# Proposed 2009 Fishing Rules/Changes



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

FYI...again found this browsing the DWR page today. Some interesting stuffage to include the one on our favorite fish species...just hope it passes IMHO.

I sent an e-mail to the DWR expressing my concern the DWR management of fish sincerely consider approving the rule change for TM fishing.

:wink: :wink:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/may0.pdf


----------



## waltny (Sep 8, 2007)

Let me preface my post by the fact I am almost 99.99% C&R

My question on the TM is... Why? I know they are having issues finding non diseased fish at the moment, but the ones that are in there will start to die off and they will become few and far between anyhow. 
The way the DWR manages them; they are essentially for the sake of arguement a put and take fish. Do they serve a purpose to control a certain population in PV? Are they there just for the chance at a trophy fish? I dont think Ill ever get the way things are managed out west and will have to live it. I would say introduce nonsterile pike and let them have at it, PV is large enough. Cut down the limits on perch and crappie and let them feast. I think it would be great. I know I will hear the arguements that pike arent native to Utah, but I dont think TM's are either...

Anyhow, I know they are your passion K2 and whatever the DWR decides works out for you


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

I am also a little curious as to why they would close Pine View to the possession to ALL Tiger Muskies. I can understand the mandatory catch and release for the smaller ones, but how much longer can a 40+ inch TM be expected to live? I think the DWR should continue to allow 40+ inch Muskies to be harvested. I don't think that it's very realistic that 40+ inch Muskies will be caught more than once after they have reached this size. Therefore, isn't it kind of a waste to force people to release those big boys? Why is it better to let these big fish die naturally and go to waste than allow them to be somebody's dinner, or somebody's trophy catch that they can get mounted and hang on their wall to remember for the rest of their lives?

Sure, continue to release the small ones. Let them grow big. But force people to release the big ones? For what? I just don't understand. :?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

A slot on the tigers at Scofield? Adding Bear Lake Cutts? 

Interesting. Don't they realize that rainbows eat smaller fish too? Oh well. I won't complain, since I do just fine for the bows with minnows.

Looks like their 8 trout limit for 3 years isn't going the way that they'd planned if they're considering moving it back to 4. 

I doubt too many people kept a full limit very often anyhow.
_________________________________________________________________________________
PV-

Seems kind of pointless to keep people from harvesting a 40+ inch fish. All that is doing is ensuring that the current record TM will remain unchallenged for some time.

If they really wanted to start up their own TM program, it can't be THAT hard to find a handful of clean muskies from somewhere else to start up an operation. They're obviously not looking very hard. I seriously doubt that every body of water with muskellunge in it is infected with VHS or something else.

If a manageable predator is required for panfish/carp control in PV, sterile northerns are sounding like the most feasible route to go.

Sorry, K2. Might not be what you want to hear, but a mandatory C&R regulation, in my opinion, should only be used for the advancement of a threatened species that CAN REPRODUCE.

If the TM are doomed, why prolong the inevitable? That's just keeping food off of someone's plate or a trophy off of someone's wall; a future name out of the record books. Instead, it'll be a big, bloated casualty, washed up and rotting on the shoreline while being scavenged by gulls and raccoons. WASTED by the majority of people who don't know how to, or aren't prepared to effectively C&R the big boys.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Joe's Valley-

Good! At least for now. This will help get more people up there fishing and hopefully, thinning out the numbers of 12 inch fish that currently seem to be stuck at that size.


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

LOAH said:


> A slot on the tigers at Scofield? Adding Bear Lake Cutts?
> 
> Interesting. Don't they realize that rainbows eat smaller fish too? Oh well. I won't complain, since I do just fine for the bows with minnows.
> 
> ...


I like the idea of moving back to a 4 fish limit at Scofield. I fished it for a weekend last fall and again over the recent Memorial day weekend and couldn't beleive the number of fish people were cleaning at the fish station. Lat weekend we watched one group of 6 people clean 48 fish (there legal 8 fish limit). I think Scofield has been fishing fantastic the last couple years but I worry with the 8 fish limit that the number and size is going to decrease. I think going back to 4 fish will help keep Scofield a great fishing lake.

Mark


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Just to provide a little more insight on why TM limits need adjustment. 

First, and let's remember fish-get-big because people C&R. Yes, I've seen the posts of folks who catch and keep a TM right at 40-43 inches. Their choice. I can attest one truly can't appreciate the size of a PV TM until you catch one over 45" IMHO. :wink: 

Second, DWR is doing intense research on TM stocking. DWR wants to make darn sure they don't introduce any virual diseases into Utah waters. So some may think they aren't doing enough they are. I've been in contact with DWR folks. Goggle and read about VHS fish kills in the midwest (MN, WI, IL, Great Lakes) because this and other virual outbreaks.  

Third, and most importantly, PV pan fish back in the early 80's were very stunted. That's why PV was the test-bed for TM stocking. Read the threads on this forum now about the size of PV Crappie and Perch. :wink: 

So, with no more TM stocking, Utah TM fishing will have been known about by TM fish'n buffs like us. So eventually if DWR can't find a "clean" supplier TM fish'n will be only in Utah history fish'n lore. Stocking with Sterile Pike would be fine. But to have a true natural hybrid from both a Musky and Pike line, well my friends you have one hell-of-a-fish! I guess we'll see what happens. :| :?


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I think they should put smallmouth bass in Scofield to help regulate the chubs.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> So, with no more TM stocking, Utah TM fishing will have been known about by TM fish'n buffs like us. So eventually if DWR can't find a "clean" supplier TM fish'n will be only in Utah history fish'n lore. Stocking with Sterile Pike would be fine. But to have a true natural hybrid from both a Musky and Pike line, well my friends you have one hell-of-a-fish! I guess we'll see what happens. :| :?


But with no more TM stocking, they're gone anyway. They'll still be history and lore. They can only live so long and, as you know, everyone that goes there wants a TM and not everyone that hooks one knows what to do next.

Might as well let EVERYBODY (not just the C&R TM buffs) enjoy the fish while they last.

I know I've never tasted a tiger muskie. :wink:

Doesn't mean that I plan on eating any or _catching_ any, even. I'm just saying that people will realize that they won't be stocked anymore and might get the urge to pick one up before they're gone. Dinner or a mount.

ACT NOW WHILE SUPPLIES LAST! Some restrictions apply, act now for a special introductory offer. Void where prohibited.

Know what I mean?

Now I'm all for the TM. Like I said, I've never even caught one, so it would mark one off my list. I really just don't think that very much effort is being put into finding a healthy population of muskellunge somewhere. If they were serious (I would hope), they'd find some good subjects and get them going as soon as possible to establish a base population for our own program.

If something like that were happening and future TM were guaranteed within a few years, I would then support a C&R reg in the meantime.


----------



## HGD (Mar 5, 2008)

Well Crappie go in a 10 year cycle, and the perch had a huge die off couple years ago. So argument dont hold water. And every year the mortality rate goes up because people have to take a bunch of pictures, to prove they can fish! So if you really want the fish to survive don't fish for them. :lol:


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

HGD said:


> And every year the mortality rate goes up because people have to take a bunch of pictures, to prove they can fish! So if you really want the fish to survive *don't fish for them*. :lol:


Hmmmmmmmmmmm HGD I'm kinda tak'n back by what you've stated above...:? :?


----------



## HGD (Mar 5, 2008)

I'm not quite sure why? I mean I read many times how you practice C & R . And you are wielding the double edge sword here. You want them protected or not?. If your going to have imediate release, that should mean brought to the boat and unhooked, not tired out so anyone can take on board, or out of the water. You know how fraglie they are, If that offends you sorry! There are others kids in the ssand box and they pay to play too!


----------

