"Will Schultz" said:
FYI – In light of this event, the discussions concerning more restrictive (higher size limit) regulations for the lower Antrim Chain are being escalated.
[smilie=2thumbsup.gif] [smilie=2thumbsup.gif] [smilie=2thumbsup.gif]
that plus the new posession regs would be soooo helpfull!!!
on a side note I notices that some regs were signed about spearing houghton lake, was this signed at the same time as musky regs or are we still waiting?
thanks for all the info Will, Its a great to see fish in Michigan get this big!
"swanezy" said:
That is cool they are talking about upping the regulations on the chain, but would higher reg's have really mattered after a 2 hour long fight and it laying in the bottom of a boat from these bass guys?I guess it would of at least had a chance to survive, but prob a incredibly small one
That's not the point, the point is to protect the 42-50" fish that have the potential to get to this size and do all the spawning. You can't grow world class fish without world class regulations.
"Will Schultz" said:
FYI – In light of this event, the discussions concerning more restrictive (higher size limit) regulations for the lower Antrim Chain are being escalated.
I figured that wasn't going to take too long after this fish.
"swanezy" said:
ok, didn't get what you were getting at. So my next question, why not try for 54'' limit like some of the top shield lakes? Would it be too hard to do, or are there other factors?
That would be nice… The only problem is, if you go for the jugular, the spearers will come back with something stupid like going for a 34" limit. They will view a 54" as a "no kill" basically. Then, it will be a fight just to keep the limit status quo. Baby steps. Baby steps.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]FYI – In light of this event, the discussions concerning more restrictive (higher size limit) regulations for the lower Antrim Chain are being escalated.
I figured that wasn't going to take too long after this fish.
"swanezy" said:
ok, didn't get what you were getting at. So my next question, why not try for 54'' limit like some of the top shield lakes? Would it be too hard to do, or are there other factors?
That would be nice… The only problem is, if you go for the jugular, the spearers will come back with something stupid like going for a 34" limit. They will view a 54" as a "no kill" basically. Then, it will be a fight just to keep the limit status quo. Baby steps. Baby steps.
Yeah basically. If you can keep them all alive until 50" the chances are much greater that we'll be able to grow another one like this.
Realistically, what would you guess is the current populations of muskie on the upper and lower chain? How does the Burt/Mullet/Indian River population compare to the Antrim Chain? Could regulations be considered for Burt/Mullet/IR too?
I know the populations are low but have amazing potential to grow but what are we really looking at as far as current # of adult fish in these systems?
"detroithardcore" said:
Realistically, what would you guess is the current populations of muskie on the upper and lower chain? How does the Burt/Mullet/Indian River population compare to the Antrim Chain? Could regulations be considered for Burt/Mullet/IR too?I know the populations are low but have amazing potential to grow but what are we really looking at as far as current # of adult fish in these systems?
I can't speak with any true accuracy other than study information obtained on the lower chain. On Torch you're looking at roughly 500 acres per fish, to put that into perspective that's like fishing for only one fish in Lake Ovid (but more difficult). On Elk Skegemog the density is a little higher but in the range of 100 acres per fish. There is no data available on where the new record was caught but I would put it on par with Elk/Skeg.
The Upper Antrim chain is all over the board. Intermediate is like the trout water of the lower chain, the smaller upper lakes are higher density but none more than probably .5 fish per acre (again no data just observation). These waters should be fine with the new regulations and no special regulations (42" and 1/license year). Basically, it's about 100 times easier to catch a fish on the upper chain than it is on the lower chain.
The inland waterway and adjoining lakes vary similarly and density is in the same range as Elk/Skeg.
So… yes the lakes/rivers at the tip of the mitt are being considered for special higher size limits. There are also some concerns over the fishery during spawning which may be addressed with a special closure.
Thanks Will, I figured it was low but wow…that's really low! It's really amazing to think what could really happen to these type of systems if special regulations were put in place for Muskie. I would love to see something like this happen to these waters. I could only imagine what the potential could be on these waters when/if special regs are put into place. Thanks again for your input as I'm sure it's probably very accurate! Really cool stuff happening in our state right now!!
Can you imagine if the multiple 50"+ fish speared in the Elk-Skegemog channel we're given more time to mature? With the size of the water and forage base I think fish like the one caught in Bellaire and Torch could be a regular occurrence. The environmental circumstances are almost perfect, the only thing holding this system back is the harvest rate.
It's very encouraging to see the regulations in place and taking such a huge step to make this possible in the future.
368
17