muskiedreams

When we first started the chapter and were discussing rules for tournaments, many of us were more used to tournament formats of prizes based on longest (or heaviest in the case of trout and other gamefish tourneys). We were concerned that nobody would like the MI points system. Now it looks like it may be preferred by more anglers over the1st, 2nd and 3rd longest format. Of course we also have the optional big fish pool which most entrants usually choose to participate in. Obviously there will be no changes in the scoring or prize structure for the tiger tournament. It definitely will have to be discussed further and vote on any possible changes. It appears at this point that most comments are opposed to any changes. But there does seem to be support for going from individual to team. One change that we voted on at the January meeting is that anyone who is not a Muskies Inc. member (any chapter) will be charged an additional $10 entry fee. Many other chapters do the same.

Did your grandson want to make sure you don't get away?

That background is looks like NY Harbor to me. That is lady Liberty in the Pic. Or did you just change it after NPike's comment? Mike, Wasn't it was supposed to be a secret about muskies in there?

I think what he might be talking about is working the shallow to very shallow water. From what I have heard, that is where the smaller fish tend to be in that lake and the big ones roam in open water chasing the alewives. But that doesn't mean you can't get a big one in shallow. I imagine it is more likely at night in the spring when the alewives move shallow.

Tigerhunter, After some of the comments here and thinking about different viewpoints and options, I realized that this is something that should not be done in haste, should be discussed further and any significant proposed change should be voted on by members. Then if we decide to try any changes, it should be on a trial basis and not with all tournaments. If we were to do something like that at a tournament in the Upper Niagara river with the 48" state minimum there, it would be highly likely there would be no qualifying fish. The same thing could also happen at Chautauqua or Waneta with a 40" minimum. The Mark Troy tournament on Waneta Lake is determined by length and judge boat(s) and everyone is kept informed on what it will take to get on the board. The judge boats have still measured many fish that were obviously too small to be in contention but some anglers have occasionally not bothered if they knew a fish was too small to matter. That way they can get back to fishing sooner rather than waiting for the judge boat that is not really needed. It could also give them a chance to catch another fish if they are in a feeding window. One thought is that documenting all fish caught helps give an idea of average size caught, etc. which might be useful to see yearly trends but for this purpose, a quick in water measurement or guesstimate is good enough. But with this type of format, anglers could be encouraged to just release fish that aren't in contention and not to call the judge boat unless a judgement call is needed. So it would help reduce unnecessary handling. I know there are some people who prefer the points system and some who prefer winners are determined by longest fish. I can go either way except I do like a big fish pool with the points system. But since I have never even caught a musky in a tournament and only one small one was caught in my boat in 2 different tournaments, it hasn't mattered much to me. I have caught what would have been the longest fish, on the day after. A little to late. LOL. Occasionally, I have seen a tournament where there were not enough fish to claim all the prizes. It happens sometimes and it does become somewhat of a letdown. But anglers might be very discouraged if it happens due to rules that disqualified some fish.

Tigerhunter, The answer to your question is yes but I am beginning to think it will be best to discuss this further and bring it to a vote of MI NY Chapter 69 members. Since the tiger tournament is only a little more than 3 weeks away, it may be impractical to try to make a change to hastily. Also this is something that might have to be decided upon for each tournament. The main objective in this discussion is to try to keep handling of fish to a minimum in order to minimize the possibility of delayed mortality.

Ivan, I understand what you are saying but in many states, the minimum size is 30" so I think that was a major reason MI decided to count fish 30" and above. Since NY State has set the minimum size to 36" for tigers and 40" for purebred muskies, the reasoning is to respect those size limits with tournament rules to minimize unnecessary handling of sub-legal fish. Anglers can measure a fish if they want to since it is not illegal. I still am not 100% in favor of making this change. I am leaning toward the need for further discussion. Another way to reduce unnecessary handling of fish is to go with 1st, 2nd and 3rd longest fish and keep anglers informed throughout the day as to what size is needed to get on the board. With the team method, wouldn't there have to be an equal number of anglers per boat (probably two)? I can see how it can help keep things honest. You say that anybody can luck into a big fish which is true. But that is part of the attraction of a tournament for anglers who are new or haven't fished the body of water before. It helps to level the playing field a little even though the seasoned anglers will still have better odds of winning. Often our tournaments using the points system also include an optional big fish pool with $5 per person who opt to enter and the entire amount goes to the biggest fish.

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.