Spearers Perspective on new muskie waters

[Scott M]

Hey guys,

Hoping to get some insight from the experts here. I've got a couple questions that I'm hoping to get some answers from the best and brightest in this sport. Things are a little hot amongst fellow fisherman around the state with the 5 proposed muskellunge introduction waters. If I wanted to read the reasons why, I can slip into a couple other threads.

So, shooting from the hip, here goes:

1) Do you support any of the new muskie introductions? If so, which lakes and why? (Roosevelt Lake - Cass/Crow Wing; Upper and Lower South Long Lake - Crow Wing; Tetonka Lake - Le Sueur; Sauk River Chain - Stearns)

2) If not, which lakes would you recommend instead? (Criteria including >500 ac, modest water clarity, <3 northern pike per gill net, adequate forage)

3) Or, are you against all muskie introductions?

I offer these questions as a means to a better understanding through a broader collection of ideas, not to start an argument.

Full disclosure, I am a darkhouse spearer and a muskie angler (BassnSpear can vouch for this), and I'm having trouble seeing how the introduction of muskie changes anything for the darkhouse spearer (I can explain later). I pose the questions to this group because I see a lack of support for these new stockings amongst the Minnesota Darkhouse and Angling Association local chapters where these proposals are situated and amongst some of the HSO family spearers. I know MDAA doesn't represent everyone, just as no one spearer represents everyone. A penny for your thoughts on these questions...

[Laska]

I believe there's been a lot of heated arguments on here between spear guys n muskie guys, I personally stay out of it, but this I can put my 2 cents in.

I don't agree with muskie intro's to any lake at this time because I don't believe why some should get more lakes to fish for them when me myself cant have more lakes to spear because of being prohibited by the state, I just feel as a fisherman I should be able to fish where I want because I pay for it, I pay an extra $18 to spear, to take northerns a different way, why shouldn't others have to pay for muskie intro's? Y not a seperate license just to fish for them?-muskies... If this makes sense, don't get me wrong muskies are cool just kinda tinges me that we have to fight to open one lake up after 20+ years of being prohibited but 5 lakes r proposed to put muskies into them in one year?... Doesn't seem fair... I think northerns are more fun to catch but that's just me. I've caught monsters of both and truly believe northerns are underestimated for fishery and edibility reasons, wish more guys would try trophy pike fishing and or spearing to see how awsome it really is... But hey more power to who ever wants them in the lakes, I just said my piece and I love slimers hope I didn't offend anyone sorry if I may have

[Scott M]

Thanks Laska and Happy Birthday!

[shamalex72]

Full disclosure, I am a darkhouse spearer and a muskie angler (BassnSpear can vouch for this), and I'm having trouble seeing how the introduction of muskie changes anything for the darkhouse spearer (I can explain later). I pose the questions to this group because I see a lack of support for these new stockings amongst the Minnesota Darkhouse and Angling Association local chapters where these proposals are situated and amongst some of the HSO family spearers. I know MDAA doesn't represent everyone, just as no one spearer represents everyone. A penny for your thoughts on these questions...

This descibes me pretty well too, I spear and chase muskies. I would like to see more lakes with muskies in them, as long as there are no slots. You can probably guess which lakes I fish most, I gets pretty crowded out there sometimes. It would be nice to have a few more options to fish for muskies.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, or the best and brightest

[MJ1657]

I in theory do not have a problem with them stocking more muskies. The problem I have is when they do this for a select group of fisherman. Meaning if they want to stock them and I still have the right to spear that lake i'm fine with it. It is hard for me to say that because I see so many people trying so hard to stop spearing. I truly believe that our lakes should be open to all forms of legal fishing and not single out small groups and force their ideals on them.

[Meat-Run]

da chase,

good post just hope we all can keep it "clean". I'm a muskie fisherman and a spearer and I just hope that all spear fisherman understand that most muskie folks are not out to close any lakes to spearing if anything the Muskie Inc. groups, believe it or not are trying to lift bans on most lakes that have the old spearing bans that supports muskies and pike like Eagle Lake in Maple Grove. I do know for sure that any lake the DNR is stocking with muskies will not default that lake and put a spearing ban on it that's the old DNR management thinking and has changed over time. To change those existing lakes that do have the spearing ban will be a completeling different challenge and I will be in favor of it(lifting the ban).

To answer your questions, I would like to see No.and So. Long stocked as it would be closer to my home and more convenient for others in the lakes area to fish. We just need EVERYONE to understand and yes I'm pointing fingers to those that think that Muskies Inc. is trying to block lifting of the spearing ban on Cass Lake and yes (me) am only stating we should not allow the legislators be making these decisions for MDAA, Northerns INc, Muskies INc. and the DNR, keep the Paul Koerings out of our resource management and leave it up to the sportsmen and women and the DNR to make these educated decisions.

I hope I didn't come off as a jerk or to one sided but I am for growing bigger pike, muskies and stocking fish for everyone to enjoy, via fishing pole or through a spear hole.

thanks for reading my post.

Meat-Run

[Jameson]

A fear of mine is that the spearing ban lakes will increase with additional muskie introductions. Yes, we have all heard that they won't, but as long as one spearing ban lake exists, than it is a tool in the DNR's tool box that may get used more often. If a lake "needs" to have spear-fisherman banned, than ban all fisherman.

If spearing ban lakes are eliminated I would be for muskie introductions where the plan is to NOT continually stock muskies forever. If they need to be stocked for 10 years to produce a reproducing population, fine. I have overstated my stance before by writing that I wish every lake in the state was stocked with muskies, ONCE. If this were to lead to very few muskie (or walleye) lakes in the state, than that is what is meant to be.

Disclaimer: I am a former muskie addict, which is kinda like being an alcoholic. You never stop being one, just stop the activity. Also, my favorite lake to spear has muskies present (per DNR survey a reproducing population), and my highlights for the last two spearing seasons were seeing muskies in the spear hole.

[fisherking01]

Doesn't matter to me as a spearfisherman. Muskies are "stocked" in several lakes that are not stocked. I have seen muskies in three interconnected lakes that have never been stocked.( I can only assume someone dumped some in, and there are musky hstcheries close.) I have reports from others that have seen them too. If the dnr thinks it can get increased revenue and it promotes capitalism by selling products, I don't care unless they regulate against my spearing heritage. My life is too short to get on a bandwagon about a fish! Do I love the sport? Yes, but it's not worth making enemies over. Maybe we should move from making decoys to musky lures!!

[thatoneguy]

" the Muskie Inc. groups, believe it or not are trying to lift bans on most lakes that have the old spearing bans that supports muskies and pike "

I agree 100%. Why, just look at how hard Muskies Inc is working to get the spearing ban lifted on Cass Lake.

[hawkeye43]

I live on tetonka and I spear also. I took 2 fish this year, its more fun to just see what the underwater world has to offer, then to drop a spear on every fish you see. I don't think its fair that I have to pay to spear, you need a trout stamp to fish trout, then muskie people should pay also to fish muskies.

The stocking of muskies are in lakes with low northern numbers, is that because the DNR hasn't been stocking northerns in those lakes to make it look like low numbers for years?

Why do the lakes have low northern counts in the first place???

Does a lake only grow so many pounds of fish per arce of water???, If you put musties in a lake like tetonka, then the northern numbers will never come up again.

What stops muskies from moving to other lakes on the river chain??? They should go to where ever they need to find food right???

As you can see I not liking the idea of muskies in Tetonka. My gut feeling is something isn't right. Why the big push. Why so many lakes at once??

[bassNspear]

Your right Scott! Its not a problem or me at all, and the reason i say it is becuase i dont believe its going to effect the spearing lakes anyways. Look, its going to take a long period of time for the muskie to populate in this lakes, if they do at all, which im sure they will. For me, and most of the guys on here, can tell the difference between the two different fish. And if your going to stock a few more lake for the muskie guys, i have no problem with it. Banning the lakes isnt something that i would do, just becuase if your going to stock the lakes for muskie guys, then keep it equal for the spearing guys!

[propster]

Decent topic. Avid muskie angler and former spearer. I'll start by saying I really am not against spearing. I do have very serious doubts about MDAA and their puported leadership of darkhouse spearing, and of the black eye it appears that they give many spearers because of the appearance that they represent most of you decent guys who do spear. The fact that duck hunters, trout anglers, bear hunters and darkhouse spearers, among many, many others, pay a special license is perhaps a separate issue, but it's like saying once you buy a hunting license you should be able to hunt anything - small game, deer, bear. If you are really passionate about your sport you'll pay it. If it cost more or there was a separate fee for musky fishing, most would pay it. They do a lot of the stocking on their own. The fact is pushing for more muskie lakes goes hand-in-hand with no additional spearing bans. I can sort of understand your doubts, but that's the way it is. Cass is a whole different situation that has been discussed and rehashed thoroughly. I would implore more of you spearers (than many of you already are) to be in favor of pike slots or a one per year over xx" type of restriction, which should apply to anglers as well, so that you can keep having the chance for better spearing and better overall fisheries, instead of hammerhandle-filled lakes. And yes, that would benefit both the spearer as well as the muskie angler. Right now there are less of you that can ply your sport on more lakes, than there are muskie anglers that have far fewer waters. Coupled with the fact that it is proven time and time again that most all good muskie lakes are also some of the best walleye producing lakes, and also some of the better large pike producing lakes, I would think this would be a no brainer to support muskie stocking in additional lakes, or at least not fight so vehemently against. Because if you are satisfied with the current hammer handle opportunities, well, you've got that now.

[shamalex72]

I would implore more of you spearers (than many of you already are) to be in favor of pike slots or a one per year over xx" type of restriction, which should apply to anglers as well, so that you can keep having the chance for better spearing and better overall fisheries, instead of hammerhandle-filled lakes.

I wouldn't mind a one per year over XX" restriction, maybe 35 or 36".

[Scott M]

I live on tetonka and I spear also. I took 2 fish this year, its more fun to just see what the underwater world has to offer, then to drop a spear on every fish you see. I don't think its fair that I have to pay to spear, you need a trout stamp to fish trout, then muskie people should pay also to fish muskies.

The stocking of muskies are in lakes with low northern numbers, is that because the DNR hasn't been stocking northerns in those lakes to make it look like low numbers for years?

Why do the lakes have low northern counts in the first place???

Does a lake only grow so many pounds of fish per arce of water???, If you put musties in a lake like tetonka, then the northern numbers will never come up again.

What stops muskies from moving to other lakes on the river chain??? They should go to where ever they need to find food right???

As you can see I not liking the idea of muskies in Tetonka. My gut feeling is something isn't right. Why the big push. Why so many lakes at once??

[Huey]

I have to admit that I didn't read everything in the post above, but ...

I'm an avid muskie fisherman and a spearer. I'd like to see more MN lakes stocked with muskies. Muskie fishing is a rapidly growing sport and we need more muskie lakes to accomodate the growing number of muskie anglers.

It's too bad that this question has to come up on the spearing forum. In my personal experience, the handful of pike that I spear (11 in the past 3 ys, from 2 - 7 lbs) has nothing to do with my summer muskie fishing and vice versa. I think the state wide spearing ban should be lifted and then maybe the muskie vs spearing struggle could end.

[Meat-Run]

"It's too bad that this question has to come up on the spearing forum. In my personal experience, the handful of pike that I spear (11 in the past 3 ys, from 2 - 7 lbs) has nothing to do with my summer muskie fishing and vice versa. I think the state wide spearing ban should be lifted and then maybe the muskie vs spearing struggle could end."

Huey,

I couldn't agree anymore then what you stated there the time will come when some or hopefully most muskie folks help one another and get the spearing ban lifted on all the lakes. Also I agree and we (spear fishermen) shouldn't have to pay twice to take the same amount of pike I'm already licensed with my regular fishing license it's not right. Now that I have been following this post closely this is the perfect spot to post this subject as it gets right in the spearing guys lap to share there thoughts and experiences AND i have noticed it's been very good and educational GREAT POST!!!!

Meat-Run

[Gordie]

I am not a Muskie fisherman by any means. I have tried fishing for them and it is not my thing. But I am a fisherman and I also due love the sport of spearing its a tradidition that I will always try to pass on to another person.

I like the idea of the DNR stocking these 5 lakes with muskies for the future of that sport along with the revenue that it will generate for the communitys around those lakes along with the rest of the muskie community.

Where I have a problem with it is that these are also puplic waters and after these fish are introduced there could be bans put in place to protect these fish and now these said mentioned lakes will not be puplic anymore and I know it may seam trival to some but to me it means alot. To me puplic means everyone should be able to use this natural resource and not eliminate a select few.

[BehindtheHead]

i really dont care if they put muskys in tetonka. but i have lived in waterville my whole live. i just have a fue points to make.

1. have you ever been to a public access in waterville on a summer weekend. between locals and people camping you would be lucky to find a spot. now add afue musky guys that will get out there before any family that is staying at a local resort making their opertuniry much more difficult. or a musky t

2. the people for this musky stuff say it will add revinue to the local comunity. i really dont think it will. the average musky guy from rochester or the cities that wants to come to lake tetonka for a day is going to pack a cooler with refreshments and lunch, leave home in the morning, put the boat in, fish all day, and go home. its not going to help the bait shops or restrants one bit. an avid angler isnt going to go in for lunch. a musky guy isnt going to stop at the bait shop to pick up some lures before they go out, they know they can get them cheeper at cabelas or gander.

3. muskys WILL go down stream and if im not mistaken dont fish go up stream to spawn? my buddy saw one on sakata a fue years back, and i have heard of muskys being caught on cannon lake.

that being said instead of proposing to introduce them into 5 it would be more like 12. i dont know evough about the lakes other than tetonka to know if they have conecting bodies of water.

from a spearing stand point i think if they want to stock tetonka the spearing ban on 26 lakes in minnesota should be lifted. today was the first i read the muskys inc. is for that. but you cant belive everything you see on the internet.

all and all what ever i dont care anymore if they are going to be stocked just do it already, im sick of hearing about it. you cant even go to the hardware store anymore and not hear some old duffer talking about it.

[propster]

Would you spearers be open to limiting the upper size range of pike that could be speared (and also that could be kept by angling) if the spearing bans were lifted? And by limited I mean severely limited in order to pretect the larger size. Of course, it would also require severe penalty and enforcement of even "accidently" speared muskies, since that is already illegal. Does that seem even remotely reasonable?

[Jameson]

On all waters???????????? no. On new muskie waters???? On current "ban" waters??? please clarify.

I would be all for a 1 over 35" per year regulation for all fisherman.

[bassNspear]

I would be all for a 1 over 35" per year regulation for all fisherman.

what do you mean?

[BehindtheHead]

personally i wouldnt care. i have a 23 pounder on the wall and i will never spear anoter fish over 12 or so.

[hawkeye43]

I think it would be harder if a slot limit was on a lake. You see a fish come in, how can you be sure thats a 25" or a 30", fish look different when they are in 7' of water compared to 10'of water. So one doesn't spear it for fear that its in the slot. Its not like a spearer can catch & release you know.

[Jameson]

Originally Posted By: Jameson

I would be all for a 1 over 35" per year regulation for all fisherman.

what do you mean?

Each fisherman would only be allowed to harvest one 35" plus northern pike per year. Not per lake, or per pole, or per method. One a year. To implement it maybe we could have the same sort of 'cut-outs' that we currently have on our deer registration tags on our fishing license.

[Scott M]

I'm trying not to get into the pros and cons, concerns or benefits of stocking since there are other threads for that. But just in fairness of discussion, I'll speak to Behindthehead's points.

1) Behind, you and I both know a guy that lived by the in town public access for 5 years. I drove by it every week day for 2 years. The only time I've seen it full is when the bluegills are going, on fishing opener, and when there is a tournament. I go to the other public access quite often. Same story. There is a collection of data collected by watercraft inspectors at the Antl Bay access, including weekends, that shows things are pretty slow. So we may have to agree to disagree. However, if it is a legitimate concern, I'd go out on a limb and say that the state could expand the Antl Bay parking lot to accommodate more users. Where I have seen no vacancy is at the resorts, which we can agree with do see a lot of users. But they have their own slips and launches in some cases.

2) I can't address this point, I'm not an economist. But do you really believe that? No one will buy a gallon of gas, a sucker at the bait shop, a cold one downtown, a snack at the gas station? Not one lousy cent will be spent? I personally can't imagine that.

3) There is yet to be evidence of a self-sustaining population in southern Minnesota. If the fish were going to reproduce and produce a viable population, they would have done so already.

I'm not involved with the politics or cards games, whether its a trade of all spearing bans for new waters or Cass Lake, or whatever. I can understand the spearing ban gripe, I certainly couldn't pick on that concern. I wish I could ask spearers to divorce those two parts of the debate, to keep those issues separate, but maybe its not that simple.

The only point I'm trying to make, in regards to the points you just made, is even if what you pointed out was true, how would any of that change you going out to spear Tetonka? I understand that spearers don't want a ban enacted after the fish are introduced. That's totally reasonable, and something the muskie folks and DNR have come out against as well. The DNR has spelled out that they won't do that, if spearers can't trust them, it's going to be hard to constructively come to a resolution without trust and open communication during the discourse.

Behind, maybe we need a vacation in Michigan with a hovercraft or wilcraft, some wigglers, and a few days away from town! I promise not to talk about it if you won't!

Anyways, I'm glad there are some ideas bouncing around. I know other states have used tags as a part of fish. management, MN does with sturgeon. I'd listen to the idea anyways, with the exception of pike slot lakes, but I don't want to invoke another hot topic and take this thing further off course Remember, it's one of those things where the current regulations are trying to give everyone a little something (big pike anglers, spearers, pike meat eaters, musky anglers). I guess its true, try to make everyone happy and no one is happy.