• GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

  • WE CREATE LONG TERM, MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIPS IN HERE ... PLEASE JOIN US.

    You know what we all love...

    RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE
    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
guideman

New 48 inch minimum for Muskies.

Recommended Posts

guideman

Hey guys,

As I'm sure most of you already know there will be a new minimum of 48 inches on Muskie this year on Vermilion. What do you all think about that?

Good, bad or indifferent? For my part, I think it is a step in the right direction for securing the trophy muskie fishery that most anglers want. My feeling is this, I'd much rather catch a few big fish, than numbers of average sized fish.

What are your feelings on the new minimum?

"Ace" cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StillFishin'

I think it's a very good thing. Of course I'm in the camp that muskies are just too rare to keep whatever size. I doubt I'd ever keep any muskie of any size.

StillFishin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vermilionwally

Well I dont fish for muskies but I have always understood that they are basically catch and release anyway so I dont think the Minimum size will really affect the fishing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walleye Guy

I agree that most muskie fisherman release the muskies they catch. However there are many muskies that are caught by fisherman who are fishing for other species of fish. Many of these end up on their walls. Which is their right do do and I support them as they are a true trophy in their eyes. However many of these fish are the 40-45 inchers that have the chance to grow much larger. I think the minimum 48" will protect the muskies and increase the chance that the next state recore muskie will come from Vermilion.

I beleive the next state/world record muskie will come from either Mille Lacs or Vermilion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guideman

I have to agree on your lake choices for the new state record. I think they both have record fish swimming around right now. Infact there have been a few caught and released in the last few years out of both lakes that could have made that mark.

I think the key to the new regs, is that now many of those incidental catches that you mentioned will now be going back. They may not all survive being released, but at least they are given that chance to survive and grow to trophy size.

You can either manage Muskies for numbers or for trophy potential, and I think the DNR has taken the right steps for building a true trophy(record potential) fishery here in Minnesota. cool.gif

"Ace" cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmanners

I would like to see the min. put into regulation for the state. I Started muskie fishing about four years ago and hit Eagle in Ontario and they have had a 54" in effect for awhile and man does that seam to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roughfisher

I think the new muskie regs are a bad thing. Now, non-fishing dads won't let their kids fish these waters anymore, because they're afraid the kids will get excited and keep an illegal 38" muskie.

Every water they put these special regulations on means ten fewer kids get to go fishing. I know my dad wouldn't let me fish any waters that had any kind of weird regulation on it when I was ten. You can't expect a ten-year-old kid riding his bike down to the river to bring a tape measure and to know the difference between a northern and a muskie. Most non-fishing dads will ban their kids from fishing at all if they think their kid is going to break the law by being a kid and keeping a big fish they catch.

Everyone is wondering why no kids are fishing anymore. Go figure. What do we want, a regulation so that nobody's kids can keep any bluegills under ten inches and no northerns under 40? The muskie regs are ridiculous. Why don't we just make it illegal for kids under 21 to go fishing at all. Because that's what we're doing by restricting harvest like this. A lot of kids are going to miss out on a lifetime of angling because of all the regulations that are making being a kid illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heartattack22

Fewer and fewer kids are fishing because they don't have people that are willing to take them!!! Plain and simple. One part of fishing is learning about what you are catching and be able to identify the different fish. These regulations are meant to increase the numbers of quality fish in the lake. Give all of our special regs 5 years and watch what the number of quality sized fish does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Do you know of cases where kids have been cited for possessing an undersize musky? Or are you just blowing smoke? The dad thing sounds like dad making excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upnorth

Quote:

Every water they put these special regulations on means ten fewer kids get to go fishing. I know my dad wouldn't let me fish any waters that had any kind of weird regulation on it when I was ten. You can't expect a ten-year-old kid riding his bike down to the river to bring a tape measure and to know the difference between a northern and a muskie. Most non-fishing dads will ban their kids from fishing at all if they think their kid is going to break the law by being a kid and keeping a big fish they catch.


Dad should spend some quality time with his kids either teaching him the differences or taking the time to take him fishing and if need be learn about fishing with him.

I was one that didn't fish much to speak of as a kid(I was one of the whose dad didn't teach him fishing) so when my son was old enough to be interested in fishing we learned together. Don't use the excuse of rule instead of piss poor parenting for kids not fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silver Scale

Three things why kids aren't fishing.

1. Parents, single or otherwise that don't care or don't take the time.

2. TV

3. Computer games, internet and instant gradifaction syndrome.

Well that's more than three but I'm sure there are more.

I don't for a minute buy those reasons why the muskie size limit shouldn't be raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott F

Kids shouldn't fish if they can't kill everything they catch? Dads maybe should be teaching kids that it's OK to throw most of the catch back to be caught again another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

In my case, I taught my dad it was ok to throw them back. He grew up during the depression and it used to really bug him to throw back those nice walleyes and laketrout in quetico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vermilionwally

I agree that it doesnt affect kids fishing. I am 16 years old and last summer i caught my first muskie and i was excited to just photograph and release it even though it was only 24 inches long it fought well and i was happy about catching it. I dont know why people think we kids dont fish anymore. I know a lot of kids at my school that fish. THey dont all fish that much but there are a few like me that are crazy about fishing grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmanners

Kids not fishing now a days can be directly routed back to parents or family not taking them out and teaching them. I do understand that parents and family cannot fish all the time but I know as a new parent I will be bringing my two year old daughter out this year and teacher her to fish. Even if I need to duck tape (Just kidding) the rod to her hands. It's about getting out from behind the electronics and into the great outdoors. Most if not all people do not eat a Muskie so keeping them is only done to put on a wall. And a 38" Muskie is not worth keeping and putting on a wall, now a 48" makes more sense but one you have fished a Lake like Eagle in which a fish gets into the 54" range you then start to understand how valuable a resource these fish are and can be with a little attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff Wagenbach

Mrmanners,

Good for you!

Be sure to bring plenty of goodies to eat for her and to be VERY willing to cut your days short when she is ready to go home! smile.gif

Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slick814

Truer words have ararely been spoken, Cliff! One lesson I had to learn when my oldest was 2... be prepared for some shorter days on the water whan they come along. The big thing is to make it fun for them, and they will enjoy and look forward to the next trip more and more!!!

As far as the Muskie slot goes... I say why not? I don't generally fish them, but I do believe that it will create a better fishery for those who regularly do if more get put back to get to the 48" status!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • ducksnbucks
      Thanks guys for the info. Had a great time with the girls yesterday afternoon. We caught bluegills up to 9", crappies to 11", saw a lot of nice bass, and as we wanted, caught some nice cats. All fish were between 19 and 24", extremely fat fish and lots of fun to catch. The girls were thrilled at the action and all fish were released to be caught another day. Bluegills were not creating beds yet but the crappies were starting to. Thanks again and have a good one!
    • LoonASea
      With your boat on the trailer,,, with the bow slightly raised (like you're on plane) make sure your motor is as close to 90 degrees to the ground ,,, Most pulling is caused by one side of the prop cutting more water then the other side ,,, Good place to start any way 
    • CJH
      Anybody have any water temps on the Chain?  I'll be up in Alex this weekend to get the boats in and just wondering where its at. Thanks!
    • Wheres_Walter
      We fished Frazer bay Friday and Saturday afternoon-sundown.  Early evening we did best in 30-35 FOW on lindys and chartruese jigs with chubs.  The last 90 min before dark we had more success at 7-12 FOW.  Nothing big but we caught a lot of 10-14" fish, more than enough to fill a skillet for our group of 5, plus put a few in the freezer.  All around great weekend, look forward to hitting it again this weekend.
    • Borch
      Good to have you back fishandfowl!  Gotta love it when a plan comes together.
    • osok
      As stated above most likely the Trim tab under the cavitation plate. Might have came loose, or corroded away if it's a sacrificial Zinc type. Agree with Leech, did you make any changes to your boat recently?  
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has determined that a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required for the Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority’s revised flood risk management project.  The DNR will prepare the SEIS to analyze modifications in the revised project proposal. The DNR invites comments on the scope of the SEIS through June 11. The scope will determine what will be evaluated in the SEIS. Broadly speaking, the SEIS describes the proposed project, identifies environmental impacts and considers mitigation and alternatives that may lessen those impacts. The supplemental review, which is not an entirely new EIS, will focus on those aspects of the revised project that were not evaluated in the original environmental impact statement (EIS). The DNR will conduct the SEIS work concurrently with its review of the Diversion Authority’s permit application for its revised project. The proposed Fargo-Moorhead flood risk management project is a dam and diversion channel system designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota; and surrounding metropolitan areas. The DNR denied the Diversion Authority’s previous permit application in October 2016 because it included insufficient mitigation; it did not meet state and local plans, rules and statutes; and there are alternatives that can provide needed protection. Since then, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to develop engineering options to address concerns about the project’s impacts. The project applicant considered the task force’s work in developing the current project proposal. DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr said substantial changes to the original proposal require additional analysis. He said the DNR’s determination that an SEIS is needed is entirely separate from the agency’s ultimate decision about permitability. The SEIS will help ensure that the potential impacts of the project, as revised, are thoroughly assessed and disclosed, he said. “I want to emphasize that Minnesota continues to support enhanced flood risk management for the developed portion of the Fargo-Moorhead area that can meet Minnesota state standards,” Landwehr said. As required by state law, the DNR will not decide on the permit application until the SEIS is deemed adequate. The SEIS adequacy determination is not a project approval, but is rather a decision about whether the supplemental review was completed properly. The DNR is expected to complete the SEIS and adequacy determination in fall 2018. A permit decision is expected soon thereafter. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a federal supplemental environmental assessment for the proposed project, which is similar to the state SEIS in scope and purpose. The DNR will accept comments on the scope of the SEIS during a 20-day period beginning May 22 and ending June 11 at 4:30 p.m. A copy of the SEIS is available for public review at: DNR Library, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. DNR northwest region office, 2220 Bemidji Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601. Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Government Documents, 2nd Floor. Moorhead Public Library, 118 5th St. S, Moorhead, MN 56560. Fergus Falls Public Library, 205 E. Hampden, Fergus Falls, MN 56537. Fargo Public Library Downtown, 102 3rd St. North, Fargo, ND 58102. Written comments on the scope of the SEIS must be received by Monday, June 11 at 4:30 p.m. Comments may be mailed to:  Jill Townley, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155-4025. Comments may be emailed to: environmentalrev.dnr@state.mn.us with “Fargo-Moorhead SEIS” in the subject line. If using the email address, include your name and mailing address so that you can be added to the mailing list. Comments may be faxed to 651-297-1500. The SEIS preparation notice, and additional details about the proposed project and the DNR’s review process are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page. ###   Frequently Asked Questions What is this project about? The proposed Fargo-Moorhead (FM) flood risk management project is designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota and surrounding metropolitan areas. It would control flows through the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area by placing high hazard dams on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The dams, along with two tieback embankments, would then stage water in an upstream staging area. Water would drain from the upstream staging area into a 30-mile diversion channel around the metropolitan area that would outlet north of the metropolitan area. What is the history of the DNR’s involvement with the project? The DNR prepared a state environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Diversion Authority’s proposed project. That EIS process concluded in June 2016 with the DNR’s EIS adequacy determination. On Feb. 18, 2016, prior to completion of state environmental review, the DNR received an application for a Dam Safety and Public Waters Work permit for the FM project, listing the Flood Diversion Board of Authority (the Diversion Authority) as the applicant. Based on the October 2016 Findings of Fact for the Dam Safety and Public Water Work Permit Application, the DNR denied the permit application for the proposed FM project. In early 2017, the Diversion Authority informally coordinated with DNR staff regarding the permit denial by engaging in work sessions aimed at addressing the DNR’s concerns and discussing potential options moving forward. Later in 2017, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to discuss flood control options and make recommendations. The task force created a technical advisory group that included engineers and staff from the Diversion Authority and the DNR. The technical group presented the task force with engineering options to address concerns about project impacts. What is the revised project design? On March 16, 2018, after considering the recommendations of the task force and technical advisory group, and engaging in additional discussions with the DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Richland-Wilkin Joint Powers Authority, the Diversion Authority submitted a permit application for a revised FM project, known as “Plan B.” The “Plan B” project changes the alignments of the southern embankment alignment, the eastern tieback and the western tieback. This plan also allows more flows through town. These component changes result in a new inundation and staging area, and also result in modifications to, and elimination of, some project structures, such as the Comstock ring levee. Plan B also results in reduced impacts to Minnesota acres, cemeteries and organic farms. What will happen next? The DNR has determined that these project design changes are “substantial and may affect the potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project” and has ordered preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The SEIS is designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project that were not assessed in the original EIS. During the SEIS process, the DNR will also be reviewing the Diversion Authority’s Plan B permit application. However, the DNR cannot make any decision on the application until the SEIS process is complete. The DNR currently anticipates completing the SEIS in October 2018, and making its permit decision shortly thereafter. Additional information about the SEIS and permit application are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • DRAGFOOT
      We did well Thursday, Friday and Saturday out front of Pine just out of the gap in 19ft. Got on the lake just fine Saturday....was actually better than the previous two days as far as rough water is concerned I thought.
    • ANYFISH2
      Welcome back Fishandfowl! Congratulations on your bird. It seems like it has been a tough year for many. Hope you can stick around and share your adventures with us some more.
    • Stephen L Johnston Jr.
      I saw the guy who bought our cabin, Ryan Aker, came in 4th. A couple of 7lb fish and i thought i saw a team with a 10lb fish also. Shhhhhh, the shallow is a secret. We fish quite often in 5' or less, Often watching the guides out on the sandy flats from a far