State length limit from 40" to 48"

[Doonbuggy]

48" minimum statewide is a good place to start. Easy to remember, easy to enforce, easy to promote.

Wouldn't hurt to make it possession of 1 for the *season* as well, although the actual impact on the fishery is probably nil.

What surprises me is that for 2008 Minnetonka had no regulation whatsoever. A 48" minimum makes sense for a highly pressured lake like this.

DB

[Shawn Kellett]

"What surprises me is that for 2008 Minnetonka had no regulation whatsoever. A 48" minimum makes sense for a highly pressured lake like this."

Why do you think I was pushing so hard for a state wide 48" min?

[Cooter]

I think you guys should help us get our statewide limit up from the pathetic 34" it is to 40" first

[guideman]

We already have the 48 inch minimum here on Vermilion and I would support that number state wide as well.

In responce to Shacks last post;

Whaaat?????

"Ace"

Ace guide service.

[JimBuck]

I also stand behind the 48" minimum. I was exposed to some people at the landing who boated a few dinks on tonka and decided to keep them last summer. I don't want to turn this into a big C&R shouting match but it seems there's still a large percentage of people that feel they need to keep everything. 98% of my fish I let go unless I'm north of the border and we plan on having a fish fry that night.

[BullFighter]

No need for 48" Min Statewide.

Would do little to no good.

And might even prove to be harmful in certain Lakes.

[HuntBigFish]

Why wouldn't it do any good? I don't think that hardly any muskies are kept by musky fisherman, but what about the walleye and bass guys. Think of the 45 inchers, the prime spawners. My vote is definately for 48, the sooner it's put in effect the better!

[Shawn Kellett]

Leave it to the guy who comes from the state of muskie fries and little fish to comment on how MN is running their program.

Tell you what, when WI starts drawing more MN muskie fishermen then MN drawing WI fishermen to their state to fish then you can talk. Until then I think you're DNR should start taking notes...

[Nick Kuhn]

Leave it to the guy who comes from the state of muskie fries and little fish to comment on how MN is running their program.

Tell you what, when WI starts drawing more MN muskie fishermen then MN drawing WI fishermen to their state to fish then you can talk. Until then I think you're DNR should start taking notes...

The WI DNR is also suggests higher length limits in many cases. If lake associations don't go along with the special regs then they are never implemented. I know a 50" reg was suggested for Bone, but never was implemented...

[eyehead]

Well put Shawn.... The MN DNR, muskies inc, and other muskie supporters have done one [PoorWordUsage] of a job building some of the best muskie fisheries in the country.

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

Well put Shawn.... The MN DNR, muskies inc, and other muskie supporters have done one [PoorWordUsage] of a job building some of the best muskie fisheries in the country.

yes sir. and it's our job and responsibility as fishermen to maintain it's stability. IMHO, of course. i'm always amazed when i think about how few lakes we have that are designated as muskie waters and still keep them producing. i'd bet the actual hours spent on the water muskie fishing in this state is at least ten fold or more than it was in 1996 when two recorded 50 pounders were caught, one in leech and i think lake bemidji . now it seems like there are alot more caught. granted theres more lakes and more care taken by the DNR fisheries, MI and others but i'm still impressed. if this went through i'd bet the record would be broke right here in the metro.

i told this story before but i'll tell it again... back in the late 80's, this is as i remember it, tennesee decided to try and stock some minnesota walleyes in their waters. see, minnesota walleyes live about a third or more longer of a life span than the shorter lived but larger, faster growing tennesee cousins. the thought was if it lives longer then in the warmer climate it may... get that?... MAY... not slow it's growth like in the colder winter months here. it took the tennesee fisheries over 20 years to find out that, no, they don't get bigger. they just live longer and grow slower. not bigger. not even a bigger average than here. now? they have to find out what kind of impact it's going to have on their native fish populations' gene pool being contaminated by basicly an induced invasive species. it'll be 20 more years or even more before they know..... where i'm going with this is this.... tennesee's walleye fishery was fine, the world record holder even out of old hickory.(recently debated by a study of the pics) but they wanted more. as a result they lost maybe the best walleye fishery in the world. and they won't know for at least 20 years if they have. all for one reason. not doing enough study. just jumped right in head first. minnesota has the goods now so lets just be carefull, is MHO. lol, back in the, what was it, 40's the national fisheries campaigned and stocked carp nation wide thinking they'd go over well. that worked like a charm huh?

i still would vote for it. i'd just be nervous i'm making a mistake. thats all.

[TBone1]

Just a thought as I jump into the middle of this.

Why not all C & R or at least raise to 50 or 52" in select lakes?

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

Why not all C & R or at least raise to 50 or 52" in select lakes?

i'm all for C&R only. but that would be unrealistic. for one, a lot of fish die and have to be kept, which is a waste and would be so even at 48''. basicly, the bigger the fish the easier it is to kill it outside it's own element. in other words it's more fragile out of the water. second, C&R only would be impossible to push through the powers that be. heck even in this hurricane of lack of interest by the young they won't even put a second line on the table. i doubt thet'd back that lol. not too mention the visitors not keeping their trophy's.

Quote:

50 or 52" in select lakes?

sure that would be worth a study,IMO.

[Nick Kuhn]

Quote:

50 or 52" in select lakes?

sure that would be worth a study,IMO.

A few lakes in Wi have 50", can't say it has helped all that much. Either people aren't following it, tribal spearing renders it useless, or the fish simply aren't getting that big but there isn't a whole lot of difference between them and the nearby 40" lakes.

[TBone1]

[

. for one, a lot of fish die and have to be kept,

[cherokee]

48-50" would be great but I think better education on handling would save a lot more muskies. I think most people practice catch and release. But the majority I bet do not properly handle the big fish. Gotta get that picture and measurement no matter what. Drop the girl in the boat. Fins all beat up in the net. Seen too many muskies floating. Never could figure out why the measurement thing became such a big deal.

Raise the limit to 50", issue a tag for one musky a year that could be kept (if one must be kept at all) and advocate water release. Just a thought.

[Shawn Kellett]

The DNR was hesitant to go from 40-50 in one shot. That's why we're starting with 48 across the board. We had 48 on a few lakes starting a couple years ago. The next step is to get 50-something passed on a few lakes like Leech to get people thinking about it. Then we can go higher after people are used to it.

[Silver Scale]

Baby steps are alot easier to swallow than long jumps. I assume lakes with only Shoepac strain would stay at current 40 inches. Biologically I don't think they could ever reach 48, heck only one in a million get to 40. 48 inches accross the board would make enforement easier. Cherokee has it right on the education. Seen too many anglers fishing without proper release equipment or any idea how to use it. How come they always seem to catch the giants. Bring them into the boat flopping around, long photo sessions, dropped once or twice then put back in the water only to swim away and die from delayed mortaility. Education, Education, Education is paramount if we want to maintain what we have.

[Cooter]

We've been putting Leech strain in Wissota here in WI for several years now - it will be interesting to see how well they do. It might be tough with only a 34" size limit on the lake, not gonna get too many 50s if they go home when they're only 40.

MN has it very good right now, not to say it can't improve but you're leaps and bounds ahead of most states.

[SHAQ]

48 inch on minnetonka would help big time, i personally here of dozens of them pre fabs mounted every season.

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

they always seem to catch the giants. Bring them into the boat flopping around, long photo sessions, dropped once or twice then put back in the water only to swim away and die from delayed mortaility. Education, Education, Education is paramount if we want to maintain

about, i don't know 7 or 8 years ago i stopped my pics at 46'''s, anything under never even seen a net if i could avoid it. last winter i decided on 50'' no pics or net for '08. eventually i'll up that to never. i want to get a cap camera and film them instead. that would be cool. a little jumpy maybe but still cool.

my thought is this. if a person isn't sure or just plain doesn't know what to do with a fish that size, it should never leave the water unless the plan is to keep it. period. because no matter how carefull a person is it's probably not carefull enough to ensure survival. anyway, that's my rant, lol.

[SHAQ]

ah theylle be all right

[propster]

Huh??

[BullFighter]

Leave it to the guy who comes from the state of muskie fries and little fish to comment on how MN is running their program.

Tell you what, when WI starts drawing more MN muskie fishermen then MN drawing WI fishermen to their state to fish then you can talk. Until then I think you're DNR should start taking notes...

[dcmusky]

Dude you should change your name from bullfighter to bullsh%#er. Not every muskie guy owns a Ranger, oh and the poor lakeshore owner who contracts every weed bed infront of his dock be killed. Yeah would hate to have a balanced fishery, maybe we could have more lakes like Shields, you know, a shift from a fishery mainly composed of perch& blue gills but now the pike 5yrs & older are now gone becouse of angler exploitation. Guess what genius, the biomass has shifted to bullhead & sheephead. yep kill all the big ones, nothing like a great bullhead fishery. Go to lake finder & check the status of the fishery report if you don't believe me. With the damage done to our pike fishery we need muskies to return the balance.