Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Re-defining LEGAL

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI, USA.
    Posts
    1,209

    Re-defining LEGAL

    Not sure what to do now? Up to this point all my descriptions were based on a 34 inch fish being legal. All my considerations were that a fish was either over 34 being legal or under 34 being a "short" or maybe under 30 being a "Dink." So now what? Anything under 40 is no longer legal, but everything over 35 is still a pretty good fish and they all get released anyway. Just not sure how I want to describe fish. If were up to me, legal would be 50 altogether and I'd be happy to get one per year around here???

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Germain, Wisconsin
    Posts
    85
    I guess it's no different than before. Legal is legal depending on your location. How you define a good sized fish is up to you. The older I get the less I care about fish size and increasingly just enjoying the experience of the event. Of course a large fish is always a treat but every one that comes in the net is a "victory".

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pewaukee,Wisconsin
    Posts
    459
    Junkman ---- how about this ?

    under 30" --- dink
    34" to 38" --- nice
    over 40" --- legal
    45"ish --- bruiser
    50+" ---- trophy

  4. #4
    Senior Member Steve Heiting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1994
    Location
    Minocqua, WI, United States.
    Posts
    2,944
    Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
    Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
    Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
    Ty Webb: By height.

    So you go to a Canadian water where the size limit is 54 inches and you catch a 51-incher. Should you be disappointed because the fish isn't "legal"? Of course not.

    With "legal" being all over the board (and it should be to manage waters to their potential), many people use Muskies, Inc.'s benchmark of 30 inches. Use whatever you're comfortable with. If it's 30 or 34 or 40 or 50, go for it.
    Steve Heiting

    www.steveheiting.com

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    13
    some saturday's and sundays 34 inches is gonna be a fish on the board marty!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Rhinelander, WI, USA.
    Posts
    133
    From a Q&A put together when we were campaigning for the 50” limit on Pelican Lake. Entire thing can be seen here (http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/faq.asp?id=69)

    Q)I can't catch a legal musky now. If the minimum length limit is increased, I'll never catch one!

    A)The length limit is too often used as a magical dividing line between success and failure in fishing. We need to help anglers change their thinking and simply strive to catch the biggest fish they can, without worrying about how many are "legal." All muskies are exciting to catch, legal-sized or not, and hopefully that's one of the main reasons people fish for them. A 35-inch fish should be just as much fun to catch whether the minimum length limit is 34 inches, 45 inches, or even 50 inches. Remember that higher length limits will continually improve chances of landing big muskies, including the musky of a lifetime!

    Good Luck Marty, just go catch them.

    Nail A Pig!

    Mike

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI, USA.
    Posts
    1,209
    I guess, now that I think about it, there was a time back in high school when I decided that rulers were something better left in geometry class....the showers were really cold however!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    898
    Just don't catch any under 40 inches... problem solved!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    898
    Actually, for some of us old-timers, a 30 inch fish used to be legal, and old guides who wrote books talking about all the "legals" they caught would have to change their records... but of course, "legal" as described today is the only one that matters to most.

    Of course I think it's pretty much as easy to catch a 36 incher today as it was a 30 incher back in the 70''s.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Cedarburg, Wisconsin, USA.
    Posts
    468
    No need to redefine "legal". It is as it always was. A fish over the minimum length limit. That's all it means.

    A legal fish caught in the 1960's is still a legal fish no matter what the current regulations state, because it was legal when caught. If you want to rewrite history, then you open yourself up to not knowing what the regulations will change to twenty years or more down the road.

    Would you like to speculate on whether a world record fish caught this year is legal or not with the posibility that there might be no open season on the body of water in the future? I sure wouldn't want to go there. The regulations are complicated enough already without having to consult madam Chloe before doing something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •