Thoughts on some numbers

[Nick Kuhn]

A few numbers from the Wi DNR;

 Quote:

Top targeted fish, by fish group No. of fish caught No. of fish harvested

All panfish caught: 57,728,758 kept: 25,732,346

Walleye caught: 7,068,112 kept: 2,155,626

All bass caught 10,073,286 kept 550,335

All trout caught 1,615,190 kept 497,783

Muskellunge caught 223,101 kept 12,493

Northern pike caught 3,158,927 kept 621,700

Catfish caught 777,094 kept 535,658

source: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/#art1

To me it appears as though bass are the only species that are released often enough, and the fishing is representative of that. Muskies are probably slightly overharvested considering the typical reproductive rates they have. The rest though appear to be harvested far too often. I think about 10% harvest is right for panfish, 5% for bass walleye and pike, and maybe 2% for muskie would really create some high quality self sustaining fisheries.

Thoghts/comments on these numbers (particularly the pike)?

[Sifty]

I would have guessed the pike harvest numbers would have been higher.

It seems when you see someone caught a pike it is kept.

Sifty

[Nick Kuhn]

Keep in mind all of Southern WI has special pike regulations (min length) and quite a few of the popular lakes have min lengths as well.

[BobT]

I always figure bass aren't kept because they taste like [PoorWordUsage]. Especially LM in summer.

I don't know if I would agree with your preferred harvest percentage though, especially with walleye and pike. One fish out of 20 would require a lot of work to bring home a fillet.

I do agree that the 30% harvest for walleyes is high and reducing the harvest would go a long way toward improving the numbers. I just don't think reducing it to 5% is practical.

Bob

[cjac]

As with any data set, you can spin the numbers a million different ways. I'm bored so I'll try.....

First off, this is Wisconsin data. Not to ruffle feathers, but I feel Minn is ahead of Wis in the overall management of muskie programs. That said, Wis has a lot more muskie water, so it's not in the same situation as Minn. Minn anglers are pretty passionate about their muskies, look at the posts about the now famous 'tonka muskie. Wis is passionate too, there is a firestorm of debate over the harvesting and protection of the Green Bay muskies.

This data is likely from angler survey, and not respondants are truthful in any survey. Still, it gives a good base point.

Pike: You would really have to see a breakout by size of fish kept. In most cases the more small fish kept within reason the better off the fishery is, it's the harvest of the larger fish that has the bigger impact. A healthy pike pop. of diverse year classes helps keep a lake in balance, reducing the potential for a lake overrun with 5 inch sunfish. I do think the level of respect for pike and their role in the lake balance is somewhat overlooked.

Muskies: There will always be fish kept, and it's totally legal. Simple as that. However, a Minn statewide 48 minimum wouldn't bother me at all! This 5% or so kept is a lot lower than it would have been 20 years ago, so definite progress has been made.

Panfish: To generalize, keeping a mess of "cleaner" sized pannies is a good thing. Flip side is keeping a mess of 12 inch crappies by pulling them off spawning beds and doing the same the next day and the next day is not a good thing.

Size ranges of fish kept for all species would make this data a lot more interesting.

Chris

[hanson]

69% harvest on Catfish. Yikes!

Based on my experience on the rivers in Minnesota, we are way ahead of WI on C&R pertaining to cats.

[cjac]

Hanson,

The cat number floored me too!!! I just don't know enough about the Wis cat fishery to comment. How much of this is stocked ponds? I have no idea, but it threw me for a loop too....

You flattie guys here treat those fish like we do the muskies, like a treasure! Y'all go one further and kiss and lick them though....

Chris

[Grant Pearson]

I, too, was surprised by the cat numbers!!! I've only brought home 1 cat that I've caught in my life, and I spend A LOT of time pursueing them in the summer. I will agree that the percentage of muskies kept could go down, as well as possibly pannies. One thing to keep in mind though, is you can't have the percentage too low, or stunting will start taking place.

[Nick Kuhn]

My guess is the size distribution is heavily skewed towards the larger fish for pike and panfish, just based on what I've experienced. The regs are different and I think that is the biggest impact. If fisherman were managing themselves properly then there wouldn't be any need for special regulations.

For muskies WI is an entirely different animal, they do that A1, A2, B, C type management. Actually they have a couple A2 lakes with too many muskies in them, and a high percentage are self sustaining. Population-wise Wisconsin does very well, size wise not as much so, but they have a lot of small lakes that probably can't hold 50" class fish.

And BobT, would you rather catch fish consistently and release them all or get skunked fairly often and keep the few you catch.

[Grant]

 Originally Posted By: cjac

...{snip)

You flattie guys here treat those fish like we do the muskies, like a treasure! Y'all go one further and kiss and lick them though....

Chris

only a peck on the cheek! (usually )

[cjac]

 Quote:

only a peck on the cheek! (usually )

As you cat guys say..... I've "got clicker" and a couple glass rods! Hope to hit a river with y'all this spring/summer. Not sure about the kissing part though.....

Chris

[cjac]

Couple points of interest:

This was a mail-in survey, so it doesn't reflect and represent all anglers. I'm generalizing a bit, but more often the conservationist minded anglers are the ones that respond......

Muskies caught and kept by "Little Billy and his Snoopy pole" off the end of the dock may not be reflected here.

Wisconsin has over 800 muskie waters compared to Minn with around the 120 range. Big difference.....

Chris

[MUSKY18]

 Originally Posted By: cjac

 Quote:

only a peck on the cheek! (usually )

As you cat guys say..... I've "got clicker" and a couple glass rods! Hope to hit a river with y'all this spring/summer. Not sure about the kissing part though.....

Chris

Chris:

Just like kissing your first girlfriend....pucker up, close your eyes and hope you hit the spot!!!!

[frogtosser]

mmmm yummy

[Cooter]

I ought to just stay out of this but....lets just say I'm not impressed with the management of muskies in WI - although needed change is coming but way too slow. Couple lakes each year get an increase in size limit, couple get the OK for leech fish for comparison studies, and we need a stamp or similar system in place. The DNR might wake up some day and figure out how valuable big muskies are and treat them accordingly. For heavens sake, look how many guys from WI are traveling to MN or Can! Tourists aren't gonna quit walleye fishing on lake X because if they accidentally catch a musky they won't be able to keep it without having a stamp. Lakes that just don't grow big muskies? Try stocking different strains. Apples and oranges comparing Mille Lacs to most smaller WI waters but I'm pretty sure some small MN lakes are kicking out big fish. DNR here says we don't need a larger size limit on Wissota or a stamp or a different strain to stock but they can't tell you why 50 inch fish are so incredibly far and few between. Enough of my blah, blah, blah, sorry - kinda, not really Gotta [PoorWordUsage] and moan every once in a while to get things done.

Catfish....I would think more harvest of channels than flatties, I hope so anyways.

[BobT]

I'm not against C&R. I do it all the time. I rarely keep any fish unless I plan on a meal. Come check my freezer, you won't find more than one meal in there.

I could understand your question if I had suggested considerably higher harvest rates, but 5% higher than yours? I don't think I'm asking too much. I do agree with you that 30% for walleyes is excessive, which is what your stats suggest. I just think that expecting a reduction to 5% is also excessive in the opposite extreme and maybe even my recommendation of 10% is pushing it.

The fishery isn't here exclusively for the C&R crowd, sorry. In fact, it was placed here by our creater for the harvest crowd but it has been left up to us to manage it, not stop using it alltogether.

I just think there has to be some willingness to compromise in good faith. Personally, I'm not interested in continuing to sink mega bucks into walleye stocking programs for lakes that can't or never did support the species naturally if I am not allowed, either legally or ethically, to harvest at least some resemblance of a fair return. If our efforts can't support at least 10% harvest then I would be inclined to think it's time to cut our losses now and start gearing our efforts where we can get a better return for our buck.

Bob

[Muskiefool]

For the most part MN and Canada are the only 2 places on the planet that don't treat Muskies as a Put and Take, WI stocks a ton of fish to fill that need for meat, several years ago at the symposium the MN DNR went down to tell about how they manage for Muskie, it took about 5 Min for them to lose the entire country, we just do things different, it's the only way we will be able to maintain or fisheries in light of all we are up against with VHS and comprehensive C&R practices to avoid losing our big fish and costing us excessive amounts of money to maintain, possibly the stupidest thing Ive ever heard about Muskie management come on a WI site regarding KY, it was said that KY manages for Trophy Muskie and Numbers, Ive yet to find a MN biologist that can agree with the possibility's of this.

Simply put you cannot selectively harvest just the big fish and have trophy potential or a healthy Muskie populations, while zero mortality and harvest is impossible to attain even on C&R waters due to poaching and Hooking/Delayed mortality, there are things we can do to lower the risks.

Muskies are far to valuable to the People and the State of MN to be managed the way other states do.

It seems sometimes we take the resources we have for granted be it any fish or game, till we over harvest or damage it, right now we are enjoying the best Muskie fishing on earth I hope we can hold on to that.

[PDXFisher]

 Originally Posted By: Muskiefool

It seems sometimes we take the resources we have for granted be it any fish or game, till we over harvest or damage it, right now we are enjoying the best Muskie fishing on earth I hope we can hold on to that.

I often wonder if Minnesotans know how lucky they are. In Oregon, we're supposed to be some sort of fisherman's paradise and I suppose in some ways (fly fishing for trout, Sturgeon, Smallies and Walleye in the Columbia) it is. It is getting much less so with the onslaught of Californian immigrants turning rivers where you would once only see a few people a day into combat fisheries. The Salmon are disappearing, followed closely behind by the Steelhead. Washington seems to be doing better, but they have much bigger runs. At least they have taken to stocking Tigers in seven different lakes in the state to control Pikeminnow and Tui Chub populations.

But that I am doing everything I can to move to MN for a month here & there in the summer and fall speaks volumes for the opportunities afforded the fisherman by the MN DNR. I'm even having a hard time deciding if I want to go to Alaska to fish for King Salmon or just put everything in the Minnesota basket in June and Sep-Oct. July is probably the worst Muskie month and that's King time in AK, so maybe I can do both (I can dream, anyway).

All's I'm saying is, y'all have it good and I hope you realize it.