56 inch minimum?

[merkman]

I think the Fonz just jumped the shark.... or in this case, the muskie.

.

[DTro]

trophy, trophy, trophy,

record, record, record,

mount, mount, mount,

How about just a quality world class fishery that consistently produces big fish and is a lot of fun?

[lambeau]

I live in Wisconsin, and most years I spend 3-4 weeks in MN. Last year I was there even longer, fishing in 8 different communities, playing golf on 5 different courses, and buying untold numbers of meals and adult beverages in local establishments. I spent lots of my money in your state on gas, food, licenses, lures, t-shirts, and some more adult beverages.

I have family in Park Rapids, so I'd go there to visit anyway, but I definitely wouldn't spend nearly as much time (and money) there if it wasn't for the chance to catch a world-class size muskie.

"If you build it they will come." And they did: millions of tourist dollars flow into Minnesota every year chasing huge muskies. "If you preserve it, they will keep coming." If you don't, they go somewhere else. I can catch 40"-45"ers right here in my hometown. I'll travel and spend lots of money for a chance at catching 52"-55"ers.

[Nick Kuhn]

Honestly I think Wisconsin is really working towards something nice, and it's counter to what Minnesota has. Over there we are getting more and more 50" lakes. While the statewide 40" may be a little on the short side, I think it should improve most fisheries. The advantage comes in that Wisconsin has true numbers lakes: Minnesota does not with the exception of Shoepac. Sometimes it's just nice to catch one, or see a lot so you can pattern them after you've had a long struggle. You can go out on one of these lakes with over 1.5 fish per acre (Minnesota's highest is around 0.4 fish per acre for pure strains) and see almost guaranteed action, learn what the fish like, and maybe put one in the boat. Then in some cases you can drive not 10 minutes away and fish a trophy fishery with the knowledge you gained from the numbers fishery.

Minnesota has really become one dimensional in that sense. Tough to get people into the sport when you have to spend 6+ hours in the boat per fish seen. Part of the reason why I think they should have some overstocked lakes with a smaller limit.

[pinkfloyd4ever]

Frankly, I wouldn't care if they made it 100% catch and release. It's already been stated, but it's awesome to release a giant and know that it's still swimming and somebody else still has a chance to catch it. What I would really like to see is some kind of a program where either the DNR or Muskies Inc, or any other group, for that matter, would subsidize some of the cost for a replica on a legal fish, which would eliminate some of the desire for skin mounts. The replicas look better, last longer, and allow the fish to continue swimming. I obviously don't know what the financial side of this would look like, but it seems like it would be a relatively cost effective way to increase the opportunity to continue to catch big fish.

That actually isn't a bad idea, if certain taxidermists did do a discount, maybe you had a $3 musky stamp or something, show that to the taxidermist and get a 5% off or something. Or make a donation to Muskies Inc at the taxidermist and get a discount. Just a thought

I'm all for raising the size limit too it seems like just a few years ago that we all got excited for a 50inch fish coming out of MN and now that isn't the breaking news like it was in the late 90s.

[kapp]

any suggestions on a lake to over stock? alot of folks have been working just to get muskies introduced in a few new lakes, not an easy task.

over stocking a lake may seem like a good idea but in my opinion the DNR

has done a wonderful job in managing muskie lakes using the at 1 to 1.5 fish per acre goal. fish were easier to catch in the 90's but they were smaller, the fish have grown up and that's a good thing a 30" muskie is just not that impressive.

greg kappes

[Jameson]

Really, really? Just make it a catch and release season AND make it illegal to picture and measure any muskie caught. That will protect the most fish from dieing.

[10,000 Casts]

Jameson - Merkman = Dynamic Duo doing their best to add comedy and conservation insite. Thank You

[Yooperguy]

any suggestions on a lake to over stock? alot of folks have been working just to get muskies introduced in a few new lakes, not an easy task.

over stocking a lake may seem like a good idea but in my opinion the DNR

has done a wonderful job in managing muskie lakes using the at 1 to 1.5 fish per acre goal. fish were easier to catch in the 90's but they were smaller, the fish have grown up and that's a good thing a 30" muskie is just not that impressive.

greg kappes

maybe we should ask Merk and Jameson what lakes we could stock? Why do you guys even care what happens with muskie management? Don't you have enough problems with pike management or lack there of?

[Ice Wolf]

I think the 48" min. in Mn is a starting point. Each lake should be surveyed to see what impact a larger population of musky may have on that fishery. If a lake could handle a 56" min. With out hurting it than I am all for it. Weather or not a guy wants to keep one for the purpose of show and tell should not be any part of the decision proses. The size limit should be based with consideration of all species in that system. I think all lakes in some way change in population of each type of species throughout its history. Look at Red lake. Back in the day it was a walleye producing fishery then it turned into a crappie one and now a walleye and pike fishery. I think at least one of Minnesota's major musky lakes should be catch and release only and in ten years see what changes to the different species if any has come to it. I think the Mn DNR have done a great job at producing and maintaining the lakes in this state. They have to diversify our fishery to keep everyone somewhat happy.

[smeese]

I am down for any improvement of the sport. I never intend to keep one. I used to want to get on a 25-30 incher to eat just to try it once, but once I got to a fish that small the law had already enforced a 48" minimum, and I had gotten more involved in the sport and decided that the release was more important anyways.

[Hoffer]

Ice Wolf...

Just a friendly comment. Remember red lake lost its walleye population due to over harvesting. The lack of walleyes (predators to the Crappie population) combined with a record crappie hatch during that time period allowed for the Crappie to boom. Then they restocked the walleyes a number of years ago and with new regs and slots - boom - you have the walleyes back. Its just not the same as a natural ebb and flow of a fishery. Red lake is an anomaly that way.

[Gordie]

Its just not the same as a natural ebb and flow of a fishery.

Just another friendly comment: You have to remember that when stocking a lake that has never had muskies in it, it is not exactly the same as Natural ebb and flow of a fishery either.

Just saying

[Ice Wolf]

Ice Wolf...

Just a friendly comment. Remember red lake lost its walleye population due to over harvesting. The lack of walleyes (predators to the Crappie population) combined with a record crappie hatch during that time period allowed for the Crappie to boom. Then they restocked the walleyes a number of years ago and with new regs and slots - boom - you have the walleyes back. Its just not the same as a natural ebb and flow of a fishery. Red lake is an anomaly that way.

I know all about that. My point is we have the knowledge and the power to turn any lake into what we want it to be. If the DNR had not restocked the lake with walleye Red would still be a mega crappie lake today. Or if the lake had not been over harvested the walleye it would still be a walleye lake. How many lakes do you fish that the DNR don't manage in some way? Lakes I have fished back in the late 70s and 80s have changed because of stocking and management.

[Jameson]

Jameson - Merkman = Dynamic Duo doing their best to add comedy and conservation insite. Thank You

Can't I state my opinion without it insulting you? How much of a wimp are you?

[10,000 Casts]

Don't worry Jamison, nothing you could say would ever insult me, most of the time I am wondering if you are serious. Make pictures illegal??? Statements like that are funny.

[Muskiefool]

The long range plan states that the DNR will manage Muskies as a Trophy fish (Muskellunge Long Range Plan Goal

To provide unique, high quality angling opportunities for trophy muskellunge.)2020 Plan

They actually manage the fish for adult fish and by their own articles Muskies are only considered Trophy's after 50 inches. 50 inchers are great fish and I'll take them all day. Fact of the matter is we have a small window to address what anglers are seeing. The MN DNR virtually catches nothing over 54 inches in its nets leading them to believe the fish doesn't exist. Anglers are catching many fish over 54 and are taking fish over 48, some people say they keep every legal fish they catch and are as good as nay Pike of any size.

I was told the estimated harvest on Leech Lake was 300+ Muskies. In 2005 2800#'s of Muskie were harvested from Mille Lacs and within 2 years angling hours dropped by 2/3rds. That was at 48 inch min. So now the pressure has moved to smaller lakes that are absorbing the pressure and the harvest has moved with it.

So our question is do we wait for Wabagoon or do we preserve Lac Seul and insure protection of the fish Mr. Winther is traveling for and people are seeking here; and nowhere else because you have virtually no chance anywhere else to catch one?

So we ask the DNR to look into the issue, our concerns are valid and stretch from 800acre French to 130,000 acre Mille Lacs.

The few "H" words that are so very concerned about Muskies and keeping the size down and the season open all winter? I really have no clue why they care and are so passionate about Muskie regs. Why would they care unless they too what something from Muskies.

Great article RK..

[Muskiefool]

The average size of the fish harvested from Mille Lacs in 2005 was 36#'s according to the creel survey. Five years earlier it was 28.5# average wight harvested. In 2011 they have no data other than released fish, and lets just say people are not as proud of keeping fish as they were 8 and 13 years ago.

[Yooperguy]

So if this goes through would there be an interest in pursueing a spearing season on them?

[mrklean]

So if this goes through would there be an interest in pursueing a spearing season on them?

Why do you find a need to bring spearing Muskies up nonstop?

[Gordie]

So if this goes through would there be an interest in pursueing a spearing season on them?

I will be the first to tell you that this would be a hurdle that will never be cleared and that there are way too many other avenues that need to be cleared away and even if those avenues were open that hurdle would still be an impossible task in this state.

[Yooperguy]

Geordie thank you for your honest answer, I. Believe you as I do respect you as a sportsman. I wish the other 2 that posted were more like you.

[JackPineGuy]

56 inches lol. what a joke.

[10,000 Casts]

Why is it a joke? I would hoestly love to hear your opinion.

[Scott M]

First off, let me start by saying I don't have a dog in the fight. When I catch one (and it's been a personal long, long dry spell), it goes back. And that's true of the majority of anglers, which at first tells me that regulation really wouldn't change much. But, that's one of a handful of thoughts that comes to my mind. I'm going to throw out a few more...

These days, muskie fishing has become so specialized, there are people targetting individual fish. They want the big chunks, and some of those fish get caught over and over. They are identified by unique markings and proportions. They are caught in similar spots. So when that fish finally does get harvested, I can feel a little bit for the people that chased her. The big thing here is the investment in the resource. Getting a fish to huge proportions took a lot of time and caloric energy. Lakes can only support so many of those fish, and so many of those fish per acre, so when those fish leave, it takes some serious time and energy to replace them. We're at a point now where this state is a trophy destination. We're blessed with a strain of fish that grows faster than any other and we have some productive large lakes we can put these fish into. There has been a commitment to creating large fish and having fewer "numbers" lakes, although some of those lakes, sustained by natural reproduction, do exist.

Everyone is talking about all these fish leaving, and that may or may not be true. It'd be nice to see some proof. One post mentioned the creel data, there should be a pretty robust set of data for all the large walleye lakes that just also happen to be where most of the state's muskie fishing pressure occurs and where some of those big catches occur (Mille Lacs, Vermillion). That's a good starting point on the biological side to see if there is sustainable harvest, relative to the muskie population on the respective waterbody at large and more specifically, to the trophy subset of fish within that lake.

Whatever happens, I think we all need to prepare for the fall from grace. There were some monstrously large fish that resulted from the initial dose of Leech Lake strain muskies that were sent to Mille Lacs and Vermillion. Those fish got fat and sassy on tullibees. Now those fish are dropping out from natural mortality as much as trophy harvest. That kind of growth may never be realized again. The other thing specific to Mille Lacs: it's another lake with big swings in the tullibee population and on the southern range of their zone without much deep, cool water habitat available in summer. Coupled with zebra mussels knocking out zooplankton, you don't have the recipe for big growth. You guys are talking about numbers and size declining, it's only going to get worse with or without an increased minimum size length limit.

Another thing I come back to is biological abilities and limits. There are just some places where you can't grow a 56 inch muskie. So in those places, you are essentially creating a catch and release only fishery. I know "can't" is a strong word and the last quarter century has changed expectations for musky fisheries and fishermen, but I don't think some of your small lakes absent spineless forage can create fish that large. The other thing - what about girth? That makes a huge difference in all large fish - catfish, sturgeon, walleye, bass, pike, musky. Say some guy catches a pig muskie next fall that tapes out to 55 inches and a rotund girth, fat on spawning tullies...He can't harvest the fish for a state record because it's short of 56 inches! There comes a point where you say, well, put her back and give her a chance at 56-57...but we're at a point of diminished returns. I don't know that for fact, no one does, but by virtue of age, growth, observation, and statistics, we're putting fish back in those situations that for all intents have served their purpose to the fishery and likely can't get larger. I mean, our current state record is 56 inches. We're basically turning it into catch and release only. Why split hairs? Just propose catch and release only...

There's a part of me that thinks critically about this and imagines the kid with his parents that manages to catch a 49.75" fish. He's caught the biggest fish of his life and his parents offer to take it to the taxidermist for him. He can't. I know we're in the age of replicas, I know everyone views this "teachable moment" two ways - the kid loses out on a big fish for the wall and has a good cry while his parents cuss out the DNR, or conversely the kid learns a life lesson about letting em go, letting em grow and that's how we hook future anglers. It's a chicken - egg debate which no one will ever answer. I don't have a problem with a few fish leaving, even some big ones, provided we can get at some hard numbers to work with from the creel.

Having tossed in a few random comments, I'll wrap it up by saying some compromise is in order. Put a few 56" limits in experimentally on select waters, see what you come up with, and come back to it in a decade. If you want a statewide increase, shoot for 50, since that's what everyone is after anyways.