Musky Alliance

[Magnummusky]

I have just read a post by Jason Schillinger about the proposed 45 inch limits on the petenwell flowage i think its a great idea to bump any limits up in any lake in this state the part i found disturbing is the alliances stance on this i belong to Bills Musky club in wausau i thought the whole idea of a musky club was to making a better musky fishery rather than to stop it dead in its tracks we are having our spring banquet next weekend and i will be interested to find out my clubs stance on this issue and then i will make a decision on whether to stay with this club or not Good Luck Jason

[Cast and blast]

Exactly what is the alliances stance on this? It seemed from your post that you have a feeling of what it is already? Cast-n-blast

[Jason Schillinger]

Thanks for the reply. We really need you out on April 8th guys and vote these limits in. It is only a resolution for us this year, but if it goes through, it will be an advisory question next year.

If you'd like to join our club let me know, we raise and stock fish in the WI Rapids, Nekoosa area each year. I can send you an application.

[dickp]

Hi.Just returned from the Musky Magic Show in New London,Wi.Great show and people and a wild,hairy ride home last nite in the snow,slush and ice.
Anyway I had the opportunity to meet and talk with a number of the Alliance people the day before the Show and at the Show.ALL that I talked to were in favor of trying higher size limits on some waters.A few were opposed to any change on some waters and their arguments on some of those waters made sense after listening to them.(we have a few lakes here in MN that are 'small'fish lakes as well.)
All the people I talked to were willing to listen to my points of view and had spent time thinking about this-not just reacting out of stubbornness or something.
I sure hope I'm not wrong but I think you will succeed in your 'higher limits'efforts.
Jason sorry you couldn't make it but was very nice to see some people I'd met years ago(such as Don Kempen)and to meet many others who's views on Petenwell and size limits in general were like yours.

[Jason Schillinger]

Thanks Dick, wish I could have made it!!!! I'll have to ask Donnie about the show and your talks!

[bob munsen]

The M C A W has it's #1 goal to promote the musky in almost every way possible in our state. Since 86% of all muskies caught are released anyway, you are really talking about the other 14%. The Alliance has always supported a 36 inch statewide size limit, with individual lakes differing based on some solid reasons. At the meeting it was asked by me if any current research has been down by the DNR on muskies in Petenwell and the answer was " not to our knowledge". Good intentions aside, we should not be backing any size limits, etc. W/O some solid facts to back them up. This just makes good sense when you try to look at musky regs statewide! We all want to improve our waters and our fishing, but we have to be careful that we don't picture ourselves as "elitists", snobs, or people who just want everything our way. Some people want to keep a fish , some big fish are going to die from handling, etc. , we should not accuse those people of being anti-conservationists or worse. We all know size limits are not the answer for all musky waters.There are no easy answers for all our lakes. The Alliance last year sent over $39,000.00 to it's member clubs for local musky projects. I ought to know, i'm the treasurer! Sincerely, Bob

[Magnummusky]

Sorry dick i just cant let this one pass bye i was at my spring gettogether for my local alliance club and it is just what i have said before these people do not want to raise the limits they say they could see them go up to 36 but what the ##### is that going to do for us NOTHING and everybody knows it I talked to people within this club that think this stance that their club is taking is a joke if we want to catch up to the standards that were set by minn and canada we have to start now the spring hearings are coming up soon and I hope any REAL MUSKYHUNTER will vote for what is right!

[Jason Schillinger]

Hi Bob. Thanks for the reply, and thanks for everything you and the alliance do for our clubs. I go pick up the boat Thurs. for the Nekoosa walleye days, and I hope we can sell enough tickets to feed our muskies this year again. That fundraiser(boat raffle) really helps the clubs with their projects, and I don't know where we'd be without it.

My question is, what type of research needs to be done on Petenwell in order to get support from the alliance for a higher limit. We have full support from our local fisheries manager(which should be enough), local clubs, local guides, local businesses, and most every local angler that we've surveyed. There needs to be no research done to show that Petenwell(and the WI river from Point to Castle Rock) is the biggest musky fishery in our state, and fuly capable of producing very large muskies. Watching as anglers(including a few musky anglers, but mostly bank anglers) take home 34-42" fish each and every year from a lake that cannot handle that kind of harvest(less than 3000 fingerlings stocked per year in a 23000 acre body of water on average). There has been enough research to show that the muskies are taking care of some of the carp in that body of water, so why not give them all a chance to "munch" their share.

There are plenty of musky lakes in WI(770 some), most of which have a 34" limit on them now. It only makes sense to manage some of these lakes to their potential. The WI river system has the size(acres), forage(more rough fish than any of the other lakes combined I'd bet), and low population density to warrant a higher limit. Further more, lets face it, the river is still not the cleanest of waters and I'd be willing to bet the muskies are not that great to eat down there, so why keep them?????

I've talked to reps. from a few different clubs from the area who are in the alliance, and all seem in favor so far. I just wanted to be able to put the Aliances signature on the Resolution at the hearings. The alliance(of which I am a member) is such a reputable organization and holds such clout among WI sportsmen that I'm sure it would pass as a landslide. It will be a year before it comes to an advisory question(if the res. even passes), and hopefully we have full support by then!!!!

[Brian Kronstedt]

I can not believe that any "conservation minded" organization would be against such a proposal that would be of such great benefit to this musky fishery. Petenwell is a unique situation that warrants such a restrictive size limit. Due to it's size, stocking numbers are very low for its surface area. There is virtually no musky fishing available nearby other than the Wis. River. Therefore regardless of wether or not these fish obtain trophy size, they are extremely important to have present to provide a quality fishery. Due to the abundant and diverse food source available, they could grow to trophy size. The majority of the fisherman are locals and there is little tourist $ influence. The fish are contaminated so supporting consumption of these fish is unwise. Typically there are enough fisherman nearby that if you asked they would come over and take a picture (I'd bet most would even mail you one if you happened to forget your camera and they had to use theirs). I do not feel we need "scientific evidence" to support this proposal. If our previous fish manager would have listened to the desires of a few anglers in regards to the walleye fishery here, we wouldn't be in such a sad state of "wishful recovery" we are in now with a too little too late slot limit. Fishing pressure here is and will continue to increase. It's much easier to apply preventative measures than recovery measures. Look at other lakes for example Lac Seul, Lake of the Woods, Rowan Lake, DePere walleyes - all have experienced an increase in the quality due to restrictive size limits and also experienced an increase in angler numbers as a result.