What should Wisconsin's statewide minimum size limit be?

[AWH]

[Phishin]

I know you Wisconsin guys aren't gonna like this, but I think if WI has any chance of being a musky fishery like Canada or MN even, it's gonna have to increase its size limits and lock up it's Indians.

[55starfire]

i was waiting for this poll to come up...

zach sanders

[Don Pfeiffer]

Guys see my post on muskiefirst"show me where in wisconsin bigger size limits work...... They have not not as far as I can see. The srain of musky we have is what we have. You cannot compare them to the others especially the spotted. This is an age old arguement and we have to look at the Bone lake study and the lakes that have had higher size limits for some time. I fish several and do not notice any more big fish then befor. lets see what happens in the winnebago system with the spotted they are stocking.
We beg for more and bigger and to be honest we should be happy we have the great fishing we do in wisconsin, Yes it would be nice to have some trophy lakes and I believe the stocking of the spotted is the way to go.
God I love catching them even if there only 40 inches. please look at that post some great replies.
Sorry to mention the other site guys.
Don Pfeiffer

[45"]

Any 34" Wisconsin kept Musky regardless of the strain certainly has the potential of becoming a 20 pounder.

[Muskyhoun]

I don't know what I did wrong on the above post but my username didn't come up. I'm strongly for a 45" size limit statewide in
Wisconsin. I've been fishing Little St. Germain off and on since the early sixties and I think raising the size limit on that lake is going to definitely make a big difference within the next five to ten years. Fishing pressure on that lake even back then was too great. It was a heavily stocked lake and many of them never got a chance to grow up. Back then the size limit was 30" and I remember catching about three dozen in one season on this lake and 70% of those were undersized. I've been a catch and relase fisherman from back then already but the majority of fishermen were keeping everything over the 30" size limit. I was really happy to see the size limit raised to 45" on Little Saint. A beautiful body of water.

[MuskieMike]

I just went into my local bait shop tonight before I went out fishing (boated 1 33"er if anyone cares) and there was a polaroid taken today in the parking lot of a 46 1/2"er caught in a local lake and kept ... I have no idea if this guy planned on mounting it or what but it just made me sick ... This wasn't from a big lake with a lot of natural reproduction and the numbers of fish in my area are way down (what I believe is due largely to uncontrolled spearing) ... There is no doubt in my mind we need to preserve the fish we do have and even if they don't grow to be 40 pounds, i guarantee they'll have a lot better chance than they will hanging on some guy's wall ... the limit needs to be atleast 48" in wisconsin lakes ... I don't think any reasonable musky fisherman would consider a 46"er a true "trophy" fish and shouldn't have any reason to keep it ...

Mike

[?]

It always seems to be length limit increases to improve the fishing, why doesn't the idea of one pole per angler ever seem to be brought up. I imagine that would affect 'your' type of fishing too much.

[Big Fish]

One pole per angler would effect more then just musky fishermen. It would effect all fishermen. Good luck getting that passed in this state. Lets start where we have a chance and can get the most done.

[?]

Then in two years this can start all over again but instead of 'people keeping too many 36" fish' you can change it to 'people keeping too many 40" fish'. I suspect the issue is the fishermen, not the size of the fish.

[mps1168]

In Wisconsin, Especially in the North..UNTIL THE SPEARING IS STOPPED A LONGER LIMIT WILL NOT DO US REAL FISHERMEN ALOT OF GOOD. Go through your old Musky Hunters and find the back page article about the indians spearing on Big St Germain, I may be wrong about the lake, but anyway, they where on the ice spearing, some with no spearing permits and with numerous small 30inch or so musky on the ice and got busted by the warden. There fines? A few measly hundred dollars--big deal. If the laws are going to allow spearing then its time to get out the canoes and sharp sticks and do it like the intent when it was written--BACK IN THE 1800"s. They got the casino's get off the lakes and stop killing the fish.

[JEM]

From my experience, fish up to 40" seem to be much easier to release quickly and easily. The fish pushing 50" need a whole lot more attention to revive them and to carefully handle them. So for general size limits, 40" seems logical. I am all for special lakes with much higher size limits though.

[jlong]

I don't believe a "one size limit fits all" approach is the answer. Although it would be difficult task... I'd like to see size limits established on an individual basis. Things such as size, forage, fertility, fishing pressure, etc. should be considered.

Maybe as a first step, the size limit could be based on acreage. Something like 300 acres or less = 35 inch minimum, 300 to 1000 acres = 40 inch minimum, 1000 to 2000 acres = 45 inch, and greater than 2000 acres possibly 48 or 50?

I'd even be open to considering legalizing trolling on the larger lakes then as well too.

jlong

[Don Pfeiffer]

Think in answering this question you have to be sure its STATEWIDE. I think many of us that have voted for the smaller limits realize a 45 or bigger limit on many lakes would be foolish.
Don Pfeiffer

[DanKlis]

Both Canada and Minnesota have the size limits on a lake to lake basis. And there are more big fish in these two places than in Wisconsin. "The Golden Age of Muskie Fishing" is taking place outside of Wisconsin. Al Maas just released a 57 incher on Leech, I personally have not heard of a fish this size being caught in Wisconsin (except for maybe Green Bay). I believe Jason is on the right track.

Dan

[?]

Minnesota does not have a lake by lake size limit. They have a statewide limit of 40" with exceptions. Designated brood lakes @ 48" and shoepak lake with a smaller size due to the fact that that type of muskie has a hard time reaching 40". Still think that limiting anglers to one line would have a better effect than lenght limits would.

[esoxcpr]

I don't think that 48" or 50" is a reasonable number for a statewide limit in Wisconsin. Most fish in Wisconsin waters won't even reach those lengths if allowed to live out their life naturally. Certainly some lakes will grow larger fish than others, and some fish will grow to lengths in excess of 50", but most fish will never reach that size. I agree that some lakes need larger size limits and it should be more lake dependent, but remember that 1/4 of all Wisconsin's musky lakes have limits right now that are 40" or higher. That equals around 200 lakes with higher size limits that are in place today. I have seen no evidence of larger fish in any of those lakes as compared to 10 years ago. The reason in my opinion is that most fish simply don't grow that big in most lakes. I have caught or seen plenty of fish in the 45 to 48 range that were clearly very old and on the decline having never reached the sizes that some people want the limit set at.

I think that 40" is reasonable for a statewide minimum with certain trophy lakes being 45" or maybe even 48".

[steve]

Like some others have said, it's not so much the lakes ability to kick out large fish but it's more of a function of the anglers mindset within the state. WI fisherman continually return fewer fish to the water.

Some have argued that a 45" minimum wouldn't make sense for some lakes. Why does anyone need to keep a smaller fish??????

Indians, sucker fishing and most importantly angler mindset is limiting the production of what was once a good musky fishery!

[MuskyGal]

God, this is probably going to cause a problem, but I don't see any reason to keep any muskies at all, with reproductions available. I just don't like the thought of killing the poor musky just because it was hungry and ate a bait. I am not trying to create a board war here this is just my opinion.

I know up in Northern Wisconsin, NO smallmouths are kept during a certain time limit( as far as I know) and the fishery is tremendous.
I don't see why something like this could be done for certain lakes for muskies too.

Also, I am not a spearing fan, but that is a whole other ball of wax that is not going to go away for a long time.

[esoxcpr]

Lots of very good points made. I'd like to clarify a few of mine. First, I have never kept a musky and never will. The words "statewide limit" are the key here. On certain lakes that don't have the potential to grow big fish, a 45" - 48" fish would be representative of catching a 50 pound fish somewhere else. A 45 would almost certainly be the largest fish in the lake and would potentially be the largest fish ever caught in that body of water. In other words, a true trophy in any sense of the word. Why would someone not be allowed to keep such a rare and impressive catch out of that body of water if they choose? People have to remember that there are around 800 lakes in Wisconsin that contain muskies, with the great majority of them being smaller shallower lakes that don't have the potential to grow many if any 50 inch fish. The statewide limit has to be representative of ALL musky lakes in the state, not just a select few trophy lakes. As I stated before, there are around 200 lakes in the state that have a 40" or higher limit right now which is probably a larger number of lakes with a 40 or higher limit than in most if not all other states. Why are there not more and larger muskies taken out of lakes that have had these larger limits for some time than out of lakes with the 34" limit? Can anyone truthfully say that there are more and larger muskies in Trout lake (45" limit) than in other similar lakes with a 34" limit like North Twin or Fence? I agree that there should be a higher statewide limit, but going too high will do more harm than good on most lakes. I also agree that there are many lakes that could have a 45 or higher limit, but that would never work as a statewide limit simply because of the number and lake type of the majority of Wisconsin's musky waters.

[kmon]

Playing hookey from work ...

esoxcpr makes some good points ...

But with recent data off Georgian Bay seeming to show that muskies have to get to a fairly hefty size before they start to reproduce. And walleye data showing that older breeders are more successful. And create better adapted to local conditions offspring due to their reactions to local stresses ... I would think you'd want to do what Ontario is planning (did?) on Georgian Bay. A 52" limit. On waters that don't support that age/growth you'd in effect be making the waters catch and release and improving your chances of developing more of a local strain. Genetically a musky, but modified by stress to be more flexible under local conditions. Certainly on the Rideau where I fish, this is "small water". Yet we grow numbers of thirty,forty lb fish. Clearly these fish have adapted to local conditions.

As a postnote: I feel MuskieMike's pain. We had a 46" thirty pounder, quite a bulky boy, kept by bass fishermen ... to keep in the freezer to show friends. ouch.