DNR Proposal

[sbro73]

What do you all think about the DNR proposal to raise the statewide muskie minimum from the present 40 inches to 48 inches? (Outdoor News, Feb.17,2006)

[mtreno]

all for it. may as well make it 50 inches..... the only issue is most people who are keeping these fish are not reading the rules anyway. most musky fisherman i know of would have to get a state record or darn close to keep one. but i also think every little bit helps.

missed that one. did it sound like something in the works or just something being talked about still?

[art]

definitely for it. They could raise it to 50 inches. Unless mine was a state record it would go back in the lake and I'd get a replica made. Heck, even if it was a state record it would probably go back. I don't need my name in the book. How much would a state record be worth in endorsements and such? Now a world record would be a different story.

[superhawk16]

I would say even 55inches would be fine. I wouldn't ever keep a musky unless it was a world record anyways. but back to the topic I think 48 would be way better than 40. It seems like alot of the muskies kept are in the 40 to 45 inch range....it would be nice to have those fish protected.

[Random guy]

I'm all for it. Most musky anglers release all musky anyways so why not do what we can to help protect the resource.

[Lund 95]

I'm all for it aswell. I think it would help save those fish that get caught accidentally by walleye and bass fisherman. Just another step to help protect our MN skies.

[jtroop]

I'm good with that. Like some others here I'd only consider keeping a record fish, anyway.

[delmuts]

from what i remember, it is a proposal, and they plan on having public hearings on it this summer. if implimented, it would go into effect in 2007.

[barnyard]

There are definately some cons to a 48 inch limit.

Most biologists believe that, in MN, 48 inches is too long a limit, that it would limit the harvest to females, as males rarely go over 48.

Then there is the whole public perception thing of the elitest muskie fisherman.

It seems to me that we already have a hard enough time adding my muskie lakes, won't a 48 inch limit make it even harder???

Count me against.

Tom B

[porterhouse]

Sounds good to me but will this hurt the chances of getting more muskie lakes in Minnesota?

Brian

[barnyard]

Quote:

---

will this hurt the chances of getting more muskie lakes in Minnesota?

---

Yes.

Every public meeting that I have attended, you hear the same thing. Muskie fishers want more lakes/higher limits and the rest of the fishers complain that they should be able to keep a 40 inch fish and that muskie fishers are elite snobs (whatever the hell that means.)

I am guessing that the DNR is floating this to placate MI and muskie fishers. Then, when someone says, "When has the DNR done anything for the muskie program?" The DNR can reply, "We just raised the length limit, what more do you want....."

I would rather have 10 more muskie lakes than a longer length limit.

Tom B

[caseymcq]

I would be all for the 50 inch minimum with the exception of the few lakes that have the Shoepac strain of muskies. You probably wouldn't see a fish of that size from that strain.

[Random guy]

Quote:

---

that muskie fishers are elite snobs (whatever the hell that means.)

---

I see your point barnyard but I had to chuckle at the elite bit. I know a lot of muskie fishermen and fisherwomen, good group of guys and gals but nobody I would call elite. That would be like calling bass guy ugly, or a catfish guy a sissy.

[MuskyNutz]

I'm all for it. I don't see how this would impact further stocking efforts on any lake? Contrary to popular belief the DNR is not against creating more muskie fisheries. The biggest hurdle for them is funding and public opposition ie: lake associations. The Regional managers in Central MN(L.Falls and Brainerd at least) have been very instrumental in stocking efforts. This includes new bodies of water. Most people don't realize what a body of water needs to support the stocking of muskies. Not any lake will do.. The DNR has a list of seven requirements that a lake needs to meet before they would even consider stocking efforts. The DNR Regional Fisheries Manager Tim Brastrupp got the ball rolling with the Brainerd Lakes Chapter of MI last summer and the upper mississippi from rice lake to aitkin is schedued to be stocked this year. It was supposed to happen last fall but they ran out of pond fish for stocking. Unfortunately when the DNR submits their proposal to the powers that be you start on the bottom of the list. So Brainerd was at the bottom of the totem pole. This stretch of the Mississippi has never been stocked before. Now I hope I don't open a big can of worms here but Gull Lake is in the proposal and likely will be stocked within the next two to three years. So, I think it goes to show if you have good communications with your local fisheries management and we keep the support of local fishing groups such as MI and the MMA involved you too will see additional muskie lakes in your area. So I just don't see how raising the size limit would effect stocking. I think we are finally losing and or converting alot of the anti's that think the muskie is eating all their walleyes.

[Esoxmn]

I am kind of on the fence on this one. I know the majority of muskie anglers would not keep a muskie unless it was possibly a state or world record, some not even then, but is it right to stop someone who might be on a trip who will most likely never fish them again, Or a child who catches a 45" fish from keeping them?

[Muskydanno]

My stand on this one is to get the best of both worlds we put a 48 size min (or bigger)on some of the bigger native lakes where they are reproducing successfully ie, vermillion , mille lacs, leech,and maybe keep the smaller ponds at a 40 inch min to help us get more lakes stocked. If a 48 inch min is on every lake i think you are going to have alot of trouble getting support from the public on stocking new ponds. Keep it high on the ponds mentioned above that have the potential to make 56 and 57 inch plus fish (they all have and can continue to have the capability to do it)

That list isnt all inclusive however. I would include lakes like cass and bemidji with the likes of leech mille lacs and the big v. There might be few smaller ones to add also from those areas.

thats my spin on it.

Dan

[mtreno]

i am have issues understanding why if there was a higher limit that would limit the amount of lakes that would be stocked - seems like two different issues to me. as far as being mostly a female harvest from a musky lake due to size it was my understanding that most male muskies never get to the 40 inch mark in the first place - for some reason the number 38 sticks out in my mind for a common max size of a male - not sure where that comes from but been the number in my head for years. i dont agree with just having a higher limit on big waters. we all no that huge fish often come from smaller lakes. so why not try out a larger size limit and see if they grow any bigger on ave. french lake is a good example. i have seen some rather large fish on this lake and every year am surprized there is even anything left after some of the actions i have seen on this lake....

[Silver Scale]

A 48 inch minimum on our current trophy waters can only help in the long run. I also don't believe it will cause the DNR to quite or reduce stocking. If the fish are naturally reproducing to the point where they can keep up with the angling pressure then a reduction or stoppage of stocking should have no affect on the fishery. The DNR could then use these fish to stock someplace else as they seem to be running short of fingerlings that past few years. As far as male muskies on Lk Vermilion they tend to top out in the mid 40's with a rare one going to upper 40's. I support the larger size limit on all but the shoepac strain lakes and other lakes that can't seem to produce large fish, ie Dumbell, etc.

[Giant_Jackpot]

I too am on the fence on this one. I can’t remember which columnist it was in the Outdoor News but he had quoted a survey about post catch mortality versus fish kept and that more fish were dying post release than being kept. It seems to me we should focus more on proper release education than worrying about the size limit. Also get the season closed on December 1st.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

That would be like calling bass guy ugly, or a catfish guy a sissy.

---

I'm ugly.. but I aint no Bass guy! Themz would be fighting words! I'm a cat guy.. sissy doesnt fit the bill either!

I am still a multi species angler and spent lots of time chasing ski's.

I'm all for a 48" minimum, 50" is pushing it, but it would be ok with me. A 48" minimum might get me to target them more again. Theres are plenty of musky lakes in my neck of the concrete jungle(twin cities) and seen most of these lakes being glorified put and take lakes when it comes to muskies. Many avid musky guys fish them, I dont blame them.. but theres also many guys floating suckers out there that will keep every legal fish, and others that will keep any fish that will eat their sucker. I'm not getting into a live bait debate.. lots of those guys take very good care of their catch and the fish all go back to feed another day.. but there are the bad apples. Its a shame to see a great fishery turn into a put/take lake. If someone insist on taking a fish for the wall.. a 48" fish is pretty respectable, and I think they should have that choice... especially with Tigers. We all know its more difficult to catch very large muskies with any regularity even in waters where there are numbers of fish that size.

A 48" minimum would allow the population to increase back to a respectable number of fish here on some lakes.. enough to really make it the excellent fishery it was not so long ago.

[AWH]

I’m all for higher size limits. I don’t see anything but positives that could come from a move like that. I hear the argument against such a regulation due to the fact that very few male fish will be harvested, thus causing an imbalance in the musky fishery. In theory, I can see why people might think that. But….let’s look at the lakes in the state that are used as brood stock lakes. What do they all have in common? The DNR has protected these lakes with a 48” minimum in order to protect the fishery and maximize the reproduction potential of these lakes. So if there was potential harm of reproduction in musky fisheries if higher size limits were in place, why in the world would they even consider it on our most valuable musky lakes in the state? These lakes are the key to maintaining our current stocking program. So I think that theory can be thrown out as yet another myth when it comes to muskies.

The argument against due to “Little Billy” not being able to keep the biggest fish of his life because it doesn’t meet the 48” minimum….If young people are brought up understanding that they have to be thrown back under a certain size because it’s the law, they aren’t going to have a problem with it. More likely, it’s the parent that will have the problem with it because it’s not how THEY were brought up and they want their kid to be able to keep this huge fish. If you start a young angler out understanding why catch and release or selective harvest is a good thing to practice, our resources will be that much better off 10, 20, 30 years down the road. When I was younger, my dad would want me to keep a lot of fish that I knew (as a 10 year old kid!) should be going back. He would get mad at me when I would want to throw back the fish that I was catching - MY fish. Why? Because that’s not how he was brought up. When he was growing up catch and release didn’t exist. And to this day, it’s still almost a foreign idea to him.

What if they catch a 50” out of season? Is it ok to keep it because it’s a person’s biggest fish ever? There wouldn’t be a big deal made of it, because they know it has to go back. Change is difficult for people to deal with, whether it’s a good change or not. So if a 48” minimum would go into effect, you might hear some bickering from certain people about it in year one. But you probably won’t hear a word about it 20 years down the road. Why not? Not because it’s a better law in 20 years. But because people are used to it and it’s the only way many people will know. Not only that, but it will likely mean better trophy fisheries. I don’t know of many people that don’t like trophy fisheries!

One more point on the “biggest fish of their life” theory…if I go up to the Rainy River this spring for Sturgeon season and I catch a 72” fish, that would be by far the biggest fish of my life. But you know what? I can’t keep it because it’s 3” too short! How fair is that? Actually, I think it’s great that fish like that have to go back. I’ve never caught a sturgeon, but it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to release a 72” fish because that’s how I was brought up, knowing that releasing fish is good for the fishery. And I’m not one that goes around saying that keeping big fish is a bad thing. If the law allows someone to keep a fish, it’s their right to do it. But why not make the laws to best suit what we are looking for in our fisheries?

It was also brought up in this thread that maybe the season should end on December 1st. Why? I’ve heard this before, and I honestly don’t understand what this would accomplish. If you’re trying to eliminate muskies caught through the ice, why a December 1st cut off date? Sometimes the lakes freeze up earlier than that and sometimes people are still out in their boats in mid December. So if ice fishing is the issue, why not make a law that simply says you can not fish for muskies through the ice? This would be a very simple law to put in place if this is really a concern. In addition, it would help to educate. For those that accidentally catch a musky through the ice, hopefully something would go through their mind like, “you know, it’s not legal to fish for muskies through the ice, there must be a reason for that. We better get this thing back down the hole quickly and in good shape!” I don’t think a law that says “December 1st” would have the desired effect…again, if ice fishing for them is the concern.

Aaron

[Brian Jones]

AWH,

I think a Dec. 31st season close date is unreal...everyone knows that pike and muskie are caught in the same spots come fall/winter. Not to mention big walleye.

On another note, male pike get over 40" so I would bet a lot of male muskies do also. Lets get a 48" size limit and stop guys like muskie Killer Jim from rapeing our trophy lakes of as many fish!

[Giant_Jackpot]

Aaron,

You put together a nice post about protecting the fishery and I agree with everything you said. What I don’t understand is why you would be against the December 1st closing since it too can be another form of protecting the muskie fishery. I agree that you never know when the lakes are going to freeze up but a date had to be picked unless you go with something like the “the first Saturday of December” or something like that. I realize too that you cannot stop someone from catching a muskie accidentally but maybe it will stop some of the spearing that goes on.

It looks like the early close is going to happen. It might be the 15th or the 1st of December but I am pretty sure it is going to be approved. The DNR wants it to be on the 1st to coincide with closing of the Wisconsin muskie season. The Minnesota Muskie Alliance supports December 1st as well.

[Early Riser]

Giantjackpot, Do you think more muskies are killed by spearing than by anglers accidentally hooking them or intentionally targeting them? I doubt that is the case where I spear. I hope that is not the case in other areas. Anybody who hears about this type of thing should report it immediately! I think the muskie groups and spearing groups can work together to improve things for both of our interests.

[ironman]

To me this is a perfect example of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We didn't have to make new rules to increase and better the muskie fishing...we as muskie anglers chose to catch and release without imput from the DNR. And we can continue to do that by raising our own minimum limits. Why do you have to read it in a book before you do it? Never have before. No muskie fisherman I know..including myself..would keep any muskie, except for a potential world/state record. Now if you want to change a rule that would help..how about record fish not needing to be killed in order to be considered a record? If the new limit is excepted I think that a seperate minimum limit should be set for tiger muskies, not even sure if they have the ability to get to 48"s, I could be wrong. Also the idea of just getting a replica made does discriminate against some people who may not be able to afford one. It's quite a bit cheaper to have the real fish mounted. That is being elitist. Not to mention cheaper to mount a 40" fish as opposed to 48". I think in the name of protecting/improving our sport we overlook common sense. My personal biggest muskie is 45", I let it go...could have kept it, but I didn't need to read that in my rule book. The new limit also goes against most established bio-science. Not all lakes are created equal, so why paint rules with a broad brush? You can go to mille lacs and catch 50" plus fish..so should we raise the limit to 55"??! Why? They already exist and how many fish are actually being harvested? Not many I would bet. Sorry for the lengthy rant, but legislation where legislation isn't needed really gets under my skin.