It was discussed last night at the Mille Lacs Fishery Input meeting to increase the minimum size limit on Muskie to 48″ on Mille Lacs. Pretty much everyone in the group was in favor of the change. I am wondering what your thoughts are? I am planning on printing this out and presenting it to the Fisheries Group so keep your answers on topic please.
All in favor. No need to keep a muskie under 48″, let alone any musky.
Sounds excellent to me
I’d like to see this change statewide to eliminate confusion, and to help protect the fishery. With the exception of Shoepack Lake, of course.
I like the idea of 48 inch reg on the pond. It gives me a shot at catching one that is 50+ that much better. Plus you can always get a reproduction mount made if you want.
Ron
The musky is a majestic beast in my book. Why kill it?
Yep, big walleyes, bass, & pike are wanted animals, but they do reproduce much faster than your musky.
Harvesting of Muskys is a big mistake. Look at the Wis ski waters that were harvested for a number of years. Yes, they have alot of skis, but their quality has dropped. Too many people harvesting. Wis musky waters are no longer superior………
Personally, I would like to see a 54″ minimum state wide for all musky harvesting.
Today replicas are better than skin mounts. I had the opportunity to review LAX reproductions out of Wis. Their replicas are more realistic than the real fish. Their replicas have a real looking mouth, real looking gills, real looking throat. You cannot tell the difference between a skin and a reproduction from LAX.
Lastly, Mille Lacs has become a “monster ski” lake. It is revealing more and more fish that are potentially going to break the state record. The quality of food for the musky in Mille Lacs is giving these fish excellent growth, along with the good genetics of the strain in the lake. At the rate Mille Lacs is going, I would bet money in 2 years the state record will be broken. Given another 5 years, it may just beat the world record.
Fishing LOTW has revealed many, many fish over 50″. These are thick, heavy fish. But talking with many of the musky masters on that water (including Doug Johnson and Dick Pearson), it has come to surface that not alot of 40+ pound fish are getting caught in LOTW. Could it be that LOTW is only going to produce an average 40lb monster for “big fish”??? Is it because of the strain or the food??? It appears that in the past few recent years that 40lb fish are “coming out” of Mille Lacs. With that said, why harvest when the record is knocking on the door????
Today’s musky fishing is the best we have ever seen it. It is all due to releasing fish and not harvesting. With the ever fast growing population of musky hunters, why add to the potential chance of the fish quantity and quality declining??? What is going to happen in the next 20 years…….as ski fishing becomes more and more and more popular????
French Lake in Faribault has a bad reputation of people killing muskies. This is both fisherman and lake shore owneres. People are harvesting any fish reaching 45 inches. There are pictures all over the bait shops down there of big fish getting killed. For a small lake, it can’t handle that type of harvesting. Now, on top of that, the lake is a zoo with pressue. I’m not saying it is a bad thing that more and more people are ski fishing. It is just a bad thing for the sport that people are harvesting a small lake. The other bad deal going on here are the residents of French. Many, many residents are blaming the muskies for wrecking their walleye and crappie fishing. The claim the muskies are eating machines, gulping up all the fish in the lake. These residents are using pitch forks and back-stabbing these fish under their docks. This is a known, proven fact. I know that there are a few residents and anglers not happy with the introduction of muskies to Mille Lacs. They have a fear that the muskies are going to disrupt the balance of fish pre-existing in the lake. If this is the case…….Let me ask you what LOTW, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, & Leech have in common???? They are natural lakes that are producers of BIG WALLEYES and BIG MUSKIES. And there are vast quantities of each species in those waters.
Another example to look at is “Minnesota’s fisheries” are starting to be equal to Canada’s. People don’t need to go on the remote fishing trips of the far north to catch quality and quantity. Mille Lacs is capable of producing 5 to 10 fish days, with the GREAT chance of catching a 40lb fish. That is comparable to LOTW, Lac Seul, Eagle Lake, and many, many other quality ski waters of the sheild. These quality waters are establishing minimum size limits to no harvest on Lac Seul. Many, many lodges on LOTW have a no harvest rule to fishing muskies out of their resort. If you stay there, you throw them back!!! To promote harvesting of Mille Lacs would only reverse the great work and teachings put in place to protect these fish.
Now, I know you are stating a 48″ minimum on Mille Lacs, but that still allows harvesting. Yep, have no problem establishing a 54″ minimum to keep the state record, but that is it.
Other than that, I really have no opinion whatsoever on this subject!!!
I say a 50″ minimum. I don’t see why anyone would keep a ski unless it was mortally wounded or a definite state record.
An increase in the minimum size limit makes sense to me.
Well said Gary!
I am in 100% support. Let ’em go and let ’em grow..jim
I agree to an increase to size but, I would like to see a 50 or 52″ minimum. For many of the same reasons stated above. I think 54″ could be a little steep. I remember seeing a post on this site of a very fat muskie caught and released and he was bordering a state record and I think he was around 50″. There would be no good reason to harvest a fish under that, in my opinion. 
Lip Ripper;
In friendly debate, why harvest the fish if it isn’t the state record??? That is the beautiful thing about Mille Lacs. The lake is producing “tankers”, where fish at 48 or 50″ is pushing the mid to hi 40lb mark (I’m not saying all, but some!!!). Other lakes this fish would be a common 30 to 35lb fish
Now, if that fish is harvested, the work is completed. It is “game over”.
HOWEVER, what would the weight of that fish be if she was 54″? There are 54″ fish in this system that have the same girth. I recall the same fish you are referring to. I believe she had a 29″ girth. Now, if you use the formula of 54″Lx29″Gx29″G / 800 = 56.75lbs……..These fish are in the system. Sounds like a state record waiting to be caught. But it won’t be a state record if the fish is harvested at a smaller size.
So, it all comes down to is why do you want to harvest a fish under 50″, let alone under 54″??? What is the point? To put it on the wall? Replicas look better PLUS the fish cannot handle the harvesting vs reproduction rate.
Up on LOTW, you come into the lodge and the dock crew ask: “how did you do?”. I respond with a “good day, a 45”. Their response is blank……..they turn their head. It is nothing to them……..they see it many, many days………respond with: “Good day, caught a 50 incher!” Their response is “nice fish”…….that is it. Now, come in and say you caught a 55” fish!!!! Their heads turn your way and you are congratulated for catching a “big fish”. It is all mentality. It is no different than a 6lb walleye on P4. Yep, nice fish. How about an 8lb on P4. Hey, nice fish!!!. How about the response of a 10lber – CONGRATS!!! Lastly, ask James about his attitude and excitement of the 14lber caught last spring. He still gets excited.
Are you going to mount a 6lb walleye? Most people are going to say no. Why not??? It is a big fish!!! Why not? Because it is a “common fish”. AND in Mille Lacs, 48″ muskies are a “common fish”.
Don’t get me wrong. A 48″ ski is a monster of a beast. But it really isn’t a monster of a musky. A 6lb walleye is a monster of a fish, when you compare it to a crappie, but a 6lb walleye is not a monster in the walleye world.
I would rather see people knife 25″ walleyes for the dinner table out of mille lacs, than see 48″ skis knifed, let alone 52″ skis knifed. The question then comes to: “why can’t I knife a 25″ walleye for dinner????” I can here the cries now!!! That is a “monster in the making” that hasn’t reached its growing peak. I agree that it shouldn’t be knifed. So is a 48 or 52 inch ski…….That is a monster in the making that hasn’t reached its peak. Therefore, let it continue to grow and reproduce.
Scott,I don’t favor the reg,I don’t think it will produce bigger fish in this already great fishiery,I grew up fishing Leach and every time we went to play around{about once a year] we had a great chance at a legal muskie,I beleive them great fish are in Millelacs and it is the angler not hooking them,not that a new reg will help anglers to reach more fish over 50″.
Might this reg hurt some of the Muskie Tournaments?
The actaul harvest of Muskie on Mille Lacs is very minimal, Less than 100 fish per year usually. Changing the regulation will not change the forage base at all. It is more that we would like to see Mille Lacs designated as a “Trophy Muskie Lake” with this designation the lake regulations could then be changed.
The purpose of this thread is get opinions of the regulation. A 50″ minimum was discussed at the meeting also, either way, 48, 50 or 54 people really do not harvest a lot of Muskie from Mille Lacs.
There is some discussion of changing the regs statewide also, and there is an input group working on that. This is something we would like to see changed a little quicker. keep the ideas coming, but try to keep the posts a little shorter. I will be printing this whole thing out
Once again Gary posts something worth printing out.
With good cheap cameras and reproduction mounts available, why kill any big fish at all?
Rootski
I am all for it. I think that 50″ would be a great min length. A person who calls themselves a TRUE musky fisherman would not even think twice about returning a 50″ fish to the water, its just what we do! I am just going to guess here that of the 100 fish that come out of Mille per year, the majority of these fish are caught by the weekend croud, who are not really out there chasing the big girls. Don’t get me wrong, a 50″ fish is a true trophy, and if someone feels that they want to keep it, who I am to say anything bad about that. 50″+ is what all musky hunters are after, for what????? A photo, bragging rights, I guess it is how we measure our success. Either way I would like to see a state wide min at 50″. Just my 2 cents…….B2
Lil’ Ripper,
I think the fish you are talking about was this one. It was 55″x25″ and was released. The DNR fisheries people used a formula to determain the weight, and it is supposed to have been a state record fish. A year or two prior to that fish being caught, a man up on Lake Bemidji caught one that was 55″x23.5″ and kept, which was less than a pound from the record.
Gary….. I totally agree with you. I’m in favor of increasing the minimum size limit. My recollection of that fish it was like 50″ with that huge 29″ girth. I see your point and understand what you are saying and trying to accomplish. But what if you caught a fish that happened to be a 52″ fish with a 29″ inch girth, that equals an approximate 54.67 lbs(52Lx29Gx29G/800)??????. That calcualtion I know it is rough but works out to be .67 lbs greater than the State Record. I would then have to release a potential state record under the 54″ requirement?????? I know that was an extremely rare fat momma, but I’m just saying to tone the 54″ minimum size requirement down a tad. To insure that if you do catch a cow like that one, you would have the right (still your choice to keep or release) to claim the potential state record. It may be possible to even have a bigger girth than 29″ especially @ 52″. So that is why I state the the limit @ 54″ may be a tad steep or large. So with that being said I would welcome a 50″ minimum size limit.
Just my opinion! 
JLDII
The fish and Gary are talking about was caught on Mille Lacs last year and was around 50″ with a 29″ girth. This is of memory recall who knows if that is any good any more??? Does anyone have the link to that fish caught, that they could post here????
I’m not sure, but I think that fish was caught by Tim Chapman. I remember hearing about it.
Everyone, please remember, the use of “trophy” regulations is not to discourage people from coming to Mille Lacs and fishing for muskies. It is more to raise their expectations of what the lake may hold for them, and encourage more people to come to a lake that is being pro-active in its approach towards the future with these magnificent fish.
Also, for the person who asked about if this would hurt muskie tournaments, NO! Muskie tourneys are all catch and release affairs. When you catch a fish, a judge boat comes to you, measures your fish, tags it, and it is then released right where you caught it. They only use total inches caught to determain winners.
Lip!!! Very good point!!!
Maybe I’m being a bit too extreme with the 54″ limit????
It is just that this lake is a great fishery and with continued vast growth of musky hunters, I would hate to see a “harvest” come into play. The vast majority (probably 99%) of the musky hunters are total catch-release. It is generally the average angler, that hooks into these beast that keep them (I’m not knocking that angler), while fishing for walleyes or smallies. That is where I would like to see the protection.
Gary, I hear you good buddy!
It’s just when I’m rigging on the Flats next year for eyes and Pull up that 53″ with 29″ girth with 8 lb test. I want the record 
! Just teasing Big Guy!
Gary,
I’m not trying to toot my own horn here, but that is the very reson I offered this idea up to the board last night.
The harvest of these fish isn’t from the muskie fishermen, its from those who accidentaly catch one, maybe they have never caught or seen one before, and since its a legal fish, they keep it. The 48″ mark will save many of those fish.
Also, there are some individuals who go out and occasionaly fish for muskies and kill every legal one they catch because they think those fish hurt their own prefered species. I’ve witnessed it on the pond, and it is sicking to watch a person measure a fish, then take out a baseball bat and do a Barry Bonds imitation on it. Several times I found muskie carcasses in the dumpster at the resort I work out of on Mille Lacs. The people doing it always do it after dark, so nobody knows who is doing it, and they always throw them in the dumpster instead of the fish cleaning shack. They must be affraid of what the other resorters will think of them if they knew what was going on. The 48″ mark will cut back on that also.
Absolutely 48″…
While I do not fish Mille Lac for muskie, I do fish Chequamegon for smallies, and I believe the size restictions there do make for some “trophy-sized” fish. A 50″ limit on Muskie in this state would be a good “start” to creating the same situation. 50″ IS NIFTY!
Whoops! Two responses. See mine below.
Thanks Pig_Hunter. Dam that girl is Fat. Who ever said I did not like my girls hefty?????? WOW!
as a year around resident on lake mille lacs i support a 50″ minimum. as gary said, this lake has a good chance at breaking the state record. if it was 54″ i would support that too. now is the time to take care of this matter, thank you for asking for my input……tom f
There are two things about Mille Lacs that I believe create a requirement for a high size limit (I’d prefer 50″ or 52″):
1) Mille Lacs gets a TON of pressure from muskie anglers
2) Mille Lacs has the potential to produce a new state record
Those two factors combine to make this a no-brainer. I look forward to the change!
John_Nesse
I live on Mille Lacs and would be in favor of much more stringent regs for keeping Musky. We should identify “Trophy” Lakes such as Mille Lacs and regulate accordingly. 50+ is my opinion. Keep those beasts growing and breeding.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
