Tiger Musky Rule proposals

[Dr Hook]

Proposal
Number / Submitter / Proposal Description / Initial Responose


P 044 - Donald Wittenberger - Tiger muskie min size 50" - Yes with modification to 48".

P 082 - Mark Wells - Tiger muskie C&R only statewide, no removal from water - No - use P44

P 091 - Dennis Hempler - Tiger muskie - C&R only - No - use P44

[reelinanrockin]

I'm suprised that Mark Wells would introduce such a rule, especially after seeing this picture of him a couple weeks ago. He even has his hands in the fish gills.

A 48" size limit is basicly a CnR reg. Very few of these fish reach that size.

[Kenster]

i think Mark was only removing the fish for educational purposes (people need to understand the amazing size and beauty of the fish to protect the fish). From what i have read from him on this site and others is that he really is concerned for the fish...me on the other hand i like the photos!!!!

nice catch Mark!!

p.s. reelinanrockin (neighbor in pacific) how the heck do you get negitive 179 points with 7 posts????? Do you drink more then me???

[Deadeyemark]

I'm suprised that Mark Wells would introduce such a rule, especially after seeing this picture of him a couple weeks ago. He even has his hands in the fish gills.

A 48" size limit is basicly a CnR reg. Very few of these fish reach that size.

Correction: My hand is not in the fish's gill. It is under the jaw with my right hand supporting her body weight for the couple seconds I've got her out of the water for the pic.
By the way, this fish was released as are all of mine.
As far as introducing such a rule: Why not. I supported Don Wittenberger's proposal but had already submitted mine.

[Kenster]

still a nice phot!! LOL!

[Kenster]

A 48" size limit is basicly a CnR reg. Very few of these fish reach that size.

you never know if there was a C&R only rule they would probably all get that big and the WDFW wouldn't have to keep stocking them! only a new rule could show.......

[reelinanrockin]

Kenster,
I am not buying the educational theory you suggest. There are already lot's of pictures and other media on tiger muskie and their habits and sizes, including those caught on lake Tapps.
Wells wants to hold other fisherman accountable by strict rules and regulation enforced by the game department. But he does not even practice the rules he proposes himself. There are cnr restrictions for unclipped chinook in certain marine area's in our state. You cannot take those fish out of the water. If a fish is caught that you may not legaly keep it would not be a smart idea to bring it over the sides of your boat. If Wells wants to make rule proposal's fine, but he should practice what he preaches.

[peterpan]

reelinanrockin, kenster is right... how much DO you drink? First you tell the guy "way to go" when he releases a nice fish, then your here bustin his chops? Man, lighten up,dude. here we were, all havin a nice time and now theres the stink all over. I think he's ok in my book, but then, i'm not a troll, i'd rather fish than fight.

[reelinanrockin]

Dont drink at all, Got no problem with him keeping a fish or releasing a fish. Just obey the rules either way and you have no trouble with me. I dont reely understand why you take up after me on this issue. I am not the one trying to change the law making it illegal to take a musky out of the water, Wells is. Right now the Law is fine with me one fish daily limit over 36 inches. And it looks like the muskie are doing fine. I might go for a seasonal limit of some type like one fish per year per angler. Or maybe a 2 month season where you could keep muskie with a poession limit..Wells also has been quick to pass judgement and point his finger on other fishermen for keeping fish that were legal to keep. But now we know he does he doesnt even follow the standards he wants to impose on everybody else....Come on Wells admit you were wrong for taking that fish out of the water. If you are not willing to follow your own rules or ethical standards then dont go around causing trouble for other fishermen who are not breaking any law's.

[CraigVM62]

By the looks of the photo, and Marks description of the event, I think the wellbeing of the fish was his priority.
Not that the regs need more fine print regarding rules. BUT I would like to see the use of cradle nets required to land fish so to safely remove hooks and for a quick photo if desired. Would also allow for a quick weigh in with the fish needing to be cleared of the water for just a few seconds. These type of nets seem to be gaining huge popularity in offshore C&R fishing. I understand it is by far the best way for the fishes sake.

PS I now have that photo as part of a screen saver .... keeps me motivated to keep trying for them.

[bob johansen]

I think it is OK to remove a fish from the water if it is handled gently. One muskie I caught in Mayfield Lake was so exhausted when I landed it I had to put it in the live well and hold it upright. After a few minutes it looked great and was released and swam away with vigor. I would hope that they are all released because they are sterile and cannot reproduce. However, I would not come down too hard on anyone as long as they obey the current laws. And, I love seeing these beautiful photos. Tight lines and wire leaders.

[tmusky1]

I understand what reelinanrockin is saying. If Deadeye really firmly believes that not removing fish from the water improves their overall condition when released, than why is he removing them just for the pics ? Now, that being said, I really think that those of us who spend a majority of our time fishing for these things (Deadeye included) know how to handle them properly and carefully in order to release them unharmed. Personally speaking, one of the worst things that could happen (fishing related) is to have a tiger die in my boat because of something I did wrong. I think what Deadeye was getting at when he proposed a rule change was the people who catch these fish accidentally while fishing for other species using nets and letting them thrash around in the bottom of their boat while trying to unhook them with their bare hands. My point is, I'm not attacking anyone, and I can definitely see both sides of this issue. I say leave the rule alone and just try to educate people that these fish are in there for a reason and they need to be treated as carefully as possible. They can be caught and released unharmed except maybe for some sore lips and some damaged pride.

[Riverman]

Boy are you guys off-base on this one. You won't meet someone that cares more about Musky than Mark, this guy lives and breathes musky! I am guessing that Mark has probably released more musky unharmed than all of the posters on this forum combined! Mark is from the midwest and was catching true musky (not hybrid tigers) before most of us here in the Northwest knew what a musky is!

And, unlike the critics of Mark in this thread, I have actually fished with Mark. I know having spent time on the water with him that he does everything he can to make sure fish are netted properly, remain in the water until the camera is ready, quickly photographed, and then released unharmed. This is the exact process we went through just two weeks ago with a 40 inch Tiger that Mark landed on Curlew. Mark explained to me how important it was to very carefully and slowly place your hand on the fish jaw and not touch the gills. While on Curlew, I listened to Mark while he politely asked other musky anglers to carefully release all musky unharmed....how many of you have done this? Even the net Mark uses was purchased with "limited damage to musky" in mind.

As to why Mark proposed the rule I can't say for sure. My guess is that Mark realizes that most tigers are caught incidentally by trout and bass fisherman that have no idea how to properly land and release them. Whatever the reason, the proposal Mark put forth was with a sincere interest in protecting musky and providing a future for musky fisherman in the State of Washington. Thanks Mark.

kind regards,


Jed V.

[KUP]

Check out the Muskie Forum link just below this one... called
Muskie Fishing Educational Video.
It's a fine tribute to a fine angler.

[Deadeyemark]

Clarification: I'm a little slow I guess. I didn't realize that someone posted incorrectly.(Dr Hook)
My rule proposal was a plain and simple "C&R" only request.
The "no removal from water" is someone else's idea.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

Remember guys, R&R is a friend of the Hookster. There's an agenda here.

[muskyhunter]

All I can say is HOLY CRAP dude!! Calm down...WOW!! Lotsa bitter things said there reelin'.... May I guess Mark should have "THUMPED" the musky,then photo'd and released....I'm out dude!!

[muskyhunter]

So Don...Was prop 044 given to the WDFW commission? Or what exactly are you throwin out here?...Todd

[dilbert]

Please don't feed the Trolls.

[Don Wittenberger]

The Inland Fish Policy Advisory Group met today in Ellensburg, and as a result of action taken at the last Muskies Inc. meeting, I am now Chapter 57's representative on IFPAG. The tiger muskie regs were on the agenda, and were discussed at today's meeting. Director Koenigs did not attend today's meeting, but WDFW's key warmwater staff were all there, including Bob Gibbons, Bruce Bolding, and Steve Jackson.

I originally proposed a 100% C & R reg, but three-fourths of the people who attended the last Chapter 57 meeting (by show of hands) wanted to be able to keep a trophy fish. A majority supported a 48-inch minimum size, as opposed to 50 inches. Although I personally prefer mandatory release of all tiger muskies, I don't get too excited over the idea of killing a 50-inch fish for record verification or mounting purposes, because a fish of that size is near the end of its lifespan and probably wouldn't be caught again anyway.

But keeping a 48-inch fish is a different matter. A 48-inch fish weighs about 28 to 30 lbs., and these fish need a chance to grow larger if you want a shot at catching a new state record. The "modification to 48 inches" language came from WDFW staff in regional offices, and for now, I plan to continue working for a 50-inch regulation as this proposal moves through the rulemaking process, because the difference between 48 inches and 50 inches is significant. I don't think the WDFW really understood why the 2 inches of difference is important to us as anglers, and Bob Gibbons became supportive of 50 inches after I explained it. I hope WDFW will withdraw the modification before this proposal goes to the Commission. But let's say the Commission receives P 044 with the modification language still there. In that event, I'll have to decide whether to press for 50 inches, or conform to WDFW's recommendation. That will depend on whether the department supports a 50-inch rule, and whether we can get a 50-inch rule. A 48 inch reg is much better than nothing, and if that's what we can get, I'll make the compromise. We can always go back for more later. My specific concern is that if the Commission is asked to resolved a disagreement over this reg, they may be tempted to table it and say "come back after you've agreed on what it should be."

I would like to add my comments to the discussion above of handling muskies. Some people fervently believe that muskies shouldn't be removed from the water at all, but the fact is, anglers have netted and released hundreds of thousands of muskies; so, it's obvious that boating fish isn't harmful per se. The claim that holding a muskie vertically is harmful appears to have been debunked by a recent Wisconsin study that found no difference in survival rates between fish that were held horizontally or vertically. And common sense should suggest that holding up a muskie by the gill covers doesn't hurt it unless you cut or tear the gills (which is hard to do).

Because there is so much mythology surrounding muskie handling, I want to take this opportunity to re-emphasize what's important:

1) Don't play a muskie to complete exhaustion.
2) If you remove a fish from the water, minimize the length of time it's out of the water.
3) Hold onto the fish until it can stay upright on its own and regains enough strength to swim away.

I want to expand on point #3. What really counts is not whether you "land" fish with a net or cradle, or "water release" or "boat" it, but whether you employ proper release technique. A freshly caught muskie typically will lay on its side or float belly-up. You MUST hold the fish upright for a few minutes while it gets air back into its swim bladder. If you fail to do this, the fish won't recover no matter how carefully you handled it.

Using a cradle and/or doing a water release is all well and good, but keep your priorities straight: The release affects survival far more than how you land or handle it. The fish will be all right as long as you don't handle it roughly or keep it out of the water too long, but it won't be all right if you screw up the release. Instead of worrying about whether to use a cradle or a net, or boat the fish or leave it in the water, you should use that nervous energy to worry about getting the release technique right.