Forty Eight

[jonesen]

Rumor has it that their was a bill going around the legislature to raise the state minimum to 48" on muskie, does anybody have a bill number?

[St_Croix_Banks]

Heard that but honestly don't think its on the radar this session. Not really concerned either way. What's the down side to moving to 48"?

[mrklean]

Would be interesting if it passes

[goblueM]

I don't really see a downside of moving the limit up. Most muskie fishermen already practice CPR, or are more likely to get a replica IMO

[JRedig]

I don't really see a downside of moving the limit up. Most muskie fishermen already practice CPR, or are more likely to get a replica IMO

Muskie fisherman aren't the concern, IMO.

EDIT: sorry go blueM, i took your response the wrong way! Yep, i agree!

[goblueM]

exactly my point - the other people are. In which case, I don't think a minimum size will really do much. People that keep a muskie probably aren't going to be the most... cognizant... of regulations and ethics

[Nick Kuhn]

Probably a good time to mention in Wisconsin's Spring Hearings three lakes (all in Vilas County) are up for a 50" reg. Last year Bone and the Big Chip got this reg passed (see the 09 regulations), so those that can participate should do so and Wisconsin will have 3 more trophy lakes.

[propster]

I disagree goblue, greater minimum should be a big help - keep those 40-48" fish alive, lots of potential there as well as breeders. One lake that is currently only 40, lots of pictures of dead fish in the nearby gas station. And it's because they can.

[jonesen]

If you have extra minutes on your cell phone call some taxidermists and ask them how experienced they are at mounting muskies, how much they charge and things like that, you will be surprised at the answers you get, try calling some out of state taxidermists as well, you'll be shocked.

10 years ago a 50" muskie was the holy grail of fish, now I think it's a common accurance to here about, see or catch a fifty, why not protect them with higher limits.

[mainbutter]

I disagree goblue, greater minimum should be a big help - keep those 40-48" fish alive, lots of potential there as well as breeders. One lake that is currently only 40, lots of pictures of dead fish in the nearby gas station. And it's because they can.

I think he was saying that most people who keep small muskies don't care about size restrictions perhaps.

[goblueM]

yep thats what i was going for, although I agree in some spots people will follow the regs and keep legal muskies

[10,000 Casts]

48 would be a big step in the right direction imo.

[longhunter]

The problem we have in Wisconsin is the Indians spearing muskies through the ice. We got the 50 inch limit in Bone but the tribes are takeing out 160 muskies through the ice a year. We were just getting some nice size to our fish and the last 3 years they have pounded the lake during the winter. They have no limits through the ice.

[Muskiefool]

I wasn't aware of any legislation on the 48; the only things in the house version of the game bill would enhance the exploitation and increase pressure on the resources, nothing by way of conservation that I can see, and I'm not suprised.

[Musky Buck]

Hey Longhunter, my sister's family is in New Richmond, anyway, could this spearing happen on Mille Lacs in MN ? I'm not clear on the treaty rights but know the walleyes take a gashing every year, could this happen on Mille Lac's ? I'm guessing not.

[Musky Buck]

I'd like to see 48", at some point we'll tap out how high we can go unless it is catch and release only. I'm thankful many waters already went to 48. I could live with 48" being where it always will be. If some random person can haul an accidental 48"+ in and want to mount it that's ok by me. Sure I'd rather see it released, but think of the thrill some young kid might have with a big muskie. I do realize like deer hunting that pressure on the muskies is increasing yearly, what if gas wasn't out of this world last summer, still the boat ramps were packed where I go.

[Nick Kuhn]

Hey Longhunter, my sister's family is in New Richmond, anyway, could this spearing happen on Mille Lacs in MN ? I'm not clear on the treaty rights but know the walleyes take a gashing every year, could this happen on Mille Lac's ? I'm guessing not.

No. The big problem with spearing in Wisconsin is not so much that they can do it. It's that there's a loophole where only fish speared in the spring count toward the tribal "safe harvest limit". Anything done through the ice doesn't count towards that, so the safe harvest is exceeded yearly in quite a few waters (and in some cases very excessively exceeded). There is a some good news in that at least one tribe would like to see the treaties re-negotiated.

[mooneyes]

It should be set at 60 keep 'em swimmin

[propster]

Love it

[Quackaddict9]

nah, we need to get rid of them...they're eating all the walleyes, ya know?

[propster]

Yeah, I know, but I still say we parole 'em

[Quackaddict9]