55 inches and staying alive Bill

All, here are the email addresses to send a letter of support for increasing the minimum Muskie length to 55 inches. This needs to be done ASAP as the bill is moving quickly. Here is a draft of my individual email:

[email protected]
[email protected]

Dear Senator’s David Brown and John Hoffman
As an angler and activist for sport-fishing in Minnesota I am contacting you to express my support for increasing the minimum Muskie length to 55 inches. I think there is sufficient rationale to do this. As a member of the Anglers for Habitat group, we are very concerned with the over abundance of small northern pike in all of our best fishing lakes. The lack of large predators in these watersheds has contributed greatly to this problem. As many of these lakes receive intensive walleye stocking an increasing population of small pike almost makes our efforts counter productive. We must find a way to keep large Pike and if stocked with Muskies, in the lake ecosystems. We need to take action to protect larger fish, rather then harvest them.
Lakes that support healthy Muskie populations have far fewer problems with small pike, which can result in balanced fish populations. A second major benefit from protecting Muskie’s up to 55 inches, is investing in Minnesota having a thriving trophy Muskie Catch and Release fishery. Having a world class fishery brings anglers from across the US to Minnesota.

Sincerely

Vern Wagner

I firmly believe that all healthy ecosystems have top predators. That being said, why not push for protection of top predators that occur in a maximum number of lakes? In other words, Muskies are in relatively few lakes while Northern Pike are in almost all lakes. Perhaps we should protect Northerns above a certain size?

Rootski

My emails will be sent shortly.

I sure hope I will get some support from the Muskie guys to help lower the excessive WI limit of 25 flathead cat fish when I need it.

I might be the black sheep here, but I think 55″ is excessive. It’s basically making it a C&R only season unless you catch a 1 in a million fish.

The current size limit is 48″. I think moving it to 50 or 52 is reasonable. 55 is unreasonable.

Unless I gut hooked one, I’d never keep a muskie. The delayed mortality rate is believed to be relatively high for muskies. If an angler gets a big one on light tackle (damned bass fishermen), the fish is going to be overly stressed and probably die in the next few days. Why not let them keep it instead of giving it to the eagles?

Quote:

---

I firmly believe that all healthy ecosystems have top predators. That being said, why not push for protection of top predators that occur in a maximum number of lakes? In other words, Muskies are in relatively few lakes while Northern Pike are in almost all lakes. Perhaps we should protect Northerns above a certain size?

Rootski

---

This would be great but any mention of a size limit for pike is met with outrage from our friends in the Minnesota dark house assoation. Trophy muskies and pike are very important to our fisherys unfortunately some can’t see past the end of they’re spear…

that is very interesting and likely hood of passing is always 50/50 until the actual vote or some ridiculous added bill that makes no damn sense at all.
Long story short: My eldest son and I fishing. Come across 48.5″ very wounded Muskie. With help of another couple, I tried to suture it’s lower jaw back together so it could eat and breathe better. We failed. So we harvested to fish. Eventually having the meat smoked!(was great)
So now this fish would have to have been wasted???? Really….

Quote:

---

that is very interesting and likely hood of passing is always 50/50 until the actual vote or some ridiculous added bill that makes no damn sense at all.
Long story short: My eldest son and I fishing. Come across 48.5″ very wounded Muskie. With help of another couple, I tried to suture it’s lower jaw back together so it could eat and breathe better. We failed. So we harvested to fish. Eventually having the meat smoked!(was great)
So now this fish would have to have been wasted???? Really….

---

Someone’s gotta feed the turtles.

I’ve seen some amazingly injured fish still bite my lure. (I’ll admit none of them were muskies). Any 1 of those i would’ve never thought it would be able to live or eat…But they chew on.

A wounded or lethargic fish still stands a chance. One in the bucket is 100% dead.

Quote:

---

I’ve seen some amazingly injured fish still bite my lure. (I’ll admit none of them were muskies). Any 1 of those i would’ve never thought it would be able to live or eat…But they chew on. A wounded or lethargic fish still stands a chance. One in the bucket is 100% dead.

---

I’ve also seen wounded fish live on as well. But this one had been whacked by a prop, 1st the jaw, then every 10″ all the way along the fishes back to the tail! I wish I could find the picture but I think my son must have it.Never seen one like that before and doubt I ever will again. But harvesting it just seemed like the right thing to do. Any laws like the one mentioned, ought to have consideration for situations like this. I know, the argument is meat hunters will catch, then whack up a fish, just to harvest it. Sad world!

55″ seems a bit ridiculous to me. If the problem is that some lakes have an overabundance of small pike why not make special regs for those lakes instead of a state wide rule? I fish for muskie often but have never kept one. Having said that if I were ever lucky enough to catch a massive 54″er out of vermillion or mille lacs I think that might look good on the wall. Do vermillion and mille lacs have a small pike problem? Neither of those lakes seem to have a shortage of muskies right now with the current 48″ limit, so whats the reason to change? Also, where is the study showing how many small pike a large muskie eats? Do we know for a fact they eat more pike than panfish and walleye? A 55″ minimum would all but guarantee a guy who fishes metro lakes would never in his life be able to harvest a 50″+ trophy muskie. I think that’s just wrong

Was this law even proposed by a muskie group or is it bass guys sick of catching hammer handle pike?

I will send my emails AGAINST the proposed regulation. IMHO, it just makes the possibility of any given angler being able to keep a musky in their lifetime effectively zero. Such a regulation would only serve to appease a very vocal minority. 48″ is high enough…..as I can’t see the justification behind telling some once per year fisherman that happens to luck into a 50″ fish (and it happens every year) that they can’t keep it because somebody wants it to get bigger. Let’s face it a Mille lacs or vermillion fish at 54.5″ in the fall could stand a chance at breaking the state record. Somebody catching and killing a state record should not be against the law. In fact, I tend to think it would do more to help the sport than harm it.

Quote:

---

Was this law even proposed by a muskie group or is it bass guys sick of catching hammer handle pike?

---

Josh, Muskies Inc., Muskie and the Northern Pike Alliance are working on this bill. The Bass guys are working on other fishing regs.

well said Timmy

I agree with your take. 55″ seems unreasonable length to me too. I will not support the bill.

Have they done any actual studies or science on this or is this an educated guess? I’m wondering exactly what a 55 inch musky would eat that a 48 inch Musky wouldn’t…..in other words, to meet the “large predator” requirement doesn’t a 48 inch fish qualify?

The muskie inc guys do a lot of good work towards stocking fish, but this back handed attempt to put an end to all muskie harvesting is absurd. Why don’t they just push for state wide catch and release?

Quote:

---

The muskie inc guys do a lot of good work towards stocking fish, but this back handed attempt to put an end to all muskie harvesting is absurd. Why don’t they just push for state wide catch and release?

---

That’s exactly what this is Josh, just worded differently.

So what your saying buzz is that more muskies in a lake would equal less small pike? Where’s that study?

Quote:

---

So what your saying buzz is that more muskies in a lake would equal less small pike? Where’s that study?

---

Here is the definitive text on Pike, enjoy Text

I sent my email opposing this bill. thanks

I can honestly say I cannot think of even 1 muskie harvested by me or any of my many fishing friends scattered across MN and WI. Does anyone really go out and harvest a bunch of muskies? Any real world examples of over exploitation of muskies in the past 20 years? This reg doesn’t make sense to me at all, but I am willing to listen.

I’m guessing that book you sent a link for has tons of data from the Minnesota dnr and other Minnesota biologists proving that a 55″ limit would help the northern pike numbers. I won’t pay 40 bucks to find out though. Maybe you could cut and paste those pages and post them here for us

Josh and Craw, This is not my bill, the only time I fished Muskies; I spent two weeks icing down my shoulder and arm from throwing those big baits with a rod designed for lifting cargo LOL. The Bill is being brought forward by Muskie’s Inc and the Muskie and Northern Pike Alliance. My group Anglers for Habitat is dedicated to improving sportfishing in Minnesota and to bring the anglers voice to conversations that effect our natural resources. Folks who have commented in this thread have made some valid arguments against going to 55. This is how Democracy and discourse works,there is no such thing as a one-sided issue. What I’m reading in the support statements being sent to me and the Legislature is that: Muskie fishing is one of the fastest growing sports. The number of Muskie anglers has doubled in the last 10 years. The stocking program has not doubled and few new lakes are being created to meet the interest. Because of these and additional issues, the Muskie guys are looking to protect as many fish as they can. This insures the availability of to meet the need. I find it interesting that there are C&R lakes or strict regulations for Walleyes, Bass and Pike but this is my own view. The argument that we need to keep the lg predators(Pike and Muskie)makes sense to me. My advice is if you feel strongly about issues related to Muskie length limits, join Muskie Inc. Go to the meetings, meet with legislators, exercise your rights as a citizen of Minnesota.

Quote:

---

I sent my email opposing this bill. thanks

---

Me too slop.

Unfortunately the musky crowd is a well oiled machine and highly organized.

I think they threw the 55 number out expecting maybe comprise at 50 or 52 and low and behold they may get the 55.

Asked them both to vote no. 48 in h minimum is just fine state wide

Passed Senate with no opposition and overwhelming support from anglers.

another win for a special interest group. that’s what we need, a small percentage of people dictating how the rest of us fish. I guess if I catch my fat 54″er I’ll have to get it mounted in wisconsin

It’s a perfect example of how our system works….the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Even though they are an invasive species in many water bodies, they are put on a pedestal. Vocal minorities will win in our system.

T

Quote:

---

Passed Senate with no opposition and overwhelming support from anglers.

---

Question!

When the statement is made “with overwhelming support of Anglers”.

Are these anglers a DNR advisory group?
An “alliance” like the catfish alliance or Muskies Inc?
Is it a cross section of MN anglers?

I’ve been witness to some of the “anglers” at meetings and they certainly do not represent what the general angling population feels or wants.

Rhetorical question.

Apparently the Senators received a large number of phone calls and emails from anglers.I was only repeating what I was told. I need to start using ” ” marks to distinguish that it was not my statement.