Sounds like this might happen. There are some people against it like Greg Erickson of Garrison Sports. He thinks people should be able to hang a 44″ on the wall. What do you think? I like the 48″ proposal myself.
Can anybody say “Replica”. That way they can have a 44″ on the wall 
Make it as high as possible. 
50″………
Or do what Lac Suel in Canada did and have total catch/release.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to keep a muskie unless you killed on on the hook set/retreival.
No reason………
The population cannot withstand harvesting of fish. Not when the popularity of muskie fishing has grown to what it is today…….
What on earth do you want a 20lb fish on the wall for (A 44″ muskie”)…….Let alone a 25lb fish (48″ muskie).
Yea, at the later part of the year, they may be in fact a bit fatter and heavier…….But so what????? No 48″ muskie is going to make state records…..
Get a replica……..They last longer……..
Works for me!
I’ve just never been able to bring myself to even think about keeping one any size anyways.
Besides, i’d have to build a bigger wall to even hang one on! And i’m sure the wife would tell me to keep it in the garage!! 
Quote:
Can anybody say “Replica”.
I couldn’t agree more. There’s no reason to kill ANY trophy fish these days. Make the whole lake C&R for Muskies and be done with it!
Rootski
The excessively high llenght limits get me riled up – I can’t think of a less effective reg. Last season, I had an 8 year old boy in my boat catch a 41″ musky. His first. His dad wanted it for the wall. I see no problem with that. The number of times that this occurs is a drop in the bucket compared to the hooking mortality caused by just a handful of good fisherman.
As far as replicas go, I personally don’t care for them. I see nothing special about a replica that anybody and their brother can just purchase. If I want a mounted musky (of which I have no desire) then I want THAT fish on my wall. I don’t want something that looks like that fish – I want the fish itself.
Muskys are held in such high esteem by some that they push for exceedingly high length limits or a no-kill rule. I think this is foolish. These fish have a sustainable harvest level – albeit may be very low. The number of muskies getting killed with the current regs is very low. The people that a high limit would be affecting are not your seasoned fisherman that have the knowledge and experience to successfully handle and release a big fish in the first place. These fish get manhandled and photo’d and dropped – ending up with high mortality anyway. The once a year fisherman that gets a nice musky and wants it for the wall should not be denied that pleasure for the sake of a few hardcore musky chasers 
.
Timmy.
Quote:
There is absolutely no justifiable reason to keep a muskie unless you killed on on the hook set/retreival.
I can think of one reason….. A record shattering state or world record fish.
-J.
I would keep a 100 lb. muskie.
some people are going to keep fish, unless they make it all catch and release i don’t like the 48″ rule because now you are targeting female fish, a male muskie does not grow to 48″
Timmy;
I hear what you are saying.
So;
I have a question for you.
Why can’t I keep a 25″ walleye for the wall? Just one, that is all……I’m just a “weekend warrior” for walleye fishing. It won’t hurt will it? What about a 18″ smallie for the dinner table in October?
Point is;
There is documented proof over documented proof over documented proof throughout history that harvesting of muskies is impactive. This history was based on a time when muskie fishing was not popular. Today the sport has exploded and there are more muskie fisherman today than ever before. So, if everyone “just takes one” then it become impactive.
As for replicas, I can show you a replica that looks more like a fish than any other skin mount I’ve laid my eyes on. To the point that probably 99% of the population would believe it is a skin mount. Let me know if you are interested in more info on this.
I’d favor a high limit over total C&R. I’d like to see a new state record, or better yet a world record come from Mille Lacs. I’d also rather see that fish killed than have it weighed and released so that all the people who want to naysay it could have indisputable proof.
But a 48″ or 50″ limit would be great. Timmy made some great points about the high mortality rates among released fish. All the more reason to make sure that every 44″er gets released. An improperly handled fish released has a better chance at survival than a fish headed for the taxidermist! And maybe more people would take care in handling a fish they know they have to release (blind hope there on my part, I know). 
Release your first muskie to: a) develop a good release mentality for rare (big) fish; b) increase your chances at a second muskie; and, c) increase others’ chances at a first muskie — share the thrill.
Gary – You asked why you can’t keep a 25″ walleye for the wall. My answer is you can on many waters. If a native can gill net them, you and should be able to take one(but that is another rant…) Would I?…no.
I know what your saying about the impact that harvest has on the large predators (or the large specimens of any species for the matter) but at the same time, I think the sport of angling for new comers has lost something by dissallowing harvest so strictly. With current regs, the musky fishing is continually getting better and better. I disagree that we need to go that far overboard to accomodate a relative minority of fishermans preference. I personally have a 50 musky season under my belt – and have released a couple of very big fish(pm for details on one exceptional animal). I did it for my own personal reasons, though. I feel that no one should be killing many of them at all, but the relatively low number of people that actually want a 40″ plus musky to take home is not a determining factor in the overall fishery. If it were, Mille Lacs and Leech would not be where they are today. Like I earlier posted, I feel that the people that the new regs would have an effect on are the people that do not have the knowledge, experience, preparedness to successfully release a big fish anyways. It is about SUCCESSFUL release – a fish that has been manhandled in summer stands a very good chance of dying. These are a relatively low percentage of the fish that are being caught. As long as these fisheries are still improving, I say let’s leave them be. When they stop getting better – then let’s revisit the laws and change them, if need be. I just don’t have it in my heart to demonize a person for wanting to keep a big fish. To me – it is the same as telling a new deer hunter not to shoot a forkhorn…..(that should get the posts rolling )
Tim
Has anyone ever ate Muskie? How does it really taste? I would assume similar to pike?
Tastes like chicken!
“When they stop getting better – then let’s revisit the laws and change them, if need be.” quote by Timmy
That’s reactive Timmy and with a low denisty predator like the Muskie a reactive conservation approach doesn’t work. It will be to late then. The Canadian Ministry learned their lessons with the slaughter on Wabigoon and near the destuction of Lac Seul. Proactive conservation of a Muskie fishery is the only way to stop over-harvest. You seem very cavalier about a fishery that has taken a lot of effort and about 20 years to establish. Even the Wisconsin boards are warning us of what can happen if we don’t protect our fish. Don’t think there still isn’t groups of fisherman out there that will target a new hot fishery like Mn. Of course if we go your way and just sit back and see what happens, many of us will be able to say we told you so. I don’t want to ever say I told you so Timmy
Steve Voigt
With all the “musky guides”, Internet hype, magazine articles, tv shows that have been promoting this lake, its already starting to take its toll. I hope they dont screw this lake up like some other lakes.
I know Mille is no secret, I just pray that it doesnt get so commercialized that it becomes a “numbers lake” with schwiz 36 inchers swimmin in it. It should be a trophy lake and the only way to do it is by having a 48-50″ minimum.
hs
I say a 48 inch minimum would be good.
And I don’t even musky fish.
Sorry man, but a 41 inch musky doesn’t belong on a wall.
I’d feel better knowing that the big fish I caught is still swimming around in the lake getting bigger and giving some kid the opportunity to catch it.
What the hell does it matter, the DNR doesn’t actually make up rules after asking any of us… They use half-witted marine biology theories to “attempt” to regulate populations and size. There are so many variables when it comes to musky mortality. Lets face it, if I guy spends all the money on rods, baits, and boats to fish Mille for Muskies, most likely he would never consider keeping anything less than a state record anyway. If some joker gets lucky pulling a Daredevil with his Zebco 303, let him have the fish, who cares…
Quote:
What the hell does it matter, the DNR doesn’t actually make up rules after asking any of us… They use half-witted marine biology theories to “attempt” to regulate populations and size.
WRONG!! 
The DNR has an advisory group looking at not only Mille Lacs but other Muskie waters in the state. This group is made of guides, fisherman, biologists, etc. They have been working on this for over a year. I applaud there efforts. They are seeking input from everyone on this, including you if you want your voice to be heard.
I’ll gladly support the 48″ minimum. I understand where Timmy is coming from and don’t disagree with a lot of his opinion. However, my take, is to protect those fish and hope they are released in a safe manner. This is a great oppurtunity to teach the younger generation about catch and release.
Have you been living in a bubble or what Dan? That half-witted biology you mentioned is what has put Mn. on the map as far as Muskie fishing goes. I wish I had a dime for every mile I traveled to Canada for quality Muskie fishing for the past thirty years. Now you have have it right here. Wake the hell up. If you think there isn’t harvest going on your WRONG. We must protect this fishery NOW.
MM – I disagree somewhat. It may be reactive, but at this point, it is still getting better and better for big fish. Why not let it keep improving for a while and see where it goes?
I am anything but cavalier about it, I just think that with the improvements we’ve seen in the last 15-20 years in musky size in those ponds, we should not be changing a whole lot right now. It is currently working. I think the current 40″ limit is still improving the fisheries and maybe is a healthy compromise for all groups.
Tim
Do you realize that many Leech Lake females don’t become mature until they reach 42″? There are dozens of put and take / stock and harvest Muskie fisherys in the US. Look at what 30″ minimums for the last three decades has done for Wis. A lake’s size population thru attrition will naturally gravitate to the legal minimum. We don’t need another 40″ Muskie lake when we have the makings for a World Class fishery right now. Not supporting a high minimum on Mille Lacs and Vermilion and many other of the natural Leech Lake strongholds would be the biggest mistake in Muskie history. Please sit down and think about that for a while.
MM – If it would be the biggest mistake in history, I don’t understand how we got to the point of having world class fisheries that are producing more and bigger fish every year. If the fisheries gravitate towards the minimum size, then they never should have gotten as good as they are now. The biggest reason, in my opinion, that the lakes that are so good right now ended up that way is the widespread philosophy of catch and release that NEARLY ALL musky fisherman embrace. Mandating this to appease the relatively small percentage of fisherman that target muskies is not right, in my beliefs. There is a sustainable harvest level for all fish. It seems that we are not above this level on the big lakes mentioned, as the fishing is getting better and better.
Tim
I am all for a 50″ min length. After all,… is that not the bench mark that everyone shoots for….The answer to that is YES. As far as a first timer of newbie catching a mid 40″ fish, is it not better to teach them the importance of catch and release and how to properly handle and release a fish, then it is to put that fish on the wall. I have caught a number of fish that showed signs of being abused. Dropping on the bottom of the boat, or being stuffed into a net that was to small. Those fish recovered from the abuse, now on the other side of the coin, those are fish that I never would have set the hooks into had someone decided that they should have gone on the wall. Looking back at the first muskie that I got, it was a 42″ fish and it was the largest at that time that I had ever laid eyes on. It went back into Forest Lake and making the decision to release it was almost as good a feeling as catching it in the first place. If someone want to put a trophy on the wall I see nothing wrong with it, that is their decision, the problem that arises is that we all have a different idea of what a trophy is. If you put a mid 40″ fish on the wall, you have the right to do that, but at the same time I have the right to voice my opinion
Tim;
I think the point made here is that the average musky man is going to release their fish.
The fear/harm applies to the weekend warrior pulling a #5 shad rap on one of the reefs for walleyes and hooks a 42″ fish……Or the guy flipping tubes on the rocks for smallies and hooks a 44″……..Those are the fish getting harvested, because the average walleye/smallie angler never “seen” a fish that big……..Those are the fish we need to protect. We all have seen this happen. It is nothing against the walleye/smallie angler either…….It is very overwhelming to boat a mid-40″ thrashing machine on light tackle, to the point that those fish are generally kept.
Tim
We got to this point because of careful planning. In the early 70’s Gil Hamm, the founder of Muskies Inc. wanted to stock Muskies in Mn. lakes so we had a Muskie fishery here and not just in Canada. When the DNR said no, Gil and friends opened their own hatchery and stocked Muskies anyway. That took a lot of courage. The DNR realized Gil was serious and started to listen to him and other Muskie anglers. Over time a plan was developed to stock Metro Lakes as stock and harvest fisherys to satisfy the bulk of Muskie anglers from the Twin City area and then Bob Strand and others from the DNR with the monetary support of M.I. and the Mn. legislature researched the Leech Lake strain of Muskies and a decision was made to only stock that strain in Mn. waters. 20 years ago the out-state program(Mille Lacs-Vermilion and others) began. What we are seeing now is the prime effect of that program. It is now at it’s peak and vulernable. We need to muster some of the courage it took Gil Hamm to start this ball rolling and see it thru. If we don’t protect it now we will over time end up with whatever minimum is set NOW
Does that make sense to you?????????????
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
