muskiedreams

Are you saying to use the points system and not longest fish. So if an angler catches 2 legal fish they would add together. With the original point system 30" = 4 points and each additional inch adds another point. So a 36" = 10 point, 37" = 11 points and so on. So someone who catches two 36" fish would win over someone who catches one 45" fish. Some would argue that the 45" fish should win because most fishing contests are based on either longest or heaviest fish.

I think that it should be only one chance for a drawing for any prizes that were not claimed by legal fish for anyone who caught one or more sub-legal size fish. That will help to not encourage targeting numbers of sub-legal size fish and more concentration on catching legal size fish. And for those who catch subsequent small fish may be inclined to do a quick release.

The discussion is to determine winners by length and requiring that all fish entered be the legal size of 36" or longer. Purpose being to reduce handling and possible delayed mortality of sub-legal fish. There will still be prizes for first through third place so we need to come up with a plan for awards in case there are no fish or less than 3 fish of legal size or larger. Possible solutions: 1) Any prizes for which there is no legal fish will be awarded via blind drawing of all entrants. 2) Same as (1) except draw from entrants who released a sub-legal fish. They should be water released (with in water photo) except if it is close to the legal limit and a measurement is needed to determine eligibility. Limit one per person to discourage targeting small fish. I am also leaning toward having a one prize per entrant limit. We are also considering similar rules for the Chautauqua and Waneta tournaments. Since it is purebred muskies, the minimum size would be 40". We want your opinions. Comments and suggestions are encouraged. We need to finalize rules. I want to have rules finalized by Fri, May 6th.

Yes, it is still scheduled for May 21st. Stay tuned for rules.

Good meeting and nice to meet all of you in person. The internet and this forum is nice to have but there is nothing better than face to face for building strong relationships. We had some good discussions. Hopefully, having more muskie anglers speaking as one voice, will help to address various issues in regions throughout the state in order to help preserve, enhance and build upon the muskie fisheries that we have. I do want to add that going forward there are several keys to finding a voice and having an impact. 1) member support 2) member participation in addressing issues and goals 3) partnering with other angling and conservation minded groups to support each others goals which are mutually beneficial. 4) Building community support through youth support and other social programs or events

I looked at Skype. It is very limited. Freeconferencecall.com is the only one I found that wasn't too limited and/or too expensive. Traveling to have meetings at different locations would be just as tough for us officers as it is for members.

It was done in the past to a certain extent. A couple times on the evening before the Chautauqua tournament and once in Clayton with a presentation from Bob Walters of Water Wolf Charters. In a way, they really weren't membership meetings because of travel limitations for all members to attend. Because of the fact that members are scattered, with about 17 in the Rochester area and the rest scattered throughout the state as well as several in Canada and a few in neighboring states, is impossible to have a membership meeting that is convenient for all members to be there physically. There might be a possibility of creating a way for distant members to participate online. It is not really the same as being there but might be the best way for distant members to get involved as well as make it more attractive for others to join from other areas. In order for it to work, we might need to acquire some hardware (maybe a webcam and microphone) as well as learn how to use the platform in a away that is effective. We will also need to see if there is a secure wifi we can access at the Moose Lodge. I have been doing some research and most online meeting services are pretty costly ($20 to $50 per month) and most have a fairly low participant limit ( the price goes up to increase limit). I did find this one https://www.freeconferencecall.com/ It almost seems too good to be true. It has video and audio capability so members will be able to participate and we will be able to see their faces if they have a web cam. There are other features to control the meeting such as giving control to another person (to give a presentation or show a file) and controlling who can speak (also so there isn't too much noise such as babies crying and dogs barking). It would involve learning how to use the features and figuring out the best way to control the meeting to maximize participant experience and keep order. Participants will also be able to control their own video and audio in case their spouse is yelling at them or walking around disrobed. I believe there are also android and iOS apps. There are also controls to limit who is allowed to participate online so local members will still have to be physically present. If anyone has any experience with doing this, I would appreciate any advice or help exploring this as a possibility and setting it up. It might also be a great platform for distant speakers to provide remote presentations.