View Full Version : Wisconsin rule changes I'd like to see,
Don Pfeiffer
05-02-2002, 09:18 AM
I have been doing alot of research comparing us to other states. I believe there are several things to be considered. No state has as many lakes to manage for muskies as we do. Minnesota has about 120 compared wisconsin 700 and some. Many of these under under 300 acres and even more under 500. I would loke to see the following things happen.
1. One line per angler as this would eliminate dragging a sucker as you cast or having two or more out if your fishing alone. Meat anglers pair up and will be floating 4 at a time.
2. When you uy a license you have a choice. A license with a keeper tag. You'd get two tags or a srictly catch and release permit for muskies. This would be regular price and the license with tags $50.oo more. You can but alot of fish for that guys.
3. Another option would be a musky stamp with money raised to go for strictly muskie research and stocking. This would have to be earmarked.
4. I also feel that wisconsin anglers have to really have to the state to eliminate winter spearing of muskies by the native americans. You have no clue as to how many are taken this way and the tribes don't have to count these in their count.
5. We also need the native american to enforce their own rules and regulations with stiffer fines and penaltys. We have the fox guarding the hen house here guys.
These are just some things I feel could help. I still believe the d.n.r can be talked into trying the slot on some lakes. I have been told it works with northern pike and I think its worth a try. We can make it beter and still meet everyones needs and desires.
Don Pfeiffer
I like the idea for having a Muskie stamp for the license. They have them for trout and salmon, why not for muskies?
Why are you against the three line max per fisherman? I see the only way to knock the limit down would be to do that across the board.. one line in the water per person. Personally, I have never gone after muskies with more than one line (although I intend to try dragging a sucker this early season to see if it pays off), but I regularly fish for walleyes and panfish with multiple poles.
Native American accountablitly is necessary.. big time. I agree 100%.
-------------
I guess the way that these rule changes can be implemented are going through the same process with the DNR that were needed to change the size limits this past April. Some of the changes would be more difficult than others (particularly the ones reguarding the spearing, ect) as they are more political. With that being said, How do we start the process? I am willig to help in any way that I can!
Da Bears
05-02-2002, 10:08 AM
I agree with #'s 2-5, especially, #2 and 3. Paying for a keeper tag is definitely a good idea, and I like that better than a musky stamp idea. By getting a keeper tag, that would help bring awareness to how fragile muskies an be, and would promote CPR. Plus, it would generate funds to keep stocking lakes with Muskies! Great idea, Don!
I will have to disagree with the 1 line per angler. When I cast for muskies, I never have a sucker on a second line, and I have yet to see someone doing that while I have been fishing. In the fall, when you primarily use suckers, I don't see a problem with drowning 2 of them per angler. Then you can try different depths! I would say that the majority of musky anglers do not do this, but at least they have the option!
MN
Mike Deiss
05-02-2002, 10:54 AM
Don-
You're killing me. Why, why, why would you want to change the three line per angler rule? If you believe it's only meat hunters who run more than one line, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your other points have merit.
Mike Deiss
Steve Cady
05-02-2002, 11:15 AM
Nice post Don I agree with most of what you say.
Just wondering on what affect this has on a smaller lake vs a larger one? IE: You state lakes under 300 acres....Vs. what? and how does this affect what you are saying?
S
Tom B
05-02-2002, 12:43 PM
The best way to make the tribes more accountable (IMHO), would be to make everyone more accountable. Increase the fines for all levels of poaching and illegal harvest and stick to everyone that breaks the law.
tom B
Jason Schillinger
05-02-2002, 12:56 PM
Don, have to disagree with #1 first and foremost. I'm a totally catch and release guy, but do love to drag a sucker in the fall. What is the harm, may I ask? Am I at an advantage? Am I garunteed more muskies? I wish this were the case. This nit picking about guys dragging a sucker, which has been as much of a tradition in WI as the Packers and beer, has to stop. I tie up my own quick set rigs, and am very effective at using them. Why not afford anglers every opportunity to boat more fish? I, first and foremost, love to catch muskies, and using livebait at specific time periods of the year affords me the opportunity to advance my potential. My $.02
Lets try doing the right thing first, and that is raising size limits on waters that are in dire need of it. If the obvious solution does not work, then maybe we can try something else. I can assure you, many(not all) lakes will benefit from a size limit increase, and the results will be start to be realized within seasons one time.
Mike Deiss
05-02-2002, 03:18 PM
Jason-
Excellent response. I agree with you 100%.
Mike Deiss
Chuck Altamore
05-02-2002, 03:53 PM
Hey Don, those are some interesting thoughts now here are mine.
On rule #1, NO WAY would I vote for that change for a number of reasons that are to many to mention.
Rule #2 and #3, These are ones that I can live with and would vote for as long as the funds raised went to help our fishery and ONLY with that stipulation would I vote for those.
Rule #4 and #5, well all I can say is I would give my left testicle to get those passed.
Again Don, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I STILL DISAGREE with the slot limit for muskie, EVERY fishery bioligest I've spoken with feels it just wouldn't work for this speicies. Your comparing apples and organges with your Northerns vs Muskies opinion, look at the population difference between the two for just one example. I still beleive that higher size limits (40ins) across the board with certain limitations on certain eco-system ie. lower for bodies of water that won't support a 40in (and those are few) and higher (45 to 50) on our trophy eco-systems that will support that limit, by the way, these were not thought of by myself, these are the opionions of the same bioligest I was refering to, but I do Agree with them. Just my two cents.
Chuck Altamore
http://www.altamoreguide.com
Johnnie
05-02-2002, 04:26 PM
Jason
In your first paragraph first you state "Am I at an advantage? Am I guaranteed more muskies?" I wish this was the case." later in the same paragragh you state "Why not allow anglers every opportunity to boat MORE fish?" You seem to be contradicting your first statement with your later statement.
It is my opinion, the three line law in WI is the most important of all WI DNR regs which need changing. I challenge anyone to state there would be equal or more mortality of any species of fish with a one line law verses a three line law. Remember I am talking mortality not necessarily harvest. I feel the more times a fish is caught, the greater the chance of some kind of mortality, harvest included. The more lines used per angler, I feel the greater the chance of a catch.
Although not popular with most anglers, I feel the reduction of the three line limit in WI, would do more to increase size structure of WI's various fish species, than most other law changes. Especially with our rather smallish lakes. No matter what we increase the size limit to, if the fish dies first, it will never reach the desired size limit.
John Aschenbrenner
ToddM
05-02-2002, 07:59 PM
I like the keeper tag idea, I think it would work.
Don, I also agree in part to the bobber floatilla deal, I see it every year. What I think would be better is 2 suckers in the water per boat at one time. You usually see them in some old boat and they don't look like they are going to throw anything back. Make them pay the 50$ keeper fees.
I would also like to see casting a lure with a sucker in the water while operating your electric motor be included soley as position fishing and not be interpreted as illegal trolling which I don't consider that trolling.
Definitely need a higher size limits and break every spear you see.
Mike Deiss
05-02-2002, 09:23 PM
John A.-
I just can't buy your argument. You seem to be saying that delayed mortality is the number one reason Wisconsin muskie fishing is not as good as it could be. No way. There are other much more serious issues which we all know about, low size limits as stated by Jason S. being the first and foremost.
Yes, a few more fish are caught by knowledgeable fisherman who make good use of the three line rule. But do you really think that changing the three line rule will result in such a drastic reduction in the number of fish caught and killed from delayed mortality that it will make a statistical difference?
I'm always surprised at the number of fishermen who are against catching fish. I will repeat something I said in the Minnesota two-line debate: The proven delayed mortality rate would have to be very, very high to convince me that catching and releasing fish is a bad thing.
This two-line issue seems to be a tough one. I get the feeling from this post that most of you (Wisconsiners?) want to keep the status quo of multiple lines being allowed. From similar past posts on the Minnesota two-line issue, I get the feeling that most Minnesotans want to keep their status quo (one line only). The trolling issue is just the opposite between these two states. Perhaps we look at too many of these issues in terms of what we are used to, rather than the true impact on the fishery.
Most of us seem to agree that allowing two lines has more to due with increased fishing pressure and possibly increased mortality rather than increased harvest when it comes to muskies. It bothers me somewhat that we worry about allowing methods that increase "pressure" on the fish, rather than harvest. If we think that we should only allow one line to limit fishing pressure, perhaps we should take a step further and just ban sucker fishing to eliminate that type of pressure completely. Then we could go even further and eliminate sucker-colored lures, then soft lures, etc. In case it isn't obvious, my point is that I believe that we should focus on reducing harvests via tougher limits on kept fish, and less on the tactics used to catch fish when the full intent is to release them unharmed.
Another reason that I dislike regulations whose intent is to just reduce fishing "pressure" is that this pressure is primarily related to the number of people fishing, and the amount of time that they fish. I only fish for musky for one week each year. I am sure that some of you spend at least 10 times that amount of time each year. So I guess that I am more sensitive about people wanting to reduce my ability to "pressure" the fish.
I am surprised that no one has brought up the sucker issue in terms of the gut-hooking problem? This seems to be an obviously important issue in light of the recent evidence that gut hooking almost always results in the death of the released fish.
I don't know how one would ever regulate and/or enforce using suckers with quick strike rigs rather than the past conventional methods. Perhaps sucker fishing shouldn't be allowed at all for this reason alone?
Roy
Jason Schillinger
05-03-2002, 05:59 AM
John A,
I'm glad to see you have a keen eye for gramatical critique.
I asked the question, am I at an advantage? Will I be assured more muskies? You didn't answer. I did not contradict myself. I simply implied that I'd I'd like the opportunity to catch more fish. Is there something wrong with that? Am I catching more fish than the next guy, maybe, but that might just be speaking of skill level, not # of lines being used.
John, you are simply arguing that you'd rather see fewer muskies caught period. I can honestly say that I am confident that the extra lines I used last year, caused no more mortality than the one I casted all day. First of all, the extra line I used was for a sucker on quick strike(which are better for a muskies health in my opinion than a big bucktail or 10" Suick). I caught 11 muskies on suckers last year, and all were released very successfully, with only 2 of them being lifted out of the water for a photo.
I think people should be wasting less time trying to "take away" from WI anglers, and spend it educating anglers who use one or three lines that do not know how to handle fish. More fish die at the hands of so called "musky experts" because they simply do not know how to care for a fish once it is caught(I think it is fear).
A couple friends and I(with the funding from a local musky club) raise 2500 muskies to be planted into local waters each year. That coupled with getting the word out to local anglers on the proper handling, and release methods to assure musky survival is time not wasted in my opinion.
Jim McCullough
05-03-2002, 06:06 AM
Roy C,
I don't agree with everything you wrote, but that was a great post. Banning suckers in Wisconsin is something that probably won't happen any time soon. It is such a part of the Muskie tradition in Wisconsin that it would die a very hard death. I think the better route is to change the way suckers are used. Much like the catch and release ethic has slowly taken over, I think some of the less than desirable methods related to sucker fishing are being changed. I'm not a two line guy, so to me, that would be a good thing to eliminate. That way, you have to make your choice between fishing with artificials or live bait. I also don't think the guys who frequent this and other boards are the problem. They have shown that they are on the cutting edge of Muskie Fishing by being on the boards. They know all of the latest fish friendly techniques. It's the guys who go out looking for a meal. Those are the guys that I wouldn't want dragging two lines.
Don Pfeiffer
05-03-2002, 07:30 AM
Ok I did not mean for anyone to keep more muskies but rather give them the chance for a chance to catch more to release if we can improve our waters.
I am only pushing for the 1 line for musky fishermen not other fish as panfish and walleys.
Chuck every biologist I have talked to says " we don't really know if the slot would work or not" again what would it hurt to try on a dozen lakes? It would hurt nothing!!!!!!
Our smaller lakes the fish can easier be located on as you do not have as much water to cover. Drifting with 2 or 3 suckers over these small waters is a dynamite way to catch no's of fish. The more you catch the more chane there is of a gut hooked fish.
Our smaller lakes are also the ones that according to the d.n.r are the ones with natural reproduction. Look at the stocking repot and see the the book on wisconsins muskie water. These lakes appear to get less if any stocking and need some some protection .
We have to keep an open mind and be willing to try different rules and regulations till we have it right. Simply increasing the size limit is not the answer.
Don Pfeiffer
Don,
Do you think that a law which only allows one line for muskies but multiple lines for other species is feasible in terms of enforcement? I am leary of any "fishing" regulations that are species-specific since there can be enforcement issues. I have to admit that some days, I am not sure what I am fishing for ;-)
I am not sure what you mean by "slot limits" for muskies. Slot limits that I have seen mean that you can keep you limit of "food" fish below the slot but only 1 "trophy" above it. We don't want to imply a similar concept for muskies, do we?
Roy
Da Bears
05-03-2002, 08:15 AM
Jason-
You sure hit the nail on the head! The quick handling of a fish is key to them surviving. The amount of lines won't kill fish, how you handle them when they are caught WILL!
It is the same as saying guns kill people, so we should ban guns! people cause more problems by not being properly educated!
Good post Jason!
Mike
Don Pfeiffer
05-03-2002, 12:30 PM
a slot limit I would like to is as follows. The size limit would stay the sam as in 34 inches. Also any muskie caught between 40 and 48 inches wouls have to be returned. Many od out lakes need some harvest to prevent having too many small muskies in the water. These are lakes with a slow growth rate or the in ability to grow alot of karge fish. This would enable you to harvest some of them and still protect the big ole girls and guys.
If I recall the chip study on sucker rigs showed a high mortality rate. By limiting the angler to one line you
d have fewer sucker rigs being used. Yes enforcement may be hard but if a guy had 2 or 3 suckers out its pretty plain he is in violation. Its alaw that common sense has to come into play. I don't know if that is possable. These are just suggestions.
Don
At least I am trying guys. some of these things certainly could not hurt anything.
Mike Deiss
05-03-2002, 04:06 PM
Don-
You say your proposals would not hurt anything. Well, changing the three line law would hurt me and a lot of other good muskie fishermen who are committed to catch and release. You are proposing to eliminate a tradition and the way of fishing that I love the most. I wouldn't do that to you.
It would also hurt a lot of hard-working Wisconsin guides who are busting their rear ends to put fish in the boat for their clients. Think of them, too.
ToddM
05-03-2002, 06:37 PM
I thought the sucker rig study was a single hook study not a quick strike one.
I think two suckers per boat is fine. I have seen 4 guys in a boat with 12 bobbers before. Three guys with nine. Make the rule two. Also ban the old single square hook rig.
Don Pfeiffer
05-04-2002, 12:53 PM
Mike,
I also guide and yes it would cut back on the no# of lines but traditon as you could still drag a sucker. Just that person could not be casting. My thoughts are aimed at stopping the angler from harvesting too many. The meat fishermen.
Don
What about some lakes that have a big population and you cant catch one over 38 inches? I am saying you can catch and boat 8-9 fish per day. The legal limit is 34 inches, some of those fish SHOULD be taken out. Maybe they should clasify a lake with the population. I take friends out on this lake and can guaranty them a legal fish, not a trophy. Just a thought.
Mike,
I see your point about slot limits, but do the biologists agree that harvesting more smaller fish could allow for more bigger fish on some waters? I assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that slot limits worked by not allowing fish of breeding age to be removed (in the slot) while allowing some smaller fish to be taken that would not hurt the overall reproduction rates. I didn't think that the smaller fish were allowed to be removed in order to remove competition with the larger fish. I thought that these lakes just couldn't support larger muskies due to a lack of appropriate forage fish, regardless of the number of small muskies.
If indeed it is true that having more smaller fish harvested will result in more fish growing to larger sizes on some lakes, than it seems like a difficult situation to manage overall, that is, encouraging people to keep muskies on some lakes, but not others.
Roy
Don Pfeiffer
05-06-2002, 09:43 AM
Mike that would be a great lake for a slot size limit and let them harvest some of the smaller ones. Protect the big ones. There are are more then few lakes like that could produce bigger fish but way too many small ones, to much competition for food and cover. Not saying keep everyone but some lakes do need some harvest. Its hard to convince and release guys of this.
Don
Don Pfeiffer
05-06-2002, 09:52 AM
It is difficult and thats why we need more anglers going to the d.n.r. and asking about special regulations for certain lakes. This has been the point I have been trying to make. We need more lakes studied and things tried on them so we can gather data and see what works. By saying all lakes this or that is not going to get the job done. If you have a lake that you feel needs some special regulation talk to the d.n.r.. They will be happy to work with you. You have nothing to lose by asking and experimenting. Like I say what will it hurt. By having a a 40 inch state wide limit I feel you may do may harm to some lakes instead of good. In wisconsin we have almost 8oo muskie lakes to manage compared to 120 in minnesota. Thats a big difference and alot more work. Our input as anglers is very vital to the d.n.r. We can make a difference but we have to speak up.
Don