# Musky fishing does this make sense to you?



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

*I think this says a lot. What do you think?
*


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I think it says people are following the fishing regulations and are enjoying one of the ways people are allowed to fish. But of course I'm not trolling, are you?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Huh?
It reads like some one speared a muskie.
So?
Lots of water if some one does not want to use a rod and reel in the same water spearing occours. 
Still ,spearing waters are fine by me to fish.
A one and done deal. Either watch or go home, before and after.

Used to live on a lake where they were targeted by tip - ups in the winter.
Might have been the cause of highest mortality rate.
I did find one brute dead with hook and wrapped line. Stress must have factored as the hook was not stopping feeding and gills were workable.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Mr. Botek said:


> I think it says people are following the fishing regulations and are enjoying one of the ways people are allowed to fish. But of course I'm not trolling, are you?


I hope he ain' t trolling.
Duke ,what don' t make sense to you , spearing?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Oh , you are trolling.
That door swings both ways .
Toss a stone in my garden I' ll put a boulder in yours.
Think about it .
Delete your thread or expect your pursuit to be joined in similar fashion on other threads. Your choice.


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

Duke. Duke Duke Duke...

Please don't go where I think you're going, which is cherry picking stereotypical opinions and making blanket conclusions.



I see a fish that spawned at least 10 years, didn't have many left, was harvested legally by an ecstatic angler, and will be used thoroughly.

I know we have a thaw, but you can't troll now...


----------



## 6667supersport (Oct 10, 2012)

Maybe he is assuming it was speared in Lake St Clair ?


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

6667supersport said:


> Maybe he is assuming it was speared in Lake St Clair ?


Which would be illegal and hopefully prosecuted.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

The muskie Duke is referring to wasn't speared in LSC, and I'd bet my paycheck that he's aware of that.
I'd also be willing to wager that Duke has read that this muskie is the 1st one that this angler had speared in 12 years of trying, and that this muskie was mature (51.5") and had many reproductive years. 

Am I warm Duke?


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

6667supersport said:


> Maybe he is assuming it was speared in Lake St Clair ?


Duke is faaaarr from stupid and wouldn't assume or imply that.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

No suspicion of recreational causualties mentioned.
Suspicious.
Big females have all winter to eat chilled dead releases on the bottom.
Get them trained for dead bait summer and fall.
Oh yeah.
http://www.outdoornews.com/2006/05/11/muskie-die-off-on-st-clair-raises-concerns/


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Hi guys, missed you too . Dead serious!

Very interesting responses already. And, NO, none of you are on the right track AT ALL why I posted it. I am just curious if other people see the same paradox that I do in the statement above. Nothing more. 

Sorry if I struck a nerve, I swear it was not intentional (deja vu...). Has NOTHING to do with spearing. I am sorry the word "spear" was even mentioned in the above, I guess I should have redacted that as well.

But if you don't mind, I'd love to see some other responses too before giving away the answer of what I think this says. 

p.s. Waif, sorry I really have no idea what you are saying?? And Botek, no, I do not know anything more about the fish or the angler than what is printed in the little snippet above. At least I didn't until you filled me in


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Waif wonders if a high end charter service would be profitable on St. Clair.
Some one spears a 40ish muskie and you post about it under the title does this make sense?

A friend I' ve plied big waters with in both Canada and the U.S. took his boat south for winter. Did not ask if he has his captains license we discussed as I did not get one. ( a boat size= clients thing)
For muskie ,I could first mate though. Confidently.

More potential with so many fish in certain waters though, to cater to high rollers wanting wall hangers.

Not like spearing for recreation , rather babysitting folks for money. With tips for producing dead fish. Makes sense to work high number waters. Not life in the catbird seat but enough clients and kills can generate bonus income.
Know what I mean?


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Waif said:


> Waif wonders if a high end charter service would be profitable on St. Clair.
> Some one spears a 40ish muskie and you post about it under the title does this make sense?
> 
> A friend I' ve plied big waters with in both Canada and the U.S. took his boat south for winter. Did not ask if he has his captains license we discussed as I did not get one. ( a boat size= clients thing)
> ...


Dude, I am sorry but you are going to have to dumb it down for me. Not trying to be a dink but I seriously do NOT know what you mean!!? 

The only thing I understand from your posts above is "Duke, what doesn't make sense to you, spearing?" My answer is "no! spearing is absolutely not what doesn't make sense to me" 

It has absolutely nothing to do with spearing or with the sportsmen that spear- No way Firefighter, I would never make a blanket conclusion about a certain group of people.


----------



## OneidaEagle (Sep 25, 2008)

Means that the Muskie Fishing in Michigan is well know to some one in Minnesota. Must bet he Muskie Fishery is GREAT, compared to that of Minnesota

Also I read that in Minnesota, they are surprised that we in Michigan can spear ONLY 1. Meaning that they have more relaxed regulations and possibly leading to smaller sized fish?

That's my guess, Could re read that whole thing and be talking about APR as well.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

OneidaEagle said:


> Means that the Muskie Fishing in Michigan is well know to some one in Minnesota. Must bet he Muskie Fishery is GREAT, compared to that of Minnesota
> 
> Also I read that in Minnesota, they are surprised that we in Michigan can spear ONLY 1. Meaning that they have more relaxed regulations and possibly leading to smaller sized fish?
> 
> That's my guess, Could re read that whole thing and be talking about APR as well.


Not quite! 

Michigan is well known to someone in Minnesota because it is the only state or province where non-tribal musky spearing occurs, so that's why he was able to guess where. But that is not the point! 

Michigan is also the only state or province that has a tag system/1 per year for musky, so you are correct that the MN angler was surprised about that! 

BUT, Minnesota actually has a statewide 54" minimum size limit, and is widely renowned as having the best musky fishery with the largest fish of any state. *Other states have select waters that are renowned as world class- Lake St. Clair is probably at the top of the list of the best. But that is not the point.

Very good point about APR, now we are getting warm


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

"If you see one, you don't pass it up, there's not a huge population of them"...
I'm guessing it's something about this sentence.


----------



## Zib (Jan 7, 2008)

Bomba said:


> "If you see one, you don't pass it up, there's not a huge population of them"...
> I'm guessing it's something about this sentence.


Yep, because killing them will help the population.


----------



## Papa Liver (May 20, 2016)

Feel like I'm in a movie....


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Papa Liver said:


> Feel like I'm in a movie....


Groundhog Day?


----------



## Papa Liver (May 20, 2016)




----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

I read it as someone legally took one fish and is really happy about it after a lot of effort.


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

Trolling in the warm water forum too... Not bad all! 
My first point is that there are much better places for this discussion. Like a bar, or a church, or pretty much anywhere where sarcasm, and conjecture (or the lack thereof) are clearly defined and not misunderstood. 
I agree there wasn't any implications on harvest, or legality, or negative connotation toward any method in the original post. Presumptions can be misleading, and the narrative and vision of the thread has been altered because of it.
In my opinion, the thread is leading us in the direction of morality/ethics, and legality, and if they are one in the same. I feel they are different, unless the people setting the regulations of law are vigilant enough to keep up with moral burdens of conservation. After reading most of the responses here I think it is clear that this burden lies on the state, as most of the people in the state of Michigan do not separate these two ideas. I'm not just talking muskies here either!


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

vano397 said:


> Trolling in the warm water forum too... Not bad all!
> My first point is that there are much better places for this discussion. Like a bar, or a church, or pretty much anywhere where sarcasm, and conjecture (or the lack thereof) are clearly defined and not misunderstood.
> I agree there wasn't any implications on harvest, or legality, or negative connotation toward any method in the original post. Presumptions can be misleading, and the narrative and vision of the thread has been altered because of it.
> In my opinion, the thread is leading us in the direction of morality/ethics, and legality, and if they are one in the same. I feel they are different, unless the people setting the regulations of law are vigilant enough to keep up with moral burdens of conservation. After reading most of the responses here I think it is clear that this burden lies on the state, as most of the people in the state of Michigan do not separate these two ideas. I'm not just talking muskies here either!


Is it lonely up there?


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

Nope


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

OK, I'll bring it back a notch or five... Maybe a better question here is; should the MiDNR follow their own muskellunge management plan? I say yes. Then you can have your argument with them about LSC and a couple places in the UP, and I can have mine with them about the rest of the state...


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I like the bar idea. My skin starts boiling if I get too near a church, low morality and all

I highly doubt there's going to be any change either way from the NRC/DNR in the near future. While I don't find the current regulations completely to my liking, I also don't find them ruin-my-day unacceptable.

I'll buy YOUR first a beer vano397


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

HAHA, I'll buy the rest  Tho tonight it is a fine bottle of 21 yo jameson, and it makes me happy!


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

And I'll agree I don't find the current regs ruin-my-day unacceptable either, I do however wish they would do what they say they know they need to do...


----------



## Revinchev (May 19, 2014)

Assuming you are referencing "If you see one, you don't pass it up, there's not a huge population of them". From my standpoint that seems to be the general mind set for many anglers and spearers in certain waters which leads to the low numbers of fish and drives us further and further away from management goals. Cause and effect in a nutshell.


----------



## Handy10 (Feb 11, 2015)

So help me understand...... if there is a low density of a certain species in a specific habitat, then the harvest of a single member of that species results in a detriment to the overall, long term survival of that species in that particular habitat? 
And if an individual of that species has successfully reproduced in the past, but is subsequently harvested, even through legal means, that individual has a zero percent chance of reproducing in the future? 
Then, if I'd like my children and grandchildren to ever see a member of the low density species in a specific habit, I should refrain from harvesting members of that species, even though it is legal. 
That would make sense to me...


----------



## BLUEGILLWILL (Oct 17, 2014)

Handy10 >>>> bingo
Someone gets it!
If this guy was spearing for 15 years and finally got his first 50" Muskie hmm something's wrong here. I don't think people understand how many stocked fish it would take to replace 1 trophy sized female but the number is staggering. But being a low population of fish to start every time that spear drops you lower your odds because the females are the only ones that grow that big.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Then lower the size limit and keep the one per year. Some males will then fall in the MSL and potential harvest. In fact, if a person can only harvest one per year with any method, it makes no sense to have a size limit at all. 

My mistake, that means a muskie would die. Nevermind.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

I'd need to communicate with a fisheries biologist who knows the water involved and forage base ,fishing pressure,harvest rates,goals ect. to know if and what should be harvested before asking about soicial desires on the same water.
Planting I' m familier with having lived on a lake that recieved them ,but means nothing till goals are known.
No take ,no kill is not unheard of in some trials. 
Fish to harvest are others.
Private vs public makes a big dif too.
Health and forage, and sustainable numbers count. Often fewer predators fare better than too many.


----------



## Zib (Jan 7, 2008)

Handy10 said:


> So help me understand...... if there is a low density of a certain species in a specific habitat, then the harvest of a single member of that species results in a detriment to the overall, long term survival of that species in that particular habitat?
> And if an individual of that species has successfully reproduced in the past, but is subsequently harvested, even through legal means, that individual has a zero percent chance of reproducing in the future?
> Then, if I'd like my children and grandchildren to ever see a member of the low density species in a specific habit, I should refrain from harvesting members of that species, even though it is legal.
> That would make sense to me...


That all depends on whether or not it's a stocked hatchery fish or a naturally spawned fish as stocked hatchery fish don't successfully spawn.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Zib said:


> That all depends on whether or not it's a stocked hatchery fish or a naturally spawned fish as stocked hatchery fish don't successfully spawn.


Good point.
Tiger muskie are an example not expected to reproduce. One way of controlling numbers.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Zib said:


> That all depends on whether or not it's a stocked hatchery fish or a naturally spawned fish as stocked hatchery fish don't successfully spawn.


Historically here in Michigan stocked hatchery Northern Strain muskies have not successfully spawned in many waters, but they have in some northern lakes. Now that the DNR has changed the hatchery broodstock to Great Lakes Strain, and especially where now stocked into lakes where they once occurred naturally but were extirpated, the hope is they will reproduce much better.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> Then lower the size limit and keep the one per year. Some males will then fall in the MSL and potential harvest. In fact, if a person can only harvest one per year with any method, it makes no sense to have a size limit at all.
> 
> My mistake, that means a muskie would die. Nevermind.


The math on this approach only makes sense if every angler was already harvesting 1/year, and if they would then start filling their tag with smaller muskies instead with a lower/no size limit.

That is, the unlikely scenario above would also only makes sense IF the desired outcome is more muskies available for all anglers to have the opportunity to pursue. However, more harvest, which is the obvious logical result of lower size limits, does not equal more muskies.

But not all musky lakes in Michigan have low populations that require reduced harvest in order to make fishable populations, only most of them. This is where Waif's point about having the best data is crucial.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> Groundhog Day?


If I remember that movie, the day kept repeating for him until he straightened up and got right. This must be your chance


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

So it's a endangered fish, that hasn't been seen in 10 years so let's kill it...???


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> Sorry to have caused you to wait. My response was delayed as I was finalizing plans for the muskie spearing trip I will be taking this weekend. That is all.


No problem, I can wait


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Bomba said:


> What have you and your "group" done to help the fish you are so intent on killing. What have you done to help preserve or restore the population you are taking from?


We buy fishing licenses. The wise folks in Lansing have deemed that our state resources are not to be for the use of an elite group to buy access and exclude others. I applaud the efforts that the special interest muskie groups have put forth, and I've previously said so, but that gives those groups no more right to access the fishery than any individual who purchases a license. I have also stated in the past, and you of all people should know, our organization doesn't have deep pockets. When that changes, and it is, we will use what we can to enhance the world around us in a positive way. We aren't trying to exclude or restrict anyone from their chosen legal fishing method, unlike your organization. 

You aren't suggesting that only those individuals and groups that chose to or have the ability to pay extra should be allowed access to the muskie fishery, are you?


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Bottom line here is simple:
No change in fishing regulations happens here. We all know where it does and we will continue to pursue the changes that we feel ALL anglers are entitled to that purchase fishing licenses. We will not work against any group that chooses to pursue fish or game in a legal manner. We will encourage more legal participation in all outdoor activities. Your groups can continue on the exclusionary and restrictive path.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Mr. Botek said:


> We buy fishing licenses. The wise folks in Lansing have deemed that our state resources are not to be for the use of an elite group to buy access and exclude others. I applaud the efforts that the special interest muskie groups have put forth, and I've previously said so, but that gives those groups no more right to access the fishery than any individual who purchases a license. I have also stated in the past, and you of all people should know, our organization doesn't have deep pockets. When that changes, and it is, we will use what we can to enhance the world around us in a positive way. We aren't trying to exclude or restrict anyone from their chosen legal fishing method, unlike your organization.
> 
> You aren't suggesting that only those individuals and groups that chose to or have the ability to pay extra should be allowed access to the muskie fishery, are you?


First off, I'm not a member of any organization.. Nice try.
It was a simple question, and you've done nothing.. Thank you for the honest answer.


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

All I see is "ignored member", but I assume this response covers it.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

You didn't miss anything important FF.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Duke said:


> The elephant-in-the-room question remains: if this fish has spawned several times, then why are there still so few of them that an angler has to wait 12 years for one???
> 
> And please remember: this discussion does NOT revolve around that one angler or that one fish. I'd like to think that we all CAN see the forest for the trees, if we are honest about it.
> 
> I'm curious if you had any thoughts or response to this? I


I would not post the specific water of o.p. but spawning success, nursery conditions and survival rate of fingerlings has lots of variables ,beginning with spawning habitat itself and water levels and conditions.
Predation rates as with success in rearing are going to be a case( waterway) by case basis.
When is a muskie safe from other muskies? Teeth marks on fish over twenty inches suggests it being many years.
The several inch muskies I used to observe stayed quite shallow. Larger muskie did cruise those shallows on occassion.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> ... We aren't trying to exclude or restrict anyone from their chosen legal fishing method, unlike your organization.





Mr. Botek said:


> ... Your groups can continue on the exclusionary and restrictive path.


These statements are absolutely false.

And Mr. Botek knows it. Or else he has forgotten what he has been told and what has been written in plain english to him dozens upon dozens of times. So I will re-state it again for the good of the order.

No organization is trying to exclude anyone from their chosen fishing method, period. 
Muskie organizations believe that the method of harvest is completely irrelevant, period. 

Muskie organizations do believe that over harvest is a problem for many northern Michigan lakes. All scientific data says that over harvest is a problem for many northern Michigan lakes. Therefore, muskie organizations believe that either through stricter regulations, and/or more preferably through education and acceptance and a change in the fishing culture towards muskies here in Michigan, that harvest of muskies by hook and line and by spear should be reduced in many of the places they exist. 

But not all places. In fact, in one of the very few exceptions in Michigan, on the Tahquamenon River upstream of the Upper falls, the muskie organizations supported a reduction in the size limit from 42" to 38".

It should go without saying, but obviously any member of a muskie organization or group may have a personal opinion that opposes musky spearing. But they do not speak for the organization. 

All you good folks, please do not believe what Mr. Botek says about 'other' organizations and groups. Go right to the source and listen to the organizations themselves. 

Michigan Muskie Alliance www.michiganmuskiealliance.org
Boundary Waters Musky Club www.bwmuskyclub.com
Lake St. Clair www.lscmi.com


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Waif said:


> I would not post the specific water of o.p. but spawning success, nursery conditions and survival rate of fingerlings has lots of variables ,beginning with spawning habitat itself and water levels and conditions.
> Predation rates as with success in rearing are going to be a case( waterway) by case basis.
> When is a muskie safe from other muskies? Teeth marks on fish over twenty inches suggests it being many years.
> The several inch muskies I used to observe stayed quite shallow. Larger muskie did cruise those shallows on occassion.


Absolutely true, but unfortunately fish are notorious violators of game laws and have proven to be extremely difficult to prosecute. So we might have to focus our efforts elsewhere


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Duke said:


> These statements are absolutely false.
> 
> And Mr. Botek knows it. Or else he has forgotten what he has been told and what has been written in plain english to him dozens upon dozens of times. So I will re-state it again for the good of the order.
> 
> ...


Botek can have an opinion.
How does science ( from your post) identify an overharvest problem in northern lakes, and what specific problem is occouring? A social one, or environmemtal one ,or lake specie' s balance one , or the viabiltyof muskies alone? ( where a no kill law would be expected).


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Duke said:


> Michigan Muskie Alliance www.michiganmuskiealliance.org
> Boundary Waters Musky Club www.bwmuskyclub.com
> Lake St. Clair www.lscmi.com


Two of these three organizations that you posted links to put forth a resolution to MUCC two years ago to ban all muskie spearing in the state of Michigan. That is exclusionary no matter how you spin it.
MMA wasn't one of them. 

You're now down to using over harvest as your only remaining argument, and God bless you, despite the limit of one muskie harvested per person per year, you still want to reduce that number! 

If the DNR, through science based information, determines a waterway can't support that, so be it. We will all live with that. Conversely, if the DNR through science based information, determines a waterway can, than it should be open.


----------



## growninmi (Feb 27, 2013)

Is there a place for me to complain about catching musky when I'm trying to catch walleye. Is there a way we can get those pesky buggers to stop biting my jig when I don't want to catch them?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

growninmi said:


> Is there a place for me to complain about catching musky when I'm trying to catch walleye. Is there a way we can get those pesky buggers to stop biting my jig when I don't want to catch them?


You could try charging someone 600 dollars ( based on catching one muskie or no pay) to fish with you. That should reduce your catch......


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> Two of these three organizations that you posted links to put forth a resolution to MUCC two years ago to ban all muskie spearing in the state of Michigan. That is exclusionary no matter how you spin it.
> MMA wasn't one of them.


This is absolutely FALSE, again. Please stop. 

What the proposed MUCC resolution actually stated was "t*o oppose further opening of waters to muskellunge spearing, oppose any change to muskellunge angling seasons that would create a de facto expansion of muskellunge spearing and oppose the continuation of current lawful muskellunge spearing on any waters that have seen a decline in muskellunge population.*"

And please stop accusing me of "spinning" anything. I have been 100% honest and straight-forward. Anybody with an interest in the topic would appreciate and benefit from you doing the same, please.

More to come later when I get a chance!


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Duke said:


> What the proposed MUCC resolution actually stated was "t*o oppose further opening of waters to muskellunge spearing, oppose any change to muskellunge angling seasons that would create a de facto expansion of muskellunge spearing and oppose the continuation of current lawful muskellunge spearing on any waters that have seen a decline in muskellunge population.*"


In layman's terms what this means is regardless of any scientific information that a body of water that is currently closed to spearing could sustain muskie harvest, it would never be allowed to be open. It would also prevent and water that became closed in the future to spearing from ever being reopened if muskie in that water reached harvestable levels. I'm especially fond of the last sentence, "oppose continued spearing in any waters with A decline in muskie populations." I capitalized A because that could mean if just ONE muskie died by any method or natural causes, it would be a reduction in population and would therefore meet the criteria to close that water to spearing. 

When a person breaks the lawyer speak down, as a lawyer or organization would, the ramifications are interesting.

In essence, it would place further restrictions on spearing, while preventing future opportunities. 

Fortunately the resolution failed.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Ok, alright, I'll go with your "A decline" = "one fish died" interpretation!...:lol: Whoever wrote it, I'm not sure that's what they meant, but I won't speculate and I can see how you could read it that way. 

But that also means that if just one muskie egg hatches, then the population increased and spearing is still on, right? 

Obviously that resolution was D.O.A. and there's no need to discuss it further other than to acknowledge that yes, you are correct that those organizations once attached their name to something that put a cap on spearing or maybe made a flimsy case for closing spearing. 

Based on the above though, I stand by it being a far cry from "ban all muskie spearing"


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Waif said:


> Botek can have an opinion.
> How does science ( from your post) identify an overharvest problem in northern lakes, and what specific problem is occouring? A social one, or environmental one ,or lake specie' s balance one , or the viability of muskies alone? ( where a no kill law would be expected).


Asking you the same unanswered questions again Duke.
Pardon the random lack of editing on this device.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Duke said:


> But that also means that if just one muskie egg hatches, then the population increased and spearing is still on, right?


Not according to the wording of the failed resolution that you provided. There was no wording for an increase in population, just a decline.

You may be right in that this wasn't the intent when written, but if it was intended, it was pretty slick. A good reminder that details matter.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Waif said:


> Botek can have an opinion.
> How does science ( from your post) identify an overharvest problem in northern lakes, and what specific problem is occouring? A social one, or environmemtal one ,or lake specie' s balance one , or the viabiltyof muskies alone? ( where a no kill law would be expected).


I'm working as fast as I can!!

Anyone can have an opinion, but if you state it as if it is a fact and it is false, then you should expect to be corrected.

The science is the DNR Muskellunge Management Plan which is based upon the body of knowledge of musky biology across all of their range. It states a goal of less than 5% of the population harvested annually. The very limited hard data we have in Michigan comes from a couple of tagging studies- muskies were netted, tagged, released. The number of fish harvested, divided by the total number tagged = % harvest. In one study, the harvest rate was 4 of 11 fish, 36%. In the other, it was 1 of 7 fish, 14%. 

I don't know how representative these really are, but it's about all we've got. Other than that it gets anecdotal- call up any DNR fisheries biologist in northern Michigan and ask for their best S.W.A.G at musky population density in a given lake- they usually talk in 'adult fish per acre' units. Then do the math- how many muskies does that equal in the lake? Then take 5% of that number. That's how many could be harvested per year in order to keep a sustainable population, as a general guideline. Compare that to the number of fish known to be kept, if we were to really know this number.

I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but if you do this, or if you just ask the honest opinion of these DNR biologists, you might come up with a decent explanation for why it might take a guy 12 years for a chance at a musky.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

growninmi said:


> Is there a place for me to complain about catching musky when I'm trying to catch walleye. Is there a way we can get those pesky buggers to stop biting my jig when I don't want to catch them?


The best way is to fish the roughly 10,850 lakes in Michigan without muskies, or the 130 more with extremely low populations, and avoid the half dozen places in the entire state where muskies actually exist at the target density of fisheries management. Other than that I'm sorry for your misfortune, but luckily you are probably also fishing the premier walleye water in the world so take the good with the bad!!


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

His one chance at a legal size muskie doesn't represent the entire population. Maybe he sucks at choosing a location for all we know. How many has an open water angler in that area encountered in the same are during the same time period? Another question we will never have an answer to. 

I stand by my first post in this thread. And if I'm fortunate, by Sunday evening I'll have a picture of one to post and be excited about as well!


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Duke said:


> I'm working as fast as I can!!
> 
> Anyone can have an opinion, but if you state it as if it is a fact and it is false, then you should expect to be corrected.
> 
> ...


Don' t need a dozen years to score a ski. A dozen hours maybe if picky about size.
Fisheries biologists are likely to want to know specific water before giving more than vauge facts.
I did not see in your response what the problems are in northern lakes , unless your explaining population survey methods accuracy leave something to be desired. A problem in establishing quota's beyond setting high size limits. Vs. slot limits.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

So what does everyone think of this video?


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I think his aim sucks


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Waif said:


> Don' t need a dozen years to score a ski. A dozen hours maybe if picky about size.
> Fisheries biologists are likely to want to know specific water before giving more than vauge facts.
> I did not see in your response what the problems are in northern lakes , unless your explaining population survey methods accuracy leave something to be desired. A problem in establishing quota's beyond setting high size limits. Vs. slot limits.


The problem is there simply aren't many Muskies, not as many as there used to be, and very few of the ones that are there survive to reach their age & growth potential. I completely understand how this is not a problem to some people. And I think it is a shame that the rest of the people that would love to catch a big fish up there get so few opportunities to do so.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> I think his aim sucks


He's heard plenty about that. I was filming.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

hypox said:


> He's heard plenty about that. I was filming.


This was from a couple years ago ?


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> This was from a couple years ago ?


Yep.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

For what it's worth, on this lake I've seen more musky floating belly up in the summer than I see get speared in the winter.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I've got a couple of muskie trips planned before the end of the season, but we may have to talk hypox. What's your stance on bribery?


----------



## growninmi (Feb 27, 2013)

Duke said:


> The best way is to fish the roughly 10,850 lakes in Michigan without muskies, or the 130 more with extremely low populations, and avoid the half dozen places in the entire state where muskies actually exist at the target density of fisheries management. Other than that I'm sorry for your misfortune, but luckily you are probably also fishing the premier walleye water in the world so take the good with the bad!!


Not so much a misfortune as I may have implied. 
I enjoy catching them from the D or SC. 
I just have not targeted them and have caught them while prowling for eyes. 
I've not landed one over 45" but those 35-40"s have grown to like me. I have seen more of them fishing upper river than I have lower.

We have property in the UP in Paradise and I've fished the Taq, more than once and I've not landed one, but again wasn't fishing for them.

I just figured a light hearted post about them being around for even a rookie like me, was needed in a rather heavy an deep exchange here. 
As you were gentlemen.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> I stand by my first post in this thread...


Ok, just to stick a fork in it. So I'm clear, you stand by this your first post:


Mr. Botek said:


> I think it says people are following the fishing regulations and are enjoying one of the ways people are allowed to fish...


AND you stand by this statement as well:


Mr. Botek said:


> No argument with your last statement Duke.


and that statement I made that you were referring to was:


Duke said:


> Just like revinchev said earlier, I think the statement from the angler is a clear indication of the reason there are not many muskies, most places in Michigan.


Got it. See, we agree!! Just like I always said we would. Just like I always said _*all*_ musky anglers would, if they take an honest look at the facts. That's all this ever was, and ever will be in the 'great musky debate' in Michigan: Facts vs. Feelings. Wasn't so hard, was it?  Good luck fishin


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

No argument is not the same as agreement.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Duke said:


> The problem is there simply aren't many Muskies, not as many as there used to be, and very few of the ones that are there survive to reach their age & growth potential. I completely understand how this is not a problem to some people. And I think it is a shame that the rest of the people that would love to catch a big fish up there get so few opportunities to do so.


Not sure how to quantify how many today vs the past.
Age and growth potential in my simple opinion can be enhanced by slot limits in the great lakes and connecting waters. There being the biggest I' ve encountered.
I too believe the water body is the greatest factor in success in rearing. Natural reproduction ,forage base,size of environment ect..
Some lakes reproduction is small to none. Here are potential sites for hybred or sterile plants,with population and relation to forage factors in harvest rates. Along of course with planting intervals.

There are waters with some/ few giants. While human predation factors in mortality and can be controlled easyier than other causes,those biggest fish spread out.
A favorite management program example in varied specie' s is a large Canadian water body. The reasoning is theory based on sound knowlage and balances kills with reproductive ability...a scientific andsocial balance


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Mr. Botek said:


> No argument is not the same as agreement.


So what exactly is 'no argument' then?


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Duke said:


> So what exactly is 'no argument' then?


...


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

darnit Botek, we had so much more to talk about!...


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Give it up Duke, they have nothing to bring to the conversation, just like they don't have anything to bring to the table regarding helping the fishery, except a dead fish.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Nah... first, I'll never give up. And second, I disagree- I think we have lots more to learn from each other!


----------

