40-inch minimum.

What does everyone think. I like, as it forces the accidental catches by pan and other species fishermen to throw them back under 40. Hoping over 40 breaks them off. I do fish tournaments and had to think how this size affects tournament strategy. With that in mind I just spoke with some individuals who run a tourney up in Eagle River that utilizes judge boats to register fish. Thus you don't transport and never take possession. Because of that they will still register fish of 34-inches. I'm not in favor of that. I like tournaments that hold fast to the size limit and require you to stop after 2-fish in a day. Keeps the whole tournament field feeling like they are still in it even late on the last day. That would most likely be even more the case if they held to 40-inch size for registration Thoughts?

Stamp really bad idea!!!! Look at where all the Salmon/Trout stamp money goes then tell me its a good idea.....

Forget the musky stamp. Bad idea all around. You can't tell me that the revenue generated will increase stocking, because that is a drop of water in the bucket. If you really want to help the muskie population, join your local chapter of Muskies Inc. Join. Get involved. Make a difference. Even if it is only buying 50/50 raffle tickets, every little thing helps. I know that here in Milwaukee, we have about 200 members. We would welcome new members, especially those members who bring some new ideas on how to improve the club. If anyone want to learn more about the Milwaukee Chapter, feel free to PM me.

People underestimate the administrative fees on a program like this. If we look solely at a few special interest groups the membership fee paid into a national organization only has roughly 10% to 20% being invested locally, the rest goes to a central entity. So if that muskie stamp is 20 bucks and you sell 2000 of them you start out with 40k. Lop off 80% of that and apply it to initial set up and then maintenance costs and you're left with around $8000. Going on a very cheap side let's say the fish that are stocked are 10 bucks a piece. You have 800 extended growth fingerling fish to stock statewide. Who gets them? Those 800 fish that you do get all won't live either and one year survival rates are well below 50%. Even at 50% you only have 400 fish. How do you enforce a kill tag/stamp? In theory a deterrent is not a bad thing but I doubt you'll see much of an impact when it comes to stopping people from keeping them. Are you going to position someone on every body of water that holds muskies? The WDNR is all about simplifying regulations, this would add one that would be cumbersome. Perhaps you could do it specifically for the Great Lakes but for inland waters it would be a nightmare. The muskie angling community is not as big as you might suspect either. It's a niche group that specifically targets these fish most of the time. The stamp issue is one that has caused some division within this community. Increased size restrictions do not. It's perhaps the one thing that unifies us the most and is the direction to go. I'm perfectly satisfied with a 40 inch statewide minimum. We still have the flexibility to make local changes but going above 40 would prove to be problematic on a considerable amount of water. We all want to catch bigger fish and more of them but there are systems that simply will not support 50 inch fish. If every body of water was like North Twin or the Chippewa Flowage or Trout Lake then fine, bump it up to 50. The problem here is that there are those lakes that are 100 acres and less that don't have the dynamics to support too much above 40. The template exists to make these size increases. You just have to have the persistence to make it happen. Biologically the WDNR would prefer to have fisheries that are self sustaining where they don't have to stock fish. That is the ultimate goal, not to take a look at the 800 or so bodies of water and divy up 800 fish accordingly.

Ulbian I greatly appreciate what you and your club are doing but not all systems have a muskie club capable of generating enough money to maintain a decent population. My point that I was trying to make was that people who pay to stock muskies aren't the ones keeping them. I would just like to see the people keeping them pay their dues for removing a very expensive fish and contribute to future stocking. If nothing else, maybe having to buy a tag would just serve as another deterrent for keeping a muskie.

You want to generate more money for stocking? Get involved with a local club. The impact of your money invested in those clubs is much more direct. Membership fees, fundraisers, some time volunteering, etc., etc. Just throwing money at an issue isn't going to turn a fishery into something that will meet your expectations. You get involved with those clubs and you network. It's much more effective than simply sitting back, tossing 10 or 20 bucks at the state and saying "fix it." Now you've become invested into a group that can have a voice. You can share those concerns with that group and work towards the types of things that Reef Hawg did with the WI River stuff. The time he put into that project is very underappreciated but set a template for bumping the size up to 50 on Pelican Lake. THIS is the type of thing concerned anglers should be doing...not pontificating on a website about a stamp idea that doesn't have the voice behind it. Most muskie anglers would like to see tweaks to sizes on particular bodies of water. You can't do that by having a voluntary stamp. You have to realize that the muskie angling community is relatively small but it is vocal. If you invest that time and effort into your local club and put together a proposal to bump up a size limit on a body of water you are concerned about you'll be able to quickly get support from a plethora of clubs throughout the state. You won't get that type of cohesion by instituting a stamp. If a club or a group puts together a sound proposal that is backed up with biological reasoning the chances of it succeeding are much, much more likely than relying solely on the WDNR. That's not a knock on the WDNR because they do what they can but because of the Conservation Congress set up we have getting the ball rolling quicker by a group of concerned citizens is much easier than sitting on your thumbs playing a waiting game. A month ago the club I belong to raised a ridiculous amount of money (like we do every year) for stocking, community programs, helping out other clubs, etc. In one afternoon we raised more money than the state would probably raise in a 5 year period by selling a muskie stamp. Hard work? Yes but well worth it. Now we can continue to invest in the community and have a positive presence so when we do ask for support on regulation changes we've got positive collateral to fall back on. You won't get that with a stamp.

Also a couple of questions / comments to those who are favoring a musky stamp... What perceived problem do you feel a musky stamp will solve? The 40" minimum being implemented should significantly reduce the need for stocking fish, and it's very conclusive that there are more and larger muskies in Wisconsin today than at any time in modern history. I simply don't buy the notion that there are so many 34" - 39.9" incidental catches that are killed on any water body so as to make any noticeable difference in the musky population density or growth rate. Why make an 'optional' stamp which is another program that the state has to manage (which takes a significant amount of money away from what was donated) when you could simply donate to any of dozens of musky clubs / groups that currently stock fish and have 100% of your money go towards the stocking effort instead of just part of it to a general fund where you have no idea where or how it's being used?

Will never happen in Wisconsin. The trend is towards simplifying regulations, not adding more. There's a question on this years Wisconsin Spring Hearings ballot that proposes to eliminate all stamps and add-ons to licenses and roll the revenue brought in by the stamps and add-ons into the cost of the license itself. The plus side is that is raises the same amount of money and simplifies the license and regulation process. The down side is that all anglers would now pay a portion of the stamp revenue whether they needed / used it or not. As you'll see in April, there are a plethora of questions on this years ballot that aim to simplify and streamline both licenses and regulations towards a 'one size fits all' scenario by significantly reducing the number of license types available and limiting the number of options available with each license as well as eliminating many of the 'zones' (north vs south musky or bass zone as examples) and going towards statewide 'one size fits all' regulations. It even goes so far as proposing to eliminate the distinction between resident and non resident and simply charge everyone the same price for a blanket 'one size fits all' license, as well as proposing to eliminate closed seasons and regulating harvest by tightening size and bag limits as those regulations have been found to have far greater impacts on fish populations than closed seasons do. In recent years Wisconsin residents have spoken loud and clear that regulations and licenses are too complex. In the aim of saving money with ever tightening budgets there will be a very big push towards simplification even though it's acknowledged that simplification might not necessarily be what's best for the resource.

completely agree with you on the trophy fish thing, but some people see it different. and thats ok too, because its there given right when they buy a fishing lic. That's why it up to us to educate and sway those opinions. 1955 it was acceptable to kill every Muskie you caught. It takes education and time to make change for the better. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/julaug04/muskierampage.html

wade.b, completely agree with you on the trophy fish thing, but some people see it different. and thats ok too, because its there given right when they buy a fishing lie. that being said, i would like to see the musky stamp in wisconsin to harvest a fish. contradicting statement, but muskys are just so much more of a low density fish on most waters, than lets say walleyes or crappies. make the stamp 5 bucks, and put it towards stocking new waters. i know i would glady pay it.

@esoxcpr The Walleye Stamp in MN is purely voluntary. It's not required to fish for or harvest walleye. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/mayjun10/walleye_stamp.html I could envision the WI Muskie stamp being the same thing. As far as keeping an accidental catch. There is no reason to keep a trophy fish whether it's caught accidently or purposefully. With the quality of replica mounts now days. There is no reason to kill a trophy fish.

I like the idea of a stamp because it would generate more money for stocking. Plus in a lot of the areas I fish incidental catches by walleye/meat fishermen are common and I feel like it would save a lot of big fish. However it would be difficult to enforce. Overall I feel like Wisconsin is way behind other states/Canadian provinces in regulations and I'd like to see more lake/river-specific regs.

Several blatant problems with the idea of a musky stamp that would have to be clarified for the majority of anglers to be behind it. Most importantly would it be a stamp needed to simply fish for muskies or a stamp only needed to harvest a musky? Muskies in Wisconsin are more abundant than they have ever been in modern history and size structure has been steadily increasing simply due to the significant increase in C&R in the past 2 or so decades. Exactly what 'problem' is a musky stamp trying to fix? Also why should someone fishing for one species be forbidden from keeping an accidental catch that is within the legal size and bag limit of another species? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm all for a 40 in. plus size limit and heres another idea on helping muskie fishing in Wi. How about a muskie stamp similar to the trout stamp we have to buy. All the proceeds to go to the muskie fishery. It would also keep the non muskie fisherman from keeping an accidental catch. Just an idea.

Minnesota 'sort of' went to 48". They did move the statewide minimum to 48" but also exempted over 1/4 of their musky waters from the new regulation and kept them at the old 40" minimum. Keep in mind, Minnesota only has about 80 musky waters total compared to Wisconsin's 800 musky waters. Most of Wisconsin's abundant number of musky waters don't have the size, water chemistry or forage base to support a limit higher than 40". Most of Minnesota's very limited number of musky waters do. 40" is just fine because it will allow virtually all female muskies to spawn at least once, and significantly reduce lakes with NR populations from being partially dependent on stocking. I personally don't think there were a statistically significant number of 34" - 39.9" fish harvested on any water body that would create any noticeable difference in the population dynamics or size structure with the new 40" regulation. Wisconsin at the present time has close to 50 waters that have a 45" or 50" limit on them. Minnesota at the present time has around 58 waters that have a 48" limit on them and no waters at 50" or above. Both states have brood stock lakes that are C&R only. Contrary to popular belief, Wisconsin has and has had for quite some time more waters at 50" or above than the rest of the world combined.

It is interesting to note that MN is at 40" also. Actually MN kicked it up to 48". Very nice!