any fish except a muskie prime example is the first paragraph in the cass lake times article.

Dont know bout you guys but I only spear northerns.... And merk I think ya gotta good point on the hook mortality rate when fishing...via angling...

[propster]

On all waters???????????? no. On new muskie waters???? On current "ban" waters??? please clarify.

You tell me. On which lakes wouldn't you be interested in protecting larger pike, presumably by allowing maximum harvest of the biggest fish possible?

[merkman]

Of course, it would also require severe penalty and enforcement of even "accidently" speared muskies, since that is already illegal. Does that seem even remotely reasonable?

[propster]

Quote:

the same "crime" that anglers walk away from

There's a difference, and if you can't see it then I can't help you

[Gordie]

This is a great post that Da chise started and I would like to see it go on.

Its about Spearers Perspective on New Muskie waters lets not turn into something else there are plenty of other places for that.