Please discuss all Big Muskego in Waukesha county fish size limits here.
Wisconsin Fishing Discussion
Big Muskego Size Limit Discussion
Displaying 31 to 45 of 87 posts
The increase in abundance and size structure of the pike fisheries seems very minimal for the efforts that were put into the study.
As far as interpreting data I would say the only way to truly know if fisherman were the reason for the decline of the fishery would have been boat launch or on ice creel census. None of this happened and this would be a huge part of interpreting the data properly and having a complete study.
This study was missing that major control to conclude the reason for decline.
Greetings Everyone, Ben Heussner here, fisheries biologist for the WDNR. I am requesting more time to evaluate the 40x1 due to the large die off in summer of 2011 and 2012. BM lost a lot of nice sized fish during this time frame was untimely for this size limit proposal given the limited time for evaluation under the sunset clause of 2018. Big Muskego is vulnerable to pike summer kill and winter bass kill as a result of poor water quality with less fish refuge in comparison to larger deeper systems. It is my professional opinion that BM requires more protection from angler exploitation than most lakes. If there is not support of the extention of the 40x1 at the spring hearings, we will likely revert to the 26x2. In my professional opinion, this will be a step in the wrong direction. Be careful when interpreting the data, we have observed and increase in abundance and size structure of northern pike since the implementation of the 40x1. If you email me, I can forward you the report. [email protected]. We stock northern pike in big muskego at a rate of 2 per surface acre annually, regardless of survey work. Comprehensive surveys are typically performed on a five year rotation so this is not a special study taking away from stocking efforts. Keep in mind that this fishery is in a very unique part of the state that receives very high angling pressure. The 40x1 was implemented due to a decline in abundance, a decline in size structure and size selective harvest of female pike resulting in 4:1 males to females. In 2015, our fyke netting sample revealed a catch ration much closer to 1:1 and the % of pike catch greater thn 28 inches increased by 16% (from 20% to 36%). Thank you very much for the feedback, these discussions are important to making decisions supported by science.
Wow that's interesting...
The growth rates actually declined since the 40" size limit was established.
It also looks like there were more fish over 34" before the 40" size limit was established.
The 2015 population estimate shows less confidence (accuracy?) than the 2008 population estimate per acre.
So before the study if I'm understanding right there were greater numbers of larger fish, growth rates declined, and the amount of pike per acre is at best a guess of not even one fish per acre more.
Seems pretty conclusive to me the study might have achieved the desired results of increasing population per acre?
I would like to know the cost of the study as the opposed to increase the population by regular stocking. It would seem to be more efficient and create far less controversy.
Good luck all!
As far as the sunset clause for 40" size limit question #33...
What is significant size structure and abundance of northern pike?
What were the actual results of 8 years catch and release?
What was actual average size increase and what was the actual population increase per acre?
If it's minimal what is the point of studying this for three more years?
The mortality rate on this lake can change in one year instantaneously due to drought or freeze out.
I think it would be worse to waste a resource then to utilize the resources.
Good luck all.
Lots of opinions here, and I'm not saying anybody's right or wrong, but I'm just saying, be thankful there are big pike in this body of water. I am not kidding when I say up north here a pike over 30 is really rare. Probably 95 percent of the pike I've caught up here are 25 inches or less. And I'm fishing the same baits for the most part that I used when I lived in SE Wisconsin. Even trying some bigger stuff. If the 40 is too high, go to a 32 like Puckaway. But, I saw a lot of 31 inch fish there on the good years when the pike were biting and not many were over 32 in my experience. Makes sense with the 32 inch limit. If there are a decent number of 33-36 inch fish in Big Mo, the 40 is protecting those fish. You'll know if the 40 isn't working when a bunch of 18-20 inch pike are roaming the lake and flags are flying, but the pike are so small. It doesn't sound like that's the case.
Littleluck hit it on the head this is not supposed to be a trophy lake. It is managed for waterfowl fish are a distant second. I would like to see a compromise here. Sorry but a 40" limit makes no sense on this lake. I do agree that the larger females could use more protection. This is why I would like to see a slot to protect the large females but still have limited harvest of smaller fish. The whole lake is a giant marsh = very productive natural reproduction and can easily sustain a limited harvest of smaller fish.unfortunately the dnr has only given us two options. Both are flawed!! I would love to hear some ideas for writing a resolution to get the ball roling on a plan
Ike-I agree with you that big pike are sometimes mishandled. But, I don't know that there are that many places in SE Wisconsin with the volume of pike in the mid-upper 30s as Big Muskego. It's very fertile water it would appear and has proper conditions for big pike. Big Muskego isn't your classic big pike type of water, I agree with another poster on this statement, but it has been producing big pike well and sometimes in fishing what might be a general rule is broken in certain cases. I have actually found shallow waters with carp seem to be able to kick out pretty big pike in SE Wisconsin. About the DNR biologists knowing what's best for a lake--I totally agree and have a lot of respect for them. However, I know there are times they have to balance what's best for a water vs. what the public wants. So, what might be "best" is in the eye of each of us. It can be different depending on what we desire in a lake. Is it best for 5 pike to be kept up north with no size limit on virtually all waters? No. But, that's the easiest blanket rule to have and most people up here support it. But, it sure doesn't help grow big pike.
I fished this lake for many years befor the 40" regs started. There were plenty of big pike then as I'm sure there are now. We were respectfull of the resource and only kept fish that wouldn't live if released or were clearly male. Would like to see a slot put on the lake with one fish a day limit. The 40" rule just means you can't ever keep one for the table. Or at least put a circle hook regulation on tip ups so they have a chance of reaching 40" before being gut hooked.
Delevan is trash and a zoo. Far less people on the swamp than eagle. I've caught far more mutilated fish on eagle than the swamp, or anywhere for that matter. The vast majority of fish I catch on the swamp are perfectly healthy.
The limit is great. Especially being so close the MKE. I'd hate to see those 30-36" fish being taken home. They'd taste like crap anyhow. Problem is people don't think twice about keeping those fish. It's great to have a lake that can grow that size of pike and they're protected. Just a fun fishing lake. I'd love to see 4-5 more lakes with the 40" limit in Waukesha county. The 32" limit is pointless. Up it to 40".
The last time I heard someone complaining at the launch, I had caught 8 pike over 30" and run out of minnows. I was fishing 100 yards away from the person whining. What worked 30 years ago doesn't work as well now.
For winter time pike I can't name a more consistent body of water in SE WI. There are certain conditions to fish for better success. You gotta figure that out. The last time I fished the swamp the water was cloudy from meltoff and or wind. This hurts the bite tremendously.
Displaying 31 to 45 of 87 posts
