Rule Proposal: Catch-And-Release Tiger Musky Record

[Don Wittenberger]

Below is the draft of a proposed rule I'm planning to submit to WDFW. If you have comments or suggestions, please post them below or e-mail them to me at dwitt546@aol.com.

"1. Current rule you would like to change: Criteria and procedures for recognizing state fishing records, pertaining to tiger muskies only; this proposal does not affect a state fishing record for any other species.

"2. Your proposed rule: Replace the existing weight-based state record with a catch-and-release record based on the fish’s length. If this proposal is adopted, the existing weight-based tiger musky record will be eliminated on the effective date of the rule, and a new tiger musky record will be established when the Department approves an application for the catch-and-release record. This proposal also establishes the requirements for the state tiger musky record as follows: 1. The fish must be legally caught by a licensed angler (or by a person who is not required to have a fishing license). 2. The fish must be handled properly to avoid injuring the fish and released alive. 3. The fish shall be measured by placing the fish on its side with the jaw closed on a flat surface and measuring a straight line from the tip of the snout to the extreme tip of the tail fin. 4. Length shall be determined in inches and quarter-inches, rounded down. 5. The measurement must be verified by (a) the sworn and notarized affidavit of a witness attesting the fish’s length, and (b) a photograph of the entire fish, with all fins visible, next to a marked measuring device, such as a tape measure, bump board, etc. 6. To verify that the angler claiming the record actually caught the fish, the witness affidavit shall include the angler’s name, and a second photograph of the angler with the fish must be submitted.

"3. Why this change is needed: To encourage catch and release of trophy tiger muskies that exist in extremely limited numbers in Washington State. Under the Department’s general criteria and procedures for recognizing state fishing records, the fish usually must be killed to obtain a weighing on a certified scale and inspection by a Department biologist. By replacing the weight-based tiger musky record with a catch-and-release tiger musky record, this proposal eliminates an incentive to kill record-sized tiger muskies, in order to further encourage live release of tiger muskies and thereby conserve the state’s population of trophy-sized tiger muskies in order to maximize trophy fishing opportunities for this species. Verifying the size of a released fish is problematical, because the fish is not available for measuring or inspection by disinterested parties. This proposal incorporates the measuring technique used by the State of Texas for their catch-and-release records program, which satisfies the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame’s requirements for recognizing catch-and-release records. Verifying fish lengths by means of witnesses and photographs is a common practice throughout the country."

[Dex]

No requirement for a girth measurement Don ???

[Anglinarcher]

No requirement for a girth measurement Don ???

Don, I agree with Dex, you are out of line by not requiring a Girth.

Weights have and always will be the standard for big fish in the fishing community, and that will not change because you have lofty goals. With the Girth, and the Length, calculations can be made that equate these measurements into weight, which will enable reasonable comparisons to past records and to other states.

Clean up your proposed rule, and I will support it, leave it as written, and I will oppose it.

[Don Wittenberger]

This is an example of the type of questions the muskie angling community should debate and comment on before a proposed rule is submitted. Larry Ramsell also suggested the record should consist of a Length + Girth measurement. I didn't write the draft proposal that way for several reasons. Here are my arguments, and by all means, feel free to pick them apart:

1) Most importantly, taking a second measurement requires keeping the fish out of the water longer, and involves additional handling of the fish. 2) Girth measurements aren't very accurate, and when you're dealing with fishing records, you need precise measuring or you will have endless controversy over whose fish was bigger and the legitimacy of the record. 3) How would the record be expressed? By the combined measurements? That's confusing to the general public ... a 48" fish with a 24" girth would be listed as a 72" fish, so some people might think it was 6 feet long! 4) The National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame goes by length, and conforming to their method makes Washington fish eligible for national recognition if, for example, someone catches a world line class record in our state.

Argument (3) could be overcome by basing the record on L + G but listing only the L, but then you could get a situation where, say, a 48" fish beats a 50" fish, which almost certainly would be controversial.

My thinking is, keep it simple. When drafting regulations, I believe in being a conformist. Sticking with proven concepts and doing what everyone else does helps avoid unpleasant surprises. Everyone who has implemented a C&R recognition system has struggled with how to verify C&R fish, and there are various approaches to that problem. But everywhere I've looked, C&R fish are listed only by length. I'm inclined to think the L + G formula hasn't caught on for good reasons.

However, this point is negotiable, and I'm certainly willing to consider arguments for including girth before finalizing and submitting the proposal.

[Dex]

No argument from me Don, I was just a little surprised not to see this listed. I have always been told this was the best way to calculate the weight without accurately harming the fish. But I understand the faults to this system as well.

You’re a smart man in this arena and I trust your judgment, besides any rule is better than the one we currently have on the books.

Thanks

[Anglinarcher]

This is an example of the type of questions the muskie angling community should debate and comment on before a proposed rule is submitted. Larry Ramsell also suggested the record should consist of a Length + Girth measurement. I didn't write the draft proposal that way for several reasons. Here are my arguments, and by all means, feel free to pick them apart:

1) Most importantly, taking a second measurement requires keeping the fish out of the water longer, and involves additional handling of the fish. 2) Girth measurements aren't very accurate, and when you're dealing with fishing records, you need precise measuring or you will have endless controversy over whose fish was bigger and the legitimacy of the record. 3) How would the record be expressed? By the combined measurements? That's confusing to the general public ... a 48" fish with a 24" girth would be listed as a 72" fish, so some people might think it was 6 feet long! 4) The National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame goes by length, and conforming to their method makes Washington fish eligible for national recognition if, for example, someone catches a world line class record in our state.

Argument (3) could be overcome by basing the record on L + G but listing only the L, but then you could get a situation where, say, a 48" fish beats a 50" fish, which almost certainly would be controversial.

My thinking is, keep it simple. When drafting regulations, I believe in being a conformist. Sticking with proven concepts and doing what everyone else does helps avoid unpleasant surprises. Everyone who has implemented a C&R recognition system has struggled with how to verify C&R fish, and there are various approaches to that problem. But everywhere I've looked, C&R fish are listed only by length. I'm inclined to think the L + G formula hasn't caught on for good reasons.

However, this point is negotiable, and I'm certainly willing to consider arguments for including girth before finalizing and submitting the proposal.

OK, here goes. First, if you are going strictly to a C&R system, and there will be separate records, then go for it as per your suggestions. But, and I warn you, you will loose your biggest fish to the ones being kept. People want proof, and length is not proof. I had detractors on a fish just recently and I had the scales and lengh, but I did not take the girth, so proof, that is what people want.:shaking:

Second, per your item numbers 1 and 2, while taking the second measurement takes some additional time, the girth is not the hardest to take, but the easiest to take. there are no teeth to deal with, no flexing tail. Better to loose a few extra seconds, take less photos, and get it right.

Third, in response to your item number 3, you should express the fish as X" long and approximately Y pounds. The equations for converting Length and girth to poundage are surprisingly accurate. The old stand-by of lengthxGirthxGirth/800 is not quite accurate for pike and muskie, but an INTERNET search will reveal that there are alternate species specific conversions. You need the Girth for all such conversions, and having this information will actually save your big fish.

Forth, having this set-up as I propose will still qualify you for the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame.:thumright

You believe that the length only measurements are a standard for a reason. Perhaps, but look at it from a broader point of view. Compare the In-Fishermen kept verses C&R big fish awards for each year. Yes, there are some very big fish that enjoy the C&R rules, but the bigger fish are kept, killed, and after being sent off to some Taxidermist to mount, are largely waisted - the better eating fish are always the smaller of a species.

Only in Salt Water, specifically Bill fishing, has the length only really caught on.:thumleft: :thumright :thumleft:

I hope you are right, but I think you are passing gas up wind on this one.

[AdsBot [Google]]

Don,
I disagree with your proposed change. I think it should be left alone.

[Don Wittenberger]

Your explanation?

[Gone Fishin]

I don't disagree with Don, I think that the idea is a good one. I think there are problems involved with it though.

The first being that you will have a large part of the fishing community that still judges fish based on weight and would not like the length record sytem. Could they get used to it, sure. Everybody who fishes muskie does it. You go from being bass fisherman or salmon fisherman where the only measurement that matters is weight. When you start catching muskie that quickly changes. Fish are referred to by length not weight.

Another issue I see is what to do with the old record. I know there may be some contraversy around it, but it is the accepted state record. It would be hard to justify throwing it out to measure them a different way. How do you justify that to the rest of the public and the record holder? I think it gives people another way to oppose the proposed rule.

Maybe a way to start to change the thinking around here is to add a record, rather than changing one. Have a length based C&R record along side the current weight based record. Most people I know that are targeting muskie will opt for the C&R record on a big fish. I think as time goes on and more people are educated about them they too would opt for the C&R record. Will it save every big fish? maybe not, but those likely to go with the weight based record are also the ones likely to turn in a length based record and keep the fish to put on the wall. Maybe it is something that could be looked at and given thought. It might make it easier to get a C&R record on the books without abolishing an established record and record process.

Either way, I think Don is on the right track. I know many anglers that if they catch a record class fish would be VERY torn as to what to do with it. It would be a hard decision whether to keep the fish and take the record or release an amazing fish. It is one that there is definately no wrong answer to, just a personal decision that has to be made. This rule in whatever form it comes out would eliminate having to make that decision. Not saying it is perfect but neither is a purely weight based system.

[Don Wittenberger]

GF, you make good arguments, but simply adding a C&R record to the existing weight record would be, well, just another record. This rule proposal has an entirely different objective.

It might help if I explain how this came about. Mark Wells asked me that same question in an e-mail, and I replied (edited for brevity):

"Mark, if it comes down to a question of giving someone credit for ... this proposal, I honestly feel the biggest single thing that influenced me was a remark you made last year. You said if someone released a state-record fish, you would have a lot of respect for that angler. That remark made a big impression on me, and ... pushed my head totally into C&R. The logical extension of this new mindset is to get rid of the weight record in order to stop rewarding anglers who harvest big tiger muskies, and have only a C&R record in order to reinforce C&R behavior. So, when it comes time to credit the impetus for this proposal to a specific individual, I think you're the person who should get that credit, because the idea was born ... as a result of that remark you made. ... I now see the state record as a tool to make our fishery a 100% CPR fishery, including the 50-inch class fish that are legal to harvest. Your beliefs and statements moved me there. Now, I'm trying to move the WDFW guys, who are still waiting for someone to erase the Bays record by hauling a bigger fish to a scale ...."

I think everyone who knows Mark will agree, that no one has ever questioned his commitment to muskie conservation. Ever since his arrival on the Washington tiger muskie scene, Mark has been in the forefront of advocating proper fish handling, reproduction mounts, and releasing ALL muskies. His advocacy has moved a number of us away from our old bad habits. I also think many will agree that keeping a muskie for any reason, even a legal fish, is an "old bad habit." I'm proposing a clean break from the past, not accommodation of an "old bad habit."

I hope this clarifies why I drafted this proposal the way I did, and where the inspiration came from.

[AdsBot [Google]]

Your explanation?

I just think that would be a slap in the face to the current record holder. Do we just forget about his fish? That record is getting old and is impressive. The other thing is that some of these tigers over here can be long and skinny. For example, I have caught some out of Silver that grew fast and did not have much girth. I bet a 46" tiger from Curlew would crush the weight of a fish from Newman and Silver of the same length. As for the west side, I have no experience so I can't comment.

Also, I like to be able to compare with other States like Idaho that go by weight as the rule.

Just my opinion, I just like it the way it is. I know that Gone Fishin and I have disagreed about things but I agree with his comments and do also agree with you Don that I could be convinced to support a possible rule addition that would increase the chance of a catch and release of a record fish.

Just remember, there are a lot of dishonest folks out thier and if we make it easier to cheat to break a record they will try. Look at all the attempts to fake breaking the largemouth world record in CA.

[Don Wittenberger]

Let's hypothesize, for the purpose of debate, that WDFW doesn't believe the current record is legitimate and their solution for that problem is to hope someone kills a larger one and hauls it to a certified scale. If those were the circumstances, would you like my idea better?

[YellowBear]

With the life span of the Tiger being 7 to 14 years, (depending on the source).
What are the chance's that a record fish will live long enough to be caught again?
I am not sure just how fast these fish grow but it would seem to me that it takes most of there life time to reach 50 inches. Depending on the amount of food they have. I am also guessing that by the time a fish hits the 50 inch mark there will not be many left from that years stocking. And as they have there restocking program ongoing there should not be a problem with keeping tigers in the lakes. I don't know anyone who would not want to keep a record fish whether it be a State or world record. There must be some sort of harvest on these fish or you will never get support from the public (IMHO). It may be a Bad Habit but you can bet that If I should stick a record Tiger, Bass, Walleye, Trout or even a Bluegill it is going on the wall.

[Anglinarcher]

.................Third, in response to your item number 3, you should express the fish as X" long and approximately Y pounds. The equations for converting Length and girth to poundage are surprisingly accurate. The old stand-by of lengthxGirthxGirth/800 is not quite accurate for pike and muskie, but an INTERNET search will reveal that there are alternate species specific conversions. You need the Girth for all such conversions, and having this information will actually save your big fish.

Don, I noticed you ignored my previous post, and while I am not surprised, I do wish to again tell you how you can have your cake and eat it too.

See above. This way, the old record remains, but it will perhaps have the old * on it showing a change in record keeping. The existing record holder had no slap in the face, fish can be saved, and we can all have that warm fuzzy feeling.

Tollefs is correct about comparisons with other states, but again, my proposal will give some comparable equivalence. With length, girth, and the approximate weight, you can compare your fish with Idaho, or ..............

And last, there is a concern about cheating on the record? A dead fish is easily witnessed, and recorded, on certified scales. A live fish is going to be witnessed by whom, a friend, someone more likely to ............ error on the side of getting a friend into the record books? If you think the existing record is suspect, all future records using just length will be suspect. Keep in mind that you are not getting a 50"+ fish into the live well for records to be verified by independent witnesses. IF any of your beliefs or arguments are based on the potential of an old record being suspect, this solution is not going to do it.

Don, I support your beliefs, I just don't think they are practical in the format presented. I have never kept a Tiger, or a Musky. I have not even kept a Northern Pike in over 20 years. The last Northern Pike I did keep was a potential State Record for Colorado (just missed it). Saving that big fish, be it a Tiger or a Bass or a Trout, is just smart. But records are by their very nature subject to scrutiny - we are all envious of THE BIG ONE.

I don't worship at the alter of the Pike/Muskie Gods anymore, so I don't concentrate on them like I use to. Nevertheless, I have been through all of the stages - 1) Just got to catch one 2) Just got to catch a lot of them 3) Just got to catch that BIG one and now 4) Ya, their fun, but there are a lot of other fish to catch as well.

[Don Wittenberger]

YB -- you are correct that a 50-inch tiger musky is near the end of the normal lifespan for this species, and probably won't be caught again.

AA -- I'm not ignoring you. I started this thread to solicit comments on the proposal. I would like to avoid replying tit-for-tat to each comment so the thread doesn't get cluttered with back-and-forth arguments. I don't want to argue with people, I want to get their opinions. The objective is to improve the draft proposal. Please rest assured that I'm reading and considering all of the comments.

Everyone -- Please keep in mind that, no matter how the final proposal is written, it probably won't be possible to make everyone happy. There wasn't 100% consensus on the 50-inch rule, and there won't be on this one, either. I will do my best to write a rule that is good for the fishery and the angling community as a whole.

[kevinb]

I like the idea,not everyone will agree but it has my support.

I too have to agree with your comments about Mark,he has done a terrific job of promoting
the tiger musky fishery here in the Pacific Northwest.

[YellowBear]

I don't really understand what you want to do here.
If a 50 inch Tiger is at the end of its lifespan, then whats the point?

[AdsBot [Google]]

Let's hypothesize, for the purpose of debate, that WDFW doesn't believe the current record is legitimate and their solution for that problem is to hope someone kills a larger one and hauls it to a certified scale. If those were the circumstances, would you like my idea better?

Yes!

[Don Wittenberger]

YB, the rest of the muskie fishing world is moving away from weight-based records. Within a few years, this sport will be 100% C&R everywhere.

[Gone Fishin]

AnglinArcher, I would have to agree that being able to use girth in the record would be great... I do see a major flaw however

With length, the picture shows the entire measuring device and the fish. If the measuring device is turned in with the fish it can be verified that indeed the fish was so long. With girth however, the entire tape is not visible in any picture and can be held as loose as one would like. I could use tape to hem out 2 inches of a measuring tape and use it. As long as it was not the part shown in the picture nobody would ever know except for myself and my witness who as you said may error on the side of his buddy making the record book. For this reason I think that girth is an unusable measurement for a record. It does become a nice tool for calculating an estimated weight but other than that it doesn't serve much of a purpose except to get that replica on the wall to the exact size. It would be nice if everyone in this world was a completely honest person but who are we kidding, there are lots of fishermen in this world, so you know that the fish was always bigger!:-$