54" Statewide Min

[CaptainMusky]

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.

Hence the reason that the DNR has the option to have different limits on different lakes, ie Tiger lakes, Shoepac Strain lakes, or just lakes where there are different management goals.

[CaptainMusky]

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

Oh, the dreaded slippery slope, sky is falling agenda.

You talk about "balance", specifically what is the balance and what is a safe harvest for muskies? Muskies are in such few numbers in any of the lakes they are managed in that harvesting 1 large fish can absolutely cause a major setback.

I have read reports where the DNR estimated the adult musky population in Mille Lacs around 2000 to 3000 fish. On a 132,000 acre lake that isnt very many.

The musky fishing on Mille Lacs has already declined which is completely normal as I mentioned earlier, but if they continue to allow fish over 40" or 48" to be harvested it will be decimated. Yes, the vast majority of musky anglers are catch and release, but there are multiple guides on the lake that take folks out there and do harvest muskies every year. Even when they are not harvesting fish their fishing practices are killing fish they eventually release anyway (ie High speed trolling and not stopping the boat to fight the fish dragging them for Lord knows how long).

Its a pretty flimsy argument to say its taking an "opportunity" away because you cannot have a skin mount. The replicas look far better anyway plus you are giving someone else the chance, perhaps your son/daughter, grandchild the chance to catch that fish later.

[sheephead2]

Some people can't handle change very well at all....

[merkman]

specifically what is the balance and what is a safe harvest for muskies? 

[tolle141]

A trophy muskie fishery isn't built off put-and-take, it's built off personal decisions.

I will agree that this regulation is largely symbolic, but it has taken decades to build this fishery. This is the next step in taking these fish to their true genetic potential.

Want to prove your catch? Get a replica. The slightly higher cost is way more rewarding then a skin mount that fades after thirty years, not to mention the satisfaction that comes from releasing an amazing fish that that took 20 years to get that big. Don't know where to get a good replica? We'll connect you with the best guys in the business.

[CaptainMusky]

Certainly summer time only catch and release only is not balance in my book.

But of course the summer time only catch and release only trophy crowd would never go for that; since they are all for restrictions on any method other than "their own".

These are public lakes in Minnesota... not private aquariums.

Ask a specific question and get rhetoric. Not surprised.

[merkman]

Well here’s balance for you. What is wrong with having distinction between “sport” species and table fare fish? 

Sounds perfect.

1 esox managed for trophies

1 esox managed for responsible harvest.

Remove all remaining darkhouse spearing bans and other Minnesota regulations that treat darkhouse spearing spearing differently than the other legal methods of responsibly harvesting northern pike.

Change the muskie fishery to a true 100% catch and release only fishery.

Have the minnesota muskie and pike alliance change their name back to the minnesota muskie alliance to keep the muskie side muskies (no kill trophies) and the northern pike side northern pike ( a responsibly harvested game fish).

Impose a 25 year (or more) moratorium on any new esox regulations or propagations.

Then we can all work together on improving the common items related to both esox without having the bickering or in fighting.

You want trophies go fish for muskies

You want to responsibly harvest esox for the table... choose the northern pike.

Done.

.

[PurpleFloyd]

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

[50inchpig]

i expected the normal talk and propaganda from the usual suspects and if any of us have learned anything the last few years it's that pouting and whining online doesn't change anything.

you have some really great ideas, merk, now that the 1% doesn't have a legislative monopoly anymore. you can't split the pot once you've overplayed your hand though.

good still to see others coming around and starting to get it. fish grow a lot slower than the number of people fishing for them.

the only misinformation in the pile that deserves a serious reply is this:

Many lakes don't have the potential to raise them that large.

absolutely not true. most lakes do, have and will. fact.

[CaptainMusky]

So please detail what this imbalance is. Is the fact the muskie season closes completely in winter months? Is it that only fish over 54" can be harvested? What specifically IS this imbalance ? Or is it just your disagreement with the new regs?

I truly want to know what you think the imbalance is. Are muskies overpopulated? Is that your concern?

[merkman]

the only misinformation in the pile that deserves a serious reply is this:

[CaptainMusky]

Merk, that comment was made in response to 54" not 55" or 56" but how convenient you overlooked that.

Still waiting for your expertise into what the "imbalance" is. ...Insert Jeopardy theme song here...

[50inchpig]

obviously the shoepac strain lakes don't grow big fish, hence the provision to leave a handful of lakes at 48". everyone knows that. well, almost everyone. not sure why basing regulations on scientific fact is such a hard concept for the mdaa to grasp.

actually that's not true either. I know why.

[Jameson]

Now with a 54" minimum maybe the season closure date can be moved back to coincide with the pike and walleye season closure date.

[Esox_Magnum]

Now with a 54" minimum maybe the season closure date can be moved back to coincide with the pike and walleye season closure date.

Why?

[pushbutton]

I seriously do not know the history on this Hatfield and McCoy fight. Anyone care to share an unbiased reduced version?

[merkman]

I seriously do not know the history on this Hatfield and McCoy fight. Anyone care to share an unbiased reduced version?

The entire debate can be summarized easily.

On 1 side is the trophy "no kill" group who believes proper management techniques are to restrict and miniminimize so that species may be able to reach their full genetic potential no matter the social cost to others.

On the other side is the responsible harvest group who believes that a trade off of species not being able to reach their full genetic potential is worth the opportunity to still be able to responsibly hunt and fish the species.

This is much bigger than muskies.... or fishing..... or hunting....

you see it with the wolf debate in Minnesota....

you see it with antler point restrictions. ...

yada yada yada.....

1 side says if we continue with harvest there will be no fish to harvest

The other side says; if we continue with restrictions there wont be any sport left to enjoy.

Flat out; core fundamental differences in opinion.

Who is right?

Sadly..... more than likely.... either side......

(depending on your view of the world)

Who wins?

Sadly.... not any of the sportsmen and women.....

How do we play well together?

That is yet to be determined.......

.

[CaptainMusky]

The entire debate can be summarized easily.

As easily as you can describe what exactly you mean by "unbalanced" in reference to muskies? Apparently not, because I am still waiting...

And what the heck do you mean by "social cost to others"?

If you think that one species of fish (muskies) must conform to the same management practices of another species of fish (pike) you obviously have some serious learning to do. There are considerable management and biological reasons this would NOT work and Mille Lacs is a prime example with the explosion of the small pike population.

If you want to manage for quality fish you have to manage their overall numbers. Hopefully Mille Lacs can return to a trophy pike fishery it once was, not even that long ago, but getting the numbers of small fish out of there would be a start.

[CaptainMusky]

I seriously do not know the history on this Hatfield and McCoy fight. Anyone care to share an unbiased reduced version?

Basically it boils down to the Darkhouse guys want to spear in ever single lake in MN regardless of whether or not they are designated musky lakes. The darkhouse guys also preach about all the regulations and how its going to kill any enjoyment left in the sport at the same time their group is getting lakes opened back up for spearing again (Cass, Mille Lacs), etc but you dont hear the musky guys yelling the sky is falling from the highest perch because of these changes and that it will lead to all lakes allowing spearing.

The musky guys want a higher length limit to protect more fish from harvest since they are indeed very few in number. Fish over 54" are extremely rare.

I am not for it being completely C&R, but I am in favor of the 54" restriction.

I fail to see any valid argument that releasing fish under 54" in any way shape or form is limiting someone's opportunities. In fact it INCREASES the opportunities because others will have the chance to catch that fish again instead of someone bonking it and putting it in their garden.

There have already been reports of floating muskies being found with their bellies slit and gills cut across MN this year.

[Jameson]

Why?

The season closure date was changed to stop the intentional harvest of muskies. Changing the length limit from the 40" it was at the time of the season closure date change to the current 54" does the same thing. Now the reason for the original change does not exist, and IMO the law should be changed back to coincide with the pike and walleye closure dates. Both for easy regulations and for increased muskie fishing opportunity. I was one who use to chase muskies during the winter and stopped with the season closure change and would like to fish for muskies in the winter again.

I've answered the why question. Why not?

[CaptainMusky]

Jameson I guess I see your point BUT the season wasn't set to where it was solely because of harvest but because it was based on when they spawn and to coincide with a date after the fish would have normally spawned.

This is the same rule of thumb used for walleye, northern and bass openers. The fish spawn at different water temps so it was used to protect the during this activity.

[Esox_Magnum]

Why put so much stress and risk delayed mortality due to freezing gills/eyes ect on the fish.... Even as an avid muskie guy I don't see the need to put them through the stress of catching them through the ice... I enjoy the fun of catching fish to eat and the tourneys in the winter instead of catching a fish for a picture....

[cherokee]

I am in favor of the new 54" regulation but I'm not so sure it will help that much. I truly believe many big muskies die and will continue to die at the hand of the person trying to get the almighty picture. Sure they may have planned to release the big fish but in the end muskies are found floating all the time. Mr musky addict or Joe blow or his kid catch a 50 inch fish and will net the fish, dump it in the bottom of the boat, let it flop around and than proceed to take 25 pictures.

The new size restriction doesn't go far enough in protecting muskies (big or small ) in my opinion If we truly want to manage muskies for maximum trophy potential. Any fish under 54" should not be allowed to be netted or taken into the boat (cradle with ruler maybe) Photo in water only. Strict, sure but we are managing muskies as a trophy fish. Let's do it right.

[Jameson]

Why put so much stress and risk delayed mortality due to freezing gills/eyes ect on the fish.... Even as an avid muskie guy I don't see the need to put them through the stress of catching them through the ice... I enjoy the fun of catching fish to eat and the tourneys in the winter instead of catching a fish for a picture....

That's nice and all, but the reason the season closure date came about was due to the intentional keeping of muskies, not the potential mortality of fishing for them. Be very careful if you want to use that excuse. You might find out that the muskie survive winter angling better than summer angling. It was just at the time of the EMERGENCY law change that there were many folks intent on keeping any muskie who did so very often during early ice season.

And if someone is stupidly taking a picture of a fish they plan to return to the water when it is too cold to be doing so is the reason, then outlaw the taking of pictures of fish that are going to be returned to the water. Don't punish the responsible fisherman who C&R without the ego-trip picture taking or who go fishing to catch a meal.

[Jameson]

Jameson I guess I see your point BUT the season wasn't set to where it was solely because of harvest but because it was based on when they spawn and to coincide with a date after the fish would have normally spawned.

This is the same rule of thumb used for walleye, northern and bass openers. The fish spawn at different water temps so it was used to protect the during this activity.

Talking about the December 1st closure date, not the opening date.