Size Limit

What do you guys think of increasing the size limit on Musky to 45 inches? Most guys I know practice catch & release anyway so this would keep the larger fish from being kept by those that catch them accidently.

Tiller, IMO all Muskie and Pike should be catch and release. I killed my first Musky and had a skin mount done years ago and still regret killing that fish to this day and will never kill one again. I love to fish and believe in returning what I'm lucky enough to catch so as they can grow and be caught again possibly bigger. If Wendy and I catch a " Big One " a replica is our way of going. An increase to 45" or larger would be better that 40" though, and one a life time limit

Bob S.

Bob,

I have never kept either a Musky or Pike. If I get one over 50 inches I may get a fiberglass replica. A picture will probably be good enough. I would like a higher limit so that the big ones are around for everyone to catch.

Tiller

A 45, 48, or even 50-inch limit would be great. Pre-2007, when the 40-inch limit was being discussed, most musky guys were over-joyed that it was going to be a reality. It was only 3 years ago (and after tons of work by many respected musky men) that we moved from 30 to 40 inches.

I think we will see an increase in the current 40-inch standard but in a more colorful approach. I doubt a state-wide 45/48/50" limit will happen anytime soon but a more realistic "selective waterway trophy management program" is likely the way things will proceed, if at all.

I liked the idea of having designated 'trophy musky waters' scattered across the state (much like the trophy trout programs that have been around for many years) allowing anglers the opportunity to chase larger fish without having to drive across the state/country to do so.

We must keep in mind that our statewide limit is longer than that of Wisconsin, and that is pretty amazing in itself.

Just my .02 cents.

This is a great day for me to talk to myself since I have already played enough Wii bowling for my tendonitis to act up again. :)

The more I think about the topic of increasing our size limit for muskies, the more questions I have. Here are a few:

1) What would be the motivation for the PFBC to raise the current limit??

2) If there is a statewide increase, does that mean there will be fewer muskies stocked in our state since (in theory) there will an increase in the population of all muskies not just trophy muskies??

3) If the PFBC does decide to increase our limit, will the stocking program remain the same regarding fingerling/yearling distribution or would they spend the extra "minnow money" so all stocked muskies are yearlings which will increase survivability and further promote a trophy fishery??

4) What about the guy/gal who just wants to catch a musky to eat but has an extremely difficult time harvesting one of trophy size??

5) How long does it take for an appropriate amount of data to be collected in order to analyze the effects of having an increased population of 'top end' predators??

6) What are the +/- of offering a musky stamp option to help fund our trophy musky fishery??

Red,



We had Dave Miko, Chief Division of Fisheries Management Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission at our last meeting of the Moraine Musky Association to discuss raising the size limit on Lake Arthur. We had some of the same questions. They are still trying to evaluate the effects of the changes made a few years ago. It's unlikely a state wide change will come anytime soon, but it might be possible to get select waters changed. He suggested that we should contact our commissioner which is a vacant position right now. If they get enough feedback the commissioners will have to look into the possibility.

Stocking larger fingerling's or yearling Musky will help them survive. Cost and available space in the hatchery determines how long they can grow fish before they have to stock them. Manpower shortages also affect this process. I have taken part in some float stocking which spread the fish out which should help them survive. Local clubs can contact the Fish Commission to help in this type of project. They have reduced the number of waters getting stocked so that they can put more fish in the waters that they do stock.

I am not opposed to a Musky stamp if all the money would go to enhance the Musky program.

As of 20 months ago, we lost our full-time WCO and I have heard nothing about a replacement.

Personally, I would like to see a higher size implemented.

Thanks for the info.

Red i like your idea of a muskie stamp, alot. For a few reasons, the PFBC would not turn down the money so i think that would help somthing like that go through. But with that it you would not really need to raise the size limit, because i know most guys would buy the stamp are CPR guys.

I have seen only a few people keep a musky, and they were mostly not targeting them. With that in mind the guy who is mainly bass or walleye fishin that does not target musky will likely not buy the stamp for the reason "i dont fish for them, why do i need the stamp" This would decrease alot of the keep rates of the accidental catchs, knowing they need the stamp to keep a musky.

I am sure alot of people that read all the post before mine, thought of that... I posted it anyway.

As for the raising the size limit, Red you brought up real good points on do they keep stocking at the same rate. Hmmm i will need time to think of that... thats a deep topic, i never thought of that. My question would be, what is the percentage of musky that are stocked today making it to say 40 inches? Then asking the same question with muskies 12 inches today making it to 40"? My thoughts are at what point in the fishes life is it most likely to be killed besides old age.

Would it be better to hold the muskies in the tanks till they are 1.5 years old and maybe 12 inches long. If 50% more fish survive each year per stocking sample they would not need to stock as many... but the increase cost to keeping them... could having less fish, longer cost the same as alot of fish for short time... i think we opened a big can of worms here, good food for thought in my brain

One thing with the stamp or monies raised or donated $$$ from clubs could go towards building whatever and funding to keep the fish to be stocked longer.

Kind of give something back to the hatcherys that will help them out.
If their facilities improve and their jobs become easier, they will be more for it.

I helped do some stocking this year and the little time you have to discuss these topics I pretty much got that most all the stocking was done or near done.

To keep the muskies over a winter will require the hatcherys to take care of fish they never had to before, extra work load on them.

In my opionion that is some of the problem we have, freezing temps icing over the holding pens, extra work involved in taking care of the fish.
If the job was made easier of them, maybe they would be more for it.
They are cutting back and slimming things down as everyone is.

Pushing for more more more on the lenghts might not be the way to go about it? A backdoor approach might be the way to go. If WAY more muskie survived when stocked....they wouldn't want to cut back on the fish, it's be the same number they've been stocking. Us being involved more than ever before with helping out on the stocking side and holding meeting showing much interest helps too.

Trophy water would been cool, the 40" increase is awesome, I don't think they will budge until some years pass and they see what effects it has.

Helping with the monies to raise the fish longer might be our best approach now I think. Try and get the stocked fish bigger so more survive.
Help fund what we can and give back to the hatcherys, kind of prime them up for the next step.

I was involved in the meetings with the state that ended up in the size increase.Enhanced water was discused and i thought it was to be in the works based on a few studies{studies to determine what waters would benefit most}.It may still be in the works?As far as holding fingerlings over threw the winter goes,its being done and has been for a while.Tionesta,over the past few years,has been holding over a number of fish in their inside tanks.Pleasent mount has been holding fish over in an outdoor pond.All this is based on production and how many surplus fish they end up with.The state is trying to improve all aspects to the best of their abilaty{remember,government works slowwww}.Our club{penn jersey ch50}has worked closely with them for 6 or more years now and have even been given permision to stock our own fish{up until vhs came about}.We like working with them and i beleive they like working with us.As far as a 50" limet or catch and release only,???????.

I just want everyone to be sure that I was NOT making any negative comments about the PFBC. I have a pretty good understanding how government funded jobs work. Our local WCO retired just under 2 years ago and a full-time replacement has not been appointed yet. It is my understanding that there will be many PFBC vacancies within the next year but not enough trainees enrolled in the mentoring programs to fill the void.


If there is a 48 or 50-inch limit implemented on designated waters, wouldn't that essentially mean that those waterways would be 'Catch and
Release' since only 3-5 percent of Ohio strain muskies ever reach those lengths in the first place?? (Correct me if I am wrong but I assume the PFBC is still stocking that strain.) That would be great (and fair) since there are many waterways in the Commonwealth that have C/R programs for other species of fish.

No matter what the state length limit is for any species, enforcement (unfortunately) is the main deterrent in keeping fisherpeople honest.

I, like Bob, was alo involved with the PFBC a few years ago when we decided to make the statewide limit 40". The whole idea of raising the size limit was to create more opportunity for larger fish to be caught in PA. Until the PFBC sees some positive results from the increaased size limit, I don't think we will see another increase any time soon. Maybe a few enhanced bodies of water with a 45" limit or something.

One of the main goals of the PFBC, when it comes to raising muskies, is to stock larger fish. They have been stocking yearling muskies in some waters the past few years including Edinboro, Canadohta, Tionesta, and Kinzua, I think. A better survival rate of stocked fish could really help our program.

If it were up to me, I would make a statewide 50" size limit just because it couldn't hurt. However, I am not sure how much mortality we really have from harvest on muskies in this state. I don't know that it really hurts us, except for a handful of lakes maybe. ( i hear a lot of fish are kept from woodcock for ex.)

We have some good guys in the PFBC right now and muskies are actually on their minds as a fish that should be managed properly. Particularly Larry Hines, who is a muskie fisherman himself, and runs some of the hatcheries.

I think the main things that will help our muskie fishing in PA are stocking larger fish and float stocking them like some PA Muskies Inc chapters have been able to do the last several years. We need to give the new size restriction and stocking efforts time to yield some results. It has only been a few years.

Our efforts in NY at Prendergast Hatchery to raise bigger musky fry through extra bait fish added to the ponds was working,but we were not getting more then 3/4" to 1" extra growth.The reason was that we were only giving the musky fry extra fathead minnows to feed on after the water had already started its fall cool down,the musky fry slowed down on feeding in cold water conditions.So this year we changed our aproach and will feed the musky fry extra fathead minnows from the time they are placed in the outside ponds,when the water is warm,until stocking in late October.We could see as much as 3" extra growth rate.I had a discussion with Larry King at the hatchery about holding musky fry over through the winter in the inside tanks.I was told that the water would have to be heated to keep it at temps warm enough to keep the musky fry feeding.The cost to add a water heater,natural gas cost,workers cost etc.. would make the price tag out of range.I think that purchase of extra bait fish for PA musky hatcheries would be where Pa musky fishermen should start their effort.

Capt.Larry

From the sounds of what Dave Miko had said, the reason they are giving the fish minnow feed here is to get them to adapt to the wild quicker following stocking. He also mentioned that the timeline they use to stock these fingerlings is based on many different other types of fish that the hatcheries have to handle, so it would be tough to alter.

Like Adam said, it's tough to judge what percentage of the fish are dying from being harvested, and each lake has its differences. I really applaud the efforts of the guys who were involved with the first steps of the change, PA really noticed a change in the angler mentality and adapted. They started to manage their resources (rivers/lakes) on a more individual basis than in the past, which will have it's benefits as well.

People in this day and age want to see results now, they want the comparisons to the places in the prime ranges of the fish, but it's just a different environment around here...We have some of the best growth rates but some of the worst mortality rates, and it's tough to say whether that's natural or not, especially without any background info on it.

I agree that the best solution may be increasing the amount of minnows that are feed to the fingerlings. From what I understand they are not feed minnows until about two weeks prior to being stocked. Cost is the primary reason. I don't think they will keep very many over the winter. Feeding minnows also teaches the young musky what to feed on once they are stocked. They won't be conditioned to wait for their fish food.