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

I would say there are more lakes without documented 55" fish than with documented 55" fish. Some lakes do not support a forage base suitable for fish to grow that large. I have a half dozen at the top of my head without even thinking too hard. Many of these lakes haven't even had muskies for 30 years so they are still young fisheries but I would have to think the fish would reach Max capabilities sooner once first introduced then taper off a little once established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's forget this state record talk. From October-November guys are catching state records on an almost weekly basis. Remember 10 years ago when a 50 was a big deal? Still is, but it takes a 55 to create real buzz nowadays. Another 10 years and a 58/59 could be the new 55...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fish grow from day they are hatched untill the day they die...I know even a few shallow lakes that produce mid 50's....

And occasionally a 7 foot tall person is born too. To reach 56 inches, a fish has to get a fast start and keep growing fast for 15 years straight.

56 inches is 1422.4 mm. Look how many lakes we have modeled that are capable of producing that size fish on any sort of regular basis. Occasionally they will produce a freak, but it simply won't happen often. Are 57 inch fish any more common in Lac Seul than any other lake of similar size?

full-19978-29845-population_comparison.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not tailor the size limit based on carrying capacity or growth capabilities of the water?

A lot of different conversations in one thread here - too many to comment on all of them, but to this one in particular...

In terms of the stocked lakes, we've kind of already done this during the process of selecting which lakes to stock in the first place, at least under the program put in place by Bob Strand. The criteria for selecting a candidate lake for stocking is pretty strict, and includes the right conditions for growth to trophy size. 10,000 lakes or not, the number of lakes that meet the stocking criteria is shockingly small. (In other words, people who say if we have 10K lakes we should have 1k muskie lakes are completely out to lunch...).

Wisconsin has a much longer running stocking program, but to compare the two, WI took the approach - for a while anyhow - that they'd toss muskies in every pond, puddle and water-filled ditch and see what happens. That's part of why you have A, B and C muskie lakes in WI. For every Shell Lake or LCO that can produce giants you have some Tiger Cat Flowages that are full of peanuts. So, very different from MN, once you get past the Shoepac stocking era in MN anyhow.

In ON, you're dealing 100% with natural populations. Some of them are LoTWs, Lac Suel or Eagle where there's not only a high potential but a proven track record of big fish. You also have a myriad of lakes with lesser potential and size limits set accordingly.

In MN we have stocked lakes that are pre-selected for high growth potential, larger natural LL strain lakes also with high potential. Not many natural lakes in MN that haven't produced some awfully big fish in recent years or at least have the potential to. Even 'numbers' lakes like Baby still have some very big fish. And, the oddball Shoepac lakes. They already have a lower limit and I wouldn't expect that to change.

Long story short, we already have something like what ON has, but because we selected lakes to stock vs assessed natural populations, we got there via a different route.

Just some thoughts...

RK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points RK, but I highly doubt that lakes were chosen based on their potential ability to produce 56" fish. Back in the 80s when most of these waters were proposed for stocking, I'm sure a trophy was considered anything over 50 inches, maybe even 48", as a lot of the brood lakes had 48" minimums back then. Here at the Little Falls office, we hoped our waters would produce fish over 50 inches. Never even dreamed of producing numbers of fish over 56" in our lakes. Even with a 56" minimum, I highly doubt we could produce numbers of fish over 56". An occasional one maybe. The Mississippi River is total C&R. I highly doubt we'll see large numbers of 56" muskies being caught there in the future.

How would you determine success of a 56" minimum? If one is caught annually? every other year? every five years? every 10 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points RK, but I highly doubt that lakes were chosen based on their potential ability to produce 56" fish. Back in the 80s when most of these waters were proposed for stocking, I'm sure a trophy was considered anything over 50 inches, maybe even 48", as a lot of the brood lakes had 48" minimums back then. Here at the Little Falls office, we hoped our waters would produce fish over 50 inches. Never even dreamed of producing numbers of fish over 56" in our lakes.

Certainly true. My only point was the lakes were selected for certain criteria, one of them being potential for high size at age, rather than just the ability to sustain a muskie population as is the case in some WI stocked fisheries, especially ones established a long time ago. Not saying at all that 56 inch fish were a specific objective.

"Trophy" is a relative term certainly. When I first started fishing muskies (longer ago than I care to think about) the goal was a 'legal.' Consider how monumental a shift in mindset it is that we don't really even think about muskies in those terms anymore. We can argue about what the definition of a 'trophy' is, but their status as a trophy species is almost assumed.

That change has happened in a relatively short period of time, and right in the middle of it you get lakes like Mille Lacs and Vermilion that drastically alter angler perceptions about what muskie fishing and a trophy fishery looks like. And if you weren't muskie fishing before the stocked lakes in MN took off, you truly have no idea what muskie fishing was like prior to that. That's not criticism of anyone at all. It's just a fact. The fishery we have today is radically different than the one we had in the 1980s.

I think that's part of what I was getting at in my Outdoor News column. 56" may or may not be the right number, but I think the point the MMPA is raising about where the MN muskie fishery goes from here is a good one, and the conversation that could/should happen about what we want for a fishery, what's realistic in terms of expectations, and what we're prepared to do to achieve it is a pretty important one, and comes at a pretty important point in the history of the fishery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here RK a legal is right, back in the 80's on Mantrap that was the hope, to bag a 36" or wow was it 34" ? I know Shoepac fish were in there but hey it was great fun, I couldn't afford to go to canada for large northerns so I opted for musky fishing, they're a large hard fighting pike in a sense. And about then we started noticing the pike size structure in a hard decline. I just was walleyed out by the time the heat of summer sank in, I looked at a stringer of sick looking walleyes back then thinking, ish, I have to clean these mushy things later, this is the last time so I walleye the 1st and last month of the years I fish in and winter, good enough, how about a thrill in catching a large pike or musky, sounded great to me, most then thought I was nuts. I have no 56" theory, I trust in our fisheries people, I think they do pretty well really, with the technology and precise fishing of today I can't hardly believe more lakes aren't in trouble fish wise, not to mention the amount of pressure these lakes get. It's hard to even fathom 56" really ? My measuring tape back in the 80's was 45" lol. RK are we going to get a muskie stamp at some point, if it would do good lets do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think mounts are dust collectors. Both skin and replicas.

I'll take a picture or a video instead.

yup with todays cameras etc, no need for mounts ever. Mounts should be the real taboo here. Its all about a quick responsible pic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here RK a legal is right, back in the 80's on Mantrap that was the hope, to bag a 36" or wow was it 34" ? I know Shoepac fish were in there but hey it was great fun,

Mantrap was a riot back then, so was Howard. Could go fish it with bass tackle and see 35 or 40 fish some days. Best muskie lure on Howard as far as I was concerned was a 4" school bus yellow grub of all things. Cool thing is Mantrap is still a fun lake, but the fish are big now that the LL strain is in there again. Did catch a Shoepac there that was close to 25 pounds (have seen photos of a legit 49" Shoepac too) that was probably the prettiest muskie I'll ever catch. I've never had the slightest interest in keeping and mounting a fish, but I'd have to say if there were an exception to that, that Shoepac was it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont mean to hijack but whats the Shoepac strain how is it different from the leech lake?

Shoepack is a natural strain that is from shoepack lake. Shoepack strain is a smaller fish tops out in the mid 30" it is a slow growing strain compared to the Leech lake strain. As far as I know the DNR only uses L.L strain to stock the lakes in Mn. Or something like that. I am no expert on Muskie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont mean to hijack but whats the Shoepac strain how is it different from the leech lake?

Here is a link to an article on the DNR's site that states the differences well: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/marapr99/muskie.html

Not only are the LL strain bigger fish then the Shoepac strain, they also spawn at a different time that allows them to co-exist better with Northern Pike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50" has, is and will always be a true trophy in my boat. And it will be released.

As far as mounts being dust collectors, true but I still love my replica that I have on my office wall and as soon as I get one similar size, I'll be ordering another one. I still wonder how big that muskie is now 2 years later and if she has been caught again and if she is now the state record. It's cool to think about and I'd put money on it that she is still swimming and still chasing the occasional figure 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard lol RK, yep was there targeting the few giants that roamed it also, never connected on Howard and the trap was closer to home so yes we'd have 20-30 follows quite often on Mantrap and yes we'd see that 1 or 2 over 40" that we always hoped to tangle with, pretty sure our largest Shoepack was a 40.5" incher just beautiful, never kept a musky, never will, I always wanted to maybe tangle with that fish again down the road. As my good friend said, if we even wanted to keep 1 where would we put it ? Live wells were a bit different back in the 80's lol. Thanks for the tip now RK, no wonder Howard schooled me, didn't have that darn yellow grub guy ! smile Lucky you didn't drop one near that shaky landing or I would've had the ticket !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great state of Minnesota is at the top of the heap when it comes to production of giant muskies. The best there is. Why would you not want to keep this distinction and improve upon it? Folks, you been blessed to have guys like Jack Burns (RIP), Sol Brandies, and Steve Voigt who helped start the fight for muskies. And guys like John Underhill and Rob Kimm and many others who keep up the good fight. I only see the new proposed limit as a positive thing for muskies and Minnesota. And those replica mounts are a bargain! Skin mounts do not look nearly as good in 20 years, but a replica does. On down the road, your decendants will display that replica proudly, while the skin mount will be ready for the dumpster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great state of Minnesota is at the top of the heap when it comes to production of giant muskies. The best there is. Why would you not want to keep this distinction and improve upon it? Folks, you been blessed to have guys like Jack Burns (RIP), Sol Brandies, and Steve Voigt who helped start the fight for muskies. And guys like John Underhill and Rob Kimm and many others who keep up the good fight. I only see the new proposed limit as a positive thing for muskies and Minnesota. And those replica mounts are a bargain! Skin mounts do not look nearly as good in 20 years, but a replica does. On down the road, your decendants will display that replica proudly, while the skin mount will be ready for the dumpster.

On down the road your descendents will not have a clue what to do with some giant fish shaped piece of plastic, just like we didn't with the deer head that graced my parent's house. Really nice big buck. Neither son had any use or place for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, none of us can predict what absolutely will happen in the future, but I believe my decendants think enough of me to want and keep such trophies. Especially if they great shape. I have several trophies here in my house that came from my elders and they hold a special place here, even though they are not in the best of shape. That being said, if these mounts fall apart, and they eventually will, it will be time to let them go. Until then, they have an honored place in my house. That's the nice thing about replica mounts. They never fall apart. You might know what's right for your situation, but you have no clue what is good for my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all about tiger muskies. why are they fazing those things out. i say dump a couple thousand of them in Tonka just ta take a lil pressure of the pure strains. I say put tigers in prior, etc etc. Only like 8 lakes left. muskies inc should stand up for expanded tiger opportunities and not be such pure strain snobs. tigers are easy ta raise and they grow quick. if we added tigers they could make another 100 muskie lakes overnight. i support a tiger muskie stamp in a heartbeat. Even at 20 or 30 bux a pop.... Imagine how much more fun tonka could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all about tiger muskies. why are they fazing those things out. i say dump a couple thousand of them in Tonka just ta take a lil pressure of the pure strains. I say put tigers in prior, etc etc. Only like 8 lakes left. muskies inc should stand up for expanded tiger opportunities and not be such pure strain snobs. tigers are easy ta raise and they grow quick. if we added tigers they could make another 100 muskie lakes overnight. i support a tiger muskie stamp in a heartbeat. Even at 20 or 30 bux a pop.... Imagine how much more fun tonka could be.

Tigers are cheaper (usually) but have 1/3 the lifespan so if you look at the total investment they are a much more expensive fish that grows to 1/2 the size of pure strain. Also, the lakes that are being eliminated are ones that did not pan out very well for growth and/or very little usage from the angling community. The number of tigers produced are not going down, they are being reallocated.

The DNR was stocking them every 3 years. This turned out to be ineffective considering the 8 year life expectancy. Anglers had to fish the lakes with mature year class fish. By reallocating the resource the lakes should have more consistent populations.

The thought that if we changed to a tiger program we would get 100's of new lakes is laughable. Also, by adding tigers to a body of water it wouldn't do anything to get pressure off the pure strain. People want to catch 50" fish not 32"ers.

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.