54" Statewide Min

[mrklean]

I see that the 54" Statewide min and 40" for Metro Tiger lakes was signed with the game and fish bill and will take effect in 2015. I was curious why the 55" min failed so badly but going down 1" passed with flying colors?

[pinkfloyd4ever]

Its a start I guess, 54 vs 55 I have no idea why either, one step closer to total catch and release I hope

[RK]

I see that the 54" Statewide min and 40" for Metro Tiger lakes was signed with the game and fish bill and will take effect in 2015. I was curious why the 55" min failed so badly but going down 1" passed with flying colors?

Never ask what's in sausage man...

The short version is this was a compromise worked out with the legislature and DNR. 54, plus the change to the tiger lakes, and giving the DNR flexibility to keep lower min size on select lakes if they have a management-based reason to do so was something the DNR was more in favor of than a blanket state wide 55. Frankly I like it better too.

This was a tremendous achievement for MN's muskie future. A lot of credit goes to John Underhill from the Minnesota Muskie and Pike Alliance, who kept at this way past the point where most reasonable people would have thrown in the towel. Most of you probably have never heard of John, but he's done more for the fishery than most of of ever will.

[mrklean]

Thanks RK I figured there was a longer reason behind it Was happy to see it pass and it sounds like there was little resistant also.

[jkrash]

So does the DNR still plan to raise the limit to 56" on select lakes in the state by 2016?

[RK]

So does the DNR still plan to raise the limit to 56" on select lakes in the state by 2016?

I wouldn't think so. I think that was kind of a counter-proposal to the statewide 55" limit.

I guess there's nothing to stop them from doing so through the rules process if they wanted to, but I'd say it's unlikely since they're already at 54.

[bemidjibasser]

I read on muskies first that part of the reason it went to 54" was to coincide with Canada's 54" minimum...that almost seems logical and well thought out though, so I'm not so sure...

[laker1]

The legislature raised it to 54 inches and biologically it may save 1 fish a year. Anglers were releasing them anyhow. It is the musky clubs who are well organized. Ask your field DNR fisheries staff and most would of just left it where it was at present.

[CaptainMusky]

Clearly there is more than 1 fish over 48" being bonked every year. If you are insinuating that all but one of those (over 48") fish previously being bonked wouldn't have survived I think you are sorely mistaken.

Please explain your "biologically speaking" comment.

[Nick Kuhn]

So does the DNR still plan to raise the limit to 56" on select lakes in the state by 2016?

[CaptainMusky]

I agree harvest is low but I know for a fact there was 1 guy alone who harvested multiple fish last year over 50 inches. He was well documented.

The number is low but I am sure its far closer to 50 maybe even 100 than 1 and those are fish we hear about.

[ANYFISH2]

Sure wish my license money could be pulled from the stocking program for muskies. If the fish can't be utilized beyond that of c&r by the "muskie angler" than I want no part in the expansion of the fishery.

The world class muskie fishery we have was built under the 40" minimum. Now it is 54", for the sole purpose of preventing the non muskie angler the option of harvesting a fish they deem worthy of being a trophy.

Musky guys, pay for it all yourselves, I want no part of it.

[CaptainMusky]

Deal. Then I want all my money that goes toward stocking walleyes or any other fish.

You want to talk about self sustaining yada yada there are thousands of lakes in MN that rely solely on walleye stocking so meat hunters can get their precious flaky fillet compared to less than 90 that are managed for musjies most of which are not even stocked.

[ANYFISH2]

See muskie, I have never had a problem with the fish or the expansion of the fishery.

My problem lies with the endless overregulation being pushed by groups whom feel thier utilization of the species is the only way. Regardless if it takes opportunities away from the majority. This fishery hasn't improved leaps and bounds since 48" was implemented and it will not improve greatly with a 54" min either. The groups have just once again succeeded in taking opportunities away from fellow anglers.

I also have not been a proponent of stocking walleyes in every pothole either. Bass/panfish lakes should probably be just that bass/panfish lakes.

I will against C&R regulations and fisheries for a long time to come. If man manipulates the fishery it needs harvest of some sort to keep it balanced. Unless closed completely a exploited fishery needs managed harvest to stay balanced.

[CaptainMusky]

How is this taking opportunities away from anyone? If anything its giving more opportunities to others because if you bonk that 48" musky it means that someone else doesn't have the chance to catch it. If you are solely fishing to hang things on the wall you are in it for all the wrong reasons. Any fish, not just muskies.

If you want something to reflect upon your trophy get a replica. They look better for years to come.

Your comment about the lakes not improving leaps and bounds since the introduction of 48 well there are multiple reasons for that. One being that muskies are stocked in much fewer frequency after the initial stocking. Specifically looking at mille lacs as an example the number of fish over 50 inches is dropping because the overall numbers are down due in large part with the increased number of initially stocked fish and now cutting back.

Being against something simply because you can't kill it and hang it on your wall I have a major problem with.

We have caught many walleyes over 28" and up to 32" but it was never even considered killing any of them. Smallies over 22" and heck my kids caught multiple crappies over 14" this past weekend and every single one was released. If you are worried about balanced fishery the numbers of muskies in a managed lake are so low they have little overall impact on other game or bait fish.

[PurpleFloyd]

Deal. Then I want all my money that goes toward stocking walleyes or any other fish.

You want to talk about self sustaining yada yada there are thousands of lakes in MN that rely solely on walleye stocking so meat hunters can get their precious flaky fillet compared to less than 90 that are managed for musjies most of which are not even stocked.

I want all of mine spent on Perch.As long as we are going on record.

[merkman]

Most of you probably have never heard of John, but he's done more for the fishery than most of of ever will.

I could not disagree more...

.

[ANYFISH2]

Well musky, I have mounted fish and I will not apologize for that it was my legal right to do so. Some are 25 years old and look new, replicas well, their just fake.

I have one: walleye, sunfish, smallmouth, and (gasp) 41+" muskie and 2 crappies mounted. Of these species I will not kill another trophy. No need or want to I have one already. That muskie is a moment my father in law shared together and the mount is a constent reminder to me of him and that (gasp again) december day on Lake Alex.

I do not need to worry,about myself needing to keep another musky, it isn't about me. It is about my fellow anglers, fisherman of muskies, bass, walleyes, panfish, ect..having the privilege to keep a fish if THEY see fit. Not pay for a resource, and have that privilege essentially taken from them because a special interest group doesn't like it.

I highly respect your C&R ethic, it is fantastic. I too, have a release ethic similar to yours I just don't look down on others or myself for keeping a fish to mount. Because fortunately we all have choices. Lets not take choices away from those we need to stand beside.

[pushbutton]

Anyone ever fish in Europe? Pretty much all that is left is catfish and carp...well and some oversized creek chub type thing.... that am told tastes good

[CaptainMusky]

Any fish I understand that its within the rules to mount a legal fish of any species but you talk about "the few making decisions for all" and "taking away an opportunity". How is a 54" limit taking away an opportunity?

Unless that opportunity you are talking about is harvesting the fish. That's it. Then the opportunity ends with that one person.

How many big fish have you caught that were out of season and had to be released? Did that change the experience or memory?

[merkman]

"the few making decisions for all" and "taking away an opportunity". How is a 54" limit taking away an opportunity?

Not much different then closing the winter catch and release muskie season was....

Not much different than closing the summers hottest months muskie season will be...

What exactly are you guys working towards?

Incrementally closing all hunting and fishing?

and for what.... someone's ego boost?

There needs to be balance.... and with the continued closing of more and more hunting and fishing seasons and methods it won't be long and there won't be anything left to restrict.

We won't allow the same amount of "slippage" with our second ammendment rights... yet we sit back and applaud those who are needlessly taking our rights/privileges to hunt and fish.

I don't get it.... now... nor will I ever understand it I guess.

-Merk

.

[ANYFISH2]

Capt.muskie, yes the opportunity I am speaking of is to harvest one.

Like you (assumption) my intention is to never kill another musky, but someone else may like to have that opportunity to mount one. I don not feel it is our place to make that nearly impossible. That is why I am against continuing to increase the minimum size.

Am I correct is saying that, considering that musky anglers have a no kill policy (blanket statment), that the reason for increasing the minimum size is to prevent the harvest of muskies by anglers that ordinarly woundnt fish for them?

Thanks for the discussion capt. Muskie.

[Zelmsdawg]

I'm all for the one mounted fish to commemorate a special moment, but is there a reason why it can't be an artificial mount?

Zelmsdawg

[DTro]

For those that are so eager to harvest a muskie, if you really want to see changes that are inline with you beliefs, then form your own group like the Musky guys have and work decades towards improving the fishery how you see fit.

Everyone is complaining about “balance”. Well here’s balance for you. What is wrong with having distinction between “sport” species and table fare fish? Is it too much to ask to have 3 or 4 species that we reserve to protect as a sport fishery or do we REALLY have to eat or mount everything?

Mounting a fish is archaic and unneeded. You think a skin mount isn’t fake? Ahhlrighty then… Sure they make great decoration and conversation pieces, but so does a chainsaw woodcarving. Electronic pictures and videos never collect dust and you won’t see them sitting in the corner at a garage sale.

MN ranks up there with the best musky fisheries in the world and that is not a coincidence. It is due to the hard work and grind of the groups formed to steer it that way and as far as eating fish goes, there is a plethora of “opportunity” to feed your family here in MN.

[laker1]

It is to the point than at 54 inch why allow any harvest at all? Many lakes don't have the potential to raise them that large.