Musky/Pike Regulation Changes

[Red Childress]

For the sake of some friendly bantering, what changes to the current PA Muskellunge/Northern Pike Regulations would you like to see made (if any)??

[b.bent66]

i just started musky fishing and i think the regs are fine the way they are. if i had to i would suggest a larger size most musky i hear of being keep are in the high 40s so why not move the size up around 45in or so.

i was talking to a guy at work that said his son in law harvested a 48in musky from the tail waters on the 31st of December. don't remember the weight he said. he was jigging emerald shiners.

[cband]

This is not about Muskie... But I would like to see maybe a 30" 1 fish limit on pike. It seems that the larger pike on the river are not as prevalent as they were a couple years ago. I know there are some fellows that are taking barely legal pike home for the skillet and it is their right, but...

[Red Childress]

I will change the thread question to include pike too...........close enough for me since they are cousins. Even "inbred" cousins at that........

[Joe M]

I would like to see a $10 Musky Stamp. This is only needed if you want to keep them. I wouldn't mind seeing the size limit for skis at 45" and Pike 30" 1 fish limits. Catch and release only during spawning months.

[ThreeRiversEsox]

and the proceeds from the stamp would go to.....??

[H2O wolf]

Dido what Joe said... proceeds could go toward rearing more fingerlings to add additional stockings or to stock new waters (or those taken off the stocking list like the Mon river). Also could go toward habitat improvements on musky waters.

With the availability of reproduction mounts I have no desire to keep a musky so they could make it catch and release state wide and I wouldn't mind. That will not happen and I'm not really saying it should but I do travel a few hours to the Buckhannon river in Wv to fish catch and release musky water.

[Polish_Pike]

What do the other trophy musky states/provinces do? Like Wisconsin/Minnesota/Ontario...? I think if we want to have a supply of trophy fish here in PA like those other areas do, we should maybe take some pages out of their books. I've only fished Kentucky, Pa, Ohio.

Perhaps higher restrictions on certain trophy musky waters is the answer...kind of like what the Moraine Musky Association seeks, a Big Bass program for Musky kind of.

[ThreeRiversEsox]

I would also be willing to purchase a stamp to keep a musky, not that i would but if the money goes to help stock more fish, etc, it would be worthwhile. I know from a meeting with the PFBC that they have considered what other states do but feel differently A) because of the size of our fisheries compared to other states (much smaller here) and B) they will constantly contest that if 90% of musky anglers practice c & r, why is there a larger size limit needed? And when you say for the people not targeting them, they will again contest with well that is a trophy size fish for that person then and within the legal minimum, and they don't want to take that opportunity away from those anglers as of now. I was surprised to hear that something like 3% of fish make it over 48 inches, and almost never a male.

[MuskyBob2]

When fishing for tarpon in Florida a few years ago I was given the option to buy a tarpon harvest stamp for $50. I would like to see PA do something similar for musky. I would suggest $100 harvest stamp. Limit 1 per year. 48 to 50 inch minimum. Must be purchased prior to the catch date. This would permit someone who targets musky to keep a once in a lifetime trophy for mounting and would greatly eliminate overharvest of a scarse resource.

[RapRunR]

The new regs for musky are too big since the change. How much longer does a musky take to reach from 30" to 40" ? 2 years ? How much more bait fish is it going to eat along with game fish in that period of time ? Most musky fisherman practice catch and release anyhow. Why make it longer ? I think they should REDUCE it to 36". There's too many smaller ones around here. They need thinned out. A young lad catching his first musky if under 40", and a lot of them are, can't even keep his "trophy" fish if he chooses. I think the idea of making this area a trophy musky section would annihilate all species, especially if it was raised even more. I don't like the new 40" but like i said i see very very few muskies taken home unless they are really big ones. I let the 40's go hoping they will someday get to 50's. I know a lot of you guys are mainly musky fisherman but i don't want all my walleyes, smallies and crappies eaten up by them. If everyone wants even bigger skies then we need more stocking of other fish because they will suffer. I have several friends here that feel the same way i do as we have had several conversations about the newer 40" mark. It's mainly about keeping a balance of nature and all the fish therein and time will tell the story on how it ends, but i for one don't like it.

[Red Childress]

Education is the key to understanding the "misunderstood" muskellunge........


Feeding studies have shown that other fish (besides Walleye and Bass) make up the primary food source for Muskies. Studies of the stomach contents of 1,092 show they sometimes eat insects, crayfish, small mammals and waterfowl. They are a natural predator, and like all predators, are opportunists. Studies have shown that even when they're abundant, other game fish make up a very small percentage of the Muskies' diet. Muskies prefer soft-finned, high protein based fish such as suckers, tullibee, ciscoes, bullheads, carp and minnows. In fact, the food sources Muskies prefer most are usually fish species that most people would rather NOT have in their waterways.

Walleye ranked extemely low in the Muskies' diet. In the 1,092 study fish, only 5 contained traces of walleye. The study collectetd Muskies from 34 separate bodies of water, including lakes with large populations of walleye. Despite the abundance of walleye in these lakes, walleye proved to NOT be an important food source for Muskies. 63.5 percent of the stomach contents was made up of yellow perch and various minnows, while 3.4 and 3.1 percent of stomach volume contained walleye and bass respectively.

The bottom line is that Muskies will eat the occaisional walleye or bass and is minimal compared to the amount of game fish such as Walleye that are harvested by anglers.

[ThreeRiversEsox]

Especially when you have pan fishermen taking limits of crappies and gills out of places that can't repopulate them quick enough. It's tough to imagine that there are muskies that can eat 60 crappies or gills in a day, let alone humans that can.... these fish have coexisted for longer than you or I have been around so I think muskies are one of the lesser problems for these "other" game fish.

[toothyfishman]

Thanks Red, I was looking for that same info to post.

Hence the reason that many states that never had muskies are now stocking them and some with catch and release only laws to protect them so they eat the unwanted species, junk fish, which just happens to be their target meals.

Who would of thought the New Mexico would have muskies?

This is copied off of a musky hunter post.....

Tiger Muskies have been stocked in huge numbers in New Mexico as a means to control the populations of suckers and goldfish. The fishery is, by law, a catch-and-release fishery only. The fishery is virtually untapped. And according to the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, the lakes have 22 tigers PER ACRE!!! They were stocked in 2003. In 2008, some of the tigers that were first stocked reached the 20 lb. mark. We also have great pike fishing too. Our state record pike is 53 inches long and it weighed 36 lbs..
Bravo to the toothy fish!!!

[Red Childress]

I am not a biologist nor the God of musky fishing but I know a little bit about a few things. That being said, I really believe the middle stretch of the Allegheny could support many more muskies than are already present without missing a beat in terms of the ecosystem. We have way above average sizes and girths when compared to the rest of the state and the baitfish population is incredible. Carp, suckers and big shad are everywhere and occur naturally not to mention the thousands of trout that are stocked yearly. The fly hatches are diversified and plentiful as well.

In my opinion, if the PFBC is truly sincere in their statements about a "wait and see" approach regarding the relatively new 40-inch limit and the impact it will have on our waters, there will be an increase in stocking to this stretch of river down the road. I am in no way bashing the PFBC but have praised them for enabling a guy like Bill Martin to float stock our section of river several years back. (He retired last year and will be missed by all musky fisherman.) He alone is responsible for helping an incredible class of fish reach lengths (on the average) of 39-45 inches with some of those same fish already closing in on the 4-foot mark with his efforts.

I cannot (and will not) speak about other waterways because I have not guided nor fished in those areas 130 days per year for the past 15 years.


Can you imagine a catch and release section for the Middle Allegheny River (or any other NW PA waterway) becoming a reality??? Driving time from Ohio, NY, MD and WV being less than 5 hours and in many cases 3 hours or less. Talk about an increase in out-of-state license sales. The biggest downside for the River would be accessibility with "normal" boats. It is pretty much a jet drive situation.

Yep, I am dreaming. Back to work.

[NitroMusky]

I'm from NY, but my thoguhts on the two species know no bounds!

the harvest rates on pike preclude those of us in the US from having a real chance at trophy pike like those still in abundance in the canadian fly-in areas. they are prolific, but bite so readily (and we harvest so readily) that they don't have a chance to achieve the species' natural size distribution. I would advocate for a more stringent limit on pike, maybe a slot limit with no harvest of mid-sized fish and a pretty stringent limit on harvest of the bigguns (maybe a $100 stamp 1x/year?). cull some of the small ones, but once they hit a certain size we should be giving them a chance to reach real trophy status.

Muskie on the otherhand I think should be C+R only. their eggs dont have the same 'sticky' qualities as that of pike and thus are often suffocated on the bottom resulting in lower hatch rates. they are a predator, but certainly a very fragile species nonetheless (think high mortaily in high-temp summer C+R, suceptibility to VHS). they grow to trophy size so slowly that the odds of mortaility are increased simply due to longer time necessarry to reach full-size potential. we need to give them every chance to get to maturity and not just wipe out those decades of growth by the first thoughtless fisherman that hooks it after it reaches 'legal' size.

just my .02- thanks for reading.

[pafshn]

Didn't we go through an increase in fishing license costs for trout.I use to target trout exclusively for a number of years before owning my own boat.I never seen an increase in numbers or size of the trout I was catching in the local streams since the stamp. I've only purchased the stamp 2 times since inception.Not worth the additional funds as far as i'm concerned not for trout or any other species!The only reason for the additional cost was to continue excessive pension plans our supposed representatives needed not toward what it was intended!I wish our funds from licensing would improve fishing all over our beatiful state but we all know they are barely getting by with what they get now.

[ThreeRiversEsox]

Lets also keep in mind that with increasing the populations of fish you are also increasing the potential for those fish to catch diseases. I'm sure Red knows what this is like being in a school where you see one kid get sick and pass it on to others.

Besides places like the Allegheny or Yough where trout can hold over, PA is generally a put n take trout fishery. Since our water warms to ridiculous levels in the summer and the smaller waters that are stocked with trout nearly dry in the summer, that's the way it is managed. Most likely the additional funds are spent to adjust for costs in raising these fish. Less people have been buying licenses, which turns out less money, and less money for rearing these fish. This VHS thing has been a killer since they had a program with other hatcheries and exchanged fish, which was done away with when VHS came about. The Erie stamp money has been used to buy parcels of land in Erie for angler access. I think they've done a pretty good job for being under staffed and having the entire state to take care of.

[Red Childress]

Just curious.......Is there any evidence of natural reproduction on the Yough???

The Middle Allegheny has some so I would not be surprised if it is happening on the Yough as well.

[RapRunR]

Do you have a link for that testing to see how many rivers were tested out of 34 bodies of water ?

Appreciate the education factor. I am in no way an expert or all knowing about such things i just think even if the skies don't each much smallies and eyes they are going to be a big factor then in the faster depletion of the baitfish which all species eat. You don't seem to think this is a problem though Red ? We did see a reduced catch of smallies this year as we go after them hard in the summer and early fall but have no way of knowing exactly why.

The stocking of skies you mention are those the Tigers ?

[Red Childress]

I doubt any of those 34 waterways were rivers but that is just a guess. I assume that most of these DNR surveys are done in lakes with some radiotelemetry involved as well.

Each body of water is different. Some can handle more top end predators than others. Some have marginal numbers of baitfish while others have an abundance of them. We HAVE to trust the PFBC to know these answers and stock accordingly.

I do know in regards to smallmouth fishing, that the guys on the Susky River were having very tough times catching limits of BIG smallmouth bass the past several years. Many think that this problem was caused by increased fishing pressure and increased post-mortality after release. I hear many of the tournaments have lowered their limits to only 2 to 3 fish coming to the scales in order to reduce the stress of being hauled in a livewell all day. Some tournament formats might even reduce this number to 1 big fish per boat coming to the scales. The bottom line is this: A bass must first reach 12 inches BEFORE it can reach 20 inches.

I tend to think that we are our own worst enemy the majority of the time. While many waterways have been stocked with various species of fish and have great success stories, humans (not an overpopulation of muskies/pike) have lead to the demise of many rivers and lakes. In all the reading I have done, I have NEVER heard of there being too many muskies stocked in a body of water but I am sure it has happened a few times.

We cannot continue to increase fishing pressure and harvesting of fish without helping our own cause. When I hear the question "I wonder why I cannot go to my favorite spot and limit out on walleye/bass in six consecutive casts", I feel like saying, "Ask the guy in the boat beside you who takes a limit home with him everytime he fishes."

It is not illegal in PA to release a few fish either. I really do not care what people do within the limits of the law but it does bug me when the guys that are bitching are the very ones who are taking everything home with them each time they are on the water. WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Fish, like humans are very resilient but they cannot reproduce nearly as fast as we are raping them from their waters.

[RapRunR]

This is an interesting read and this is where your article states about the percentages of eyes and smallies eaten by skies. The thing is you left out some important info on what the numbers are and after reading the entire article the Wisconsin Senior Biologist suggests that skies WILL decimate the forage fish AND decimate eye and smallie numbers in any given waters as they have done in Wisconsin. That survey was for only small skies with the data from that report being 95% for skies 34" and under so we can't entirely go by these numbers stated as being accurate. Here's the link http://www.muskytroubles.com/musky-doc7.htm

[Red Childress]

Coming from a site that is called "muskytroubles", this information is not surprising.

I doubt I would find positive info about Barak Obama from a site called "IhateObama.com" either.


Just my .02 cents

[RapRunR]

This is where your info you stated came from this biologist in Wisconsin.

[Red Childress]

Quote from the last line of the summary..........


"can have a severe effect in sport and forage populations and this impact is more 'acute', the greater the muskellunge density."



And then again, it might not. If walleye are the only food source, of course their numbers will decline. That study was not performed on the Middle Allegheny River.

It might rain today but then again, it might not. Doesn't really give you much of an answer when taken out of context, like that site has done.

[RapRunR]

That's what i am stating. Here we have too many skies. He states .5 skie per acre is a good rule of thumb. We caught 3 in 1.5 hrs within 100 ft of each other in low water conditions so i know they weren't bunched up because of high water. The walleye populations in lakes in Wisconsin were decimated by skies by improper management. This is the only thing i am concerned with. We don't need more of them here and i am against the new 40" reg. Not trying to argue or anything. Just looking for facts on this subject. This would happen in any body of water no matter river or lake. I would actually think it would be worse in a river system than a lake also because of a smaller area overall. It was also stated that after the forage fish are decimated the skies will turn even more to the game fish.

[Red Childress]

I work with 5-7 years old all day long.......believe me, it is kinda fun bantering with an adult. This is all in fun.....


All I can get from that particular study that is not positive about muskies is that they use "may" and "can" a whole bunch because of so many more factors unique to each body of water studied.

In regards to the number of fish per acre of water, 2-3 seems to be the accepted average number on most waters where musky occur naturally and in the presence of normal amounts of baitfish. There are states that have introduced shad to certain bodies of water in order to increase the number of muskies stocked. Lake Webster(Indiana) has musky a population in excess of 10 fish per acre but that lake is pretty much a "put and take" fishery with no natural reproduction and still has good fishing for other species such as bass.

Again, the bottom line is each body of water is different. I have never seen any slashes or old scars on any bass or walleye I have caught but that does not mean much in the big picture. I have seen a few mangled trout. I have seen plenty of mangled carp and suckers dead and alive.

From what I have read/studied, the first sign of a fishery with an underpopulation of baitfish (or overpopulation of top end predators) is seeing skinny fish, for obvious reasons. You will agree that our fish are fed very, very well on the River. If we had too many predators (or too few baitfish), our fish would be much thinner, and I would not see piles of shiners, carp, suckers and shad.

I like the 40-inch minimum and it would not bother me one bit to see it increase. Would increasing the size to 45 or 48-inches translate to catching bigger muskies?? Probably not IF most folks are SAFELY releasing the fish that are undersized on a regular basis.

[toothyfishman]

RapRunR,

You say your not sure about muskies and what they prefer to eat?
Why would you come to a "mostly muskie" site and bash something that we've work hard to get passed, because you think they are eating your walleyes.

Do your walleyes eat rocks??? They have teeth and are eating machines eating forage fish as well.....only difference between them and the muskies is you walleye people think you have to keep everyone that is 14 7/8" and up, so we stock the living crap out of your PUT AND TAKE species that also eat baitfish right up until they finally are big enough and then they go to the frying pan.

The increase of the muskie size push wasn't because the people who fish for them take them home, it's the fry pan fisherman that catch one by accident and say to themselves, well I already have 3 walleyes that are 14 7/8" to fillet might as well keep this 30.5" hammer handle muskie since they are the reason my favorite hole is fished out, doesn't have anything to do with the people who pound it day in and day out keeping all the walleyes.

I've caught probably 5 walleyes in the last 3 years between 29 and 31.5 inches on muskie lures, normally 10" lures and release them. If I show a picture around at work of it you'd think I committed a sin releasing a walleye that big!!!

10" muskie lure............huh???? You think maybe that walleye was eating forage fish as well?? Trolling 5MPH and hitting a 10" plug...

So tell me why each year new waters and states are stocking muskie in waters they never swam in before.......to keep the junk fish in check!
Not to eat all the gamefish that they have stocked! This isn't joe blow just stocking muskies it's people who do the research and know the problems they are faced with and what to do about it.

If waters are questionable then what happens....tigers are stocked.
Wow! Tigers what a great idea, must of been some research involved there too.

[toothyfishman]

I've fished my whole life on East Branch dam, I have the stocking reports from 1974 until like 1995 or something?

In 1983 they stocked small mouth bass....THE ONLY YEAR THEY STOCKED THEM, ALL NATURAL AFTER THAT.

Muskies got about 7000 per year then dropped to around 4000.

Walleyes got stocked by the hundreds of thousands each year after about 1985 or so....like 700,000,000 per year. I'm talking about millions of fish and it still isn't a walleye lake....wasted $$$$$

Once they caught on then it was on.....fishing has decreased ever since.
I hear it at the boat launch everytime someone asks me what I got, I don't want to know what they got because it just makes me mad.
I know they don't have a picture like I do, they have dead fish.

My lake I loved as a kid that is so close to me, I don't even go there now.
Bass fishing is lousy, very few fish that are larger that 12"
Back in the day many bass in the 16-20" range, very few now.
Muskie fishing is way down, can't catch perch anywhere on the lake anymore.

It's a shame, I was so pissed when I found out they were being introduced into the lake becasue I know the outcome.
Meat hunters were coming to my lake.............

You know anyone who targets bass and keeps them?
You know anyone who targets muskie and keeps them?

DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO TARGETS WALLEYE AND DOESN'T KEEP THEM??

I sure don't.

Maybe your walleye, or lack there of, you are trying to blame on muskie all lies with the the other end of the line.

I'm not against someone taking a few fish now and then, it's your choice.
Keeping a muskie or any trophy fish...stupid!

A 40" muskie is just starting to reproduce,just becoming an adult.
The reproduction rate is so small of a %%%%

A replicia mount cost the exact same money as a skin mount.

I caught my first muskie over 50 inches this year, 52. it was during the Titiute fishing tourney. I had a choice to turn that fish in and be able to fish the second day for the $$ or release a fish that probably is 20 or so years old.
It may have costed my the $1000 prize but it was worth $999.99 to see her swim off safely so i or someone else can catch her when she is 55 or maybe even the next state record.
The stress of hauling her in would of probably killed her, and me as well.
Keeping her was never even a thought.

[Bob S.]

Toothyfisherman, I really admire what you did when you released that trophy from the Res. and to be that unselfish as to give up the prestige of winning a tournament and money instead releasing a magnificent Muskie 52 inches is an example of what a Musky Hunter should be !
A picture works for me and a replica if I should catch one 50 or so would be better than killing the fish and having a skin mount that someday would need redone. I release ALL of the Muskies that I catch along with the Pike, I do eat some Perch and a few Walleyes if I don't think they are not full of eggs. I just love to catch them and like to continue to do so.

My two cents on the subject is TOTAL C&R for Muskies and Pike, NO SIZE LIMIT ! Get a replica ! Sorry I guess I'm hard but the young fisherman can practice the same that way they will continue to hopefully do the same as an adult. If the kid don't like it theres the tissue box, go play hop-scotch.

Bob S.

[Red Childress]

RapRunR,

I am not trying to gang up on you, man. I like having you on this board so before you get that "feeling", please understand that this is all in fun and maybe even educational for all parties involved. I love talking walleye and trout just as much as muskies. I was a trout and walleye guy before I got the musky affliction.

Anyway, I have researched this stuff to death and if the conditions are right, muskies can and do coexist even where there are trophy populations of both. Minnesota is the musky mecca of the US right now and many of those trophy musky lakes are infested with giant walleye. My partner fishes pro walleye tournaments on Lake of the Woods/ Rainy River, Mille Lacs and Detroit River and all are trophy walleye, smallie and musky destinations. I think the Middle Allegheny River can and does fall in this category. We already have trophy populations of muskies and walleye and the bass fishing is not bad either. They all live together but with many more food choices than the normal silt-bottom lake or reservoir that has little (if any) natural reproduction of any species.


If you are really wanting to understand how muskies coexist with other game fish, just do your own research but make sure the info has been published relatively recently. There has been some research on this topic where biases were present during the studies or when the studies were released and placed in the wrong context to help feed hidden agendas, especially in the 1980's.

I would highly recommend going to the Trent University site (Ontario) and spend a few weeks reading those studies........you will be amazed at who is actually eating who.

[b.bent66]

since so many are talking about walleye fishing i thought that i would just say a couple things that are on my mind. i think the reservoir aka "the zoo" should go to a slot limit like that of Chautauqua lake, being 3 fish over 18". i believe the river should be the same with the exception of 4 fish over 18". i would like to say that if ppl look at Chautauqua lake with the slot limit regs it has become an excellent walleye fishery it also is a great muskie fishery just proof they can co exist and also be plentiful. as for the trout fishing on the river i think the trophy trout project regs should extend further then the mouth of the conewago perhaps to tidioute bridge. as for stream trout regs i think they should some what revise all those just so many it dose get kinda confusing. just my thoughts

[toothyfishman]

And why do you like the trophy regs and slot limits?

A chance to catch and see trophy fish, it's not overrun with skinny long fish and no forage....it's a beautiful thing.

You wouldn't believe the trout we see while traveling the river, it's awesome!
The Allegheny is amazing with ALL species of fish right down to the amount of forage fish, it is probably the most healthy body of water I've ever fished.
You've all seen Red's trout pics, beautiful fish!
Huge walleyes included.

Slot limits are great too, why not be able to catch larger fish, keep a few less but actually get a nice fillet off a fish if a guy did want to keep it.
A guy could keep 3 decent size fish and get the same amount of meat as a limit of 15"inchers

[toothyfishman]

RapRunR,

Sorry if I went off a bit, I didn't mean too.
I just hear the same thing all the time from the walleye guys and them only, the muskie are eating all MY fish.

The PA fish commish wouldn't of changed the laws to 40" if it was going to wipe out the forage and then the gamefish next leaving nothing.

Do the research like Red mentioned, don't listen to the ole' man that used to shoot muskies ands nail their heads on boards in the garage.
Those days are over. It's all about trophy area, big bass programs, higer size limits and lower creel limits, push for slot limits in your walleyes and catch more fish and nicer fish for the ones you are allowed to keep.
Look for the next state record to come from the Allegheny river,if they have to have a chance to grow, the conditions and food is there. Super walleyes are being caught all the time, just they need to be released to grow that extra bit.

[b.bent66]

i dont work for the pfbc or have the answers im not a biologist. im an angler i fish cause its fun not for food or trophy but pure fun. i do keep a few fish mostly walleye but not everyone i catch. i dont complain about not catching fish cause i know they are their just couldnt make it happen. the slot limits and trophy trout regs i like cause they have seemed to work so why not imply them or stretch the boundaries. as for musky and pike i would like to the size limits increased, because i think that would help out also.