IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Meeting Minutes, Club Chit-Chat, and Fishing Reports will be listed if you are a member of Chapter 50. If you are a member, and you cannot see the reports after logging in, please use the contact form by selecting the floating envelope icon located in the bottom-right corner. Include your name and your Chapter 50 membership number. We will verify, and grant you special rights to view all. Alternatively, you may email us at muskiesincpennjersey @ gmail .
Log In
Register
11:36 pm
The Pa Fish commish has posted the the new regulations but are looking for further comment on the 40" limit without enhanced waters , Or 36" limit with enhanced waters .Enhanced waters would have a 45" limit.
If you havent sent them a Email or letter do it now. I think we are all looking for 40" statewide with no closed season.
3:24 am
What about enhanced waters.The thought of some waters having a 45"limit is appealing.And stats showed there was little improvement going from a 36" limit to a 40" limit? Bob
1:03 am
March 19, 2004
Offline
I'm with you Bob, 36'' and enhanced waters at 45''!!!
1:30 am
My reading excitement thought it was 40" with enhanced but it would only mean 40" through the state only with no enhanced waters . Marsh creek sure would turn into a nice big fish water with a 45 " limit and the pures that we are going to stock in there . <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<< <<<<><<<
sorry I got excited again Musky Matt
2:49 am
Ive been on a number of boards were guys are pushing for 40".I wounder if they realize the could be eliminating a chance at 45" enhanced waters if they push hard enough for 40"s.The info gathered from the muskie symposium showed very little improvement when increasing from 36" to 40".Would i like a 40" statewide limit.YES.But not at the cost of enhanced waters.Just my oppinion.Bob
4:40 am
June 23, 2004
Offline
We have to remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. One step at a time will get us where we are going.
A 40" limit now could be propagated into 40" limit with 45" enhanced waters later. If we continue on with a 36" limit, the meat fishermen (and those who think a 38" Muskie is a wallhanger) will continue to decimate our fish before they get to be old, experienced and, most importantly, harder to catch fish.
I'm for a 40" limit now, with a push for enhanced waters the next time this comes around.
<<<<><<<
Capt. Dieter Scheel http://www.BigDRiverGuide.com
4:14 pm
May 19, 2004
Offline
Are we going to put out a consensus statement as a club? If not, we should take the time to post these thoughts to the state individually. It doesn't matter what we think here, it matters what the state hears.
Barry
We may only see what we look for.
9:56 pm
I have a feeling that the state has made up its mind so lets not get to excited. I think if we can get 45" waters we need to go for it I don't want to release my fish to be killed at 40". Tom
2:53 am
What about the meat hunters keeping 40" fish.Or 42" fish.Or 45" fish.Were do we stop.The proposal put out was this.36" state wide with 45"enhanced.Or.40"statewide.If you think they will adjust this every other year i think your wrong.I guess its a matter of oppinion.Again,how nice would it be to have a handfull of waters were the limit is 45".45" on marsh creek?45"limit on the Delaware?45"on the nock after we start putting in pures?Most meat fishermen are catching fish under 36".The same goes for most fortunate bass fishermen.I guess some don't care about trying to produce trophy waters,just trying to catch a fish.And no,we aren't going to vote on it.No matter what you beleive,Voice your oppinion to them.Bob ;D
3:03 am
I have herd alot about people keep 36" fish thinking their 40" and that won't happen on 45" water it sucks that we will never be We. Right Marchie
3:57 am
June 23, 2004
Offline
Good point Bob.
What are the waters that are being proposed as "Enhanced"? My recollection tells me that virtually all were Western PA waters. If the Nock, Marsh Creek and the Delaware are going to be designated as being "Enhanced", I'm all for the 36"/45" rule.
Capt. Dieter Scheel http://www.BigDRiverGuide.com
4:35 am
There were two body close to us.Marsh creek and the susky.That list would be easier to ad to than having to change size regs every couple of years.Bob
4:54 pm
April 17, 2011
Offline
would love to see the big D' get the 45 for enhanced - would reduce a lot of those meat fisherman on banks at pox.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
2:49 am
here is the web site easyy to fill out http://sites.state.pa.us/Fish/.....gcomments/
4:23 am
We need support tell everone you know and have everone in your family fill this out. This will change the size limits for next generation of muskie fishermen. I am asking for 40"size limits across Pa and 45" enhanced water. Sending letters will help too this is your chance to make a positive change so support us please here is the web site easy to fill out http://sites.state.pa.us/Fish/.....gcomments/
4:49 am
March 6, 2005
Offline
My opinions:
I. Most meat hunters and bassers catch the "smaller fish"- therefore, the bigger the overall size minimum the better.
II. Most meat hunters and bassers are fishing lighter tackle. It's harder to land a 40" fish vs. a 36" fish on the lighter tackle.
III. There is most likely more "accidental" 36" fish caught than 40" fish. More accidental fish= more kept fish.
IV. Muskie magazine claims that muskies don't naturally reproduce until they reach 36". If there is any hope of natural reproduction in this area of the state, why not let the ladies get the extra four inches. 😉 Oh, and while we're at it, let's make the only local water that will let our fish reach sexual maturity be one that only has fish that are STERILE.
V. A 45" fish got that way two ways: from being released or not being caught at all. The longer the fish can not be harvested, the better chance of it growing to 45"+. Every time a fish gets caught, it makes it harder to catch it again. (fishing pressure) The more a fish gets caught under 40", the harder it will be to catch over 40"
VI. The only local waters that the State is considering is Marsh Creek? We all know that Tigers grow faster, but usually not as large. Why enhance Tiger town?
VII. Only six "enhanced" waters? What percentage of the musky waters in the state is that? WEAK!
VIII. Last time I checked, It was our goal to improve musky fishing in our local waters. Yes-WATERS PLURAL. Not one but all waters. Show ALL of our fish the same opportunity- are some better than others?
IX. How many members have fished Marsh? How many members will fish Marsh because it's enhanced? Seems like we would all have to turn our heads on the other, and some of our favorite bodies of water to enhance just one?
X.Just my thoughts- no sides, no influences. These voices in my head are driving me crazy!!!!! -Eric
4:38 am
March 26, 2004
Offline
Just a brief comment on the "enhanced" waters. Giving a marginal lake a 45" size limit isn't going to make up for poor habitat, poor water quality, or a lack of forage. Because of this, I don't think they should do it to waters without a proven history of supporting a good population of decent sized fish. The list in the proposed rulemaking is simply a politically correct, one lake per region, list that is an attempt to get an "enhanced" water close to everybody. Maybe the Nock or Marsh Creek will simply come alive with muskies under these regulations, but I'm not optimistic. Also, only managing 1.5 miles of the Susquehanna under the regulation is ridiculous. River fish move all over the place.
The issue with the Delaware is that they have to get NJ to buy into whatever it is they do there.
Oh well, the PFBC has my comments.
Chris
5:43 am
March 20, 2004
Offline
Comments sent and as Matt said, very very easy. Please follow the link and enter your own thoughts and input.
Greg
6:08 am
March 20, 2004
Offline
Check out Muskiefirst.com. Bushkill Tom has started a thread about our fishery and the replies and interst has been strong. Thanks Tom.
Greg
2:21 pm
The feed back I have received has been great I have posted on allot of boards this one was intersting http://www.fishusa.com/Discussion2/ I know that I have got at least 50 more replies by simply asking, if we all did that we would get results . Support the club with action ! Tom
6:35 pm
I think marsh creek could be good enanced waters with tigers and when they start putting pures in.There are a lot of 40" and bigger tigers taken out of there.The susky is in our area and hopefully we will see its length of enhanced waters expand.The upper delaware is definitly qualified enhanced water.When i spoke with nj biologist Bob Papson it seemed like they would entertain working with Pa in regards to the 45" limit on the delaware.Sounded like it was someting that could be done.I just cant help thinking how great 45" enhanced would be to have on a few waters.Bob
4:51 pm
June 23, 2004
Offline
Thank you again to Tom Long for leading the charge. {0}} His energy and positive attitude are one of the things that makes this a great club to be a member of. [&]]
Every one of us has friends, family and fishing buddies that we could prevail upon to send a comment to the PFBC.
I sent my comment in a week ago, asking for a 40" limit statewide, a one fish per day limit statewide and an Enhanced Waters 45" program statewide.
I have also been responsible for 3 additional comments being sent to the PFBC in the past week. If every member made this a priority and had an additional 4 people send comments to the state, we'd get over 250 comments! Every one of my clients, family and neighbors who fishes off my boat will be putting in a comment - what about you?
This doesn't have be a 40" vs. Enhanced Waters issue. We can ask for both! If the PFBC gets over 250 comments asking them for both, they might give it to us. If we don't ask, they certainly won't consider it.
PS- if you've already sent a comment in asking for one or the other, that's OK. I'm sure the state wouldn't mind hearing from you again with an expanded comment, asking for all.
Capt. Dieter Scheel http://www.BigDRiverGuide.com
12:44 am
I've sent a second letter in today asking for 50" statewide and a 55" enhanced.I've got my fingers crossed.Bob
3:46 am
I am taking this seriously I think it is okay to ask for more and take what we can get. I think enhanced water is the key so I will be happy with that. Tom
5:35 am
Assuming the proposed "musky enhancement" regs work like other special regulation programs(such as "Big Bass", "trophy trout", and "panfish enhancement"), it is important to keep in mind that enacting statewide changes (like increasing statewide minimum size) or starting a special regulations category is fairly involved and not likely to be repeated for several years, if not for more than decade. However, once a special regs category becomes an approved option for PFBC biologists, they have a lot more freedom to swap waters into or out of the special regulation category.
This might lead me to favor the option with "musky enhancement" 45" minimum, but I share cdnordquist's concern about the proposed waters - Lake Arthur (Butler County), Rose Valley Lake (Lycoming County), Cowanesque Reservoir (Tioga County), Marsh Creek Lake (Chester County), Susquehanna River (Fabridam to 1.3 miles downstream) and Loyalhanna Lake (Westmoreland County). I suspect I know the answer already, but were these suggested by the workgroup or did they come from the PFBC's regional biologists? Only one of these makes much sense to me - I think there are much better choices across the state. Based on this, I'm not at all confident that the musky enhancement regs will be used effectively, so I'm solidly in support of the statewide 40" (although getting both would be great). Don't make the assumption that a 45" minimum will end up on the waters you favor.
Jeremy Trexel
184
1 Guest(s)
