Muskie Anglers Unite

[merkman]

Kellett the Zealot here to take charge of your life

I don't care who you are.... Dat's funny right dere.

[Nick Kuhn]

Muskie stocking costs make up less than 10% of the revenue of just the muskie anglers licenses (and less than 1% of the total license revenue statewide). We can afford to stock more (Wisconsin stocks just as many walleyes as Minnesota, and can still afford to stock 3x as many muskies as Minnesota). And Wisconsin is still adding new muskie lakes.

[foulpole18]

Merk

What would it cost to get rid of the MDAA so the DNR could implement those regulations to manage for big pike? All they do argue against slots and anythings that's proposed. And don't tell me over 3000 lakes you can spear isn't enough.

[merkman]

Merk

What would it cost to get rid of the MDAA so the DNR could implement those regulations to manage for big pike?

Just because a group of people do not agree with the way certain people wish to implement change, does not mean they are not working for the same goal. There are many ways to manage the resource, we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater to get it done.

So let’s just say you are successful at canning darkhouse spearers, what responsible northern pike harvesters are next? Tip up fishermen, ice anglers, live bait pike fishermen, trollers?

If you pick them off one by one there will be no one standing next to you when the anti fishermen want to pick your group off.

First they came for the Catholics and I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[foulpole18]

OK Merk let's hear some of your ideas. If you say slot limits aren't part of the answer you have lost any credibilty you may have.

[Musky Buck]

I always kinda figured most would be happy there are more and more targeting muskies each year, certainly is saving a lot more walleyes for the non-muskie crowd and lake shore owners. Do you really want another 300,000 of us pounding walleye from May-Mid-February. I'm sure the walleye without muskies would proliferate so we'd all just easily limit out on eyes every time out, I see.

[p0007]

Instead of arguing amongst ourselves about muskies and spearing, we should be sending email to the folks at KSTP encouraging that, at a minimum, they at least do some sound research, look at all sides and present an unbiased, un-slanted report regarding muskie stocking in Mn lakes. This will arm the viewers with the facts and allow them to form their own opinions, rather than the biased media forming it for them. I fear however, that this will not be the case, that KSTP will simply arm more people with only one biased side to cause further resistance. SEND an email or call. Unfortunately factual reporting that is not sensationalized probably does not increase ratings... Sad

[justinT]

I have muskie fished most of my life.

Not much into it anymore, like anything good that very few people know about, it has changed.

I sturgeon fish now, but I am not sure how long I will do that if it continues to gain popularity.

I hate to think how people will ruin that too.

Heck, Canada has the sturgeon on the endangered species list now.

It is only a mater of time....

I guess I don't understand. You put up a graph on an early post to prove that musky fishing is not popular or gaining popularity, yet it was muskie fishing's increasing popularity that ruined it for you? Hmm. If only there were more lakes to spread wealth, you may still be fishing for them.

[Jameson]

...If you were to stop stocking muskies they would become extirpated in almost all of the currently stocked lakes....

This makes me wonder, and I hope others wonder too, if ma nature really wants them there.

I know I am likely alone on this, but I still say go ahead and stock them in every lake in Minnesota one time. If they reproduce on their own great, if not, oh well.

[Shoot2Kill]

Wow, yesterday this was 2 pages, now it's 9, I had some catching up to do.

And yet another thread on this...guess I can't just sit here on this one...some of those comments are just rediculous....

Honest to god - it is FIVE lakes in the entire state. FIVE! How many thousands of lakes can any walleye/panfish/pike guy fish without EVER running into one of those "zealot" muskie guys? If you don't want to fish around those "A-Hole" muskie guys then pick one of the other roughly 9,890 lakes in the state that DO NOT HAVE MUSKIES AND GO THERE. Or are you anti guys fishing the muskie lakes for other species because of how good the fishing is in muskie waters? You just don't make any sense!?!

Just a question - would anyone that is opposed to them really NOT want to catch one on accident? If you did you'd cut the line before it even got to the boat so you had no chance of taking a picture of it and being seen with one of those dang muskies wouldn't you? Heck no, you'd be showing your smiling mug all over with the muskie you caught on your 6' bass rod with 12 lb mono so you can show your buddies how simply awesome you are.....which is just like the guys that shoot a random big buck that are opposed to the "horn porn" guys and letting smaller bucks grow. Same exact scenario here. It's unbelieveable.

Somebody please post something anti with some actual PROOF about how the muskies are going to destroy these lakes, I'd love to see it. Only room for X number of fish, blah blah blah, yep, I'm sure the DNR are just throwing darts at a map of MN and putting zero thought whatsoever into what FIVE out of 10,000 lakes to put muskies into.

[HugoBox]

Back to the original point of the topic (at least I think Tom's original point) and that is to see what angle the story takes. Will they play Jaws theme music in the background and show half eaten walleyes as they talk to the locals? Or, are they going to offer up both sides of the debate? Hubbard owns the channel and most likely doesn't care much what is in the lakes and he doesn't owe any of us anything. He already won cause most of you will probably tune in. Check out the story and then give them feedback if you choose.

It is interesting that the "not in my back yard" argument appears to be one of the drivers on this one though. Out-of-towners are okay when they want to buy gas, beer, bait, rent rooms, and even buy an out of state license. But if lake management decisions are influenced by anyone who doesn't live on the lake then is it not okay? Pretty sound logic I guess???

Interesting how invasive aquatic species also target musky boats, the must like Rangers too...

Perhaps joining Muskies Inc. or drinking the Kellet-Cool-Aid finally turned me into a Zealot or something but seriously, IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF A SPECIFIC LAKE in which the muskies were solely responsible for its demise? Just asking - I'm a simpleton so pages of stats won't help me with this one.

I also remember about 25 years ago when stocked muskies were going to eat all the other fish, small dogs, and maybe even children on the metro lakes. Last I checked I still see plenty of non-musky-chasers on those lakes - and being quite successful. Heck I'm the guy looking for other fish when I have my kids out. Kids even still swim in some of those lakes without losing limbs to the top line predators. I just wish some of the Rainbow trout they dumped in White Bear would have lived, then maybe I'd be a trout guy instead - would sure be easier on my arms.

Someon will have to give me an update though, with all of you home watching the news I'm gonna go fishin - it will be nice to have first crack at a few spots for a change!

[10,000 Casts]

Some people are stuck in their ways and will never change. Most of them are still clinging to their granpappy's stories about how he fought the beast for an hour on 8LB test and when he got the monster into the boat, he smacked it over the head with a paddle and it coughed up a couple children...

Stop living in the past and start looking towards our futures and let's get as many quality outdoor experiences as we can before we are all dead! Weather it's Muskie or Spearing or Pheasants or whatever, there will always be a small group that doesn't like the idea but we can co-exsist!

[merkman]

yep, I'm sure the DNR are just throwing darts at a map of MN and putting zero thought whatsoever into what FIVE out of 10,000 lakes to put muskies into.

Ohh there is no doubt there is thought going into what FIVE.

There is no doubt that connecting waters is a big part of that equation.

Especially when you can pick ONE and get a few more bonus lakes due to fish migration.

Lake acreage is another on of those thought processes... why pick a small lake when a large lake or a small lake only counts as just ONE lake?

Just some more of those half truths…since it is only ONE lake.

[merkman]

there will always be a small group that doesn't like the idea but we can co-exsist!

+1

[10,000 Casts]

Merc,

As far as connected Water's go, the DNR would be shooting themselves in the foot by (accidently) allowing the Muskie to swim to other lakes.. At 1.5 fish an acre, they would spread themselves thin very quickly and there wouldn't be a fishable population.

[B420]

Merk,

Up in the Brainerd area we were kind of shocked ourselves when they picked the South Longs. Very small lakes for this area. Why pick the South Longs when you have Pelican, Gull, North Long, Whitefish chain that can support more anglers and help spread the pressure out a bit.

I wish them darts would land in the middle of Crow Wing County!

[Nick Kuhn]

Merc,

As far as connected Water's go, the DNR would be shooting themselves in the foot by (accidently) allowing the Muskie to swim to other lakes.. At 1.5 fish an acre, they would spread themselves thin very quickly and there wouldn't be a fishable population.

1.5 fish per acre? That's the stocking density, nowhere near that many survive. It would be 0.3 fish per acre most likely (which is about 1/15th the density of northerns or walleyes), migrating themselves even thinner.

[Shoot2Kill]

Ohh there is no doubt there is thought going into what FIVE.

There is no doubt that connecting waters is a big part of that equation.

Especially when you can pick ONE and get a few more bonus lakes due to fish migration.

Lake acreage is another on of those thought processes... why pick a small lake when a large lake or a small lake only counts as just ONE lake?

Just some more of those half truths…since it is only ONE lake.

Yep, that is definetely the goal of that sneaky MN DNR. Genious. Good grief man. Again, what is your dog in the fight Merk? You didn't really identify it earlier when asked. Once a muskie fisherman but now an anti because of too many people and now nobody else can enjoy something that you once did or what? Your replies have no backbone.

[10,000 Casts]

Merc,

not all Muskie fisherman are A Hole "Zealots" like you make them out to be. Most of them are normal guys that just like to fish and prefer to fish Muskies. Anytime you want to come fishing, just let me know.

[merkman]

Merc,

not all Muskie fisherman are A Hole "Zealots"

I agree

http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubb...ite#Post2394752

[DTro]

Stop living in the past and start looking towards our futures and let's get as many quality outdoor experiences as we can before we are all dead! Weather it's Muskie or Spearing or Pheasants or whatever, there will always be a small group that doesn't like the idea but we can co-exsist!

[thrax]

I have stayed out of most of these for a while, this one just got too fun, and if Merk was a muskie he'd be my favorite one for figure eighting, cause he bites every time!

Merk - as a former muskie angler gone sturgeon, why the change? Just the "change" in the sport? May I ask why change to a species that is even lower in opportunity in our state and endangered in the country next door? And why the species that has virtually the strictest harvest requirements of all? One per year and a very limited season and slot? And you must buy a special tag to keep one? You being the "reasonable harvest guy" that you claim.

I know they are yummy, but not because I've ever kept one. You bash on the C&R of muskie fisherman but acknowledge you sturgeon fish? Sounds like a 99% C&R endevour to me. Certainly heavy regulation and only heavy regulation has provided you with sturgeon fishing opportunities any more!

And for the gentleman with the proposal to stock every MN water once with muskie and see where they hold? Do no more stocking other than that one time? I would agree in a heartbeat, if walleye stocking and every other species was held to the same rule. 1/2 and probably even more of MN walleye opportunities would disappear in a wink along with many other great angling opportunities. Now that would be a very popular way of managing MN's public waters!!

This is a really fun discussion, sorry for the long posts everyone, I just get so fired up for a good time!!

[merkman]

Merk - as a former muskie angler gone sturgeon, why the change? Just the "change" in the sport? May I ask why change to a species that is even lower in opportunity in our state and endangered in the country next door? And why the species that has virtually the strictest harvest requirements of all? One per year and a very limited season and slot? And you must buy a special tag to keep one? You being the "reasonable harvest guy" that you claim.

Funny stuff there for sure.

Lake Sturgeon:

Males do not reach sexual maturity until they are 20 years old, and females are usually 25 years old before they spawn for the first time. Females only spawn every 4 to 6 years, while the males usually spawn every other year.

Management style:

Tag with harvest data collected (ie real data not fake emotion based data)

Harvestable Slot

Muskie:

The tiger muskie has a much shorter life span (8-10 years) than pure-strain Muskellunge (15-20 years).

Management style:

No Tag needed

Tangible harvest data not collected

Min set for only the largest of large fish (a politically correct anti-harvest limitation)

That highlights yet another half truth.... Manny sez: muskies reproduce too slowly to allow for harvest. When the truth is; a muskie has lived its entire life before the sturgeon even gets to spawn for the first time.... yet the sturgeon is still a harvestable fish.

Muskie Tag... I'm all for it.

Sturgeon stocking on inland waters... I'm all for that too.

Care to free up some muskie stocking dollars so the MnDNR can afford to stock Lake Sturgeon on inland waters?

[Shawn Kellett]

Merc, start Sturgeon Inc and I'll be the first member and make a generious donation to the stocking fund!

"(a politically correct anti-harvest limitation)"

You can only kill 1 sturgeon if you get a tag. You can still kill 1 muskie above 48" every day of the season. How is sturgeon a more harvestable fish then muskies?

[john skarie]

Muskies aren't a fish you can kill?? That's news to me.

Every muskie lake in the state but one allows kills.

Muskies are allowed to reach the age to reproduce before killing, just like sturgeon.

Merk what exactly are you trying to say? Maybe muskie regs should be tighter? Only one kill per year?

Good idea, how about pike then? One pike per year over 30"??

JS

JS