Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

56 inch minimum?


Scott M

Recommended Posts

Is there any actual data about the number of big muskies harvested? As I recall the creel census data from Vermilion last year the number was said to be zero or near zero.

Vermilion Creel Census

"

No harvested muskie were encountered during the survey, producing a harvest estimate of zero fish. It is known that a few muskie are harvested each year, although that number is believed to be quite low. An estimated 1,600 muskie were caught and released, slightly below the catch in 2008. Many muskie are caught at night and during late fall; and these fish are not documented during the survey. The largest muskie reported during the survey was 53 inches long. "

You might note that catch and release probably kills 50 to 100 per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is there any actual data about the number of big muskies harvested? As I recall the creel census data from Vermilion last year the number was said to be zero or near zero.

Creel surveys don't really work for muskies. The one muskiefool cites for 2005 has shown a total muskie harvest of 0 for about the past 6 years. The problem is that the lake can't be sampled well enough. If a creel clerk sees 1 fish caught and kept, the estimate will be thousands of pounds kept. If he sees 0 fish kept, the estimate will be 0 pounds. There is absolutely no statistical significance to those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catch and release is the way to go!

You can't keep a nice eater anymore anyways and anything bigger than 40 was really too much meat and had kind of an oily musky taste. I think you may as well make it all C and R now.

Maybe a slot-less than 40 and over 56- That would help improve the genetics on the naturally reproducing lakes. laugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creel surveys don't really work for muskies. The one muskiefool cites for 2005 has shown a total muskie harvest of 0 for about the past 6 years. The problem is that the lake can't be sampled well enough. If a creel clerk sees 1 fish caught and kept, the estimate will be thousands of pounds kept. If he sees 0 fish kept, the estimate will be 0 pounds. There is absolutely no statistical significance to those numbers.

That's not entirely true. The estimates that are extrapolated are within pretty tight strata (day period, day type, fishing mode, etc. etc.). That prevents you from making huge leaps of faith with small sample sizes.

It's true that the creels aren't working at night, and there is some dedicated pressure and harvest at that time. I remember fishing with a buddy during a full moon on Mille Lacs a few years back and seeing all the stern lights on the cabbage and reef edges near Garrison. I joked to my buddy that if you stopped and listened you could hear the clanging of cowgirl blades grin I haven't looked at the V and ML creels yet, I don't know what their coverage is, but to not see any fish come in? That tells me we don't have a problem with harvest. I've seen a lot of big fish at night pictures, but truth be told I've seen a lot of October and November day time pictures too. You can't have all this harvest people are griping about without seeing a few fish come in during the day and get picked up by the creel.

I know the creel on Tetonka this summer missed 3 muskies that were caught but recorded one release. The first miss was an off day, and the other two were early/late day misses. But that's a small lake, small musky population, and small creel design in comparison to the large lakes (and consider it covered 4 lakes, not just one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any actual data about the number of big muskies harvested? As I recall the creel census data from Vermilion last year the number was said to be zero or near zero.

Vermilion Creel Census

"

No harvested muskie were encountered during the survey, producing a harvest estimate of zero fish. It is known that a few muskie are harvested each year, although that number is believed to be quite low. An estimated 1,600 muskie were caught and released, slightly below the catch in 2008. Many muskie are caught at night and during late fall; and these fish are not documented during the survey. The largest muskie reported during the survey was 53 inches long. "

You might note that catch and release probably kills 50 to 100 per year.

Purty simple-They didn't apply an effective sampling method. They might want to just ask folks to report and take a pic of what they take. They might want to advertise at the launch,in Musky publications, online and to groups that fish muskies. They will never know exactly though as the law of large numbers and sampling doesn't lend itself well to the law of the small numbers of muskies caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always try to resist getting into these arguments and after a while I can't resist and I jump in. A 56 inch limit violates the principle that a law should be put in place for good reason and only if we're fairly sure it will be effective. The 56 inch limit does neither. First of all, look at the current fishery. It's in great shape all with a lesser size limit. So, other than make a few people feel virtuous there's no need or reason for a new law. Secondly, almost ALL muskies are released now. So a higher limit or even total release will make almost no difference, so the higher limit will not be an effective law. The whole thing gets back to the population of muskies. They are doing well as they are and the new law is a huge waste of time and money! The release mortality of large fish is significant and if 1 guy decides to keep a 51 incher next year that makes no difference.

I haven't intetionally killed a muskie since the early 80's but once on Lac Seul where we go pretty much every year, we gill hooked a nice fish. After an hour of trying to release a dead fish we had to let him sink. Now that's not a big deal, my family isn't going to starve without those muskie filets but it seems like kind of a waste! A catch and release only fishery really needs to be justified by significant need and strong science and the 56 inch limit has neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for talking about science so much that last post was pretty short on it, especially for all the assumptions stated as facts. nothing wrong with an opinion though, as long as it's owned as such.

some people see "good" and move on. others see "good" and wonder how to make it "great". i'm glad we've got the latter leading the MMPA here in MN. pretty sure those guys don't waste all their fishing time each year at the capitol just so they can feel virtuous for a little bit.

letting the circle of life complete it's cycle is not waste by any means. waste is taking a musky home and eating it when you've got a fridge full of other food or putting on your wall when it could have been released for someone else to catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it a joke? I would hoestly love to hear your opinion.
we'll why waste time fighting for such a preposterous size limit. why not just make the C&R only. I honestly think

56 inch size limit is one of the stupidest things i have ever heard of. It all boils down ta greed. Guides and such have a huge vested interest in that 56 inch size limit. Most people dont care about the muskie anymore, they care about there being more of them for themselves ta catch. sad but tru. 56 inch size limit? how about barbless hooks, no gps, no bulldawg,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how bout a twelve point restriction for any deer? how about a 16inch limmet on crappie. how bout a 34 inch limit for walleyes

Not applicable.

It seems that a 56" limit is about making a statement. We're different from the other groups and we've worked very hard for what we have. We worship these fish and make them the legends they are. Let's make it official.

On the discussion of numbers lakes and Shoepac strain, it would be interesting to see some stocking of the Shoepac's closer to the cities. Anybody who's fished Crescent or Dumbell knows what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how we keep seeing the comparisons to hunting. There is no comparison. Hunting is a consumptive sport by nature. There is no such thing as shoot and release. We would still have the opportunity to catch fish under 56" and have our pictures taken, and even have a replica made if we desired. I can't remember the last time I saw a deer replica on a wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there is a comparison to hunting and it’s called Quality Deer Management, not all believe in that either. It is also pushed that these fish are a sacred entity when in fact you’re dealing with a renewable recourse.

Some can't get past the thought of killing a fish when in fact they may very well do the same thing themselves, but without the guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I practice QDMA, the comparison is weak at best. The argument that watching a deer walk and releasing a fish is the same is a very weak one. While this is a renewable resource, it doesn't mean that we need to give up what we have. The amount of time it takes to rebuild what we currently have is significant. Given enough time, oil is a renewable resource as well I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like a few people above, I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I have never intentionally fished for muskies and I have released every muskie that I have ever accidentally caught.

My opinions:

1. I really don't like the concept, in general, of having a "minimum size limit" (for ANY fish). I prefer the idea of a "size maximums", which would force people to keep smaller fish for eating, leaving bigger fish around for sportfishing. This also would be more consistent with fish consumption guidelines for mercury, PCBs, etc.

2. I don't think people wanting to kill a fish simply so they can mount it is a sufficient reason to allow the fish to be harvested (I'd much rather people kill a fish to eat it than to kill it to mount).

3. It seems that muskie fishing is almost entirely recreational/sportfishing (i.e., catch-and-release). If so, I'd rather the State make it catch-and-release only and do away with the concept of a "State Record" for this species of fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56" statewide minimum I guess I could support, but that is essentially making it C&R only, which, as a musky guy is what I do regardless, BUT, to me a model similar to what ON has seems more applicable here. Lakes with Shoepacs already have a reduce size limit because those fish rarely reach 40 inches. Why not tailor the size limit based on carrying capacity or growth capabilities of the water?

Statewide minimum of 48", then certain lakes 56" and some in between possibly. Yeah, thats a lot of extra management, signs, etc, but how many lakes have protected slots for walleyes and pike (or other species) and those change frequently as well.

I dont really have a problem with someone keeping a fish per the rules of the laws, but with the influx of out of state anglers coming here for world class fishing, we owe it to ourselves to take some precautions to ensure it stays that way.

Sure the limits as they are show big fish, but, that isnt to say it would remain that way and that is what is being suggested here. Get ahead of the curve to protect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a muskie addict and fish pretty much nothing else once the muskie season opens. I think a 56 statewide minimum is ridiculous personally. Many lakes would rarely if ever produce one that big. As da chise pointed out, some lakes just can't produce fish that big. They don't have the productivity or the prey base to do it. I could see putting it on a few of our biggest lakes or lakes with the reputation of producing mid 50 inch fish. But not on a statewide basis. Some of you folks need to step back and check yourselves. We're not talking about children here. They're a fish! Not something to be worshipped. Holy Cripes!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not make the limit dependent on the body of water? IF you want to have a 56 inch limit on Mille Lacs or other bodies known for producing world class fish, go for it. But to the shore fisherman in Minneapolis, that 48 incher is every bit the trophy as a 55 incher on LOTW. Most musky fisherman would never keep a 48 inch fish. I'm not a musky fisherman except for a couple days per year, but that said, among me and my friends, I can only remember one Musky ever being kept. The guy was fishing in Wisconsin and didn't realize the significance of the fish (he was from the west coast and only ever ocean fished.) He even came up to my apartment after the trip and asked how best to cook it. After I explained that it wasn't exactly an eating fish, I don't think he would keep another one again, although we cooked some and pickled the other half of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for everyone: Which lake out there with LL strain fish isn't kicking out 55"ers?

I've heard of that size fish + coming from pretty much every one that hasn't had their genetics polluted by the Shoepack strain.

Also, is the point of regulations like this made so people are going to realistically catch a 56+ out of every lake OR to improve your chances of catching a fish UNDER that number that would normally have been harvested? Something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.