Post
by Don Wittenberger » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:05 pm
GF, I'm not a biologist; I rely on people who are, and professional biologists are the source of the info I post here. I'm sure you're a good guy with the best intentions, but I feel there are some inaccuracies in the opinions you expressed. First, muskies are one of the most studied and best understood freshwater gamefish; biologists have a lot of data about them, and data, not opinions, should guide fisheries management decision making. Second, you can't increase the number of muskies in a lake by stocking more of them. It doesn't work that way. There's a maximum attainable density beyond which the lake can't support more tiger muskies no matter how many fingerlings they plant. WDFW biologists estimate this density at 0.5 tiger muskies per surface acre for Washington waters. Third, biologists know from research that tiger muskies prefer to eat soft-bodied fish like squawfish and suckers. They will eat other fish, including gamefish, but University of Minnesota studies concluded muskies don't exist in high enough densities to impact gamefish populations. Midwest fishermen would tell you the same thing; there are countless examples in that part of the country of muskie lakes with strong gamefish populations.
You are correct that WDFW biologists like being able to provide anglers with a 25-lb. fish in only five years, but rough fish control remains their primary reason for stocking tiger muskies.
Reasonable minds can differ over what the size regulation should be. The 50-inch rule I proposed is effectively mandatory C&R of everything except state record-class fish, and I don't pretend it's anything other than a no-harvest rule with respect to 98% of our tiger muskie population. I don't want anglers to be able to keep muskies, because I believe that's the key to having a quality tiger muskie fishery in our state. I understand not everyone agrees with that. Is it an "extreme" position? That's a very subjective term, and whether a person feels that way depends on his personal perspective and philosophy. In the midwest, the reverse is true; keeping muskies is considered "extreme" by the vast majority of muskie anglers, and is deeply frowned on. Wisconsin's 386,000 muskie anglers harvest fewer than 2,000 fish per year. Yet Wisconsin has a very low legal size limit -- only 34 inches statewide, with 40 inches on selected waters -- but in Wisconsin the state regulation is irrelevant in practice, because everyone practices voluntary C&R. They have a 99%-plus release rate. A 50-inch rule in Washington would result in an equivalent release rate; if our size limit goes to 50 inches, and every fish over 50 inches is kept, our release rate will be about 98% to 99%, because only 1% to 2% of the fish are that size.
My argument for 99% C&R is that we have decades of experience in other states to learn from, and those experiences taught us that angler harvest wipes out muskie fisheries and C&R is the key to thriving muskie fisheries. So I believe we should do that here, too. I can't say your point of view is wrong. There are valid arguments on both sides. However, I want to conduct this debate with the best available science.
Illegal harvest is a separate issue. That's a problem with all fish species, not just tiger muskies. Public education is an important part of it, and is a very cost-effective way to prevent inadvertent illegal harvest. Yellow Bear's point about anglers at Evergreen mistaking tiger muskies for walleyes is very interesting. I hadn't thought about that before, but I'm not surprised it happens. That's an example of where posting a few signs at boat launches could go a long way to help conserve the resource. As for intentional illegal harvest, WDFW doesn't have enough enforcement resources, and that's a funding problem. I don't have the answer for that one, other than to suggest that if we want more enforcement officers in the field, we'd better be prepared to pay higher license fees, because I doubt we can get that funding from general tax revenues. And it isn't just a matter of adding more game wardens; prosecuting attorneys in rural counties are short of resources, too, and it's hard to get them interested in prosecuting fish and game cases because they have so many problems with meth, other drug crimes, and violent crimes.
Yes, I'm passionate about these fish. I love catching them, and I want to have plenty of big tiger muskies in our waters. But I've also been very willing to share this fishery with all comers. I spend more time reading reports, the comments of other anglers on message boards, sitting on boards, talking with people on the phone, posting my own comments, attending club meetings, etc., than I do fishing. I spent a considerable amount of time writing an article on tiger muskie fishing strategies for the Washingtonlakes.com web site. I have shared knowledge and fishing tips. I want everyone to enjoy this sport. It's not simply about my having an opportunity to catch tiger muskies. I want all of you to have that opportunity, too. Some of my fellow muskie anglers feel frustrated that not everyone agrees on how this fishery should be managed. I don't feel that way at all. I feel very lucky to live in a country where people are free to have their own opinions and express them, and to have a say in what their government does.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
and a little bit of public education would be a great step towards preserving the muskie fishery. Even an article in the front of the fishing regulation pamphlet would help.
