Minimum size increase for Cass Lake Chain

[Brian Jones]

Come and support the increased size limit for musky on the Cass Lake Chain. The proposal would increase the minimum from 40 inches to 48 inches. Meeting starts at 7:00pm on Thursday, September 21st at the Northwest Tech College in Bemidji.

Keep in mind the people against this will show up and cast their votes so if you are for the increased size limit be there!

[Harty1384]

they should make the minimum size 48" for the entire state or just catch and release.

[High Velocity]

I think there are better things that could be done! I don't like the thought of a fish that is gill hooked bad or just won't go has to be turned back wastefully. Granted you would have to do that now with fish under 40" if it's boosted to 48 you just increase the % of fish that would be affected. I personally would rather see a tag issued with the license for 1 and that info on harvest needs to go to the state. Might get a better look at what's pulled out where. Perhaps one could buy a second tag for $$$?? and that money goes directly toward stocking. Just thinking out loud.

[AWH]

There's a mortality rate with releasing muskies (like any species) no matter the size. But one thing is certain - the mortality rate is 100% on kept fish. The Cass Lake Chain is not only one that can support a 48" minimum but one that NEEDS a 48" minimum. Any system (such as Cass) that relies completely on natural reproduction in order to sustain its population needs the higher size limits.

Lower size limits simply encourage some people to keep smaller fish. If they know it's legal to keep, they don't take the extra care that is needed in order to release the fish successfully. Musky fishermen release nearly all of their fish to begin with. I don't personally know any musky fisherman that would want to keep a musky under 48". It seems as though regulations that allow one to keep a 40" musky are there for the people that don't fish for them. Why? We stock muskies and protect the fishery because there are people that want to fish for them. Why would we then establish regulations so that those that do NOT fish for them can be "happy". This is how I've always seen the smaller size limits, being that so few musky fishermen even consider keeping a fish these days, let alone a 40" fish.

Please support the Cass Lake size increase proposal, along with the other lakes around the state. Thanks for posting the info, Brian!

Aaron

[High Velocity]

On my wall is a 47 7/8" 30.25 pounds. A fish that, I believe, was not going to make it. It's a long and good story. I have caught plenty and have fished them since the early '80's. I've caught and released longer and maybe heavier and if all goes well may not keep another. I am just ok with the 48" minimum only because of the reason stated earlier. Doesn't everyone's money that buys a license go toward stocking?? So even if a person doesn't fish them they still have a say in what they want to see happen to the regs. Perhaps a Muskie stamp and only that money as well as donations from outside organizations go toward the stocking?? What has been the impact on size and numbers since the size went from 36" to 40"?? How many are actually harvested each year? Public input is great but I would like to see what the biologist say what the true impact of this regulation will be. Either way I'm not going to loose any sleep over this. I still like the idea of having a posession tag to see where fish are being harvested from and emphasize stocking on those lakes.

[Archery 1]

Hey Guys,

I think a 48 inch minimum would be great. But I heard that only half on the states great muskie waters are going

to be 48. They should make a statewide ruling to protect all

muskie waters. It's just not Cass lake area it's Leech and

Bemidji and several other lakes. I think this is agreat idea.

[randallt]

I know a guy that keeps any legal fish. In his case a 48" limit would be good, because he won't keep an illegal fish. I know he has eaten several 40 - 48 inch muskies and released many under 40. He is not a muskie fisherman, but catches a few every year bass fishing. In his case an increased minimum would save a few fish. I also agree that it is a terrible waste to release a fish that you know is not going to make it. I too would like to hear what a biologist would say about possible effects. Right now though I am in favor of the increase limit state-wide.

[wareagle]

I've heard about this regulation proposal. Personally, I'm neither for nor against it.

I've only been fishing muskie for a little over 3 years now and have been fortunate enough to land and release a 50" fish this year and unfortuante enough to have sink a dead 39" fish a couple of years back. Did sinking the dead muskie bother me. Not really, I look at it as part of fishing. The way I see it, the dead fish went back into the food chain and wasn't wasted.

To me, the regulation is more of a social issue than a biological issue. I believe one of the previous posts stated "Most muskie anglers release all their fish". If that is the case, then why do we need to increase the size regulation? To keep the anglers that don't fish them from keeping one? I have never kept a muskie nor will I ever keep one, but if I had one that died that was 42-48" I would much rather have the choice to mount it or donate it to a taxidermist rather than sink it.

Unfortuantely, catch and release will never happen as long as the state recognizes record fish. We tried adopting catch and release for lake sturgeon >50", but were told that since we recognize state records we had to adopt the 1 over 75" to recognize a record lake sturgeon.

Finally, if mortality is a problem, what about fishing when water temperatures exceed 80 degrees. High water temperatures and a long drawn out fight increases stress and will increase mortality.

These are my personal opinions, but one thing is for sure, if you are adamant about this regulation show up at the public meeting because contrary to what some say we (MN-DNR) do take your comments seriously.

Good luck fishing on any account though.

WAR EAGLE!!!

[AWH]

Quote:

---

Doesn't everyone's money that buys a license go toward stocking??

---

Your license money goes towards many things, not just stocking. And not every lake receives stocking. Cass Lake is one such lake that is not stocked with muskies and one that I don’t believe has ever been stocked. It relies 100% on natural reproduction.

Quote:

---

I believe one of the previous posts stated "Most muskie anglers release all their fish". If that is the case, then why do we need to increase the size regulation? To keep the anglers that don't fish them from keeping one? I have never kept a muskie nor will I ever keep one.

---

This is probably the number one reason for an increased size limit. Why are muskies stocked? It's because people enjoy to fish for them. If musky fishermen didn't exist, there would be no need to stock them. So why stock fish for those that fish for them and set regulations for those that do NOT fish for them? This is what a lower size limit does. Through no fault of their own, people who don’t fish for muskies generally are not educated on the fish. They don’t fish for them, so they don’t have a reason in their mind to be educated on them. Although a 40” to them might appear to be huge. This is far from a big fish when it comes to muskies. They also are not educated on musky populations and the effects that keeping these fish can have on the resource. They aren’t walleyes, where taking a limit of fish will not be noticeable to the fishery. Keeping a number of muskies, where populations are generally 4 to 5 adult fish per acre, this can obviously have a much more significant impact. Natural musky lakes like Cass Lake which rely completely on natural reproduction have even smaller musky populations than your stocked lakes.

Raising the size limit will not only keep more fish in the system. But it will also help to educate people. How will it do this? Take some of the southern states as an example where there is a 30” minimum on muskies. I don’t think anyone would argue that this is a very small musky. In these states because of the 30” minimum, it’s seen as no big deal to keep a small fish. The 30” minimum encourages harvest. If that size limit would increase to 48”, the regulation would no longer encourage harvest but it would encourage release. Larger size limits will naturally make people ask “why”. If they’re willing to be educated, they will understand the “why” and understand the importance of catch and release when it comes to muskies.

Quote:

---

Unfortuantely, catch and release will never happen as long as the state recognizes record fish.

---

Catch and release state wide will likely never happen. But 100% catch and release fisheries do exist. There are a couple of lakes in MN that currently have this regulation. And the proposal being put forward on this 48” minimum on many bodies of water also includes a 100% catch and release proposal for the Upper Mississippi River.

Quote:

---

Finally, if mortality is a problem, what about fishing when water temperatures exceed 80 degrees. High water temperatures and a long drawn out fight increases stress and will increase mortality.

---

Absolutely true. This is why most musky fishermen in the southern states put their musky gear away for the summer months. Or they pack up and head north where they can find cooler water. It’s a definite issue. And it’s been an issue this year in MN more than any year I can ever remember.

Aaron

[WMRP Member]

A size increase on muskies from 40" to 48" especially on lakes that do not get stocked and rely on natural reproduction to maintain a fishery makes perfect sense. I would personally like to see a 48" limit on all MN musky waters accept those that only have the Schoepac strain in them since the Schoepac strain rarely ever grows much larger than 40" anyway. With the amount of hard work the Mn DNR has put into its muskie program over the years as well as the hard work that muskie clubs have done to provide us a muskie fishery second to none in the US, a size increase would help relieve the burden of these organizations to maintain what they have worked so long and hard on and accomplished in the process. The Mn musky fishery is so impressive that musky lakes all over the state are seeing a huge increase in musky fishing pressure. Lots of people are actually choosing to go to Mn to fish muskies rather than going to Canada these days, not just because it is closer, but because the musky fishing in Mn is so impressive that it rivals some of the best and most popular Canadian waters. When you have more and more people targeting muskies on these Mn waters the number of anglers out there that plan to keep a musky will increase and mortality will increase also. This puts added risk on this resource. The Mn musky fisheries are just too valuable of a resource to fishermen, guides, resorts, and many other related and even unrelated businesses to not protect them with size increases. This size increase really needs to happen.

[MuskyBrian]

Guys, I can assure you that in 5 years or so you WILL see a difference in size of fish in that lake. I can use other lakes as an example....Up in Eagle Lake this year I have heard many anglers rave how they have never seen so many big fish as they have this year, within the past 5 years there was a recent upgrade in size minimums.

You may not see more muskies out there, but I can guarantee you will see bigger ones. 40" is a nice fish, but truly undersized to be considered a trophy.