Tiger Musky Rule proposals

[KUP]

you are right, dilbert: please don't feed the trolls.

What's a troll? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[Riverman]

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.

With all due respect Don I wouldn't agree with this statement entirely.

I make my living as fisheries biologist and have handled as part of my job over the last 20 years literally thousands of adult salmonids. Equally important to the release and perhaps more important is how the fish is handled once captured. Keep in mind fish can't breathe out of water so when you pull a fish out of the water it's no different than someone pushing us under water. I have read where some musky anglers will hold their breath when they take the fish out of the water.........when they start needing a breath they make sure the fish gets back in the water.

Beyond that all fish have a protective slime coating on their body. If you net the fish with a nylon net, then bring it into the boat where it bounces around, then you handle the fish, measure it, etc., you very effectively remove much of the slime coating. This opens the fish up to various bacterial/fungus infections, particularly when the water temperatures are high like they are right now. We will often see spring chinook with fungus near the narrow part of the tail (caudal peduncle) during this time of year as a result of anglers grabbing the fish in this area.....it's no different for musky. Musky can also have their internal organs harmed if not cradled properly and generally speaking "vertical holds" are not a good thing. Unless the angler feels the fish is a particularly worth an "out of water photograph" it is much better to leave the fish in the water at all times.

Here is a great article written by an experienced biologist on the care and handling of musky. The article is about 7 pages in length but the reading goes rather fast.........I think all on this forum will enjoy reading it.

Here is the link: http://www.thenextbite.com/site/article ... 5EBC8AE8B0

Jed V.

[reelinanrockin]

Well if is the way you guys reely want to go with these rules and reg's then just make tigers cnr only . No taking them out of the water at all, just like unclipped chinook at marine area 5. My feeling is if you pull the fish out of the water and over the sides of your boat you now legally should be in poession of the fish. If a shore fisherman or dock fisher takes it on the beach or dock they are in legal poession as well imho. Getting your picture taken with the fish is just a ego thing for the fisheman to bragg about it. Remember you are supposed to care for the fish first right. To me that means barbless hooks too even on a treble. ( I take off the treble and put on siwash anyway if the area regs require barbless mine are removed) Also if you cant remove the hook safely from the fish's mouth with out injuring yourself or the fish just cut the line, if your hooks are barbless it will soon fall out on its own.

Consider this, you could catch a state record Coho in area 1,2,3,4 and if it is unclipped you must release it unharmed. If you catch a state record unclipped chinook in area 5, 10, 11 you also must release it unharmed. So to me you big time tiger fishermen with all these proposals and wanting to get a new record ect. ect. get no support from me. The genie has already been let out of the bottle. Remember these are sterile fish they dont reproduce, just plant more. We were told they mainly want to plant them to eat the suckers and squaw fish in the lake. It never was meant to be a type of fishery you guys are turning it into. Heck if a trophy or picture is all you really want then go to Minnesota or Wisconsin or some other place and catch one
...change this rule change that regulation all you guy's seem to me is just causing a lot of trouble...Based on the crap you pulled on dr. hook, look's to me like the only thing you guys are expert's at and this is what your true intentions may have been all along.
There is no need to make these changes the way things are now are just fine.

[Don Wittenberger]

I did not criticize Dr. Hook, feel he was misunderstood, and find your willingness to defend your friend admirable. However, your laudable loyalty to your friend has no bearing on what the tiger muskie harvest limit should be.

(Note, I want to take up Dr. H. on his offer to go fishing, but don't have an open weekend before August at the soonest. I do hope to connect with Bruce (Dr. H.) to fish together and share our opinions of muskie fishing. For what it's worth, I've been bashed on this board, too; it goes with the territory and I don't get upset by such things.)

Tiger muskies are not like bass, walleyes, salmon, or other popular species. They exist in very low numbers and the fishery can't withstand harvest. If the reg stays at 36 inches and people keep "legal" muskies, we won't have a tiger muskie fishery. The midwest muskie fishery collapsed in the 1960s because everyone kept "legals" and the fish population was depleted. That fishery has come back because of the near-universal adoption of C&R. Do the math: The maximum density is 1 adult tiger muskie per 2 to 4 surface acres, and we have only 11,400 acres of tiger muskie waters in 7 lakes, so our state has somewhere around 2,500 to 5,000 tiger muskies for all the anglers in the state. Bottom line: Either we recycle these fish back into the water, or we won't have any fish over 36 inches.

Sure the muskie anglers prefer a C&R rule, but we have to be realistic about what we can get. WDFW supports a 48-inch reg and we may be lucky to get that much. If you oppose changing the current 36-inch reg, I have no problem with it; that's what democracy is all about.

As for muskie fishing being an ego game, of course it is. Complete with chest-thumping when someone catches a big one. What's wrong with that? In our society, a big ego is acceptable in every other endeavor in life, so why not in fishing, too? Actually, I personally don't want the state record; I don't need it, and don't want the notoriety or negativity that goes with it. All I want is to have fun. I grew up with muskie fishing in Wisconsin and I'm glad to have the opportunity to fish for them locally, especially as I can't afford to make fishing trips to the midwest on my retirement income.

[reelinanrockin]

Great Don, Now we are starting to get somewhere ! And I agree with much of what you have to say.

What about a rule that would allow a season on tiger retention say like a 2 month season (April-May) one fish per angler per year with the 36 inch size minimum. Maybe even purchase a tag for one like a deer or elk tag.

Don, these tigers are not on any endangered spieces list and its seems to me there are some fish available for harvest. Catching a tiger is for most fishermen is a once in a lifetime deal. Your right they are not like a perch or a trout. Angler sucess rate looks to be on par with winter steelie on the Green or Puyallup river, you gotta work your tail off to learn how to catch one.

Edit....
I checked the Wisconsin fish and game website and the muskie season there is basically from May-november 34 inch minimum with a one fish daily limit.
With fishing like that Why did you ever move away from there (lol)

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/fish/seasons/ http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/fish/regulat ... 007-08.pdf

[Don Wittenberger]

Why do you want to have the option of keeping a tiger muskie? If you explain your reason(s), perhaps I can offer a better alternative.

[jigman]

I agree with Don, I can't see any reason to keep a tiger muskie. When you look at the fact that they are sterile and the plant levels are very low (200 this year and none next year in Lake Tapps) it just makes sense to release all of the fish and to handle them as carefully as possible.

[reelinanrockin]

the reason why I want to keep one is to make it my dinner. Same way with any fish I want to keep. I dont keep every fish I catch either. Last weekend at tanwax I released every fish I caught, all largemouth. I have caught three musky this year and keep one. Most likley I wont keep anymore this year at all. I want to get some more smallies in the legal size limit and some percch to keep and eat. And a few more trout as well. I dont plan on fishing the salt for salmon this year....I am not a raper of the resource and I dont own a gill net.

[Don Wittenberger]

I like to eat fish, too. But when I want eaters, I target perch, crappie, bluegill, walleye, and especially smallmouth bass. Smallies are a ton of fun to catch, a decent tasting fish, and harvesting them is good for our freshwater fisheries because they're extremely prolific and crowd out other species. WDFW's fish managers want anglers to catch and kill more smallies, and the regs were changed this year to increase the catch limit and remove the slot limit to encourage more harvest of this species. The Columbia River system, in particular, is infested with smallies and would benefit from more harvest of that species.

Tiger muskies, like all esocids, have prolific Y bones that aren't any fun to get stuck between your teeth and require laborious filleting to remove. In addition, a muskie's meat is, in my opinion, too fishy and sweet for my taste. IMO they're pretty far down the list of the best freshwater fish for eating; I prefer to eat any of the species I listed above.

On the other hand, the sporting value of tiger muskies is very large. The angling pleasure a trophy tiger muskie provides and its economic value to surrounding communities in terms of the tourism business it attracts, far exceeds its food value. They are worth much more in the water than on a dinner plate.

When you add these factors together, it doesn't make sense to me to utilize our small tiger muskie population as a source of food fish. Not when we have such a huge supply of fish possessing better eating qualities. It makes more sense to me for WDFW to manage tiger muskies for their sport fishing value, and to manage abundant species with good eating qualities in a way to maximize angler harvest for food usage. I fish for those other species when I want to fill my cooler, and that's what I think you (and other anglers) should do, too.

What I'm trying to accomplish here, of course, is talk you out of harvesting tiger muskies for consumption purposes. The proposed regulation will eliminate most harvest of tiger muskies. You have every right to oppose it, and I wouldn't hold that against you. The way I see it, you have as much right to present your viewpoint to the F & W Commission as I do, and may the best argument win.

But here's how I see it. The fish swimming in our public waters are state property until legally harvested, at which point they become the legal property of the angler, who can do anything he wants with it that isn't prohibited by law. What I am trying to do with this rule change is take away your right, and the right of every other angler in the state (including myself), to harvest tiger muskies under 50 inches in length. If this rule change is adopted, tiger muskies between 36 and 50 inches in length will stay in our waters and remain public property available to everyone for sporting enjoyment, resulting in more and larger catchable tiger muskies.

This is somewhat analogous to people arguing over what the speed limit on a public street should be. Let's say John Doe wants to drive through town at 35 mph but other people want a 25 mph speed limit for safety reasons or whatever. If the town council passes a 25 mph ordinance, then yes, John Doe is being told by the rest of the community what he can and can't do, and in a sense that's an infringement on his freedom. But it may be justified, because John's actions affect other people. It's the same with the rules governing how our public resources are managed. If you're allowed to harvest that fish, it's not there anymore for me (or someone else) to catch, so what you do affects the rest of us.

What I would prefer to see happen is for you to find my arguments persuasive and join the ranks of those practicing C & R of tiger muskies. I even dare to hope you'll get behind the rule change and help support its adoption. Given that we have literally millions of pounds of good eating fish in our waters, some of which need increased angler harvest, I hope all anglers will see the good sense of using our abundant species for eating and keeping our rare species with high sporting value in the water.

[reelinanrockin]

Don, Your giving me the company line. I have looked at his cnr stuff from every angle too. I do respect where you are comming from and you have some strong points. I have been a fisherman my whole life and every year it seems the cost of license goes up and the season gets shorter. I remeber when it was 3 salmon limit in the ocean and it was a good deal to go on a charter boat. Now it is 2 and all coho must be clipped out there. But the netters don have to throw back clipped fish. I remember when trout was a 12 fish limit now it is five for planted rainbows. All I have had done to me as a sports angler is see my catch and keep privelidge as a license holder diminish...I am ready to dig my heels in no more take aways and no more give backs. I agree with you on the smallies right now moses has a 10 fish limit on smallys and 8 on walleye...that is awsome...I have the 3rd week in aug off and would love to go over ther and help with the population control, the perch should be big too by then. I have the entire next week off and I am going to hit lake wa, up for smallie perch and cutts. If I catch a bucket mouth back in it goes. I plan on keeping rainbows and cutts. There has been times out there where I would get into a lot of immiture chinnok 10-12" if he swallows the hook you might as well keep him cause he probably die even if you cut the line they are the best eaters out there but I plan on releasing them even though the reg's consider them to be a trout....you seem like a interesting person would like to possibly fish with you if you want go out in the big lake next week for a day I will hold a seat for you. My boat will be docked at Kirkland all week...me and the hookster will hit it a couple days for sure....ok I promise I will not keep any more tigers this year..but next year I might keep one maybe.....

[Don Wittenberger]

I have no idea what you mean by "company line." I write my comments myself, based on my personal understanding of the issues under discussion.

I'm not a rich guy and pinch pennies with the best of 'em, but I feel a fishing license is one of the best recreational bargains out there. Costs only slightly more than taking my wife to a movie, is good for a whole year, and free boat launching in numerous places is thrown in at no extra charge. I consider my fishing license to be "dirt cheap," and the money goes for improved fishing. Next to what I spend on gas and tackle, the license is an inconsequential expense.

Salmon are a special case. Once a tremendous resource, we're now in danger of losing them altogether. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the real story behind the decline of the salmon runs: http://www.amazon.com/King-Fish-Thousan ... 188&sr=8-1

I appreciate your feelings about "see[ing] my catch and keep privelidge as a license holder diminish." I once fished for walleyes in northern Wisconsin with a fellow who drove up from Chicago, 400 miles each way, and he expressed plenty of outrage about Wisconsin's limit of 2 walleyes per day. I don't want that to happen here in Washington any more than you do.

But, historically, you never had a catch and keep privilege for tiger muskies in this state, because there weren't any to catch until WDFW biologists planted them in a few lakes to control nuisance fish like suckers and squawfish. They can't perform their function of eating trash fish if anglers kill them; and harvesting them not only removes them from the sport fishery, but also degrades fishing for other sport species too, because then the suckers and squawfish populations come back. To give you some idea of why biologists plant them, the tiger muskies knock back the sucker and squawfish populations by about 90%, and cost roughly 1/10th as much as rotenone. That's why the state plants them; the sport fishery they provide is a fringe benefit.

So, since you never had a catch and keep privilege for tiger muskies before they were introduced, what is being taken away? Restricting the harvest of tiger muskies is, in my opinion, very different from squeezing catch limits for native species that have traditionally been the backbone of sport fishing in this part of the country, and is even different from restricting the catch of introduced species that have been here a long time and have developed into large sport fisheries, which includes all your warmwater species like bass, walleyes, and perch that were brought out here decades ago. The tiger muskies are a unique situation.

It's also important to understand that our tiger muskie fishery is undergoing a fundamental change this year. 2007 is the year when tiger muskie fishing's popularity began to explode in our state. Suddenly we have thousands, not dozens, of anglers targeting them. The 36-inch size limit and 1-fish daily keep limit had little effect on the tiger muskie population when very few people fished for them, and those who did practiced C & R. That's no longer the case, and the fishery can't be sustained under the current regulation. What good is a catch and keep privilege if there are no fish?

I would like to take you up on your kind offer, but I expect to be out of town July 18-28. I'll be attending a Washington State Bar Association meeting in Vancouver this Saturday (July 21) -- boring lawyer stuff that nobody reading this board would be interested in. Yeah, the meeting is only one day, but since Merwin Lake is only 25 miles off I-5, it's possible I may get lost on the way back to Seattle. It may take me a whole week to find the on-ramp onto the freeway. I have trouble reading maps when all I can think about is tiger muskies. If anyone wants to break bread with us, our crew usually convenes for breakfast at Jack's Restaurant somewhere around 8:30 to 9:00 daily. I don't expect ideal fishing conditions, and I anticipate we're going to have to work hard for fish on this trip.

[muskyhunter]

Hey reelin,
First of all just want to say that I repect your opinion on some of what you stated...just let be said. I am too like a few guys on this forum area am a transplated Wisconsinite.My Dad still lives there..fishes Musky often. And knows the fishing regulations of Wisconsin like the back of his hand. I asked him what the size limit of Musky are back there.You stated 34 inches.It hasn't been 34 inches since the eary 80's. It had been 36 up until about 10 years ago. And they have been steadily increased year by year. It varies by each county of that state. Most counties are 40 inch limits. A few are 45 inches. And even a couple of them are 50 inches. You can check out that website that you posted and read it yourself if you do not believe me.These are regs for True Musky. Those fish as you may or may not know reproduce. And are indiginous to that state. Unlike the Tigers which are sterile. And not indiginous to this state.The fishery back in Wisconsin bring in millions of dollars of revenue for that great state.Which is pretty much self sustaining. Hopefully this states population can do the same here. Just as the Salmon fishery does for this one. Anyway,getting off track here a little...And like I said I don't want to look as though I am busting your chops but dude..If you are going to write something as fact please make sure that the fact you put out is fact. ie~ where you wrote Edit...blah blah....34 inch limit in Wisconsin. Your wrong reelin' on the size limit. You are correct on the season though from May-November. In fact a older gent caught Wisconsins' first Musky that broke the 50 pound mark in a long time. (In November) The seasonal fishing ends November 30. I don't know why he wasn't deer hunting. Anyway that allows the Musky to reproduce. And that states lakes are open year around. Unlike this one which have lakes that are not. Which I find quite retarded. But whatever.
And as far as the prices on fishing licenses. Think about it..all that revenue goes back into the WDFW to help the fisheries. All the fisheries benefit from these revenues. They do a good job of providing fish for all of us. So personally speaking 23 bucks isn't that bad to help the fishery dept. Thanks for reading this post and have a wonderful day!! Todd Reis Muskies Inc.,Proud Charter Member of Chapter 57 NW Tiger Pac, Membership Director

[Dr Hook]

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.

Wow, I leave for a few days of salmon fishing at Westport and return to see this thread got a little activity.

What I posted came straight from the WDFW rule proposals. WDFW must have made a mistake, because Mark's name is on that proposal. I have the entire spreadsheet with every proposal listed, who proposed what and if it was approved or not.

Not a big deal really. If the minimum size of a Musky being raise to 48" or catching/keeping, catching/releasing an introduced hybrid fish was the biggest issue we had to worry about with our fisheries here in WA, I'd be happy..

[reelinanrockin]

Muskiehunter, I took what I wrote from page 9 of the pdf document. It is listed as a general rule. They do have certain size requirements in individul lakes it seems you are correct on that. I allso assume that the word "tiger muskee is not found anywhere I could see and that the name Muskelunge would include Tigers as well....This is just my interpretation of what the rules mean...I am not a game official or an attorney.