Angler Preferences

Greetings fellow anglers.  I thought I would start a discussion on angler preferences.  

A fairly frequent theme I often observe is oppositional viewpoints regarding high minimum length limits for gamefish.  They are often times mistakenly viewed as as being prescribed to a lake to solely provide a trophy angling opportunity; when in actuality the high minimum length limit may be applied to provide an action/C&R opportunity.

Balancing angling opportunities with science, social and economic objectives can be a challenge.  What's your preference?  Catch & Release, Harvest or Both?  Why & where?

Makes sense, thanks macho programmer.  One thing I want to add is that putting a minimum length limit on a given species may reduce over exploitation while maintaining recruitment and abundance.  Depends upon habitat, recruitment and survival.  In the case of shallow lakes, natural mortality can be above average, resulting in the need for reduced angler exploitation.  In other words, exploitation (angler harvest) is additive to natural mortality.  This is why I like to see more restrictive regulations on lakes with high natural mortality.  Make sense?

According to studies, the way to have a healthier panfish population is with smaller bag limits and keeping the smaller ones while releasing the larger (>8.5") fish, particularly the males.

saw that awhile ago when I was researching why the northern pike population went from a sustainable, healthy population with a potential for trophy class fish, to a lake full of undersized, skinny, infected northern pike in the matter of lets say 15 years or less... either the tapeworm was there already, but being managed or had minimal affect, by natural means, or something either triggered or introduced the current situation.

appreciate your research, but I've been doing this kind of research ever since the DNR decided that a musky destination was needed

If you google Geneva Lake 2015 fisheries survey, you'll find a nice report by WDNR staff.  There's a section on the pike that describes the tapeworm in more detail.  The parasite is also found in Cisco.  

Not sure how or when that tapeworm was discovered on Geneva.  I can look into it and let you know what I find out.  

Depends on your definition of adult muskies.  We use > 30" as a benchmark for adults.  Our population estimates for Pewaukee in 1998, 2013 and 2018 show the following changes in adult densities;  0.5(1998)0.6(2013) 0.52(2019) per surface acre.  Techniques and confidence intervals associated with those estimates vary, so they are simply estimates for the purpose of this discussion.  We stock from 0.5 to 1 fall fingerlings per acre annually.  Pewaukee is unique due to the high productivity, which results in the ability to provide both action and trophy potential.  

Glad to hear I am not the only one who primarily practices catch & eat.  

I don't think harvesting is an issue.  But, Pewaukee has lost 30% of it's adults the past 5 years or so...at least since the last survey was done.  It's still a high density, just not as high.

Every year I see some people with muskies on a stringer.  Accidental catches by folks who don't really know the regs.  The hope would be that this limit, along with signage would help eliminate some of that.

Kind of a no brainer in my book.  Especially given the quality of replica mounts that are out there.

If looking for other regulations, I too would love a better panfish solution.  

No problem with a 50" or no harvest... is musky harvest really an issue?

still wondering about the appearance of these tapeworms in Geneva,  did it coincide with the 2010 first musky stocking? Before that,  trophy pike were available  

I fish for fish that I plan on eating most of the time. And they all get eaten. Every single one. I fish bluegills alot from Spring til Fall. I intersperse that with a dozen or so trips out on the big lake for salmon/trout, as well as a dozen or so trips for channel cats. I throw back any cats over 4 lb just because they don't taste as good. I'll fish walleyes a half dozen times a year, and generally only wind up with a dozen or so keepers a year at the most. 

If I go fishing just for fun, it's for bass, pike and the once or twice a year trip for flathead cats. I release all flatheads over 8 lb, and only keep 2-3 a year at the most. The last 2 years I didn't even go after the flatheads due to very high water.

I love fish. I even buy some saltwater fish just to have something different. I grew up eating a lot of fish and have only learned to love it even more!

Vegas,  too early to worry about signage, just gathering some preliminary feedback at this point.  If we are able to gain approval from fisheries leadership, statewide musky team, FMPT, NRB and law enforcement, we can run it through 2021 spring hearings for potential implementation in 22.  It's a long & scrutinizing process, but for good reasoning. We have to make sure it would be a good fit given social, economic and biological impacts.  I hope to provide more formal opportunities to weigh in on this issue in the near future.  Anybody have any opposition to a 50" MLL for muskies in Waukesha County?  Thanks for the feedback and discussion.

Ben, that is a huge Heck Yeah for that 50 inch musky size limit for Waukesha County Lakes.

Do you at the DNR have any grants available to the clubs, Muskies Inc. or MCW, that would help us purchase signs to put at launches if the motion passes?  I know it is something that Muskies Inc would help with...and I'm pretty sure that MCW would love to coordinate efforts on that project. 

Channel catfish and white bass are a couple of my favorite fish to harvest.  White bass are highly cyclical in abundance, so success varies.  Catfish seem to have very consistent recruitment.  My kids actually like deep fried catfish better than others due to the texture.  I prefer to focus harvest efforts on abundant species.  Proper care and preparation can make all the difference.  I've recently been approached by muskellunge enthusiasts on pursuing a 50" county wide MLL.  My initial thoughts are to support this on the basis of high fishing pressure, economic impact and growth potential.  I would like to hear other anglers' views. 

I'm like most and prefer a mix of both.  Some fish need more harvesting and some need less.   I'd like to see a smaller limit of panfish rule placed in much of the state.  I have thought a 10 or 15 per species limit would be great, especially during vulnerable times like the spawn.  

I like eating fish, but I can't tell you the last time i kept more than 10 perch or 2 walleye in a day.  I like fresh fish, so filling my freezer isn't for me.   I know a lot of people that don't know how to release a fish, and i can imagine many fish get thrown away freezer burnt.  Most of these fisherman aren't on these websites.  They fish like they've always, and like most rules they are not meant for responsible people.  

I agree with a slot on walleyes, but that is variable as well based on location.  I fish the Mississippi and i'd love a Petenwell slot here, 15-20 inches.  

I'm with JKB, I only keep a few fish a year and most of what I do keep are ones that won't survive if released.  I'm not a trophy fisherman, just one who likes opportunity. I make a couple trips a year to Pool 9 to fish the float and have a blast due to the variety of fish caught and throw back 90% of what I catch even though it's nearly a 4hr drive to get there. There's a place a few blocks from my house I'll hit up when I don't want to drive that is full of carp that is good for a couple hours of fun. 

Live in N/Wis.  Never take limits, only enough for a meal.  Game fish of any kind, always catch and release except walleye-only enough for a meal, 2 people.

My personal preference has nothing to do with the waters I work on.  I try my best to keep them separate.  Big Muskego project has been an amazing part of my career.  I feel blessed to have been a part of it starting for me with the gamefish salvage effort, drawdown, chemical treatment, restocking and continued maintenance efforts.  The project really started as a water quality issue.  Water was so turbid and full of algae that it has been documented that a dog could walk on top of the crusty algae mats.  The project was planned and implemented by numerous hard working stakeholders with habitat improvement as a priority.  Part of the bio manipulation strategy for bm is to maximize predatory fish abundance to maintain low panfish abundance which in turn results in more zooplankton.  More zooplankton results in less algae and increased water clarity.  Common carp are also a continued threat to habitat on bm.  Carp resuspend nutrients often referred to as internal nutrient loading.  Internal nutrient loading can also result from wind & wave action.  Emergent vegetation can reduce wind fetch and reduce wind driven turbidity.  Static water levels reduce emergent vegetation, which is why we have floating bogs lately (sustained high water from above average rainfall). Maintaining a high level of native species diversity can help reduce the negative impacts of invasive species such as starry stoneware, common carp, Eurasian water milfoil and any others that are not already present in bm.  This is no experiment, this is an example of a highly successful project.  Big Muskego has maintained excellent water qualty, tremendous wildlife habitat and an a great fishery for over 20 years.  Like I said, I hear you loud and clear little luck.  You would prefer harvest opportunities for pike with implementation of the 26 x 2 regulation.  Natural reproduction now accounts for a large percentage of pike recruitment in bm.  Pike are the main defender of predator prey balance on this delicate, deep water marsh.  Pike are more resistant to winter kill than bass.  Bowfin are another key predator species that are helping  keep things in balance.  Another Win for the pack!