Wisconsin Fisheries - Muskies

[Mike]

To me it's pretty sad to look at all the history WI, specifically the Hayward area has for it's incredible musky fishing. Maybe it's just me, but I am pretty disappointed about the current state and future outlook as respects musky fishing. Can someone explain to me what the MN DNR has done, or in your estimation why MN seems to be in such better shape on it's musky program versus WI. Would we be better off in WI if we raised our minimum size limit or is it just a function of the quality of fish or perhaps a difference in catch and release philosophy?

[Jim McCullough]

I was going to try and tackle this one, but with the other thread about America taking my time, I will let this one sit for a while. I also have some fish to filet. There will be no problem getting replies in this one anyways. Suffice to say Mike, that Wisconsin is a whole different animal. Minnesota was able to get their program going when a lot more knowledge was available. We made our mistakes too. Look up "Shoepac" for that answer. Wisconsin has a lot more water, Muskie Anglers, and that pesky thing called tradition to deal with.
Don Pfeiffer, Laura Morrison, Ty Sennett, Jason Schillinger, these are a few names of people who are working hard to better the fishery there. There are many more people that I didn't mention, but these came off the top of my head. They have differing views, but they all are trying to get the end result of bigger fish. This should be a good thread. Let's keep it civil guys, and try and keep the us vs them mentality to a minimum. Save that for the people up by Miltona.

[Tom B]

I think that Jim pretty much hit the nail on the head. Wisconsin has a muskie fishing tradition that includes harvest. On some Wisconsin lakes, muskies are harvested and eaten just like northerns on Minnesota lakes.

Next year, there will be a proposal to lengthen limits to 40 inches at the Conservation Congress meetings. There will be alot of people arguing that not all lakes need to have 40-inch limits and some do not, but, I think that it is more important to raise them all to 40 and selectively lower them, than to spend all our time arguing.

Politics can be a nasty critter.

Tom B

[JEM]

You can't really compare the two states in my opinion. Look at the size lakes Minnesota has for their premier musky water. Got any in mind under a couple thousand acres? If you do, I'll match them with Wisconsin lakes for numbers and for size. If you would like, go to a comparison with Ontario waters and then Wisconsin looks like mud puddles and so does Minnesota. You just can't compare different water bodies like that.

You want premier water in Wisconsin? Start stocking the heck out of Winnebago, Castle Rock, Petenwell, Green Bay, and the south shore of Lake Superior in Bayfield county. Not only would this give you huge fish, but it would eliminate most people from fishing for them because of the larger size waters needing bigger boats and smarter fishermen to handle the complexity. Can you hear the wailing when the lakes that get stocked now don't get fish anymore because they are going to places where they can "grow larger"? Or can we just invent a billion new musky fingerlings for this project?

What works for some lakes in regulations, just doesn't make any sense in others. To think that because there are certain regulations one place they will work everywhere is absurd. Otherwise we could compare Kentucky regulations and use their open season in Ontario and it would be good, right? Suckers on tip-ups, wow! How about a 54" size limit in West Virginia or Indiana? What about eliminating trolling in Quebec because Wisconsin doesn't allow it on most waters. Just because one region does it doesn't make it right everywhere.

Wisconsin musky fishing can get better, but better how? More or bigger? More we have now, but bigger? There are a lot of people that want to go out and catch or see multiple 50" fish every trip and that is a pipe dream. Big fish are extremely rare in smaller lakes now and will continue to be, period. The carrying capacity of a lake is not infinite. If more fish do grow longer and there are many more of them, then they will be leaner and not of record breaking proportions. It just can't happen unless there is a tremendous amount of unused carrying capacity. Now add more and more fishermen and there is no way the fishing is going in a direction that makes for huge numbers of big fish. Yes, there are lakes that can handle more fish, and can grow larger fish in Wisconsin, but to generalize is a load of fermented carp!

[Stillwater]

Hello Guys,

I'm new here. This morning actually. I only found this site a couple months ago and just started reading it regularly a couple days ago. I picked up a great deal of info about the DUI Canada thing (which I needed to know) and also about the heavy rain/road washout business this past week which also helped a lot. Sooooo, I thought I would like to be a member and try to contribute whatever small things I could and pass along any info that I might be personally aquainted with. That is, first hand info, eyewitness stuff, not hearsay or friend of a friend stuff. (FOAF is what Urban Legends calls "friend of a friend", it occurs so often you need an abbreviation).

That said, I would like to say that I'm from Stillwater, MN and fish walleye during the opener in MN but spend the rest of my summer fishing Muskie at my cabin ("The Ranch") on Lake Winter in Sawyer County Wisconsin (which is where I am right now). This particular discussion is going on around here (Winter area) pretty heavy. I bought this cabin in 1989 and it was designated as a Class A muskie lake with an experimental size limit of 34" (instead of the WS limit of 32"). A couple years later it was bumped up to 40" and has been that way for 8 or 10 years now. The theory was (when it was bumped to 40") that in 3, 4 or 5 years that all these 30" would be 40". If that's the case, you couldn't prove it by me or any of the fisherman I know who fish this lake on a regular basis. I fish the lake about what you would think a muskie fisherman with a cabin on a muskie lake would. I'm no fanatic, I enjoy my deck and I fish when I want, during prime hours, with no hurry to catch them now because I have to be home tomorrow. But many of us on this lake are starting to wonder what's happening. I can say from my personal experience (and neighbors and friends) that a "decent fish" would be about 37" and 10 1/2 lbs. Many are shorter, none are fat. (And ##### few are longer).

"My first post, eh?"

Scott

[Koby]

Hey, Stillwater-

We have a cabin north of Loretta on the Chippewa River. I fish Lake Winter quite a bit and I agree that a 40" size limit on Winter has caused the quality to drop. I discussed this with several guides in the area and they agree. The increased size limit is not for every lake. Heck, IMO, it's not for most lakes. Lakes such as Grindstone, Lac Court Oreilles and soon to be the Chippewa Flowage, it will work, but most of the lakes in northern WI are not that big. As popular as CPR is these days, I believe the musky fishermen regulate the sport sufficiently.

[John Skarie]

I don't know much about WI waters, other than the names of some of the more "famous" lakes.

In MN, there aren't very many small muskie lakes, by that I mean under 1,000 acres. I've heard that in WI there numerous lakes well under that size.

While you obviously can't compare Leech, Vermillion or Mille Lacs with smaller bodies, how do these lakes stack up to the larger WI bodies of waters?

There were seven 50"+ fish caught on Leech in one weekent tournament last year. Leech has had a 40" size limit for many years.

It doesn't make sense to have low size limits on big bodies of water.
Fish that are killed when they are only 32-36" never get to reproduce, and can only hurt the fishery.

While this may not hold true in smaller bodies of water, that can't handle large popoulations of muskie, and never will produce 50" fish, it seems that the muskie regs regarding the lakes that can put up the numbers of quality fish are being regulated to suit the anglers/resorts and not the muskies.

JS

[Stillwater]

I am from Minnesota and got pulled into Muskie fishing by 2 friends of mine who had been fishing Leech, Cass and Vermillion for a couple years, they had also fished Ontario (LOTW, Eagle and Wabigoon). We went to LOTW the first time. I was interested right away. Then me and my partner started heading up from the Twin Cities to places like the Chippewa Flowage, Lac Court Orielles, Grindstone and Round and thought it was all the same. And in a way it was because they were all big lakes. Then we bought a cabin on Winter (685 acres, Class A muskie lake) and just assumed that everything would be the same. It isn't of course. I just wanted to state that places like the Chippewa Flowage should have a 40" size limit (but don't), lakes like Lake Winter shouldn't (but do). I am FOR bigger fish, like in Minnesota, but it just ain't going to happen here on Winter, and if you try to force it, (like they seem to be doing) it will only get worse. I see more 26" now than ever and even they seem to be thinning out.

I was a member of the Twin Cites chapter of Muskie's Inc. for 7 or 8 years and I remember one year (early 90's maybe) when Pete Maina won the Masters Champion category with about 150 muskies. I believe at that time he was guiding/fishing on Lost Land, Teal and others in this neck of the woods and Pete even said that not a single one of those was over 40" (I'm kinda sticking my neck out here because I don't have any books/mags to back me up). But I remember the discussions at the saloons among some hard core Muskie people (from Minnesota) saying "Yeah, he got the numbers, but he never even caught a LEGAL". I said, "They're legal there, so they count".

Incidentally, I have some stats here on Winter, Lost Land and Teal (and many other Sawyer County lakes) and it reads like this:

Winter -- 683 acres -- max depth 23 ft.
Lost Land -- 1303 acres -- max depth 20 ft.
Teal Lake -- 1048 acres -- max depth 30 ft.

[esoxcpr]

Wisconsin has about 800 (that's right, 800) lakes that contain muskies. Out of these, about 1/4 of them already have a size limit of 40" or above. You heard me correct. There are already over 200 lakes in Wisconsin that have or have had limits at or above 40" for many years. And there are no greater number of larger fish taken out of those lakes now than before the higher limits were implemented. In fact, one could point out the Winter and Bone studies which both clearly showed that a higher limit had a detrimental effect on the size of the fish in those lakes. Now, don't get me wrong, there are a few of the larger size lakes which could maybe benefit from a higher limit, but we're talking about a handful of lakes (maybe a dozen or two) which would benefit. Most of the remaining 600 lakes that now have the lower limits would definitely not benefit, and most would likely be hurt by higher regs, as Winter and Bone have been.

[firstsixfeet]

CPR
I don't in any way shape or form agree with your rather broad statements here and feel that you really don't have any supporting facts. I think it should be pointed out that the Winter study may in fact be one that compares apples to oranges, and the fish in 1979 may have had the benefit of early years spent in a more fertile environment and do not reflect the true productivity of the lake. The later fish may be a truer representation of what the water is commonly capable of producing.
I don't think that a pair of waters that have an abundant population of fish should be the linchpins for direction in size limits. These are ABNORMAL situations rather than representative of the population throughout the state. I believe that the majority of waters holding musky have a population denoted as "present", not abundant, and not even common, just "present". These waters do not have populations so high that they stress themselves, and are represented by a few fish with very adequate dining available-and space. They would benefit greatly I believe from the longer lifespan represented by the 40" size limit. This should cause an increase in both size and numbers as the relatively few fish in these systems last longer.

I don't understand why so many are against increased size limits nor do I understand the arguments trotted out against the same. If fish are felt to be overabundant stock less in those waters, and add some to the waters that are siginified by "present" populations. This might be good for all the musky waters and may actually increase numbers throughout the state and size at the same time. I would be in favor of decreasing the stocking numbers to Winter lake since the lake is so overpopulated, and putting more fish in the Chippewa Flowage. There are some very good waters in WI that are not stocked, or are way understocked. If you feel slow growth is a problem in waters that may be overcrowded, rather than early harvest perhaps a lower initial population would be more beneficial to all.

I myself have no problems with enjoying lakes that have abundant though smaller musky. I have fished some of them including Teal and Winter and have to say that I never *****ed about having too much action from fish under 40".

[esoxcpr]

Over half of the musky lakes in the state (about 400) are denoted as "class A" waters. Not "present", as you have implied. The remaining 1/2 are divided about equally between "class B", and "class C" waters. Secondly, 80% of the states musky lakes or about 640 of them, are stocked. This is deceiving, however, as most of these are the larger lakes. The smaller lakes that you have referred to in your post as the ones that would benefit from reduced stocking in fact are mostly natural reproduction alone with no stocking done. The average size of class A lakes that receive no stocking and rely only on natural reproduction is less than 300 acres. Conversly, the average size of class A lakes that receive some stocking to supplement the population average 700 acres in size. The class A lakes the have zero natural reproduction and rely 100% on stocking average over 1000 acres in size.

As I mentioned before, there are already over 200 lakes to choose from if you want to fish a lake with 40" or greater size limits.

[firstsixfeet]

Perhaps we are talking about different things here CPR. I am talking about lake population surveys rating lakes on the abundance of each species and I am perusing the back of "WI top 50 musky lakes" for my information, and I believe that comes from the DNR surveys of the lakes. I counted by hand and come up with 438 lakes which denote Musky as present, 283 denote them as common, and 14 denote them as abundant. When you start talking about Class A lakes you need to realize you are not talking about populations but more about fishing success/trophy fish/AND populations, and further that the Denotation of Class A1 is primarily denoting waters where musky grow big and Class A2 more numbers type of lakes. Class A is NOT a scientific nor a population based classification.

Yes and some numbers lakes have good natural reproduction. But I still believe you are talking about two unusual systems Bone, and Winter and trying to make a generalized application to all musky waters and I don't think you have any justification to do that.

And lets look at your basic argument here, "don't raise size limits".
You have taken 2 waters that have had one probably good study and one study of what I believe to be questionable results(Winter) and tried to paint the whole state with a broad brush that increasing size limits will hurt most waters(no provable connection that I can see).
Your arguments that raising the size limit has not raised the size of fish is also one I don't feel you have substantiated. What basis of proof do you use to support this argument? And if indeed your argument is correct then the best course of action would be to lower the size limit and encourage harvest?

You also need to focus on 2 separate aspects here, one of density one of size limits. The actual studies were looking at density not size limits.

[Jim McCullough]

Scott/Stillwater,

Welcome aboard! :) I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts. You have obviously been around the block some in the Muskie World. I hope you stick around.

[happy hooker]

Guys size of lakes means trophy potential,,but we pull alot of 50' plus fish from lakes under 500 acres in Minn ,,,Can someone tell me how a 40' minimum would hurt musky fishing in wisc why not have it.

[John Skarie]

One can hardly conclude that putting a 40" limit on Bone lake didn't help the population, even if it didn't result in more of bigger fish then before it was put in place.

The population if it were not put in place could have steadily gone down. No one will know.

There isn't a lake in MN or Canada that has gotten worse because of higher size limits. Why would that happen in Wisc.?

JS

[Musk Rat]

I don`t live in WI or MN but I do know there is a lot more to it than just the size of the lake and the size limit in fact these are probably the least important factors. Water quality forage base habitat weeds ect ect are the most important factors in determining fish size potential. Another over looked factor is genetics I think it is important to get the rite fish stocked. If a fish dosen`t have the genes to get big than the rest is a moot point. I know here in N.J. our DFGW likes to get eggs from the biggest fish posible. Fish that they know have done well in our waters.

[The Big Ticket]

I have fished and guided in northern Wisconsin my whole life. 30+ years! The GENic strain has changed. The big fish are there, but you have to really work for them. The fisherie is at it's peak for 40". There are legemit 40lb+ fish swiming in these small waters. Do your homework and you might get lucky.

[Don Pfeiff]

WHOA!!!!!!!!
I know of 5 inch fish caughy already this year in wisc. Thats just those I know of. Look at the nice fish caught this weekend at eagle river.
esoxcpr you said it well. Wisc has many more lakes to manage and we are working at increasing the size limit on some more lakes and also I believe we will have some with a slot next season or the following. Minnesota anglers can't compare the two states or anyone else really. Spitted muskies vrs, true muskies are a different ball game to spotted.
Jem , the winnebagoland muskie club has been stocking big green nd some very nice fosh there now. Winnebago gets spotted this fall. That will be one ##### of a fishery.
So befor you start wanting bigger size limits you do have to look at individual lakes. There are way too many smaller lakes that a bigger size limit would not help.
The d.n.r.'s creel count from last year revealed that wisconsin muskie waters have a 94 percent release rate on muskies caught. THAT IS EXCELLENT!!!!!! Wit a release rate that high many wonder if a bigger limit is needed at all. Yes on certain lakes but lets not get carried away. Give it some time to work on those lakes we already have bigger limits. This takes time guys, we are so eager we want it now but it takes time.
Minnesota has alot easy easier time managing about 100 muskies lakes compared to 800.
SUPPORT THE MUSKY CLUBS IN WISCONSIN, BUY THERE RAFFLE TICKETS, THEY ARE WORKING HARD AND DOING A GREAT JOB!
DON PFEIFFER

[JWB475]

I guess I am confused, how does a higher size limit "hurt" a muskie fishery. If WI has a 94% release rate than you could have a 50" size limit and it really would not matter....

If someone can explain how a higher size limit can hurt a muskie fishery, please let me know.

I spend all of my time fishing northern MN lakes around the Longville/Walker area.

Most of that time is spent fishing a "smaller" 1600 acre lake hashas excellent numbers of 40 inch fish. The smallest muskie I have caught in this lake is 39 inches, and three fish between 47 and 48 inches have been in my boat over the last three years. This "smalller" body of water has both size and numbers and I for one would love to see the size limit raised to 48 or 50 inches on this body of water... It certainly is not going to hurt this fishery,...

I am all for higher size limits, unless I am missing something they can't "hurt" a fishery.

[firstsixfeet]

Don,
I have a hard time understanding your continuing stand against larger size limits. I still haven't "gotten" it. You continually seem to struggle against general increases to what I consider to be a modest 40" universal statewide regulation. What is the basis of your bias?
Does the lower limit appeal to you for tourney fishing, or consumption, or is it something other than?

I have a simple philosophy on size limits. Raise them statewide to 40". On trophy lakes raise them higher. If populations are dense and growth rates seem to suffer because of it, decrease stocking rate and move the fish to new lakes or less densely stocked waters. If the reproduction is natural, great, leave the dynamic balance alone and don't worry about it. If water quality and forage encounters make it difficult for a fish to grow to 40" so what? We just will not harvest fish in that particular body of water. It is after all the WI state fish, a little protection should not be a problem. There is precedence for catch and release only in other species and yet your viewpoint seems to espouse continuing musky harvest in all waters. The Canadian size limits obviously have excluded many, many fish other than "super fish" for harvest, even in their best waters. Would the modest increase in size for WI(with TWO musky capitals of the world) be such a negative thing?

You keep talking about all these waters where increased size limit will not help, but which ones are they exactly besides Callahan and Tiger Cat flowage and maybe a couple of lakes in Vilas. Give me a list of at least 60 lakes and streams that raising the size limit to 40" will not help (even at a very low level) increase the number of 40" fish in the population. This would mean lakes where fish NEVER reach 40", since if some of the population does reach 40" then the new size limit would have the potential of increasing the number of 40" fish in that basin. I don't believe you can do it but I am interested. That is LESS THAN 10% of the lakes, rivers, and streams considered to have fishable populations of Musky in WI. Show me that list if you can come up with one.

I personally think that the lakes with great populations of small musky add a lot of diversity and uniqueness to WI musky fishing. I see no need to change these populations nor do I see any particular negatives to protecting what might possibly be 95% of that population from harvest over their lifetime.

I also see that you are still carrying the slot limit banner in your pocket. I would like to see the science justifying that management tool for musky because looking at fish populations, harvest patterns and commonly held angler views I cannot see anything positive with a slot limit fishery. I view it as a road to INCREASED harvest of small musky. I have never heard your scientific justification of slot limits other than they work for other species. I have never heard any arguement you put forth giving me a glimmering of hope that they would have a positive effect in any way shape or form on my musky fishing success in the future, and I have to admit it, that is the basis of my views on management. My desires are more and/or bigger musky in more and different waters.

Your desires seem to espouse, continued musky harvest and in some cases encourage musky harvest(slot limits)and maintain low size limits in WI on as many waters as possible and fight increased size limits except on those lakes that meet your standards? Maybe you or someone else can shed some light on your continuing struggle to suppress increased statewide size limits in WI?

[rufus]

Some of you may find an article available on the Wisconsin DNR web site interesting. It is a resaerch piece that gives information on musky harvest, among other things. My figures may be off a bit, but teh estimated harvest of musky in WI has fallen from about 38,000 in the early 80's to about 2000 in the late 90's. Big time change in attitude. Regarding size limits, if they don't help, then stocking shouldn't either (as a general rule).

[Grizzly G.]

I think that comparing Wisc and Minn is an apples and oranges thing. Minn lakes are deep clear lake and Wisc is more of a shallow dark water enviorment as a whole. Another thing that may shed some light on the subject is that they are talking about Minn a different strain of Muskie than Wisc. A small lake in Minn is 800 acres; a small lake in Wisc is 150 acres. I don't believe that 40 inch size limits aross the board will help every lake in Wisc..........they need to be handled on a case by case basis. Wisconsin has too many unique enviorments to make an across the board law.

[firstsixfeet]

Grizz I had started a long post but I have to confess the anti increased size limit enclave(aisle) of fisherman like you and Don and others that want to KEEP THE SMALL MUSKY SIZE LIMIT are wearing me down. In fact I am getting so worn out I think it is time that you folks start giving all the positives involved for a 30-34 inch size limit. I am going to help you just to get started because I see my own arguments just wearing away under the pressure and in the process I am becoming very fragile...

#1 Musky can be killed and eaten at a smaller size.
#2 Musky can be killed and eaten before getting a lot of exposure to Indian spearing harvest
#3 Joe Tourist can have baby Joes. 32" stuffed(keeps the taxidermists alive)
#4 Musky Inc members who like to see their names in print, or any fish counters can catch more legals and register more fish. ie "Hey, I got 5 legals over the last 2 days"
#5 Big musky might eat all the gamefish. This way we won't have any big ones to upset other fishing groups by eating all their chosen targets.
#6 It's traditional, let's maintain the tradition.
#7 A lot of lakes have too many fish. lets thin them out and see if the fishing picks up

you guys take it from here, I am sure I have missed some

[esoxcpr]

What does that "made up" list have to do with anything. I can't speak for anyone else, but my point all along has been that we have a huge number of waters with muskies in WI and raising the statewide limit will hurt or have no effect on more waters than it will help. These Minnesota guys who are complaining are talking about a 1000 acre lake being "small" I bet these anglers didn't know that almost 1/4 of all Wisconsin's musky waters are LESS THAN 100 ACRES IN SIZE!!! While some of these lakes will certainly have 40" or larger fish in them, most do not. Again this is almost 1/4 of all the lakes that contain muskies. Raising the statewide limit will have absolutely no positive impact on most of these small lakes, which are the great majority of all musky lakes in the state so why change something just for the sake of changing it when there will be no benefit at all? Show me some examples of lakes under 1000 acres where a higher size limit has had a positive effect on the size of the fish being caught in that lake. These size lakes make up 7/8 of all musky lakes in the state.

To put this in perspective, only about 100 out of the 800 or so lakes are over 1000 acres, with the great majority of these being in the 1000's. There are very few that are over 2000. Just a couple dozen. Why would we want to raise the statewide limit when less than 10% of the lakes will have the greatest benefit. It makes much more sense to raise limits on a case by case basis as is being done now. And as I have said before, if any musky angler is complaining that they don't fish WI because of the statewide 34" limit, they are severely misinformed, as we already have over 200 lakes with a 40" or greater limit. Wisconsin has more lakes with a size limit over 40 inches than Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and all the others. I'd even venture a guess that Wisconsin alone right now has just as many lakes with a 40 inch or higher limit than there are musky lakes period in the rest of the country combined!!

I ask again why is it that we aren't seeing any bigger fish coming out of most of these lakes than we did before the limits were raised? Why is it that in 2 such lakes that were studied it was found that the higher limit actually hurt the overall size of the fish in the lake? If it isn't having any effect, or is having a negative effect why do it everywhere? It just makes no sense at all.

[lunkerplunker]

we're looking into a possible 50 inch size limit on selected lakes throughout the state as we speak, with the idea to bring back the Wisconsin muskie fishery back to prominence.

[lunkerplunker@hotmail.com]

Let's face it, SPEARING in the spring is the number 1 problem affecting the loss of substantial numbers of BIG FISH every year and that IS A FACT!

[Southshore]

I have spent the last 15 years fishing Lac Vieux Desert 5 day each week from June 10 to about August 15. At some point, about 7 years ago the size limit was increased to 40 inches. At that time, I was very happy and was planning for more and bigger fish. I still am in favor of higher limits but according to my records and conversations with others the better fishing is still not here. I have noticed no increase in the size of the fish that I catth or see listed on the resort boards. In addition, the number of fish I catch is down a bit each year. To further confuse me is that there seem to be fewer peopl fishing muskie today on LVD than in the years before the limit was put at 40.

[Captain]

There is a "small" lake in MN (271 acres) that one person has caught 6 fish over 45 inches this year. Two of them were over 48. This lake also has a 48" minimum and all fish were released.
I don't have supporting information, but I would be willing to bet that in MN the release rate is closer to 97 - 98% than 94.
I think that you cannot compare the "big" MN lakes to the WI fishery, but there are also many "small" lakes in MN that put out numbers of big fish, but many of these have a 48" minimum.
I agree with JWB, show me how a higher minimum will hurt a lake. If 94% are released, that 6% kept figure would most certainly be smaller if the size limit were raised. How does that hurt?

[ChadG]

I have changed from Grizzly G. You need to relax First, I don't kill muskies and don't plan to, in some lakes harvest is good thing. Lake Winter is a great example of a 40 inch size limit hurting a lake. I fish there every year and see the results. I am all for a 50 inch limit on lakes like the Chippewa Flowage. CASE by CASE. Lets work with the fisheries not against them. Again Minn water is not Wisc water and can't be treated the same. Some lakes will not produce trophy fish and I don't care what you do. Don't want to start on the spearing thing.

[Don Pfeiffer]

Guys please read this and understand!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM NOT AGAINST BIGGER SIZE LIMITS
Read the article in musky hunter on musky densities.
What I am saying we have many smaller lakes with very good numbers and few big fish. By putting a slot on these lakes you will have some harvest of smaller fish fish .. Rememeber we have a good release rate so it only minimal. but by having the slot your protecting the bigger ones. too many muskies in a lake can will affect the growth of others. By implementing the slot limit you create a better balance and more trophy fish. What is so hard to understand about that????
More so what would it hurt to try on some lakes? (((nothing at all)))). Our own D.N.R. will tell you that we have some lakes that should not have a 40 inch limit. I feel we just have to be more selective on what lakes we put a bigger limits on.
You guys are killing me that you cannot see the great potential this has. ((((((((more big fish))))))))))
Don Pfeiffer
Sorry if I seem upset but getting tired of being accused of not wanting bigger limits.

[Don Pfeiffer]

thanks chad someone understands. I also fish view des. often and have not noticed more big fish. I think it would have made a great slot limit lake.
Don Pfeiffer

[Don Pfeiffer]

Here you go with some. Little green,Day,Upper and lower clam,Augistine,Beaver Dam,Gordon,Little Butternut,Spieder, Big moon, stumpThe pike chain,Little arbor Vitae, silver,Dowling,The eagle river chain,Boot,Catherine,Moose, lostland,teal,Moccasin and these just are few in a few counties, I could go on and on. These lakes are all small lakes. I am not saying these are for slot limits, they are not for the most part with the pike chain and eagle river chain beig exceptions.
I want to repeat we have to keep everyone happy not just the diehard trophy hunter.
Don Pfeiffer
Coming up with 60 is a walk in the park.

[firstsixfeet]

I don't know what you think this list indicates. I recognize several lakes on here that do indeed produce fish OVER 40" on a fairly regular basis. I know that others also recognize that several of these lakes produce fish over 40". So what are you trying to do with this list? The Eagle River chain? Little Green? No longer producing 40" fish? Cmon...

[firstsixfeet]

>"raising the statewide limit will hurt or have no effect on
>more waters than it will help"

and your factual basis for making this statement is?
the many studies supporting this statement are?
based on the following lake studies?



CPR I continue to have problems with the statements in your posts.
Many are unsupported, and I worry that people will make the mistake of taking these as factual when they are really more about how you feel than any scientific hard data.

Your statements are without a basis in fact, or at least none I am aware of, so perhaps you should enlighten us all with these "facts" on which you base your statements.
"raising limits will hurt or have no effect on more waters than it will help" hurt? ( no effect? possibly but I doubt it.

"we are not seeing any bigger fish coming out now than we did before the size limits were raised"(and what is your data bank for that one?)I think we are, but I only think that, but I am sure I can verify for you that a fish harvested at 32" never reaches 40" in anything but BS and dreams.

on the two study lakes the "higher size limit has hurt the overall size of the fish" ?? I pointed out to you once before the difference between size limits and density but evidently you either choose to ignore it or don't understand it. crop off all the fish over 40" before you start making statements like this, that will decrease the density but not affect the higher size limit, then see if growth rate and weight per inch might go up. or stock fewer musky. the other problem is that you keep quoting 2 studies here and my contention is that one study was based on high fertility, high forage numbers vs a normal lower fertility and lower forage numbers, hardly a fair comparison. Lets face it Winter flowage is aging, and it is unfair to compare a young flowage to an older one. But they did it.

[firstsixfeet]

Don, I am convinced you are actually a funny guy. You get me laughing with this type of post. You come out and say Guys I'm not against bigger size limits and then you turn around a raise your "DON'T RAISE THE SIZE LIMIT" banner and try and rally people to NOT raise the size limit statewide in WI. If I did that I would consider myself AGAINST BIGGER SIZE LIMITS!!!!....!!!!!!

duh? am I the only one that seems to have a problem with this duplicity?

Slot limits, once again you seem to be in your own separate world. If I institute a slot limit on a lake I encourage anglers to weigh their chances of catching a really big one? or keep this little one that I just got and is legal. and hey the purpose of the slot limit is to thin certain year classes and protect others. The thinning would take place at what, duh? a smaller size, hmm once again I would consider that to be against raising the size limit and in fact passive if not active encouragement for anglers to harvest small musky.rates.

www.schizophrenic?.com

[Stillwater]

I posted replys 4 and 7 on this thread a while back (specifically concerning Lake Winter) and I thought I would toss in a few details. I first fished Lake Winter in 1989 after I read an article in the Regional Section of Field & Stream titled Lake Winter Muskies. They were very impressed with the lake in both number (boated 3 and had 8 more up to the boat in 1 day of fishing) and general size (mostly 30 to 36"). I grabbed my fishing partner and headed up in mid-June. We had some action and also saw a cabin for sale. We came back up and caught a few more, looked at the cabin and bid on it. We bought it and moved in Aug. 5, 1989. We didn't get to fish much for the rest of the year because of making the cabin livable. The following year we were happy to see that the winner of the (Week 1, 1990) St. Paul Pioneer Press fishing contest, (at that time billed as the Worlds largest fishing contest), Muskie division was a 28.0 lb. fish out of Winter Lake, caught by a man from Mason City, Iowa. We did well ourselves. Then in Week 12 a 27 lb 4 oz. won the contest also from Winter Lake, the man was from Eau Claire and his name was Gene Dehnoff, I later got to know him because he built a house up here and moved up so he could fish the lake all the time. We (and some hard-core Muskie fishing friends) were all impressed. Shortly thereafter the lake went to 40" minimum, (it had been 34" experimental). During the early 90's I used to be the first man on the lake both Sat. and Sunday (although I would also see one of my distant neighbors out there also) and it was not uncommon to have 2 and 3 fish mornings, I remember meeting my neighbor in the local saloon one night and telling him I caught 3 in 3 hours (along with a couple more sighted) and him telling me that he got 5 in 4 hours (along with a couple more sighted) and that's the way it was. Things aren't like that (or even near that) anymore.

One more thing. I was on the other Muskie Web sight earlier and there is a thread called "Shoo Fly" where a fisherman said he was up in Vilas County last week and the large gray flies were terrible, and he wondered if it was like that all over. About the 2nd or 3rd reply was from a man who started off his post with "I was on Lake Winter(Dead sea without the salt)" and went on to confirm the fly situation. My point is, the thread was about flies, and he just chucked in the little editorial, off-the-cuff comment about "Dead Sea". So, I would again like to state, I am FOR bigger fish, but barring that, I'll take numbers, and neither one is the case here. There are lakes that should be an exception, if it's shown things don't work out. Incidentally, speaking of exceptions, see Minnesota fishing regs. under Muskie, Shoepac Lake, St. Louis County, Minimum size 30".

Sorry I "went on" but I been fishing this lake almost every weekend for 13 years, and I been waiting to do this Pi**ing and moaning for the last 5. And it isn't about harvest either, me and my partner have been Muskie fishing for 17 years now and have never kept a Muskie, (from anywhere), and no friend or guest in this cabin has ever kept one from this lake and there have been more than a few legals. We all (about 7 of us hardcore) do our trophy fishing in Canada, LOTW (July 27th this year), and there has only been 1 kept among all of us. (It was mounted of course, and badly hooked or that might not have even occured).

Thanks for letting me vent guys, I think I'll go lay down now.

[Mike Deiss]

Stillwater-

I feel your pain re: Winter Lake. I have fished there since '96, and have found it to be a decent lake for 34"-38" fish, but nothing to get really excited about. Seems like it could be better.

For each of the last 2-3 years I have fished it once in mid-October, and usually see several pontoon boats puttering around the lake trailing bobbers. It's my gut feeling that these people are using single hook kill rigs (and illegally motor trolling). Perhaps 10-15 years of this practice has taken its toll on the lake.

I'm 100% in favor of the 40" (or even bigger) minimum on the lake, but it does no good if the 39 inchers being released have a hook in their gut.

If these people are your neighbors on the lake, perhaps you could use some friendly persuasion and get them to change their ways.

Mike Deiss

[Stillwater]

Mike,

I wish that were the case, then there would be the simple solution you suggest, but, I am a member of the Winter Lakes Alliance and so are a fair percentage of the people around me, (some are year round residents). The President of the club lives next to some of the bigger pontoon-boating people and I live next to a couple myself). I haven't seen anyone in a pontoon trolling around sucker rigs. I'm right on the lake and I would notice something like that. I'm here year round. Mostly, they just tool around, most don't even fish.

I noticed that next Saturday there will be a 1 day tournament sponsored by the Winter Lakes Alliance and it will be out of "The Rustic", I will definitely check that out and see how things go. I might even enter myself. It will be interesting to see how some of the members feel when they are fresh off the lake. We'll check entries, and then check them against last year and the year before that. It won't be a big deal, but at least it will be the opinion of a larger group of people.

We'll see eh?

[Mike M]

i was just reading all these posts on this subject because I live in west central wi and found it to be very intresting. there are too many variables to blame it all on one thing. Times has changed. Everyone that lives or fishes in wisconsin, next time your out fishing, look at all the pontooners and jet skiers running around. They run around anywhere they want to. I dont know how many times I've watched these motorists ran full bore all over the only spawning bay in the entire 150 acre lake, doing donuts and jumping thier wake early in the year. These people have just as much right as you or me fishing but they dont care. They have no common sense. I also agree with many other posts that there is a over harvest of legal muskies in wi, most of these fish are killed by tourists and people who catch them on accident. And wi is famed for it's rich tradition in muskie fishing which i think also really hurts it. You have an over harvesting of legal fish that may have only spawned a year or two if any at all in thier life and a tradition in fishing methods such as big single sucker hooks which everyone knows kills most of the fish it catches. And than you have to look at other things besides all this. In a 150 acre lake how many legal fish do you really think there are in it? not a lot. Then think of how many of those fish are really 50" class fish? Than look at the angling pressure, Than the boating pressure. All i know since when i started muskie i hardly ever saw another muskie hound on the 200 acre lakes i fished and just a couple of elderly people on pontoons, now on a week day there are 5 other just muskie fishermen plus double that many boats for pan fish, bass , walleyes, ect. than plus that many jet skiers and water skiers and pontooners. And heck i'm just 18. The potentail is there but we just have to fine tune a couple of things to get it right.

first post. Mike M.

[Stillwater]

Mike M.

You have several good points there. But, we try not to slam JetSkiers, Pontoon boaters here. It's all recreation water, and we can all use this water as we see fit within the laws.

As for it being your first post, why don't you register, and then it will show up as your first post, otherwise you show up as another guest user. Give it a whirl, register.

Scott

[Don Pfeiffer]

What you have to realize is wisconsin has so many lakes to manage that putting one regulation on for pretaining to size limits is not a good thing. Yes there are lakes that should be 40, some 45 and it would help. However there are some that it would not help and we have to look at them also. What I am saying is lets regulate lakes more as an individual lake. We habe tha ability to regulate them with a plan that will be best for it.
What you have to deal with is many variables as mike said said and what works on lake x may not be good for lake b. Thats pretty simple to understand.
About slot limits , I am just saying it would not hurt to try it on some lakes. If we truely want to better the musky fishery we have to be willing to try different things and get to a formula that will work.
If you tell me I am against bigger size limits one more I am going to think you can't read. So one more time,,,, I am not against bigger size limits but feel increaseing it statewide is a mistake. It should be done lake to lake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don Pfeiffer
The reading crack is an attemt humor, not being sarcastic ok!

[John Myhre]

This is directed at Don P. Don before you start naming lakes up here in my area as lakes that won't support a 40 inch size limit, get some idea of what you are talking about first!!!! You named Teal, Lost Land, and Moose just to name a few, which shows you really know little of waht you are preahing. These lakes are continually getting bigger fish every year and do produce a good number of over 40 inchers. So unless you can show me that you know a ##### of a lot more than those of use who fish these lakes a lot and more than the local DNR fish manager who has been managing these lakes for 20 some odd years, keep your 2 cents worth to yourself.
JHM

[WoJo]

Hey Jackpine don't let him get to you. This board is full fo people that know it all, especially when it comes to topics that they don't have a clue about. I know every chance I get I put a plug in for Moose and Teal. To be honest with you it doesn't really bother me that they are not getting much attention,but then again I don't have to make my living up there. You are a class act and I enjoy your EA articles too. Hope to see you on the water.
WoJo

[firstsixfeet]

Thankyou John,

I was only pointing out a couple of the VERY obvious choices and I was hoping someone would pick up on a few others. Some of the lakes Don refers to in his list, I have not fished yet. Don is certainly welcome to his viewpoint but his generalizations that evidently are based much on his personal(in my view uninformed)perceptions become dangerous to the actual science and facts as they stand. If someone doesn't point out some of the flaws in his arguments another fisherman may take them as founded on fact and generally held. I don't think that's the case.

As for Teal, hasn't even the revered Pete Maina had a 50" fish in his boat on that lake, caught by girlfriend or wife?

[Mike M]

I didn't mean for it to sound like I was just slamming the recreational boaters. Sorry. But I feel it really doesn't help the problem at all. And i'm not just getting at the muskie piont but all fish, crappies, bass, ect. I agree with pfieffer on the slot sizes. We have to protect the spawners. Plus we have to do what works in the lake. Not all regulations are going to work for each and every body of water. Only through trial and error well solve the problem. So it may get worse before it gets better.

Mike M.

[firstsixfeet]

Don I don't want you to take this as any kind of personal attack but I sure wish that you would direct your attention and obvious enthusiasm toward other areas of the fishery. I think research money would be better spent for habitat preservation, exploring waters for potential new populations, possibly stocking landlocked lakes with hybrid muskyXmusky crosses, finding a cheap way to increase the female yield in hatchery fish(I believe it is only about 25% at this time), stocking rates for lakes that have high densities which are supported by stocked fish, and methods of stocking to possibly increase survival of new fish. All these things are viable and I think doable without an influx of massive funds.

If you feel that lakes need to be studied with thinned populations let us do it via removal by net and transport to other waters. There are some lakes where the fingerling musky have poor survival rates and some of these might be welcome homes for fish that are in an adverse high density situation due to HEAVY NATURAL REPRODUCTION!


Your continued struggle AGAINST HIGHER SIZE LIMITS is misdirected energy I think. I still have not gotten a sound explanation for why you are still for maintaining the small size limits over most WI water. I have the feeling you have reasons you are not stating. I feel that your continued confusion as to whether or not you feel you are against higher size limits is creating within you massive amounts of angst!!!(Your position of being against larger size limits is quite clear to the rest of us, or I can't read, in fact you seem to be one of the spear carriers in the fight against higher size limits)


Here are my reasons I support statewide size limits on all WI waters except(I am doing this for you only Don, because I feel I need to make some concession to your enthusiasm).....except Callahan and Mud Lakes. Those I nominate to be honored with the "Don Pfiefer slot limit, kill study"(contact Don for funding help).

reasons to go to 40" statewide
#1 Simplifies the regulation for all lakes
#2 Elevates all kept musky to big fish status and mature fish status.
#3 Allows the limited stocking resource to make the maximum impact, holding male fish in stocked lakes(75% I think)throughout most of their lifespan to remain in the catchable population resource
#4 Reinforces the catch and thrill rather than catch and kill thinking(lots easier to throw back the second when you have already thrown back the first, it begins to seem like just something you should do)
#5 Will not harm any lakes by encouraging overharvest.
#6 Bigger musky have to excite tourists more than small.
#7 Allows for the maximum base population(40" fish) to continue to grow through and into the trophy range(unable to do this with fish cropped at 34 inches)
#8 Will protect lakes with minimal populations per acre helping maintain those populations for maximum thrill value(since realistically almost all stocked populations are based on fisherman enjoyment rather than a need for musky to control prey populations)
#9 Allows selfish me to fish many of my favorite waters knowing that my chances of encountering a 40" are MUCH greater than they were several years ago and my chances of multiple fish days on fish >30"
are also much greater.
#10. Fill in the ones I didn't think of.

[esoxcpr]

More tunnel vision. Along with another made up list with no basis in fact. Show me one study which shows that a higher limit has resulted in more fish and / or a larger size structure in any lake. You seem to be bent on poking holes in the Bone and Winter studies because the findings were the exact opposite of your agenda. Please provide us with facts to support your claims. Until then, the facts are that in the only 2 studies that have been done whose sole porpose was to determine how increasing size limits affected the fishery, the findings were that increasing the limit resulted in a higher density of fish, but a much slower growth rate and smaller overall fish with far fewer big fish. I still say that we should manage each lake seperately. The very few lakes that can handle a larger size can be raised. For all the rest, 34 is working just fine. There are no lakes that I know of that have a statistically significant harvest that hurts the overall population. Over 94% of all legal muskies are released. Out of the very few that are kept, I would have to guess that almost all are already over 40". Will keeping the fish or two in the 30's that are kept in any lake alive and in the lake make that big a difference? No way.

[Mike M.]

Everytime I read another post about his subject the more I think about this topic. I was just thinking... you know every year their is more and more pressure from muskie anglers. Back 10 years ago you didn't have a fraction of the amount of pressure as you do in todays world. All I'm saying is that more and more people are taking up the sport of muskie fishing, but does the population of muskies in each lake continue to grow with the muskie crowd. No. So there are less muskies to go around. Like I read from in article, i think it was pearson or johnson who wrote it, imagine a pie and the pie is the muskie population. The more anglers that take a piece of pie the smaller their sliceis. So the more anglers there are, the less the amount of fish each angler has. Maybe the fish are there but from over the years they have become so educated. How many baits do you think a fish sees in one year? Think about it. There are so many variables to deal with this problem that its going to take team work and time.

Mike M.

[firstsixfeet]

CPR I don't see anything on my list that takes facts to support. I see several claims you and Don make that do require facts. My arguments can be supported by simple logic and I hope the state of WI won't spend money doing that. You obviously are tied to the Bone and Winter study as your flagship argument for the 34" kill law. I find both studies interesting but sorry, I don't see that they are blaming slower growth on higher size limit. I believe they state that DENSITY is the cause for slower growth. You probably should look that up in the dictionary, I am not sure you are understanding the concept of DENSITY. Perhaps all of us exhibit it at times though.

Let's look at a very simple concept since I don't seem to be able to make complex arguments let's look at something easier to handle.

Your statement that higher size limits will not result in a larger size structure nor more fish clearly demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts here. Ask any serious musky fisherman if the higher self imposed size limits involved with catch and release fishing have increased both the size structure and the number of fish available since the late 70's when catch and release first took hold.
Maybe you have not been fishing long enough to have witnessed this.
THIS IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED TO SHOW ME HIGHER SIZE LIMITS WORK!!!!

The argument that higher size limits will not make any difference on some waters is probably correct, but the fact is that a higher size limit is not going to hurt anything there either is it??? No. The only people it will effect are the 34" kill group and the people that try and run up numbers of small legals for whatever purpose. They will no longer be able to kill small fish and/or register their little ones for tourneys etc.

I am glad you believe that 94% are released statewide in WI. I may be the only one out here who doesn't believe that. There is a lot of peer pressure these days for other fisherman to not report killed musky, but on some lakes killing fish is still pretty common. Ask these other guys about it in a separate thread and see what kind of response you get. More than once I have asked people what they caught, and oh they caught this or that, and then when I went to take a look here is a dead musky mixed in with the catch. I can only guess that they didn't want to hear the sermon or they had heard the sermon but were sinning.

You ask for studies showing the advantage of 40" size limit in numbers and size structure and know that there are none and are likely to not be any. If such studies were done they would have to be done extensively and include some of the outlying waters that some of us have fished where muskies are not common and get dead alot. Bone is a heavily fished and heavily promoted musky fishery that was one of the early MN favorites to come over and hammer and release fish on. If Bone is your argument against 40" size limits I would call it a bad one. I wish all lakes had the size and population found in Bone. Dang!! I don't think Winter is that good of lake anymore but let's look at size structure from the Winter study. Back in the 79 study it had 17 fish in the 38+ size group out of 306. Oops
in the 2001 study it had 20 fish in that group out of a population of 94 fish. WHAT THE HECK DOES THAT MEAN CPR?? You want studies? It shows right there that the proportion of 38" or larger fish was OVER 20% IN THE 2001 STUDY AND LESS THAN 6% IN THE 1979 study. A definite increase in the size structure within the testing population wouldn't you say? HUH?

Fish science unfortunately is horrible science at times and to me very similar to psychiatry, we know somethings, we suspect others and don't have a clue about many. I would prefer to go with logic and until I see ANY SUBSTANTIAL STUDY THAT SHOWS ME THAT 40" size limits hurt musky fishing in relation to size or density of fish I say 40" statewide in WI.
It may not have an effect on some waters but it WON'T hurt them.
It will help some of the waters a little.
It will help some of the waters a lot.

I think the 34" kill law does negatively effect some waters and needs to be changed.

All those in favor of 40" size limit line up on the left.

All those in favor of the 34" kill law line up on the right(with the other old schoolers, conservatives and right wingers LOL)

Those undecided, please go spend a month with Sponge Bob(but you have to take your own guns).

[Captain]

Stillwater, in response to your comment "see Minnesota fishing regs. under Muskie, Shoepac Lake, St. Louis County, Minimum size 30"." that lake as the Shoepec strain of muskie and they rarely reach legal size (40"). That is why they have the 30" on that lake.
The MNDNR made the mistake of stocking these fish in several lakes only to find out after 20 years they are only 34". They then started to stock the Leech Lake and Mississippi strain muskies with excellent results.
The Leech Lake fish are the spotted ones you see in Mille Lacs and many other "new" MN muskie waters.
I would just like to point out that raising the size limit on a lake will not mean there will be better fishing or even larger fish.
The lake must have the forage base to support a higher number of large fish. If the lake can only support many small fish (doesn't have tullibees, suckers etc) there will be stong competition for those species by the larger fish. This will ultimately destroy the baitfish population and then the muskie count goes down.

[Don Pfeiffer]

Firstsixfeet,
Yes heavy densisty can mean slower growth rates. YOU SAID IT!!! So if we have lakes with a high density and allow some 34 to 40 inchers to be taken and protect those over 40 I think we will have a better growth rate. We will also have more big muskies. It only makes sense.
Again you stated that I am against higher size limits.

Firstsixfeet I am not against higher size limits, you got that?

The more I go and talk to musky clubs and fishery people the more people are starting to think that a slot should be tried on some lakes and I am sure it will be someday.
Firstsixfeet you have only one solution and thats to raise the limit statewide. Muskie fishermen across the state must be willing to try new things and experiment and take the time to study the results and determine what works best.
If anglers keep a closed mind to new things we will never know if there is a better plan or not. Let me ask you this, Why are you opposed to trying a slot limit on some lakes? It certainly can't hurt anything. It will probably work.
I have addressed this issue enough here and by now you either agree with me or you don't. I have some good support on this plan so we will just have to wait and see.
I am at least working on making it a better fishery,trying to come up with new plans to improve it. Firstsixfeet if increases in the size limits has only gotten us this far in ten years or more I think you would see why so people are against it and why we have the opposition we do. It simply is not working or not working fast enough to please all. You really don't have to answer that I can imagine what your reply will be.

One last time ok, I AM NOT AGAINST BIGGER SIZE LIMITS, you get that firstsixfeet?

Now get out there and I fish, I am going right now!
later all................Don Pfeiffer

[JimG]

Firstsixfeet:

More ammo for your side. Even though the Bone Lake study showed that the "average size" (read weight) of the muskies in Bone Lake decreased, what none of the "agginers" (those against higher size limits) realize or care to know is that that the "decreased" average size of Bone Lake fish was still ABOVE the north american "average" for muskies by weight!!

In Lake Winter, all but the 38+ group were "below" average weight in the 79 study and all groups were below average in the 2001 study. Appears to be a forage "size" availability problem, nothing to do with the 40" size limit.

JimG

[firstsixfeet]

> "Firstsixfeet you have only one solution and thats to
>raise the limit statewide." (Quote from Don Pfeiffer)

cmon Don this quote is out and out BS!

Don
You can ignore my posts above if you want, however anyone reading them would recognize your invalid arguments here. You state I have only one plan. Not true at all. I believed I mentioned several venues that I would support for further musky research with the hope of more musky and more big musky(you chose to ignore them as you seem to ignore many points against your position, when you can't cloud or refute them). You can paint me any way you like and I know that it is frustrating for you personally when people don't jump on the Don Pfeifer Slot Limit Program and the "34" kill law" is endangered. You worry me Don as much as any goofball out there(not saying you are one just that you worry me that much), such as the Miltona group. You worry me because of your support for the 34" kill law. You worry me because of your podium. Your worry me with your drive for slot limits(more small kill). You worry me because I feel moneys are limited and you may divert them into programs that are useless, unwarranted and invalid. You worry me because I feel you missdirect people that already have limited knowledge and education in terms of fish populations and fish management. That is my opinion and I am putting it out here for everyone to see. I have come to the point where I think people need to post on some of this stuff if they have an opinion or they will suffer the consequences.

You seem to have this agenda about maintaining low size limits and fighting AGAINST higher size limits that I don't understand. You keep saying things like some lakes won't "handle" a 40" size limit. What the heck does that mean Don? Sure they will. How will they "not handle" it Don? Seems to be one of your repetitive group of statements you never explain but count on us to understand because it sounds important. All you have to do is put up a sign on the lake that the size limit is 40" for musky. The lake doesn't care. Does this mean that if the lake now has a 40" size limit you will not be able to register tourney fish from that lake or no more musky feeds or what? The lakes will handle any size limit Don. The population balance will establish itself regardless.

You keep intimating that your slot study will do wonderful things for musky fishing in many waters Don, I don't agree. I would like to know what fish managers you take with you to these meetings to give further support and information on the musky slot limit. Slot limits have been available for many years as a management tools. Papers and studies are being performed year after year by fisheries students and people. Funny no one has come up with this among the trained professionals. You keep suggesting that there are many many lakes that don't even produce 40" musky but once again you and I know that is BS also on your part(all the ones I am familiar with on your list do produce 40" fish, and two I mentioned produce a lot of mid 40's)I believe John Myhre called you on that one also. You suggest that we have density problems in some lakes, but I have pointed out one solution, that we could net fish and remove them rather than kill small fish. These netted fish could go in lakes with less abundance or fry survival problems. My personal take on it is that these high density fisheries are NOT a problem, they are a BONUS! And in truth Don how many of these high density lakes are there in the state? Not enough I think. You seem to think they are a problem to be solved, why is that Don? I also suggested that if density were a problem decrease stocking rates and put the fingerlings somewhere else, you seem to have missed or ignored that statement too Don. Worried about lower stocking rates on your "pet" lakes Don?

You point out that higher size limits are not helping and I am confused Don. As I pointed out before the self imposed higher size limits of catch and release have definitely helped the fishery. Do you dispute that fact too? Your statement may be true about the change being a slow one. After all until the single hook study there was a considerable loss of musky life due to swallow rigs that was evidently not recognized by any of us. And the kill from that process was CONCENTRATED IN THE LARGER SIZE MUSKY AND WAS UNREPORTED! In the same time frame spearing has returned and the Red Man has figured out where when and at what temperature he should go to MAXIMIZE his kill. Fisherman have better tools, better knowledge, and have jumped the learning curve way up nowadays. It doesn't take years to learn a lake. One fish being caught and publicized can jump the pressure and kill on a lake in less than a year. Habitat changes impact both musky, prey and the dynamic stability of all water and we are not creating habitat, we are eroding it.

I would like to see more and/or bigger musky Don. I feel that a statewide increase in WI to 40" is a BENIGN and BENEFICIAL change. It will not hurt ANY lakes, may not change some lakes and will indeed HELP some lakes to produce more and/or bigger musky. I feel that the 34" kill law on the other hand is a TUMOR, it needs to be removed because it is CAUSING DAMAGE to some waters. The musky is the WI state fish and I for one would get a kick out of WI doing something really off the wall and saying hey since it is the state fish and a great one at that, lets GIVE IT SPECIAL PROTECTION AND RAISE THE SIZE LIMIT TO 60"!!!

I try to respond to your arguments Don and try not to ignore your valid points, I wish you would do me the courtesy of same. If you come out in favor of going into some of the densley populated lakes and netting out a portion of the population and transplanting it, or doing some reduced stocking studies to further study density or growth rate, hey save me a seat on the bus. If you work on habitat to increase possible musky numbers or forage or survival rates of stocked musky I am there for ya buddy. If you want to do some propagation studies aimed at a higher concentration of females(and Don those ARE the ones that generally grow above 40")I will kick in some cash. If you want to do stocking studies aimed at increasing initial survival of fry, I am in your corner. But when you come up with this slot limit hype and being in favor of the 34" kill law and AGAINST larger size limits for musky I will curteously decline, thankyou.

(Oh, and also, you are still invited to come down and fish but you have to take the "idiot caster" position in the back, as I would expect to have to take in your boat, was I invited.)

www.yaarewhatchaarewhenyeragnlargersizelimits.com

[Don pfeiffer]

First off I do not appreciate the use of my name the way you did in your post If you want to respond to me fine but my name is not for you to use as you did.
If you get to many muskies in a small lake your density increases and food source diminihes whih impedes the growth of muskies. That why some harvest on this is good. The slot limit would protect the bigger ones. Pretty simple stuff to figure out.
Don Pfeiffer

[Jim McCullough]

firstsixfeet,

I would have sent this to you in an email but you didn't sign in so I couldn't get your email address. This a great discussion. You and Don have made some great points. Let's keep the "Don is against higher size limits" stuff out of it. Don has repeatedly said that he is not against higher size limits and it is starting to look like you are antagonizing him on this. The points that you have made are strong enough without it getting personal.

[John Myhre]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but, something seems wrong with the info from the lake Winter study. First off there could be a big error from the fact that the 1st group was aged from scale samples. Then there's this.
From the way I take it on the musky study side the lack of forage or lack of a certain size forage and a high density on muskies is the problem? Funny thing though, that the DNR has been stocking large brood stock walleyes and is implementing a special 1 only and ity has to be 28 or over walleye limit on the lake so as to keep more predator fish present to thin down the high numbers of small bluegill and panfish.
Sounds to me like one side of the DNR is contradicting the other side????
Also I fish the lake as do a few others I know and none of us see any problem as it seems to be a better fishery than it was and there are some nice heavy fish there too.
In short, the 40 inch size limit definately seems to have improved the lake as it has many others. Holcombe, Eau Claire Chain, and many more are better now with a 40 inch limit.
As to the slot size thing, heck we have enough problems trying to get just a 40 inch limit. As they are percieved as making fishing regs more complicated it would be even harder to get slot sizes in. I feel that a 40inch state wide with the exception of those lakes the local fish managers feel won't support them is the best idea. After all that's what these guys are paid to do and they should be able to decide which lakes are better off with smaller size limits. I venture to guess that given that senario there would be very few lakes statewide with less than a 40 inch limit.

[john]

firstsixfeet,

Well done, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm so sick of hearing about support for the 34" limit, why does anyone need to kill a fish of this size!!!! If you want bigger fish then you'll need to protect them, period end of story.

[Mike Deiss]

Although I don't care for "Firstsixfeet's" anonymous, abrasive style of posting, I agree with his concepts. A statewide 40" size limit would definitely be a step forward. More small and medium sized fish released now to get older means more and bigger fish in the future.

Mike Deiss

[DocEsox]

Wow....this is getting a bit circular and repetitive. Maybe a new idea to interject for dissection. I had considered the idea of the slot limit in the past....after doing a bit of research these limitations were brought to my attention. Slot limits, to my knowledge, have virtually never been used with a topline, low density predator like muskies. It is common with smaller higher density fish, i.e, bass, walleye, etc.. Due to this is there any information or support for this idea from fishery biologists who know and manage musky? I would greatly appreciate being made aware of any such backing.

Thanks,
BrianW

[RoyC]

I have the same general question as Brian W. In addition, it seems to me that slot limits encourage harvesting, which is contrary to the overall philsophy of CPR. If we do need to cull out some smaller fish, it seems that it should be done by the DNR via netting or reduced stocking, not by asking some people to keep some fish.

Roy

[P. Thomas]

Its very simple If you advocate a smaller size limit you are advocating that those fish be killed for whatever reason ie; Eating, bragging or economics (guide business, tourism,tournaments, etc). Slot limits are used to control consumption of the species and are not needed or advocated by a practishoner of CPR.

[Don Pfeiffer]

let me try to put it this way. Studies show that with high densities of muskies will grow longer ones if size limit is increased. BUT it shows over a period of time that the girth of the fish gets smaller so you have longer bt slimmer fish. Wit a slot you would reduce some of the smaller ones which would make more food available so the longer ones would also put on girth. Guys you have to remember wisconsin is only harvesting about 6 percent of the muskies caught and would say that a 3rd of them if not more are over 40. This means that ony a small percentage of those between 34 and 40 would be kept. It mat be ebough to help the long ones get fat and and to maintain a better balance and distribution of all lengths of fish in the fish.Remember the muskie is not an endangered fish. There are plenty of them and some harves in some lakes is good. The wisc D.N.R. even states that. I am for larger limits on many of our lakes but I also feel the slot would benifit some. Hope that helps.
Don Pfeiffer

[john]

Don,

I understand your logic, and perhaps in lakes which don't hold ample forage your recommendations may make some sense. But where I am lost is the fact that even small lakes in MN are kicking out big, big fish. We should keep in mind that the muskie is the top predator in the water, therefore it should be only in rare instances that they don't have enough food. Lets look at lake Mille Lacs in MN as an example. It has been known for at least a year, probably alot longer - that the baitfish population is way down, this is now why the walleyes in the lake are biting like crazy. Perch, tullibies, shad, etc. are all at record low numbers - do you think the muskies are going to get skinny in this lake? I think not, my point is muskies can and will eat anything, they may prefer the sucker or tullibe but when times get tough you can bet they'll take a walleye for dinner if that is there only option. I think the WI lakes would be similar.

I think the reason WI fisheries have fallen so far behind most other states are as follows: 1. Harvest mentality, I don't agree with your 6% figure. Go to any resort and look at all the 38" fish getting killed - it's not like this in most other states. 2. Sucker fisherman, it's widely excepted and continues to be used as a primary method to take fish. 3. Genetics

[john skarie]

There is no way of knowing what the harvest rate is. Not everyone who kills a fish is reporting it, 6% is only an estimate at best, and with 700-800 lakes there is no way that all these lakes are being monitored.

A lot of people that kill them aren't going to admit it, while people who release gladly tell you they did.

I would like to know what the big differnce is genetically between MN, Canada and the Wisc. fish.

What is it about the wisc. fish genetically that makes a higher size limit that works in Canada and MN not work in Wisc. ?

There are 200-300 acre lakes in MN that put out 40 lb. fish every year. Fish in these lakes are very healthy.

In the natural world, without muskie fishermen wisc. fish would do just fine without us killing them, so why not protect them?

JS

[MuskieKid]

I live in Maryland and really don't know what problems you are having. For an outsider, how about telling us what those problems are. Thanks

[Mike D]

Don,

First off, I would like to commend you on not taking the bait with the personal attacks. It shows how mature you are and how much you believe in your position.

Next, I want to tell you that I don't agree with you, if for no other reason than the opposition your plan generates. We need to do something in Wisconsin to protect the fish. Period. That means we need to adopt something right away. Your plan may be a good one for certain lakes, but it is only serving to divide people when what we need to do is bring everyone together. Why not adopt the higher size limit AND THEN decide what lakes need to have a slot? Why not have the DNR take excess fish out of the lakes you say have too many and put them into low density lakes or even new lakes? Could you please provide some documentation for the studies that you referenced in your last post? I would like to read them. If it is the Winter study, I don't think that was very scientific. Too many variables involved in that one.

John Skarie's post was excellent. I too would like someone to show me what is so hard about growing a 50 incher with Wis. strain fish. Are you telling me that Wis. strain can't reach 50 inches? That is ridiculous. We don't need world record fish here, (I don't believe they were ever here anyway, but that is another thread) just some upper 40 and 50 inch fish. Many people have already hit the nail on the head. These are the things keeping the fish small.

1. The tradition of harvest in Wisconsin. I don't believe the 96% release rate. As someone else said, people just aren't going to admit that they keep fish. That study is flawed from the get go.
2. The small size limit (A no brainer)
3. The tradition of live bait. No matter what anyone says or what method is used, it creates way more delayed mortality than catching them on artificials. Outside of Wisconsin, live bait is rarely used. I think this is a huge reason for success with C&R in other states and provinces and not in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin's problems all boil down to one word- TRADITION. And you know what? Tradition is the hardest thing in the world to change. Why do you think we argue over it so much in Wisconsin while other states and provinces just do what needs to be done to create trophy fisheries. The argument that what works in other places won't work in Wisconsin is just a diversion by people who are stuck in the stone age of muskie fishing. It is pure hogwash.

[Mike D]

I forgot one big thing that is holding us back- The resort owners. Not all of them. I have talked to some who believe in higher size limits, but when you have guys like John Dettlof preaching lower size limits for personal profit, that is a huge road block to a trophy fishery. Guys like that have no business getting involved in the debate since it is clear they are in it for the money and not for the fishery. Get the resorters out of the equation and you have won half the battle.

[firstsixfeet]

Don,

Before I start in on your ideas again let me say that I think your input and enthusiasm are extremely valuable to the musky bunch, including me. I value your fervor and the fact that you get the word out on muskys. I think that what Don Pfeiffer does is very important to catch and release proponents all over the country. I like it anytime anybody in the public light says something good about musky and musky fishing as long as they don't talk about lake X, or give away the "secret" method. My input into furthering musky fishing, populations and good will is dwarfed in comparison to what you DO and are CAPABLE OF DOING for all of us, and I respect and applaude you for what you have and will accomplish. I say this partly because I do not want anyone to think I have a bone in my throat called Don Pfieffer, that is simply not the case even though as Mike posted, my style can be "abrasive", but I am in fact in favor of Don Pfeiffers all the time and would like to see many more step up to join him in the musky zone.

That being said sincerely, it still does not change the fact that you have once again failed to address or even acknowledge other routes. Lets see, if I remember above I have been noted to have "tunnel vision", one "single idea", and I think I was also characterized as being "close minded"(and that does not even mention what my wife says about me), but Don I see two basic ideas from you all through this thread and NO acknowledgement of viewpoints and arguments other than those that agree with yours.

I am unaware of the studies you are talking about above with the girth of fish decreasing with density of population, could you identify those specific ones?

Along with that, please address the idea of lowered stocking rates in the face of high density populations as there are among the larger lakes in the state deficits in the stocking area. They really do not get the musky per acre that the smaller lakes get and they could usually use the extra ones. I have searched above but if you have made any reference to this method I have missed it.

Next please address why netting would not be MORE CONTROLLED and at the same time HELPING PRESERVE AND MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTE what I consider to be a limited resource, musky. The netting would not only give the managers hard data to work with on the amount of thinning going on but it could place survivable musky in lakes where stocked fish have problems living the first year because they themselves are predated. Did you know that there are indeed several lakes with abundant forage to raise some homongous fish but the fingerlings going into them seem to disappear due to predation? I don't think the state is going to run stockers up into the high teens before planting them, but this is a way that those fish could be obtained.

I am not of the belief that every lake has to produce a bunch of 30lb. fish, and I just do not view these high population lakes as being the problem that you evidently do. I have yet to go on the trip where I catch too many musky. Do you see these lakes as a signifcant problem and if so why? Maybe this would help many understand your viewpoint in a different light.

Next how about a reply on why some simple research to increase the number of females obtained as fry would not be a feasible study area?
We know from human work already that the sex of an embryo can be predetermine on a percentage basis by some very simple things. We also know from other species that male sperm tend to be the faster and shorter lived. Chemical, and time, distance and water temperature barriers would be easy to put in place and study. There are grad students graduating every day that do papers on much less useful stuff. Why not work on funding one of these?

Just some ideas I have thrown out 3 times on this particular thread and gotten no response to. I think everyone would like to see you address some of these questions Don, or explain why they are not worth addressing.

Until some of my research ideas are put in place I am in favor of increasing size limits statewide to 40". But if the DNR or some other DNR does these studies I would be very open to what they suggest management wise to the professionals.

We all know that you are, ahem!, "not in favor of statewide size increases to 40"", and in favor of what I call the 34" kill law, and also in favor of slot limits. One question Don that I think you need to address is How Many and What Size musky are you going to have to kill or encourage other anglers to kill to see the results you are hoping to achieve(even though the professional managers and many thinking musky fisherman do not think that this will accomplish what you hope for). What is the size that needs to be killed Don? Do you have any idea? Since you are the guiding light on this and probably have some unmentioned professional assisting you, exactly what size of fish do you think is the squeeze point? Is it the 20" 25"35" larger than 35"? We really don't have any knowledge of the specifics of this plan Don other than YOU think it MIGHT work. That may be why the enthusiasm has not gone through the roof for this. And once again how about giving us some idea of what the professional feedback has been on this idea? I have yet to see one sign on or be mentioned but surely you have one that is optimistic don't you? How about a name? Another question comes to me, what is the level of activity in the slot lakes going to be once this planned kill takes place??? and what if the kill, instead of producing many bigger musky, throws the dynamic of the lake off and all of a sudden you have a wallleye fishery develop with only limited musky and change from an action lake to just another musky lake??? What about the many fisherman that fish some of these action fisheries just because of that, and the many new musky fisherman who see, fight or catch their first one on these action lakes, can you promise that these lakes will still be the small but precious jewels that they are now?

Once again Don, I respect and admire what you have done for musky fishing even if I don't agree with you on this particular idea. I encourage you to go forward with the same enthusiasm and attitude.
I do however think that I, and many that post on this board would like to see you reply to ALL of the above questions. I also think we all would be easier moved in a direction that preserves rather than harvests musky, and that is why you are getting so much resistance here to your ideas.

[Mike Deiss]

Mike D-

I have to take issue with one point in your post: That fishing with live bait "no matter...what method is used" leads to more delayed mortality. This is not so.

The difference between single hook kill rigs and quick-strike rigs is like night and day. Quick-strike rigs, used properly, result in no greater and perhaps less injury and delayed mortality in caught muskies than artificial lures.

To those who use the generic term "sucker fishing" as a reason for the alleged decline of Wisconsin's muskie fishery, I say, "There is a RIGHT way to do it!!"

Single hook kill rigs should be banned.

Quick-strike rigging is an exciting, challenging, "thinking-fisherman's" method of catching and releasing (100% un-harmed) muskies.

[Keith H.]

A keenly interesting thread, gentlemen. Don P., congratulations for your staunchness. Civility is never a sign of weakness. I disagree with you to a certain extent, but more on that in closing. I thought all involved in this discussion would find some Lake Winter history interesting, in that it seems to be a keynote lake in this debate. I have fished Sawyer, Rusk and Ashland Counties since 1959 for all species, but my passion still resides with muskies. I also worked as a bartender at The Rustic Inn on Lake Winter off and on from 1978 through 1981. Indeed Lake Winter has changed radically, but I don't believe the legal length limit has anything to do with it. Make of the following what you will.
1. Before damming it created L.Winter, the Brunet River was a little jewel musky water, with an inordinate number of 40+" fish coming from it's deceptively narrow flow. Still did for years after the lake was formed. In other words, The original gene pool this lake was seeded with had a big fish bias, but a fragile one. It was a well kept local secret, and the light pressure ensured great fishing. Lake Winter, from it's inception, has never known what light pressure is. Combined with pretty heavy DNR stocking, Winter's original genetic strains are most likely vestigal, if not vanished.
2. When the musky population was at its (fish size) peak, motor trolling was legal on this lake, was so for many years actually, and it proved to be a deadly method. Slow, deep trolling of bucktails and J-plugs (yes, J-plugs!) fooled a bunch of 30"-45" fish. But really did a number on the plus 40 inchers. The lion's share of these fish were killed v. released and signed onto the musky board at The Rustic Inn. A goodly number of 43-45 inch, 21 to 26 pound fish. I didn't personally see any plus-thirties, but I know a couple were caught and killed. In less than 2 decades, observably so, this was a different lake.
3. For over a decade (That I knew- it may have been longer) The Rustic Inn awarded a lucky musky angler a free 6 pack of beer if you registered a legal musky caught out of L.Winter. There was no discrimination between released or killed- if fact, you were looked upon askance if you claimed a release. Your hands better of smelled fishy! And remember, these days were pre-cradle. Released muskies no matter the size were netted, boated, laid on aluminum floors before returned to the drink. I saw a bunch of just legal to 45" fish come in milk-eyed for that free six brews. It was heartbreaking. A sidebar to this promotion was the common recurrence of killed muskies coming from lakes other than Winter for... that free six pack. (It wasn't hard to see the difference in coloration and markings.) The musky board that hung next to the entry door at The Rustic used accounting practices that only Arthur Anderson could love, reflecting severely inflated catch rates for Lake Winter- part and parcel, I believe, to the DNR's accelerated raising of the legal length limit. Area fish managers of the day checked this musky board like Chicagoans vote for mayors in the 60's- early and often. Skeptical? I was there when new owners ended the free 6-pack promotion. You should have seen the catch number plummet that year.
4. In the late 70's and through the late 80's a Lake Winter-caught walleye was a topic of eyebrow-raised conversation- you had a better chance of catching a red horse or a black sucker or a largemouth bass. In the past 7 to 10 years, the walleye fishery has actually blossomed, with some good catches of above average sized fish coming through the ice, and in open water. Yes, a musky is an opportunist, but doesn't get near the caloric energy from chowing a walleye or a crappie as it does from a sucker or chub meal, which was (still is?) the original forage base for the Brunet River. Growth rates are affected by this, without a doubt.
5. Northern Pike were just non-existent in this watershed in the 70's. Anyone catching pike in Lake Winter these days? Any musky hunter worth his salt knows young of the year northerns in the same crib do not bode well for baby muskies. Northerns hatch ahead of the muskies and N.pike fry make a banquet of musky fry. Yes, they do appear out of nowhere! My family owned and operated a fishing and hunting resort on the Chippewa River from '47 until '63. NEVER was a N. pike caught in this river (above the Chippewa Flowage) by one of our guides or guests until 1978. I thought I was hallucinating the first time I boated one. Now they are common there and getting big! Ditto in certain areas on the Big Chip.
6. In these peak size years for Lake Winter, it should be noted that a lot of the biggest fish came from a handful of highly skilled musky fisherman. I do believe that 80% of the big fish are caught by 20% of the fisherman, even today. (Perhaps more so today?)
Hope this helps fill in some historical blanks on Lake Winter. I for one stand with those supporters of 40" size limitations. But perhaps in a fitting watershed, Don's slot idea would work as an experiment. I believe it would take incredibly careful planning because of all the things we CAN'T control and some that we can but won't - genetic stripping or shifts, intense pressure, gamefish base and forage base alterations, poor spawn years, single hook live baiting (MAKE IT ILLEGAL once and for all!) and worst of all, modern kill rates far exceeding what the DNR would have you believe due to unreliable reporting or mishandling.

Thanks for the forum, guys. See you on the water.

[Esox Maniac]

Mike D. The resort owners are part of the problem and a big part of the solution. We can't ignore them. Personnaly attacking one of them here will not help. You need to convince his neighbor's that he's wrong. There's another thread on another Muskie website that discusses some of these same issue's. Single hook rigs, and "what happened to the WI Muskie fishery?" including new proposal's.

Well, They used to carry guns in the boat to "dispatch" the Muskie. Gun's are now illegal. A pretty sizable group of Muskie angler's use single hook live bait, a.k.a. kill rigs and multiple poles. Just because it's tradition does'nt make it right! The native American's speared Muskie's while they were spawning. Does that make it right for their childrens, childrens children to do the same with modern equipment? There's a difference between doing something to survive and doing it for sport.

There's a lot of great stuff here. Don't let it get dilluted with personal attacks on individuals.


Al Warner

"It's your choice to Catch'em & Let'em Go!" :)

>< ))))*>

Al Warner

[Chad G.]

Thanks Keith for the insight on Lake Winter. If I understand correctly there were never any big fish (50" +) on the lake and we should not expect any. Perfect example of a gene pool that is probably never going to produce the 50" inch fish everyone is after. I am very curious what the next 10 years will show on the lake. I am sure to be there at least once a year. We harvast every northern that comes over the gunnel when muskie fishing.

[Mike Deiss]

Keith H.-

Thanks for the excellent post on Lake Winter. Seems as though plain old catch-and-kill took its toll on the lake. As I said before, I have seen evidence that this is continuing today in the form of single-hook kill-rig sucker fishing, although I am not on the lake every day as some in this discussion are.

The 40" size limit has certainly helped to maintain the current level of quality the lake, which is still decent. There's no way the size limit should be blamed for any perceived downturn in the quality of the fishery.

Those "original genes" you talked about...I have a hunch they are still there. Therefore, like you said, we need to ban single hook rigs, and maintain or even raise the size limit. Perhaps then the potential of Lake Winter could be fulfilled.

Mike Deiss

[Don Pfeiffer]

Thank you kieth an excellent post. I believe winter would be a great lake for the slot limit trial. Once you get more bigger muskies in there it may help keep the northern pike in check also.
My point in the slot is that the people that that push for a statwide 40 inch have not submitted a complete plan and should have included the slot for some lakes. If we are going to make wisconsin a better fishery lets do it right and cover all bases. I do not believe saying 40 on all lakes is it and the D.N.R. agrees with that. They use the enforcement as a drawback but it is actually is not. Look at all the walley limits and regulations they enforce. All I am saying is lets try it on some lakes.
It is too my understanding that Minnesota has only about 80 musky lakes not 200 but my information may be wrong. I will find out for sure ok.
I am not against trying other options either but lets get someone to promote them. You have no clue as to how much effort goes into getting something changed, I have spent much time on this and am getting more and more supporters that would back a slot trial on some lakes.
Don Pfeiffer... Yes lets get a 40 inch limit on some lakes it would help. I think the sucker fishing will always remain but I believe i wil face some rule changes in the next few years.

[firstsixfeet]

I think people should scroll through this whole thread and just look at Don's ideas and his lack of thought, and lack of any kind of convincing argument supporting them, his continuing lack of rebuttal for other people's ideas, or in fact complete lack of recognition of those ideas. When routes are suggested to regulate populations other than Kill and maintaining small musky size limits, Don goes MUTE. When asked to produce a list of lakes that DON'T PRODUCE 40"
MUSKY-he comes up with several complete false examples on his list and once again when this is pointed out to him he goes MUTE. When asked why not shift fingerlings to other waters he goes MUTE. When it is more or less pointed out that many here have put much effort into raising size limits and decreasing harvest to perpetuate and sustain the musky resource and that we do not think Kill of small musky, and particularly ENCOURAGING KILL of small musky is the best way to go, he goes MUTE. When asked WHY he feels excellent musky densities are a PROBLEM AND NOT A BONUS, he goes MUTE. When the question of dynamics and population shifts and quality of fishing changes in the face of slot limits comes up, he goes MUTE. When people have tried quietly to point out the inherent dangers involved with encouraging kill of small musky and what message that might send to all fisherman on all musky waters, Don once again goes MUTE. Asked how many fish we would have to kill in the slot limit lakes to make a difference, Don goes Mute.

Many ideas are suggested above that would make far better use of Don's enthusiasm and time without causing conflicts and encouraging musky kill(kill is the cornerstone of Don's plan along with fighting 40" size limits and maintaining 34" size limit over roughly 3/4 of the state's waters). So please read if you will the entire thread above and form an opinion because I think it is important. Don's current direction(in my opinion) has many bad implications for WI musky fishing and musky fishing in general, and he needs feedback. You might want to make sure that you voice your opinion before one of your favorite lakes is screwwed and general fisherman and occasional musky fisherman all over the state get the idea that they need to KILL more fish for the good of the resource...

(also anybody that wants to apply for idiot caster in my boat is welcome to it, my guess is Don won't be coming down. My last idiot caster was excellent and filled the position as well as it can be filled, he had a little experience in Canada, and the things you noticed about him right away were that he started casting before the boat stopped and he still had a bait in the water when you started the engine, smart enough to understand why the fish weren't biting but dumb enough to keep casting, he would poach my water if I went to slow and go back and hit a spot one more time if I went too fast, great guy to fill the position. He even caught a fish and brought food, what more could you ask?!! Also let me know if you have idiot caster positions open in your boats, I will bring food and I am very crafty about getting my baits back to the boat.) ;>}

[Melvin Wolfe]

Don, you have no clue what effect your proposed slot limit will have on the the selected lakes that YOU feel are prime candidates. You use the Musky Hunter publication as your basis. MISTAKE! This so callled "study" is seriously flawed. These are not scientific studies, but merely a collection of statistics with some guesses being made about what the data might be indicating. This idea (slot limit)was conjured up either as bar room talk or in the barber's chair. A lot of if's, and's and but's.With the emphasis on butts. How about directing this effort towards a solution to spring spearing or the elimination of single hook kill rigs?
Melvin Wolfe

[ToddM]

Hey guys let's keep one thing in mind here. Everybody here including Don wants a better musky fishery for the state of wisconsin. I have met Don and chatted with him and he is a nice guy. This is a discussion and not making new laws. We may not agree how to get there but remember we all want the same thing a better fishery.

[Mike Deiss]

Don-

Not sure how you figure Winter is a "great" candidate for your slot limit. It's not over-run with undersized fish. Fewer fish killed overall there is the answer to improving the lake.

Just say NO to a slot limit on Winter.

[Keith H.]

Guys- The last few replies demonstrate how difficult a musky slot would be. The emotional ties we all have to our favorite waters are fierce. (Mike's last post). And the biology has to be as close to perfect as you can have- L.Winter is not overrun with fish under 34". (Don's last post). You would have to find the perfect lake to turn into a test tube. Very tough. I could offer, say, Callahan Lake in Sawyer County. This is a lake with a lot of small fish. But too many other factors, musky chasers on this lake not withstanding, weigh in. I would rather work on things we can influence, and just want to let you all know I'm starting a new thread today regarding single hook sucker fishing for musky. This is something we can affect the DNR to stop. It's palpable, and it's obvious to enforce. (Wardens like clear cut lines in the sand, believe me.) If you have input on this subject I hope you'll weigh in. Also, I'd like to see the DNR spend some of our hard-earned money on a program not unlike Illinois does for turkey and whitetail hunting. Hat pins and buttons are awarded when you register your bird or deer. How about a quality button, patch or pin that you receive when you release a musky? Yes, it would have to be an honor coded system. And yes, it's been done locally and through M.Inc. for awhile. But we need a state award. The only demarcations- 34", 40" and 50" emblazoned on the reward. I know it seems like a small thing, but I have hunted in Illinois for several years now, and it's a big deal. A guy with a hatful doesn't go unnoticed and he gains a certain amount of immediate respect in circles of strangers with a common hunting bond. If we can create enough honor to the award, the cache will follow and turn it into a source of pride. It's a start. This probably needs to be another thread, come to think of it. Look for both on this site soon- One will title "OUTLAW SINGLE HOOKED SUCKERS". and the other "AWARDS FOR RELEASE". Hope you weigh in. Keith

[Tom B]

Wow, has this thread taken it's course.

Keith, thank you for posting on the history of Lake Winter. That puts alot into perspective.

Regarding the comparison of Minnesota to Wisconsin... I think that comparing lakes in the Twin Cities metro to all of Wisconsin is very appropriate. Most of the Twinkies lakes are less than 500 acres (there are 3 or 4 exceptions), most of those tiny, Wisconsin sized lakes have 48 inch limits and produce massive fish. If I remember correctly, the last 2 Minnesota record tiger muskies came from Twin Cities lakes.

There are also quite a few other lakes in the state that are less than 500 acres in the state, Round Lake (north of Little Falls) and Lake ??? located in Maplewood state park. Both of these gems are less than 500 acres, yet both consistently produce over 40's and reported 50 inch catches.

In Minnesota, the DNR has always been VERY conservative in the numbers of fish it uses to stock a lake and once natural reproduction is shown to be occuring, stocking is reduced dramatically or stopped. I suspect that within the next 10 years or so, stocking will come to an end on Mille Lacs.

If Lake Winter were in Minnesota, it probably (I say again, PROBABLY) would never have been stocked. I suspect that many of Don's lakes that have huge populations of small fish are also stocked to the teeth. I would suggest that reducing the stocking rate would be far more productive than any slot limit. It would also allow the DNR's scant resources to go farther.

If any of you are REALLY interested in what a lake's length limit should be, the person to contact is Dr John Casselman, a research biologist in Canada. He has found that it is possible to establish length limits by examining the cleithra (sp?) from 6 mature fish. These bones would be obtained from local taxidermists and would not require the killing of fish just so that this data can be obtained.

I think that I was the 4th post on this thread and will repeat what I said on that post, raise the limit to 40-inches across the state and then selectively lower it on lakes where it is warranted (and I would STRONGLY suggest that the best proof to justify lowering would come from Dr Casselman.)

Having said ALL that, Wisconsin does seem to be having a banner year this year. I have heard about more 50-inch fish coming from Wisconsin than what is caught in an entire year, so things are not all gloom and doom, big fish are there and they do bite.

Look forward to seeing many of you at the Spring Conservation Congress hearings (which is probably the biggest problem Wisconsin has in instituting progressive management programs.)

Tom B

[ToddM]

In regards to two of the lakes mentioned winter and bone. My understanding is the winter is a fairly new lake. new lakes have a break in period that takes a few years. For instance lake shabbona by me is nowhere near the lake it was when it first opened. Not even close. As far as bone, people tell me the genetics of that lake are screwed up and that's what's wrong with the size structure. Opinoins vary as to what to do and it certainly does not hurt to discuss them.


One other factor to consider is there are more fisherman period. More musky fisherman and more fisherman fishing for their forage base. More breakoffs, more mishandled fish, lots of other factors to consider.

[Don Pfeiffer]

I have tried to many of the questions that have been asked. IUse more then musky hunter for my information. The reason for a slot is not beecause a lake is overpopulated. It is one of the factors and a big one. I also look at what lakes should be producing the no of big fish it should and the food source. This is not just somrthing I dreamed up while suffering cabin fever this winter.
I am going to continue to talk to the people that I should be about it.
I am not going to be replying to any post for awhile as I am going to be unavailable due to some personal reasons. Go out and hang a big one.
Don Pfeiffer

[the slot works]

Don Pfeiffer is right on with the slot limit. We need to remove the fish that don't grow from the gene pool, not protect them so they can spawn forever. I support this only in Wisconsin, everywhere else, I say the higher the size limit the better.

I loved the post on the history of Lake Winter - Lot's of 40 inch plus fish until the lake was stocked heavily. The new fish that were stocked didn't have the genes to grow, while all the large fish with good genes get killed for trophies. Pretty soon you have lots's of 35 inchers. This happened every where in Wisconsin I'm sure. Stop by the Muskie museum in Hayward to see all of the huge - long muskies caught in the old days. Where are they now?

One of the old wives tales we used to hear was that only Big Lakes grow Big Muskies. Truth is: Only Big Muskies grow Big Muskies.

[JimG]

Slot Works there is one major problem with you thinking; ALL muskies, with the genes to grow have to get thru the proposed slot without being killed. Would you know which ones to keep and which to release? I didn't think so.

JimG

[Wojo]

Wisconsin already has too many slots.
Thanks to our "Native Casinos".
Screw the Slots!

[John Skarie]

Yes, genes have a factor in big muskies, but you guys make it sound like there are two kinds, super fish and dinks.

The rare fish that obtains record class size has to have good genes and a good lake, that's obvious.

But the difference between the majority of fish in any population is like humans, some are real big, some small, but the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle.

And big fish don't always produce big fish, just like some kids aren't as big as their parents are.

Why doesn't MN and Canada have the "problems" WIS has? It must be that we have only fish with super genes.

JS

[Just Me]

Hey guys,
After we push the 40"+ sstatewide law through, lets get them to also make it a law that ALL roads in the state of WI (city, limited access, and super highway) ALL have a 70 mph limit. If it works for fish, it'll work for motorist too!!!

[RoyC]

At first I thought that you were making a poor analogy between muskie length limits and highway speed limits. But after some thought, I agree that both situations are analagous: most states have a "default" speed limit (usually 55 rural and 30 urban) which applies unless otherwise posted. Isn't the same thing being proposed for the statewide muskie limits--40" unless otherwise posted?

[Don Pfeiffer]

It bothers me when someone says wisconsin has a kill ethic. This is from the D.N.R.
Infrom 1990 on this is what has happened, these are projected figures. class A1 waters had 2659 muskies harvested, in 2000 it dropped to 0 acoording to the report in front of me which I find hard to believe.
Class A2 waters went from 5882 to 1984 in the same 10 years.
That is is a big reduction, the average length was 38 inches.
I see where someone said said they do not see more big fish on winter lake and its been 40 inches for 10 years. I find that also on lac view des.
gee maybe the bigger ones are being harvested and need a slot to protect them on these lakes as well as others. Would someone tell me a lake where they have facts that a 40 inch limit has meant more big fish in any wisconsin lake.
Don Pfeiffer

[firstsixfeet]

Thankyou Don for pointing out the fact that the average muskie harvested in WI(class A waters) is LESS than 40". Sounds like a good argument for raising the statewide limit to 40". I think that with your help, and further logistic support from you, that we can get it passed. Many of us have held in the past that too many fish get harvested early with the 34" size limit and looks like right here you have made that point abundantly clear to all of us. Also makes clear that DNR records can be a little suspect on total numbers harvested. I would guess that 0 is probably a little low, as is 1,984. Glad to see you are starting to understand the problems with slot limits and coming over to the 40" statewide standard. Heck, lets make it national! :)

[Don Pfeiffer]

wrong again six feet.. I have several meeting scheduled with groups to dicuss the slot limit. As people sit and listen to the entire story and logic mre and more are starting to see its worth atry on some lakes.
Don Pfeiffer