Change the size limit to 50 inches

[Don Wittenberger]

Here is the written testimony I submitted on behalf of Chapter 57 members.

To the Fish and Wildlife Commission
Re: Tiger Muskie Rules

I submitted Proposal No. P 044 to raise the tiger muskie minimum size to 50 inches (from 36 inches currently). I also speak for Muskies Inc. Chapter 57, a Federal Way-based fishing club affiliated with America’s largest muskie angling organization, on this issue.

Tiger muskies are stocked in 7 Washington lakes. In their midwestern native range, muskies help support an economically important fishing tourism industry. In our state, they’re enjoyed by a small but growing number of sport anglers.

The key fact about tiger muskies is their very low density. At 1/4 to 1/2 fish per acre, our 7 lakes (totaling 11,400 acres) have 2,800 to 5,600 tiger muskies. WDFW estimates 16,000+ anglers target this species. As you can see, there aren’t enough tiger muskies to go around, and sustaining our fishery requires releasing them to be caught again.

I will leave biological explanations to department staff and argue the need for this rule from an angler’s perspective. I’ve fished for tiger muskies in Washington since their introduction in Mayfield Lake in the 1980s, and I’m also familiar with the midwestern muskie fishery, having grown up in Wisconsin.

For decades, Wisconsin’s muskie fishery was catch-and-kill. By the 1960s, the muskie population was so depleted hardly any fish over the 30-inch legal size limit were still being caught. This led to voluntary catch-and-release. Today, 99% of Wisconsin muskies are released, and muskie fishing and the tourism it supports are flourishing again. The story is similar everywhere else. Releasing muskies is an essential ingredient for sustainable muskie fisheries.

Here in Washington, I’m seeing and catching fewer tiger muskies every year. Other anglers I talk to say the same thing. When a tiger muskie is harvested, it takes years for a hatchery fingerling to grow large enough to replace it. They’re not good eating, whereas alive in our lakes, they have extremely high sport value.

Our club wants everyone to enjoy this great sport fish. Tiger muskies are not just for dedicated specialists; they can be caught by anyone. We’re making substantial efforts to share our knowledge of the sport with other anglers via internet forums, sports shows, inviting the public to our meetings, etc. We believe tiger muskie angling will continue growing in popularity in Washington. But given the tiny population, we must recycle them back into the water, or no one will have an opportunity to catch them. I can’t overemphasize that restocking alone can’t ameliorate harvest losses and releasing tiger muskies is the only proven effective way to sustain a muskie sport fishery.

I proposed a 50-inch minimum size because of how the tiger muskie population is stratified. Our best lakes, if given the chance, can produce decent numbers of 40- to 45-inch fish, with larger fish available. A 48-inch tiger muskie weighs about 28 lbs.; the state record is 31.25 lbs. If Washington anglers want a shot at the state record, the 48- and 49-inchers must go back into the water, because that’s where 30-lb. fish come from. If the 48s and 49s are harvested we won’t have 30-lb. tiger muskies.

This is important not only to anyone hoping to break the record, but to everyone who likes to catch big fish. Having netted a 31.15 lb. tiger muskie at Merwin Lake for a friend a couple years ago (it was released), I can only say I feel strongly about keeping 30-lb. fish in our waters. However, I also want to make it clear the department’s 48-inch proposal is vastly better for the sport than no change or a lower limit.

Finally, our club also supports a two-rod-per-angler rule. To date, our tiger muskies have been accessible only during the warmer months, and we possibly could extend our season by using trolling tactics developed back east that depend on multiple rod setups to cover enough water to find muskies in open water. Muskie anglers usually fish in pairs, and trolling with 2 lines per boat isn’t productive for this species.

Sincerely, Don Wittenberger

Note: You have until Nov. 1 to submit written comments or testimony, if you haven't already done so. Or, you can testify in person before the Commission at their meeting in Chelan on Nov. 2-3. This will be followed by staff consultations, with final decisions on rule changes made in February 2008, and taking effect for the 2008 season.

I attended the IFPAG meeting (WDFW's Inland Fisheries Program Advisory Board) in Ellensburg today, and there is some information relevant to the muskie fishery to report, but posting it will have to wait until tomorrow.

[iPodrodder]

What about the whole reason they are there in the first place? To eliminate rough fish? I know it has been a bust but it certainly can't hurt your argument.

[Don Wittenberger]

I left that out for a reason, which I'll explain when I post on the IFPAG meeting tomorrow.

[KUP]

...and thanks for going all the way over to Ellensburg, Don! Your dedication is appreciated.

[Deadeyemark]

Don,
I'm behind ya all the way Ol Wise One.