Catch and release only for muskies.

[fishface]

I'd like to see the entire Mississippi regulated like the area below the Ford darn. It would be fantastic to be able to go down to the river and fish right now. I can't in good concience (sp?)go down there "crappie" fish right now. AND, this part of the river is no differant than any other part as far as far as value or vulnerability goes. I think anglers in all parts of the state should be able to have a year round fishery as accessable as South metro/southern MN residence have. I know it is C&R during the off season. I don't know what you can keep during the reg. season.

[river rat316]

Its C&R all year on Pool 2 Ford Dam to lock and dam #2

I don't think we want or need that on this section of the river, I travel to Pool 2 or Pool 4 and south probably 5-7 times a spring to fish, and don't mind it, we don't really need any more regulation around here, just better angler education and awareness.

[fishface]

RR,

I respectfully disagree. I think a simple year-round C&R on the entire river would be less regs. Much simpler than what we have now.(I'm not even saying there shouldn't be a C&K season) Also, there are quite a number of people who can't make the trip south 5-7 times a year for any number of reasons. We need to make fishing in this state simpler and more available to all people. I want to be able to hit the river from shore for a couple of hours on a nice sunny March day if I have the time. I don't think there is any biological or other reason why that shouldn't be ok.

[smallie_hawgin]

Hey folks good discussion.... It is impressive to see talk on the issue of regulations. I mentioned earlier in this discussion the regs can be in place for two main reasoins: Social and biological. Both have their positive and negative aspects.

Here in MN we are under regulated compared to most other states in the nation (fishing regs). However, we still maintain the ever present seasonal closures which is relatively uncommon across the lower 48.

The Mississippi River is a unique case in which Fishface helped describe why it is necessary to have the C&R on Musky... there are plenty of folks who go out for a few hours and fish along the length of the river. Sometimes they catch a musky sometimes it might be a bass. If we have no reg in place for the unique musky fishery we stand to lose fish from incidental harvest more so than from releasing the VERY occasional hurt fish.

Some discussion was mentioned about ethical reasons to not release fish.... Sorry man but to me that is a total cop-out. We no longer are in the days of subsistence fishing, no matter how you live. You may add to your groceries, but you do nit LIVE off of what you catch... The resource has mortality weather we contribute or not. If anglers do wht they are supposed to when they release fish the angling mortality will be extremely minimal.

This particular regulation is more like one intended to educate folks on the value of the unique fishery and provide some level of protection river wide to the unique species.

Regulations are a necessity with the growing population density. The resources are finite. Simply put.

[Capt. Quicksteel]

Okay, last post, I swear! Two points. First of all, no one is talking about subsistence fishing here. I'm talking about sensible use of a resource. I've lived elsewhere and you're absolutely right, we don't have the onerous regulations that exist elsewhere. My real point continues to be that these are unecessary regs. The resource is in great shape and will continue to be with the laws that are in place. Individual fish don't have value, it's the entire population that matters. For example: about 4 years ago I became aware that whitefish nets up on Vermilion were catching muskies. The guys take the dead, stiff muskies out of the nets and throw them in the lake. I called Dwayne the fisheries guy in Ely to complain and he said" Look, the same number of nets were in the lake when we started stocking, while the population grew and still now when it's a thriving trophy fishery. We're not going to worry about that limited mortality because it's obviously not having a mojor effect." When you stop and think about it, he's right. Same with the Miss or anywhere. If 1 or 2 guys pull in a fish while shore fishing, it's irrelevant. We still have a 99% release rate. If the law says all fish under 48 have to go back the population stays healthy, there are lots of fish for everyone and a guy like fish 500 can keep a wounded trophy. I just don't see a down side and we avoid unneeded regulation. The jerk who kills muskies because they eat walleyes is just going to stab or club the fish and throw it back anyway, no matter what the size. As I said a couple of posts ago. Regulations should only be put in place if they can be demonstrated to have an actual benefit, otherwise we complicate, clutter and misuse our energies and enforcement resources...

[MSRiverdog]

Quote:

---

Okay, last post, I swear! Two points. First of all, no one is talking about subsistence fishing here. I'm talking about sensible use of a resource. I've lived elsewhere and you're absolutely right, we don't have the onerous regulations that exist elsewhere. My real point continues to be that these are unecessary regs. The resource is in great shape and will continue to be with the laws that are in place. Individual fish don't have value, it's the entire population that matters. For example: about 4 years ago I became aware that whitefish nets up on Vermilion were catching muskies. The guys take the dead, stiff muskies out of the nets and throw them in the lake. I called Dwayne the fisheries guy in Ely to complain and he said" Look, the same number of nets were in the lake when we started stocking, while the population grew and still now when it's a thriving trophy fishery. We're not going to worry about that limited mortality because it's obviously not having a mojor effect." When you stop and think about it, he's right. Same with the Miss or anywhere. If 1 or 2 guys pull in a fish while shore fishing, it's irrelevant. We still have a 99% release rate. If the law says all fish under 48 have to go back the population stays healthy, there are lots of fish for everyone and a guy like fish 500 can keep a wounded trophy. I just don't see a down side and we avoid unneeded regulation. The jerk who kills muskies because they eat walleyes is just going to stab or club the fish and throw it back anyway, no matter what the size. As I said a couple of posts ago. Regulations should only be put in place if they can be demonstrated to have an actual benefit, otherwise we complicate, clutter and misuse our energies and enforcement resources...

---

Tell you what, we, the folks that frequent these forums are by and large C&R with the afore mentioned fish. Are we 25% of the fishing population, I doubt it's that high. Now go to any of the shore fishing places where it is comfortable for a family of, let's say asian or south of the border types that decend en mass on the fishery, and keep EVERYTHING that hit's a hook, we are lucky if they even follow the laws in place, let alone care or give a rip about the fishery, let alone the reg's. Go watch some time, their excuse is they can't read english in our new "Tower of Babel" society. We can't stop those folks, it ain't PC. Maybe some of these regs will slow them down, and the out of stater's that come up here and take everything, there's lot's of DNR documentation on that.

[JBMasterAngler]

If this rule upsets so many people because of the mortality rate, then we might as well stop ice fishing for ALL species! A fish can be killed from a hook wether it's a 50 inch muskie or a 3 inch sunnie. Sure it sucks to through back a dead trophy fish and watch it float away, but it has no less affect than that little potato chip sunny, it's still gonna get eaten by the same gulls and turtles, etc. The last post about asian families keeping everything is a very good point. I actually think it's good for lakes that they keep every little tiny sunny or crappie they catch, but I've seen them fishing rivers and keeping bass of the same size...those guys need a chance to grow.

Anyway, I am in total agreement with the catch & release rule for muskies. I'm still a novice on the upper mississippi, but I liked my first trip (last summer) there and will continue to go there. Now, I'm not a muskie fisherman either, I'm fishing strictly for smallies. However, I've caught lot's of muskies up north on bass gear and it is FUN!!! I can't imagine what even a small muskie must feel like on the end of the line in the river. I have a theory about the muskies too, if a few of them are saved every year because of this rule (just as many will die from hooks or mishandling wether the rule is in effect or not by the way) then that means there will be more muskies to eat more redhorse and suckers, meaning more walleye eggs will survive, meaning better fishing for them...it's a WIN WIN situation for everyone!

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

RR,

I respectfully disagree. I think a simple year-round C&R on the entire river would be less regs. Much simpler than what we have now.(I'm not even saying there shouldn't be a C&K season) Also, there are quite a number of people who can't make the trip south 5-7 times a year for any number of reasons. We need to make fishing in this state simpler and more available to all people. I want to be able to hit the river from shore for a couple of hours on a nice sunny March day if I have the time. I don't think there is any biological or other reason why that shouldn't be ok.

---

There is no catch and keep season on pool 2 its C&R YEAR round for game fish... we do not need that up here, plain and simple, I'm as much or more a C&R fisherman than anyone on this board, but we do not need a total C&R for all species on the river, the C&R regs have done wonders for the Bass Population in the area, but I do not think the whole darn river should be C&R, just my opinion and I think alot of peoples opinions. I would how ever like a C&R season for smallmouth after the season closes in February, but I really don't see that happening and sure ain't gonna hold my breath for it. On a side note its actually quite enjoyable to go and fish new water, thats why I go down there 5-7 times a spring, I think the reason why most people do not is becaue there afraid of the skunk or something , I by no means have any of the lower pools figured out, but hopefully soon I will!

[Kevin Turner]

I wonder if it would be feasable for the DNR to offer Muskie "tags", much like a deer tag? It could allow the angler to tag & keep 1 or 2 trophies per season?

[JBMasterAngler]

That's an interesting point about the tags, I disagree with it though. And I doubt any muskie angler would go for it. Besides, I happen to think alot of people that catch trophy muskies catch them while fishing for something else. I see at least a handful of stories every week of someone catching a giant pike or muskie while jigging for walleyes. I know if I ever catch a trophy it'll be "accidentally". So I don't think someone who catches one in that manner should be deprived of keeping the fish if they want. They just won't be able to do it on the river because it's not allowed.

[Keith_MN]

I think I agree with JBMasterAngler on the tag issue. A tag would have to be obtained/purchased in advance, so the only people who would obtain them would be the people who are looking for a fish to hang on their wall (ie the trophy hunters). I'd rather that the minimum length be increased to 48" (or higher if necessary) to accomplish the DNRs goals. Then, if and when that state record is caught the person who catches it can make their own decision on whether to keep it or release it.

Personally I would get a replica made, unless I was certain that the fish was going to die anyway.

[fish500]

Has anyone considered the fact that some harvest might be good for muskie populations? I was told by a fisheries specialist who has participated in extensive muskie research that some harvest is good in a healthy population such as the one in the Mississippi River between Little Falls and Brainerd.

[river rat316]

Nahhh Im pretty sure that the areas fisheries biologists just did this to have more regulation and make people mad They seem to do that alot

[fish500]

I can't pinpoint the goal of your sarcasm, but of course not every DNR fisheries biologist agrees with regulations that are implemented. This was a point that was brought up by a fisheries specialist in Brainerd while discussing this very topic, and I thought it would be an interesting talking point. This input was from someone who has first hand experience with muskie studies that have been conducted in the affected portion of the river, so I thought it was relevant.

[fish500]

Also, of course the fisheries biologists didn't "do this". Who does make the decision to change the regulations? I don't think it's fisheries biologists because the ones I talked to were either opposed or neutral to this reg change. I don't think biological factors indicated a change was necessary.

[fishface]

There are very few regs/descisions made for bio-logical reasons. Most are political or emotionally driven by narrow perceptions. The last round of limit changes, the closed season for game fish. Bass in particular. The dates miss protecting them when they are at thier most vulnerable for most of the state. Stocking is another issue done mostly to appease some squeaky wheel rather than sound biological reason. If a reg is "bad" it takes a "grassroots movement" to sway opinion to get it changed. Sometimes biological reason can help change opinions, but don't hold your breath.

Hu... the country kind of operates like that too.

[Capt. Quicksteel]

My point exactly, Fishface! Hey wait a minute, that was another post, wasn't it!?!

[fishface]

What?... The reason post? I've banged my head on that post till it hurts.

[Headwaters]

Many of us agree with the folks on the Muskie forum. Catch and release is a great idea and especially for the Mississippi. Many of them are in favor of catch and release statewide on Muskies. As far as a Trophy - modern graphite reproductions are far superior to skin mounts and if you want to eat them....... well what can you say. With respect to releasing an injured fish, I have spent a lot of time reviving stressed fish before release. Sometimes releasing a fish is a lot more involved than just "throwing it back".

[Capt. Quicksteel]

I'm starting to think you need to grab the post and hit someone elses head with it!

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

There are very few regs/descisions made for bio-logical reasons. Most are political or emotionally driven by narrow perceptions. The last round of limit changes, the closed season for game fish. Bass in particular. The dates miss protecting them when they are at thier most vulnerable for most of the state. Stocking is another issue done mostly to appease some squeaky wheel rather than sound biological reason. If a reg is "bad" it takes a "grassroots movement" to sway opinion to get it changed. Sometimes biological reason can help change opinions, but don't hold your breath.

Hu... the country kind of operates like that too.

---

That was a dig on somebody and wasn't meant as serious... usually thats what this means

[fishface]

= A dig? I didn't know. Please, don't take it that way! I ment it as, just my own stupid opinion.

[Capt. Quicksteel]

I liked your post!! My guess though is when we start hitting ourselves in the head with posts and laughing about it, the serious conversations are over!

[Royce Aardahl]

serious thread in mississippi river north, I think that is an oxymoron. especially with RR and MSRD around

[fishface]

I hope the seriouse conversation continues. If it doesn't we're doomed to more feel-good, knee-jerk limit laws.

Like the crappie limits. Put in place because some do gooders thought they were going to save Red lake. Now around the city lakes, try makeing a meal of fish for an entire family with ten peices of paper from some stunted potato chip factory. (I don't have time for the big trips.) Limit laws just don't have much in the way of biological reasoning behind them. They usually don't accomplish anything that benifits the fish or the fisherman.

Are people REALLY taking numbers of big muskies out of the river?!? Enough to warrent a new limit law?!?

Just make the whole Miss. open to year round fishing somehow. Then I'll have everything I ever wanted.

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

I hope the seriouse conversation continues. If it doesn't we're doomed to more feel-good, knee-jerk limit laws.

Like the crappie limits. Put in place because some do gooders thought they were going to save Red lake. Now around the city lakes, try makeing a meal of fish for an entire family with ten peices of paper from some stunted potato chip factory. (I don't have time for the big trips.) Limit laws just don't have much in the way of biological reasoning behind them. They usually don't accomplish anything that benifits the fish or the fisherman.

Are people REALLY taking numbers of big muskies out of the river?!? Enough to warrent a new limit law?!?

Just make the whole Miss. open to year round fishing somehow. Then I'll have everything I ever wanted.

---

WOW how bout we just go back to the old days.... ya know when ya could keep a hundred sunnies and crappies, besides your kids will probably never even want to fish when they are your age You ever stop to think for one second that the reason the crappies are all "potato chips" in the metro area is because of people LIKE YOU who cant throw em back when they are potato chips? So next time ya start complaining about the regs, they were put there to protect the fish from "sportsman" just like YOU!

[Capt. Quicksteel]

River Rat, Let me just defend Fishface here. You completely missed the point several of us are making here. A bad reg is worse than no reg at all. In a fishery as good as this one, which has grown and developed with the current regs in place, it would do no good to become more restrictive and it would use up enforcement resources with no benefit gained. Laws should be put in place for good resource management reasons, by the fisheries people, not to satisfy the interests of a few individuals or for nonscientific feelgood emotional reasons. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. No one is suggesting that there be no limits. It sounds like everyone on this thread is a catch and release musky fisherman and we're just having a sensible debate about resource management and a little kidding around!

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

I hope the seriouse conversation continues. If it doesn't we're doomed to more feel-good, knee-jerk limit laws.

Like the crappie limits. Now around the city lakes, try makeing a meal of fish for an entire family with ten peices of paper from some stunted potato chip factory. (I don't have time for the big trips.) Limit laws just don't have much in the way of biological reasoning behind them. They usually don't accomplish anything that benifits the fish or the fisherman.

---

Im sorry I see this as the DUMBEST thing Ive ever heard, I ddon't think he was kidding around, if we return to the no limits with increased pressure we see these days, my Grandkids will not be able to go out and fish... there will be no fish. The limits are in place to protect the resource from people like this who want to go out and keep 100 fish in a day. The reason these are stunted potato chip factories is because people refuse to let em go to grow! Theres no discussion on that its FACT period.

I don't always agree with the regs either but there put in place to protect a UNIQUE fishery, I also hate over regulation and the goverment telling me what to do, but when theres people around that could give a rats behind about the resource and are only thinking about filling there freezer with whatever they catch (and they are there, probably in greater #'s then C&R fisherman) we need these regs.

[river rat316]

Quote:

---

River Rat, Let me just defend Fishface here. You completely missed the point several of us are making here. A bad reg is worse than no reg at all. In a fishery as good as this one, which has grown and developed with the current regs in place, it would do no good to become more restrictive and it would use up enforcement resources with no benefit gained. Laws should be put in place for good resource management reasons, by the fisheries people, not to satisfy the interests of a few individuals or for nonscientific feelgood emotional reasons. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. No one is suggesting that there be no limits. It sounds like everyone on this thread is a catch and release musky fisherman and we're just having a sensible debate about resource management and a little kidding around!

---

No I did not miss your point, I realize that the fishery is healthy, and probably doesn't need this regulation, but one thing you need to realize is that it is also seeing about triple to quadruple the fishing pressure it once did, every year theres more people talking about the "awesome" fishing on the river, driving more pressure to the river, people are sick of the overcrowded lakes so now there overcrowding the river, I used to be able to head out on the river and not see another person fishing it the whole day, now that only happens when its to darn cold out for most people to fish open water, Go up to Blanchard Dam once and take a look at the people fishing from shore, a good look, and tell me that most of em wouldn't keep the "accidental" Musky catch, your kidding yourself if you think theres no Musky harvest up there, my dad fishes up there regularly and he tells me all the time about the Monster Muskies people take out of that area, with this reg in place at least if they try it now they can be busted. You guys want to sit here and complain about this reg but yet state that you don't keep any Musky. You also want to sit around and talk about how "strong" the fishery is and how it doesn't need it, well think about how "strong" the fishery is going to be with out those 40+" fish drug up on shore and clubbed to feed there 15 other family members. You might just be able to go and catch that "state record" someday (though I doubt it) and I know one thing, it wouldn't have been there for you with out the regs!

[Capt. Quicksteel]

The original argument was whether the river should be total catch and release. No one has a problem with say a 48 inch limit. I agree with you about the harvest from shore, not just muskies. I fish a lot of crappies in the spring and there are places where I can watch an assembly line from the water to the bucket to the car and home. Family members drive the buckets home and come back and start over. I've called TIP and nothing happens. I feel guilty about taking 6 home for dinner once or twice in the spring and those people have 250 in their freezer. But, let me say it again, craft a law that addresses the real problem, not just a blanket catch and release rule that won't improve the fishery and will cause more harm than good. I think we agree a lot more than we disagree on this one.....