DNR Proposal

[Giant_Jackpot]

Early Riser,

I did not mean to single out spearing I was just using it as an example. I don’t have any numbers but I sure have heard plenty of horror stories of spearers spearing just to kill muskie because they think the muskies are eating walleyes. I’m not trying to single out a specific activity but you mentioned that you don’t think it happens in your area but it is happening. For the last few years I have been fishing muskies until the bitter end and I will admit I will be bummed that I can’t do it after December 1st anymore but if it helps protect some fish from being killed then I am all for it.

[Early Riser]

I will continue to keep my eyes and ears open for any illegal spearing of any kind. It really [PoorWordUsage]es me off when a few people doing these types of things give other ethical spearers and anglers a bad name. I think that there are probably more anglers who would kill a muskie to "save a walleye" than spearers, mostly due to the high numbers of anglers who really like walleyes and don't really know the biology of all this. But I don't think a spearer would be more likely to do this type of thing.

[AWH]

I think there are a lot more muskies killed by musky fishermen than we realize. Not by the people that are going out there after muskies on a consistent basis. But more so by your casual musky fishermen that may target muskies a few times each year. The ones that fish muskies when they want a change of pace from walleye or bass fishing. When you have anglers that are new to musky fishing, they are much more likely to keep a 45” fish if they’ve only been fishing for them for a short time. They simply aren’t used to fish that size and they don’t realize how fragile the musky resource really can be if numbers and numbers of fish are taken from the resource each year. These same people that might keep a 45” fish in their first or second year of musky fishing will likely wish they hadn’t kept this fish 5 years later. A lower size limit (in my opinion) implies that muskies are more than just a sport fish. Who fishes for them that isn’t fishing them for the sport of it? Personally, I don’t know anyone that fits this description.

Most game fish are seen as food fish at smaller sizes. Muskies aren’t talked about as a table fare (unless you live in Maine!!!). And I don’t mean to offend anyone, but a 42” fish is not a trophy fish. I realize to some people it would be a huge fish. I know that the first 40” fish that I caught was absolutely gigantic in my eyes. But fish of these sizes are relatively common. As a sport fish (which the musky is), a 40” minimum doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I wouldn’t be opposed to lake specific regulations. But I don’t think there is a lake that is managed for muskies in MN that can’t support at least a 45” minimum. The argument of Tiger Muskies was brought up. I don’t think you can designate a minimum for just tigers. Some people have enough difficulty telling a pike from a musky, let alone a pure strain from a tiger. This is where lake specific regulations might make a lot of sense. Tigers certainly due reach sizes greater than 48” minimum. But that’s a truly giant tiger.

As far as the December 1st date, I’m not opposed to it if it’s going to be better for the fishery. What I would like to hear is WHY the December 1st date. Or simply why close the season earlier? Is it because of a concern for taking them through the ice? Or is there a different reason? This is something I haven’t heard a real definite answer on. It sounds to me like it’s ice fishing for them that’s the concern. And if this is the case, again, I would ask why December 1st? Why not simply say that you can’t target them through the ice? That way during a year that we get an early ice up and lakes are frozen by mid November, you’re protected by this regulation. If ice fishing is the concern, we need to make the regulation to protect ice fishing for them EVERY year, not just in years like we’ve had recently where we haven’t had safe ice until December.

I actually had this conversation with Brian Jones (who chimed in on this thread!) this past fall. Let’s say there’s a December 1st date in place and the lakes are still wide open. For one, who’s going to enforce this? Do you really think that anyone with the DNR is going to go out and check on the one boat that’s out there fishing? If it’s not going to be enforced, what’s the purpose? In addition, late fall is an unbelievable time to get in on the biggest pike in any given lake. If I’m a pike fisherman, I’m going to go out at that time of year and put a big musky bait on for the best pike fishing of the year. In my eyes, with the fishing I’ve experienced in the late fall, it would be even more difficult to enforce the musky/pike fishing deal than it is in the spring when people go out “fishing for big pike” on musky lakes.

Again, I’m all for doing what’s best for the fishery. I just think if a December 1st or 15th or 31st deadline is put in place that there must be a specific reason. The new regulation needs to take care of it’s intended purpose. Any insight on the thought process here would be greatly appreciated. I’m just struggling to see where this suggested change is a well thought out solution.

Aaron

[barnyard]

Interesting discussions. Let me add a couple of things as a "take it for what it's worth" kind of thing...

Back when I used to solicit prizes for our local MI banquet, I asked local taxidermists what size muskies they were doing and where they were from. I think most people would be surprised if they knew how many 41-42 inch muskies taxidermists mount.

Then there are the muskie harvesters. Alot of lakes have them. A guy on Pelican Lake near Pelican Rapids, actually joined the FM chapter of MI to learn how to catch muskies. He catches and kills everything legal. Filets them up and tacks the heads to his boathouse.

He does catch fish too. He learned how to troll Rad Dogs and how to bend the blades, so they really thump. He honestly believes that every muskie he kills is helping to save the walleye population.

Biologists theorize that there is a 10% C&R mortality rate. That would mean that the people that kill the most fish in a season, are generally the ones that C&R the most. Certainly that would be alot more than are accidentally speared, which, I really don't think is even an issue.

I think the mortality that we see from 1st time catches are because they keep the fish out of the water too long to take photos and show every goober on the lake what they caught. I think longer length limits will exascerbate that issue. Does that make sense???? We can talk education till we're blue in the face, but I still think we would see it.....

To me, the bigger issue is, how will this make us appear to the average fisherdude??? I think it paints muskie fishers as looking to take away harvest opportunities to the average fisher. It paints us as being only concerned with catching trophies. I know that is not the case, but try telling that to a bunch of goobers at a DNR public hearing.

To me, this is an instance where if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We need more lakes, that needs to be fixed, but not the length limit.

Tom B

[Boedigheimer]

What about the unfortunate case of an injured fish, where death is certain. I do not eat muskies but it sure would be a shame to release a fish that is bleeding like a stuck pig. And who eats musky anyway or keep alot of musky to mount? Is there really a harvest problem?

[AWH]

I agree with the idea of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. However…if you can improve an already good thing, would you not want to improve it? You also have to look ahead and anticipate where things will be in the future. Musky fishing is gaining in popularity every year. The state of Minnesota already has a phenomenal musky fishery. With this brings a lot of tourism from out of state musky fishermen wanting to fish our waters. This is great as it helps the Minnesota economy. I think everyone understands that this is one of the reasons that we need more waters in the state. We need to be able to spread out the pressure.

But with the increasing number of people that we are seeing on the water every year, the mortality numbers are also increasing. Not necessarily the mortality rate, but in numbers. As Tom B. stated, there’s a certain percentage of releases that simply aren’t going to survive. To me, this is even more reason to increase the minimum size. No matter what the odds are that a released fish will die, a released fish has a CHANCE to survive. And if the mortality rate of releases is at 10%, this means the chances of survival are at 90% versus 0% on a kept fish.

It was asked how this might look to the average fisher dude? In all honesty, I don’t think the average fisher dude would care. I know a lot of people that fish that have never fished for muskies. I would say that half of them don’t even know what the minimum size is on muskies. They don’t fish for them so it doesn’t matter to them. Why would an increase in the minimum length effect how they feel? It would make musky fishermen look like they are wanting to take away harvest opportunities? I don’t see this at all. Muskies aren’t seen as a fish that we are going out after in order to harvest. Panfish, walleyes, pike, that’s a different story. When people look to go fishing for a meal, they don’t go looking to harvest a musky.

It seems that every year, regulations are changing in a positive way throughout the state on species other than muskies. Limits have been reduced on panfish, more slots are in place on walleyes and pike. In 2006, I believe the new regulation is that only one walleye over 20” can be kept. So these regulations are also supporting LESS harvest. But ultimately, these regulations are being put in place because people want better quality fishing, and to many, better quality is usually bigger fish. People want bigger panfish, people want bigger walleyes, people want bigger pike. These regulations will hopefully help to create better numbers and better size. Why would musky fishermen be looked at differently than a panfish, walleye or pike fisherman if a higher size limit was put in place? The same thing has already been happening for other species.

In closing, I want to comment on this quote: “Biologists theorize that there is a 10% C&R mortality rate. That would mean that the people that kill the most fish in a season, are generally the ones that C&R the most.”

The second sentence here bothers me a bit. In theory, sure, this may be true. But this is a matter of putting a spin on statistics to best support a certain side of an argument. I would spin it to say that the people that C&R the most have the most successful releases. Not only the most successful releases, but the highest percentage of successful releases because they have more practice. If we don’t want to kill a fish, we need to stop fishing. And I don’t think there’s anyone on this site that’s in favor of that. It’s a privilege that we all have to go fishing. But we also have the responsibility to take good care of our resources.

Aaron

[Giant_Jackpot]

Ha! Aaron, I put this post up while you were replying to the other posts so I did not see your latest right away. We need some open water so we can get away from these PCs!

Aaron,

Actually, I think you could ask the “who is going to enforce it” questions about most of the regulations we have. For the most part we are self enforcing group. We read the regs and follow them. I was approached by just one DNR employee this year and my GPS had me in the boat for 960 hours since the 2005 opener It’s always the few boneheads that give the rest of us a bad name. Are we getting to the point where we are making small changes in the regs to help find ways to try and get rid of the stupid things the boneheads do? Hard to say.

I will admit that I do not know exactly why they are looking at December 1st but as I get more info I will pass it along. As far as just saying you can’t target the muskies through the ice there could be a lot of problems with that too. What about the lake that is partially frozen? Where do you draw the line on that? Nothing is going to be perfect so to me it seems a date is the best way to go at it.

As far as “going after pike” with big lures when muskie season is closed, well, that person has to make the proper ethical decision in doing that. Plenty of walleye are caught while perch fishing, folks are catching a ton of walleye on Upper Red and they are not legal to catch now either. Out of season fish are going to be caught no matter what the regulations say. All we can do is hope to educate people on proper release techniques so the fish are released in the best condition possible. The 2006 regulation book actually has a statement on the pike/muskie identification page encouraging anglers to have the proper release tools available. People have said that we don’t need more regulations but I’m not sure if I completely agree with that from the standpoint that if we had no regulations, what would our fishery look like today?

I like this discussion though since it keeps us all talking and looking for good ways to protect the resource we obviously care about.

Tom B,

Thanks for chiming in with the horror story about the muskie slayers out there. I think there is more of that going on than we know about. The DNR is putting the finishing touches on a new DVD that explains how muskies do not use walleye as a primary food source. It is narrated by Ted Takasaki so hopefully that will help change the attitude of those who believe their walleye are being eaten by muskies.

I have read the same thing about the mortality rate and that is one place we need to focus on for education. It won’t happen overnight but I think if we keep spreading the word, we will make progress. How long did it take for C&R to become as accepted as it is today? Not overnight that is for sure. Keep spreading the news and things will change.

And last but not least, I agree that more lakes would be great. I have heard that the Gull Lake (Brainerd area), lake association has agreed to let the DNR stock muskies. That would be something if they pull that off!

[AWH]

First off, the DVD….it’s finished! This was put together by the DNR and the Brainerd Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. After a long, long wait, the video is finally complete. It’s about 12 minutes long and I was actually able to see the video at our last Muskies, Inc. meeting. Nice work by all involved in putting this together.

I agree that it’s really our responsibility to govern ourselves. If it’s a regulation, follow it. It’s amazing how many people feel that the regulations are for everyone but them. I guess to me, it still comes back to wanting to know the “why” when it comes to a certain date being set to end the season. I’m just interested to know what exactly they think this will help, what they are trying to avoid, or whatever the thinking may be.

As far as my idea of simply having a regulation state that you can’t ice fish for them, I really don’t see a gray area there. Maybe putting it that you “can not angle through the ice” for them would be a better way to put it. If a lake is only partially frozen, it would be legal to fish out of a boat, legal to stand on the ice and cast to open water (although probably not advisable if you value your life!). It would be illegal to fish for them through a hole in the ice. Again though, it’s a matter of what they are trying to accomplish with such a regulation.

Aaron

[RuKiddingMe]

In all honestly I don't have much to add. I completely without a doubt support the increased size limit, I think it is very necessary to build the Throphy fishery we are looking for.

What I want to comment on is a Few anglers posts, I totally respect these guys passion and voicing their opinion for what they beleive in. I truely think this kind of passion is what the majority of hardcore Musky anglers are made of, not necessarily their views but their paragraph after paragraph of voicing their opinions. It's people like these guys that make a difference for the small community of Musky anglers.

Right on guys.

RU

[barnyard]

Thinking more about the C&R mortality.... a guy, like RK for instance, probably does not have 10% of his releases kack. There are a bunch of folks that water release their fish at the boat, with very little fanfare. Probably less than 1% of their releases end up as turtle food. It happens.....

I would imagaine that many 1st catches, even if they are released, die shortly after.

It was over 15 years ago, but I still remember my 1st 2 fish. Caught them within 10 minutes of each other. In hindsight, they probably both died.....

I am guessing that many of you have never been to a DNR public meeting. It's an educational experience, to say the least. The cons to longer limits are not things I pulled out of thin air, they are attitudes that I have heard at public meetings.

Anyways.... I do like the idea of a longer limit, but for me, there are too many negatives, the biggie would be the effect that it would have in have lakes added to the program.

Tom B

[barnyard]

To add a bit more....

I applaud the Brainerd chapter for putting together the DVD. Hopefully, it will see a wide audience and maybe open a few eyes.

Some people, though, absolutely cannot be convinced. That guy on Pelican was an MI member for a year. He heard all the biology and all that, didn't matter. He joined MI to learn to catch muskies.

Anyways, this has been a civil, thoughful discussion and I really appreciate it.

Tom B

[Random guy]

Quote:

---

Anyways, this has been a civil, thoughful discussion and I really appreciate it.

Tom B

---

Yes it has been. I have been sitting back watching this thread and I am very impressed with everyone’s input, knowledge and well though out posts. We definitely have a good group of anglers discussing a very important topic and doing it in the up most professional manner.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Aaron,

I’m assuming you are a member of the Brainerd Lakes Chapter of MI? Will you be at the banquet on the 18th? I plan on being there with a few other North Metro members. We are looking forward to festivities!

[AWH]

Giant Jackpot,

I'll be there on March 18th! I've been a member of the Brainerd Lakes Chapter for a couple of years now. This year's banquet should be a great time. If you haven't been to any of the previous banquets, lots and lots of prizes to be given away. Last year it was over $30,000 worth and I imagine it will be at least that this year as well. Last year I came away with ZERO for prizes. So maybe my luck will be better this year. Even if I have the same luck though, it will still be well worth the price of admission. $15 to $25 door prize just for walking in the door, great raffles, good food, outstanding speaker in Dick Pearson, and a great goup of musky folks in attendance.

Aaron

[MuskyNutz]

To Aaron and Giant J:

I too must agree this has been a very interesting discussion. There isn't much more I can say that either of you haven't already mentioned. Keep the good posts coming. See you both at the BLC Banquet.

"Catch and Release fishing is a lot like golf. You don't have to eat the ball to have a good time."

[Random guy]

Quote:

---

"Catch and Release fishing is a lot like golf. You don't have to eat the ball to have a good time."

---

Now that is very true!

[sbro73]

Gotta Luv the feedback here !!! Lotta good points Pro and Con. I like the overwhelming consensus that it's the enviroment that sustains these toothy critters, is what really needs to be addressed !!! Thanks, for all the feedback and incite.

[dsludge]

I do not believe that more regulations will improve the quality of Muskie fisheries. However, the mere mention of changing the status quo will incite a healthy debate on most any subject - especially when it comes to religion (fishing) and politics (laws/regulations).

It is inevitable that increased interest in the great sport of Muskie fishing will pressure the resource. I have never kept a muskie. I have been lucky enough to release many big fish of several species. I tell anyone who expresses an interest and share with them my "fishing values". Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't.

Is it June yet?

dsludge