Good point, Mike, on some idiots maybe killing more sub-legal fish. But in a fair amount of experience with spear chuckers for pike, well yes a few might kill some extra fish to spite us, but I do think most will try to get in the ballpark of the minimum size to take that single fish. That fish might be 40" and not 46", but I'll take it versus killing one of any size. I've heard many times about it being OK to take small fish as in not as much harm done, but the problem is all the big fish were at one time those smaller fish, we have to do all we can to not let them be removed when they're an expensive, low density trophy fish like muskies. So I really like the combination of the increased size limit deterrent plus the season limit especially. I think it's the right mix for our muskie fisheries, but just my opinion.

"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="vano397"]I do like the whole tag idea, and season limits…but as far as spearing goes, regardless of the size of the fish, I am betting that most of them are the same sort that shoot does till they "have" to use their tag. if the fish dissappears before anyone finds out about it, you still have a tag right??? I think the only answer that will really promote our agenda is no spearing…but that won't happen, so tags and season limits it must be! nice work on putting this together btw. I can't wait to see it in action.

Great point. If there was no size limit then they could have at it until they really needed to have the fish tagged. It is much harder to sneak around with a 46" fish than it is a 30" fish that you can stick down your snowsuit.

I just dont see it that way. In my eyes we are making it legal for them to shoot a 42 inch fish every hour and stick it back down the hole. I still think there should be zero killing of all muskies. Thats my opinion. I have already heard of one guy who stood right there and told the D.N.R. that he just released a speared 38 incher because it didnt make the legal size. The law says he has to put it back to die. That's what is wrong in my book. He misjudges the size and its an inch too small. Hes a crimminal if he keeps it and he is wasting a great fish if he puts it back. Either way it sucks but I still think that trying to force spear chuckers to hit the 46 inch limit is going to kill hundreds of sub legal fish that no one will ever enjoy. Better to let eat a 34 incher and burn their tag than kill half a dozen 42 to 45 inch females trying to get one over 46. We have to address this issue or we are going kill more fish than we are killing now. For hook and line anglers a 46 inch limit is great, Fantastic step in the right direction. However if we dont address the spearing community and the Size factor they will address it for us.

Maybe there should be an out of some kind for a guy who accidently spears a 45 incher but doesnt want to put it back and waste it. He calls the D.N.R. and they come and verify the kill and tag it with the anglers tag. There has to be a way to stop the return of sub legal speared fish to the lake. They are dead, period. Harvest complete. This is the real problem with allowing spearing at all. Where do you draw the line? Ill garrantee you this, Holmes will stick every Muskie that swims under his hole for spite and so will all of his cronies. None of us have the money or time to chase this bass teird down and the D.N.R. has not the resources or man power to enforce anything. I know because I live on a lake that is violated every day. The Tag Idea is a real good one. One tag and youre out. You cant kill another one. In my opinion size doesnt matter in this application . I say hook and line 46 ,spear no size limit both can only take one per year. I f I was a spear chucker I would like that plan as I could wait for a good fish and shoot it put my tag on it and be legal. If I misjudge the size and its a l;ittle smaller than I thought it was? So what I tag it and go home. But with a high size limit if I mis judge by even 1/2 an inch Im going to have to shove it back down the hole or risk a ticket. And with it legal to shove it back? rather than risk a ticket ? I would stick it back in the lake as turtle food. Guys we have to do better here.

I am back to spearing bans on all Muskie waters. Thats where I am on this subject. Mike

I think I may be going along the same lines as Mike, just for a different reason… I am not convinced they are shoving them back down the hole becuase it was sublegal…I think they just don't care about the fish or the regs, and will keep going till they have to stop. And as said earlier, there are not enough resources to follow them around,
Id say charge me a buck or two for the kill tag (kill being the key word, for spearing is a gauranteed kill), and put it toward education and presevation, but they tried that with the dove hunt thing a few years ago, and it scared everyone away…

Hmm minnesota = 48 inch size limit and separate expensive spearing license, sounds like they "get it" when it comes to muskellunge management.

Allowing musky spearing on systems like the Antrim chain make about as much sence as allowing bald eagles to be harvested with hand grenades.

In all seriousness though. If the regulations are to be changed, they need to be changed for biological reasons, not social/political reasons. It should not be about pandering to special interests, wether that be catch and release fisherman or spearers. The 46 inch limit would allow the females to get a crack at spawning for a few years. A smaller size limit to appease the spearers and to put less pressure on the monsters would still lead to females harvested before they get to spawn and thats bad for the future of the species. As for spearers killing undersized fish, thats poaching, end of story, doesnt matter what the size limit is. Hopefully a few get caught and made example of.

The MN muskie spearing ban came about after Tribal Governments re-affirmed their treaty right to harvest fish and regulate harvest and management of harvest outside of State regulations.

In most situations, managers will look at total exploitation, i.e. natural and fishing mortility. Natural mortality can't be controlled, although it can be affected (VHSv restrictions, etc.) so fishing mortality becomes the focal point when making management decisions. For example, the literature indicates that 35% annual mortality for walleye is acceptable. In Michigan, in a walleye lake system the Tribes may take upwards of 17.5% of an estimated population of walleye. Typically the Tribes are allocated 10%… The State gets the difference (17.5 – 25%). Regulations (for example, Mullett Lake) may be instituted to stay within the 35% total mortality. If the Tribes become interested in harvesting muskies then I imagine the DNRE will take a similar approach. Develop an acceptable exploitation level and manage by that. Tribal regulations for muskies mimic State regulations right now, 1 greater than 42" per day. At this point, there has been zero to very little interest in harvesting muskies by tribal members. There has been interest in collaborating on studies, especially in drowned river mouths.

"Will Schultz" said:
How about this approach:
Since spearing has it's own season why shouldn't it have it's own license and harvest tag? It isn't angling, not by definition.

I like that Idea. Its not Angling at all its spearing. They should have their own lakes too. They can help stock them too. Mike