Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
0
If Utah starts allowing anglers to keep tiger muskies again, I certainly would like to see the minimum size raised to 44 or 45 inches. These wonderful fish don't really start putting on weight until they reach about 40 inches, and then a lot of them are caught and taken home. Wouldn't it be nice to have a good population of 40 to 44 inchers? They could be caught several times and give multiple people the catch of a lifetime. What do you guys think?
[inline PineviewMuskie090701-(25).jpg]
[signature]
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
I agree. Although, I can't say I've ever caught one of those beasts (that is about to change this year).
I also think that a few sterile Tiger Muskie should be put in a couple bodies of water such as Mantua, to help keep down the population of stunted bluegills. Hey, they put a few bigger Cutts in there, why not Tigers?
There's also the possibility of curbing down the masses of water skiers as well, (with the thought of losing a toe always looming in the back of their mind). Ha.
[signature]
Posts: 1,348
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
We agree...a true throphy TM is a 45" plus. I'd personally like to see it put at 50" like in the state of Washington has fought for and finally got. However we shall see what the DWR enacts.
We're very pleased and happy DWR has now their own stock started. Just hope when they do lift the limit (goint to happen) at Newton and Pineview it isn't allowing a 40" fish to be taken but something along the range of 45". We'd personally like the 50" harvest limit but thats just us.
These fish grow fast and the life expantancy is like anywhere between 8 to pushing 11 years maybe longer under 'ideal' conditions. 50" would be a great harvest number for us as this fish IMHO probably has reached it's life expantancy...but again thats just us as avid TM anglers with a sincere and deep appreciation for this top of the food chain predator.
Again I thank the DWR for all their efforts at TM fishing in the state of Utah...long road paid off and hats off to Drew Cushing et al who've put in blood sweat and tears for this great fish. [cool][cool]
[signature]
Posts: 220
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
0
I think TM taste delicious and would like to see the limit left right where it is. Does anyone have any idea how many are harvested per year out of utah lakes? I would be curious to know. I see dead ones floating all the time and think that is much  der than a few fish being taken home.
[signature]
Posts: 147
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
0
I hate seeing them dead, especially because the only way I've seen them alive was being caught by parties other than mine 
This year is going to be different.
This shows my lack of wisdom, but I'd rather see a left where it is or if you are allowed to harvest, then it is only for fish under 30 inches or so. Thoughts????
[signature]
Posts: 36,058
Threads: 300
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
60
[cool][#0000ff]Hey gals, I know you love your tigers. But the C&R rule is probably harder on them than an expanded limit would be. The "average" angler simply does not know how to control and handle one of those beasts so that it has a decent chance of survival. They play them too long on light line, then wrap them up in destructive mesh nets, then gill them while unhooking them...by ripping the hooks out. After that they handle them for fifteen minutes while waiting for their goober buddies to figure out how to take a picture on the cell phone and send it to ten other buddies. Finally, they dump it back into the water without the proper effort to revive the fish before allowing it to sink and die...only to float back up later.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Probably ten times more fish killed by bad handling than by taking them home.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 220
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
0
That is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks TD.
[signature]
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Well put, and very true.
[signature]
Posts: 138
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote lavaman]There's also the possibility of curbing down the masses of water skiers as well, (with the thought of losing a toe always looming in the back of their mind). Ha.[/quote]
You've obviously never fished Newton. I don't think a shark could get them to stop skiing on that narrow strip of water.
[signature]
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Now that you mention it, I think you're right.
Kids take daddy's boat and there's not stoppin' 'em. And unfortunately it doesn't matter if it's even a small pond.
[signature]
Posts: 284
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
One of the fisheries biologists explained the reason the length was set at 40" during a public meeting several years ago. Remember the reason they were put in pineview was to control the pan fish that were over populating and producing small fish. Tigers will eat a fish that is 1/3 their length. That means a 40" fish is eating 13" crappie. The idea was to help the crappie grow larger so the fisherman could harvest good size fish. They really didn't want the tigers to eat the bass, crappie, and perch that were a foot or more in length. That was a number of years ago it will be interesting to see if they change the that 40" minimum in the future. gshorthair
[signature]
Posts: 1,348
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
Hiya TD...won't disagree with anything you stated. It's all up to the DWR on how they manage this fine fish by us...
Ohhhhh yes we've see exactly what you've posted...it's very unfortunate to witness... ![[Image: sad.gif]](http://www.bigfishtackle.com/images/gforum/sad.gif)
Only when one becomes a serious angler being blunt not a 'bucket' angler of this fish will one 'REALLY' learn/appreciate how to catch them (right tackle) and release them (right handling)...oh have we learned and made mistakes but take every outing as a lesson.
Now with that being said, even if one has the right tackle does everything right in handling will one expire...yes regretably...been there ...up to 45 minutes plus in the water chest deep with the fish...but however one takes this...WE WON'T LEAVE A TM FLOATING...
I know some say so be it fish died leave it...well I'll deal with the consequences we won't do that...they are returned to Mama Nature and not to be left floating for some to desecrate the body on some shoreline and I've seen what happens when a TM washes up on shore in a popular area...if we see it before that we'll do what is right for us...and its downright disgusting what we've seen some do when a dead TM washes up on shore being blunt down right p***es us off.[mad]
I agree with everything you stated and its ultimately the DWR that will set the harvest limit...Only thing is a serious angler of this fish will attempt to educated others...
Think'n it will be a year or two down the line for the limit to be stated for Newton and PV...but who knows.
Now side bar...you and Tubebade are the anglers...read all your posts...may not post but appreciate what you two do and how you share your outing with others...Tell TB hello from us...[ ][ ]
[signature]
Posts: 36,058
Threads: 300
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
60
[cool][#0000ff]Thankee fer the kindly words. And a big howdy back atcha from whats-her-name.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]One of the points we both failed to make is that those husky muskies are surprisingly fragile. For being a large fish you would expect them to be much tougher...but they ain't. That's probably one reason why a lot of folks handle them roughly and are surprised when they go belly up.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]In the final analysis we can't do much to change the mindset of the foolish few. But, we can always try to offer help when it is well-received and help educate less experienced anglers when they do catch a TM. Most of them are caught by accident, by people fishing with inappropriate tackle. If they are fortunate/unfortunate enough to bring the fish in they usually freak out. It is likely the biggest and baddest fish they have ever caught. So, understanding basic angler excitement, you can almost forgive them for not knowing how to deal with the situation in favor of the fish. ALMOST.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]You gals keep up the good work and we hope to see ya on the water.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 78
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
I will second that tube tude, I have personally seen this happen countless times. And to have the limit at 45 or 50 inches they need to quit planting so many, because from what i have seen the muskies seem to be stunted at about 36 inches. Not that there are not bigger but they are few and far between.
[signature]
Posts: 172
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Seems like the TM have a better chance of living, even if not done properly, by being released. Rather than being taken home to be "eaten" or "mounted" just because they are legal to keep. When and if they become legal to keep.
[signature]
Posts: 695
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
I agree to raise the size limit to min 45", the fish I caught today would not fit in my rubber net. I bought the biggest one at sportsman's warehouse and one fish flopped out 3 times before I could get it near the boat. I like to keep the fish in the net and get camera ready for pic before I take him out of the water.. A quick pic and back in the water. I got to find a bigger rubber net... TD is correct about the handling of these fish... I think 15 seconds out of the water is plenty of time to take a pic or two then back in...
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
There are special Musky/Pike nets made. They look more like a trough with open ends and two poles as the net rim. I have seen them with what looks like swim tubes on the poles back east. This allows you to drop the net into the water where it becomes a flosting trough and then guide the fish into the trough and work with it there to get the hook out. Most have built in tape measure's and you take the pics while the fish is still in the trough.
The fish never comes out of the water and can sit there in the net trough while it recovers then swim out when it is ready.
[signature]
Posts: 556
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
As far as newton is concerned, i'd love to see the limit at 2 per day and the damn things finally controlled in there. Theres is so many of them it's not even a challenge anymore to catch atleast 2 or 3 per day when conditions are good. It's frustrating as hell when you're catching 20+" bass that have huge bites in them or fins ripped off, and when you're targeting panfish through the ice and a 'skie rolls through and the school of fish you've worked so hard to find vanishes. I would love to see them gone! I don't think newton is the kind of lake that's going to grow 50" 'skies with all the pressure it gets, like it's been said, 90% of guys don't handle them right anyway, bounce them around the bottom of their boats, try netting them when they know their nets are too small, wrap them up in nets, lay them on the ice when it's 0 degrees out. [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
0
Yes, I like the current limit, which is zero. And I hope it stays there until we start getting good numbers of big muskies. Meanwhile, I would love to see the limit lifted on smallmouth bass under 10 inches. They are annoying and overly abundant in most of the waters I visit. They're fun for the kids to catch, though, just as fun as Utah chubs.
[inline allisonsmallmouth.jpg]
[signature]
Posts: 220
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
0
Correction, the statewide limit on tiger muskie is 1 over 40 inches with temporary closures on pineview and newton. I think the state has made good strides this year in bass regulations.
Russ
[signature]
|
