Northwest Fishing Reports

Many good fisherman and women believe it is the right thing to do. Members of Muskies Inc. have espoused the "catch and Release" ethic since 1970. Other fishing organizations have realized the value of releasing their fish. Today we are catching (and releasing) more and larger fish than ever before. Statistics prove catch and release really works. From 1970 through 1986 Muskies, Inc. members released 27,300 muskies. 186 were over the magical "50" inch mark. Today, Muskies, Inc. members have released 189,150 and more than 2,585 have been 50" or larger. This is a significant increase attributed to catch and release.

Muskies are no different than other fish in that their number and size are being threatened in many lakes due to:
1. Fluctuating water levels from
a. Drought
b. Irrigation reservoirs
c. Flood control reservoirs
d. Public water supply storage reservoirs

2. Increased fishing pressure

3. Loss of favorable habitat, and

4. water quality deterioration.

5. Hooking mortality

6. Improper release techniques.

As of 2004 there were muskie stocking programs in 37 of the lower 48 states. This illustrates what these states DNR/DFW biologists feel about the importance of releasing muskies to provide a viable sport fishery. Catch and release can also lead to reductions in stocking efforts which encourages the wider distribution of hatchery raised muskies.

*In the state of Washington "catch and release" is of special importance. We have only the Hybrid "Tiger" Muskellunge stocked within this state. The "Tiger" Muskellunge is a sterile fish. It can not reproduce itself. The mature "Tiger" is a valuable resource to the lake.

Stocking muskies can be beneficial to the entire fishery. Muskies represent effective utilization of the aquatic resource. It is well documented, that muskie fishing contributes to the economic health of a geographic region. Most muskie fisherman are very willing consumers and are an important factor in the tourism business. Muskies offer a "mystique" and expectation missing from most freshwater fisheries-- the opportunity to catch a trophy fish of 40 to 50 plus inches weighing 30 to 50 pounds or more.

If you would like to know more about "muskies" in general please check out www.muskiesinc.org

"We work to improve Fishing"

Thanks to Jim Smith and Steve Budnik Co-Chairs Muskies Inc. International Research Committee.

Thanks to Gil Hamm who founded Muskies, Inc. December 9, 1966.

With the cost of a graphite or fiberglass replica being comparable to the cost of a skin mount, I don't understand why anyone would want to keep a fish to have it mounted. There is some important steps to take and precautions if you are going to have a skin mount done. One of them being - "What do you do with a 3'-4' fish untill you find a good taxidermist???"
If a reproduction is your choice, all that is needed is a good picture and measurement. Then find a good taxidermist/artist to do the job.
In either case, the finished product is completely painted to look real.
A skin mount will dry and crack over time and fins can break off without very carefull handling.
A reproduction looks just as good as a skin mount and in most cases, much better. It will lst indefinitely with only a quick dusting from time to time.
Also, if a reproduction is going to be your choice, there is no rush. You can have this done tomorrow, next week or next year or whenever you find a taxidermist you're happy with even if that man is across the country. If that's the case, it's a little bit easier to send him pictures and a letter than it is to ship him a frozen fish 4' long, wrapped in plastic and towels and paper and shipped "next day air" so it's not ruined when it arrives.
I've got to get a largemouth done one of these days. Reproduction of course. Yep, the one I'm holding. 9lbs 11oz. Yep, released to thrill someone else. But there's no rush. It's not taking up any room in my freezer etc. Just some pics and a piece of paper with recorded measurements next to my computer.
I wish all of you the best of luck with your fishing and your decisions on releasing fish.
Hope to see you out there.

Nothing wrong with releasing your catch and there's nothing wrong with keeping it either. Whatever you decide to do just do it responsibly. Don't let you catch go to waste in the freezer, if your not going to eat it or have a it mounted don't keep it.

Anglers are entitled to not be criticized for keeping legal fish. However, I'm asking all anglers to support increasing the minimum size for tiger muskies. Bruce, I'm asking you to support it, too. This species can't withstand angler harvest. So, you can either have meat now, or a fishery in the future, but you can't have both. It's up to you to decide whether Lake Tapps' tiger fishery will be a one-shot deal, or something you can enjoy on a continuing basis.

You can have both.

How long have muskies been in Mayfield lake without any regulation changes? Still seems to be a viable fishery to me...

Don't paint me as a meat fisherman, I'm not. However, I'm also not going to intimidate people who fish legal.

Don what is your personal best for Musky?

Also, what is the new minimum size limit that you want me to support?

Please answer those two questions.

Personally... I don't care what the minimum size limit is or is going to be, it's just not going to affect me much one way or the other and I don't believe its going to have much of an impact on the fishery either way. I think its much to do about nothing.

Tiger muskies are sterile, grow very fast and have a relativly short life span, so the future of the fishery really depends on whether or not WDFW continues to stock them. Angler harvest won't be the deciding factor.

If you really want to see a future for Musky fishing in WA then I would suggest that you lobby WDFW to continue the program, otherwise it will go away.

Please don't feed this troll.

peterpan wrote:Please don't feed this troll.

Wow...

I don't think Dr. Hook is a troll. He's expressing a legitimate point of view that's shared by a number of other anglers throughout the state. However, his belief that C&R or raising the size limit won't impact the fishery is mistaken. The experience everywhere else has been the opposite.

Dr. Hook --

Lobbying WDFW is not the issue. WDFW wants to continue stocking tiger muskies, so they're not a problem. The problem is that events outside our state and beyond WDFW's control affect the egg supply. But even without the impending stocking interruption, we'd still need stricter harvest restrictions to maintain a quality sport fishery. There are so few tiger muskies that it takes only two or three seasons to fish out a lake like Tapps. If you leave them in the water, you can catch them again. If you keep them, you have to wait 4 or 5 years for their replacements to grow up. Then someone else gets it before you do, and you end up with nothing. If I can talk you into recycling tiger muskies, then we can all take turns catching them. That's what I'd like to do. But I also respect your right to a different viewpoint, and your right to harvest legal fish. I'm not criticizing you for doing that, but I think it's in your own best interest (as well as ours) to release these fish.

To answer your questions,

To be honest, I don't pay much attention to my "personal best." I care more about what my boat partners catch than what I catch. I'm proud of the fact I've "guided" them to fish of 31 lbs., 29 lbs., and 26.5 lbs. in the last three seasons. I don't need to catch them myself to know I'm a good fisherman. But for what it's worth, I caught several that were 25 to 28 lbs. during that period. I don't recall the exact length of my 28-pounder; it was 48 or 49 inches. I got that fish at Mayfield, while fishing alone. My friend Mike has me beat with his 31-pounder, which is fine with me. When he's happy, I'm happy. As I recall, we forgot to measure it. And yes, all of these fish were released.

The proposed regulation I filed with the F & W Commission would raise the minimum size to 50 inches. WDFW supports it with a "modification" to 48 inches. The difference between their proposal and mine is that a 50-incher is within reach of the state record; a 48 incher isn't. So, anglers who want a shot at the record have to leave the 48 and 49 inchers in the water, because that's where a new record has to come from. If you harvest the 28 pounders, you won't have 32-poun ders. I don't care about the record myself, and personally would prefer a C&R rule, but I deferred to the people who want the option of keeping a 30 lb.-class fish for mounting or to claim the record. I'm trying to serve the angling community as a whole with this regulation. It will lead to more fish available for everyone, and preserve the opportunity to catch trophies. Without this regulation, all our lakes will have their tiger muskie populations cropped off at 36 inches. I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would think their meat is worth more than the opportunity to catch them again, so I think there must be more to your keeping them than just eating them, and I believe you when you say you're not a "meat fisherman."

Don even if I think some of your points are a stretch, I respect you for at least being willing to discuss issues in a respectfull manner.

Let me make it clear, I've caught my share of Muskys and I've kept one fish. So trying to make this a personal issue directed at me won't get you far. Telling me to recycle my fish is pointless, I already release the majority of all the fish I catch, which includes many species besides Muskys. I couldn't possibly eat or use all the fish I catch, so they get released. It's funny because I heard rumor was being spread at the last musky meeting that I'm the guy who targets muskys to eat. Thats so far off base its stupid.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread; I just don't see raising the size limit all that important to me personally or the fishery. Raising the size limit to 50" or even 48" is effectivly a statewide CnR regulation and it's fine with me, but it might not be fine other anglers who helpled pay for and continue to pay for these fish. These fish are bought and paid for by every licensed angler in this state, these anglers deserve facts not propaganda and streched truths to serve the needs of a few trophy seekers. While I don't think muskys are great table fare, someone else who helped pay for these fish might and believe it or not some people even like eating fish, especially fish they catch.

The egg supply problem is short term, so I wouldn't blame the demise of the fishery on that. I believe that we currently have a quality Musky fishery which can be sustained with continued stocking efforts. I don't believe that angler harvest is a real problem for this fishery even with the current regulation. I fish Tapps on a very regular basis and have for a long time, angler participation and harvest is very low. Saying that you could fish out Tapps in two or three seasons is a very big stretch. As long as WDFW continues the musky program, then fishing out Lake Tapps is very unlikely.

From the sounds of your statement below the current Musky fishery is doing very well even with the current regulations and they all have not been cropped off at 36" as you claim. Your proof of that!

I'm proud of the fact I've "guided" them to fish of 31 lbs., 29 lbs., and 26.5 lbs. in the last three seasons. I don't need to catch them myself to know I'm a good fisherman. But for what it's worth, I caught several that were 25 to 28 lbs. during that period. I don't recall the exact length of my 28-pounder; it was 48 or 49 inches. I got that fish at Mayfield, while fishing alone. My friend Mike has me beat with his 31-pounder, which is fine with me. When he's happy, I'm happy. As I recall, we forgot to measure it. And yes, all of these fish were released.

My point about asking you about your personal best was to point out the fact that if a seasoned musky angler such as yourself find it difficult to break the 48" or 50" magical lenght then proposing that regulation is effectivly implementing a CnR regulation, chances are most anglers will never achieve that goal.

The statement below is what its all about, although I wouldn't end up with nothing. :-) This issue is really about self interest than anything else. All the doom and gloom about losing this fishery or the quality of the fishery due to angler harvest is just not fact and your living proof of that.

If you leave them in the water, you can catch them again. If you keep them, you have to wait 4 or 5 years for their replacements to grow up. Then someone else gets it before you do, and you end up with nothing.

We've had the current regulations for a long time and from the sounds of it you don't seem to have been left with nothing.

What other species of fish in this state are regulated for a trophy only or CnR statewide?

Bruce, according to what you posted above, you are a C&R angler. Some folks may have a different impression because you're playing devil's advocate for the right to keep tiger muskies. Although I apparently don't need to convince you to release fish, a concern remains about, especially, non-muskie anglers who may not comprehend the scarcity of this fish or care very much about the impact on someone else's sport. I've had this same discussion with walleye folks who are vocal about releasing big walleyes and my response to them was let's mutually respect each other's fisheries.

It's true that angling pressure on tiger muskies has been low, but that's changing. WDFW surveys indicate 16,000 anglers are targeting this species. That works out to 3 fishermen per fish, based on WDFW's optimistic estimate of 0.5 muskies per surface acre, before counting the incidental catches by non-muskie anglers (which is where most of the harvest will occur). This calculation demonstrates there are not enough fish to allow every angler to harvest even one fish. In my own experience, I've mostly been fishing Merwin the last 5 years, and numbers and average size are definitely going down. Before that, I fished Mayfield Lake for more than 10 years, and the same thing happened there.

You claim my arguments are a stretch. There's an easy way to resolve this. All we have to do is look at the history in other states. Before C&R caught on, when most legal fish were kept numbers plummeted and big fish disappeared. A combination of stocking, harvest restrictions, and voluntary C&R brought those fisheries back. There is precedent for 48 inch limits. Illinois, which has a similar situation to Washington in having only a few muskie lakes, has a 48 inch regulation on their best waters. New York and Ontario joined forces to implement a 48 inch regulation on the St. Lawrence River, the Northeast's best muskie fishery. Although Wisconsin's F&G Commission rejected a statewide 48 inch limit sought by muskie clubs a few years ago because of opposition from resort owners, in fact nearly all muskies are released there. With 360,000 muskie anglers and 700 Class A muskie lakes (plus 80 rivers), Wisconsin's harvest is below 2,000 fish per year. This isn't rocket science. The track record in other states reinforces the fact that muskie fisheries prosper under C&R and decline where harvest occurs.

In answer to your final point, Washington regulates selected trout waters for C&R only, the statewide regulations limit harvest of trophy walleye and bass to 1 fish per day, and require C&R of large sturgeon. There may be additional examples of trophy or C&R management in the current regulations. Regulations should be written for the needs of each species. We don't have 700 muskie lakes, we have 7; Wisconsin's angler density is about 500 muskie anglers for each muskie lake, ours is 2,300. By this measure, our muskie angler density is 4.5 times theirs. They achieved a quality muskie fishery by releasing 99% of their fish; it doesn't make sense that we can harvest ours and expect similar results.

Hookster, how come we don't see discussions like this on your board? Are all the muskie fisherman banned?? I read a while ago where some of the guys couldn't get their passwords sent back.

A 50 inch Tiger is a eating machine and I am sorry but I don't believe they don't feed on other game fish.
Don, your proposal will impact other species.

YB, which gamefish are you concerned about?

Don if your numbers are correct and I'm not conivinced they are, your theory would only hold true if WA abandoned the musky program. As long as the program continues and the folks at WDFW continue doing a good job with this fishery, musky fishing in WA is not in jeapordy.

The musky fishery in WA is a low impact fishery, angler harvest does not put the fishery in jeapordy. The best thing that could happen for this fishery is to continue to support the Bios and staff at WDFW to work with this program and hope that some of the broodstock issues get resolved.

One of the reasons the staff at WDFW supports the increased size limit is due to the snagging of these fish, not legal angler harvest.

I've had this same discussion with walleye folks who are vocal about releasing big walleyes and my response to them was let's mutually respect each other's fisheries.

Keeping a fish is not an act of disrespect. The musky fishery may be unique, but some fisheries like the smallmouth bass population need to be culled, even with the walleye fishery some fish should be harvested. Saying that we should release other anglers pet species to protect our own is a cycle that I won't get caught up in.

Oh yea. I am not a catch and release angler nor am I a catch and keep angler. I am both.

So long as the regulations allow for the harvest of musky the decision to keep one or not remains a personal choice for each angler.

However for me personally, I would not keep a musky for the following reasons:

1. Musky are long-lived fish and take many years to reach trophy status.
2. Tiger musky are sterile and do not reproduce. The fishery is therefore entirely dependant on hatchery supplementation.
3. Tiger musky get large and provide spectacular sport. A released fish may be caught and enjoyed again and again.
4. If I am interested in harvesting fish for food, I will focus on a species that is far more common and self perpetuating such as crappie, perch, bluegill, or bass.

Jed V.
Bikini Bait Co.

1. Musky are long-lived fish and take many years to reach trophy status.

So we got one saying they are long-lived, and Hook saying they are relatively short-lived. which is it? anyone actually have some studies/numbers on this?

Tiger muskies have shorter lifespans than their parents. Muskellunge and northern pike can live 25 or 30 years, but tiger muskies' average lifespan is 6 to 8 years. Tiger muskies grow faster, but it takes a 12" to 15" fingerling 3 or 4 years to become a 36-inch fish. For sport fishing purposes, the ideal size is around 43 inches (roughly 20 lbs.) because those fish can exist in good numbers in a healthy fishery and are a lot more fun to catch than 36-inchers. A 43-inch tiger muskie probably is about 6 to 7 years old, counting the year it spent in the hatchery. So if another angler harvests a 20-pounder, you have to wait 5 years for replacement stocking to provide you with another one.

Don has it right. 5 years for a replacement fish of 43" in size is very short lived, especially for a fish that big! So with continued stocking efforts, it would not be difficult to sustain a trophy fishery.

I do think the minimum size limit should be raised but to raise it to a size like 48" which makes the fishery effectively a catch and release fishey seems a little disingenuous. A more realistic size limit would be something like 42" to 44". Most fish that size are at the end of their life cycle anyway and it would still give the trophy seekers a better chance of getting their trophys while also giving the average angler a chance to bag a very big fish, which in turn would be more likely to bring new anglers to the sport.

Five years has never seemed like a short time to me.