Gull Lake

[CrappieAttitude]

Good Stuff AWH.

Thanks for sharing the "Factual Research."

Bring on the Musky and get rid of the largemouth. Just kidding bass guys. I like the old bucketmouths as well. According to the research, they are more detrimental to the walleye population.

CA

[BrianLucky13]

But you gotta relize that those muskie lakes nearby are getting pounded by muskie guys. More lakes stocked = more fish caught = more people happy = not as much pressure on walleye and muskie lakes!!! Stock the H#!! out of Gull!!!

[BrianLucky13]

what happens when there are no more white suckers or perch left to eat?

No more suckers and perch???? Are you kidding me????

[Acemac]

I am really not arguing weather or not they are bad for the fishery I just dont understand why you want them in a already world class multi species lake. there are plenty of Northern holes out there that would be much better choices for muskies. just leave gull alone lots of money has gone into it to be stable the way it is. dont mess with a good thing IMO.

[BrianLucky13]

Ace.. If I told you to not stock walleyes in my favorite muskie lake because I didnt want you to mess with a good thing what would you say???

[CrappieAttitude]

this topic = dead horse beating....

Agree to disagree...

Nuf said!!

[Acemac]

Ace.. If I told you to not stock walleyes in my favorite muskie lake because I didnt want you to mess with a good thing what would you say???

I would say DOnt mess with a good thing I also think we should not spend lots of money stocking walleyes in lakes with large healthy pike populations.

I am not a big fan of spending my money to feed the predator fish in a lake. and yes I think the walleye limit should be 3 and the pike limit should be 6.

[10,000 Casts]

Walleyes eat Walleyes so lets stop stocking them to and let natural reproduction take place and see what happens.. I don't want my tax dollars to go towards someting that will more than likely not reproduce and eat it's own kind. That is just theorhetical as I want more funding for all natural resources..

Minnesota is full of absolutely wonderful lakes no matter what you like to fish, we are lucky in that aspect, adding muskies to a lake like Gull won't change a thing, except it will have enother fishable species.

[AWH]

Ace, do yourself a favor if you want to become educated on anything related to muskies and stay away from the 100% anti-muskie site that you linked to. No disrespect meant to you at all on that, so please don't take it that way. For those seeking information that come across that site, I can understand why it might seem relevant and believable. The lawyer (and anti-muskie lobbyist) that put that site together is great about twisting data, taking it out of context, and making it seem believable to those that don't know better. The HSOforum you linked is about as far away from fact based relevant information as you can get. The study you referenced has been refuted by the WI DNR and the very people that put that together in terms of it having any relevancy to MN muskie management. I will find that bit of information and post it if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Aaron

[Acemac]

Ace, do yourself a favor if you want to become educated on anything related to muskies and stay away from the 100% anti-muskie site that you linked to. No disrespect meant to you at all on that, so please don't take it that way. For those seeking information that come across that site, I can understand why it might seem relevant and believable. The lawyer (and anti-muskie lobbyist) that put that site together is great about twisting data, taking it out of context, and making it seem believable to those that don't know better. The HSOforum you linked is about as far away from fact based relevant information as you can get. The study you referenced has been refuted by the WI DNR and the very people that put that together in terms of it having any relevancy to MN muskie management. I will find that bit of information and post it if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Aaron

cause that is different then getting your information from a pro muskie standpoint?

I was asked to show the other side of the case and I did, so just because the academic study is posted on a anti muskie HSOforum that makes it irrelevant... your right that makes all the sense in the world.

lol not sure you guys get it im all for putting more muskies in lakes I just dont want to see them in gull. No matter what the data says you will never convince me that we should add a species to an already healthy lake.

maybe we should toss some grass carp in there while we are at it those are big and fun to catch too.

[BrianLucky13]

I could be wrong here but muskies are natural in Gull right??? They have always been in there from as long as my relatives have fished it.(80 years)

Ace says dont mess with a good thing so we might as well stock it!!!

[AWH]

Anti-muskie in this context means skewing and twisting data, misrepresenting the facts. If they would use factual based information with relevancy to the point they are trying to make, this would be a different story. It's not about showing positive or negative aspects. It's about using facts to show a true picture of reality.

Aaron

[AWH]

Ace, please help me understand something. Are you suggesting that the best waters to stock muskies in would be unhealthy lakes? Healthy, diverse fisheries such as Gull Lake are the absolute best prospects for stocking muskies and ensuring that the lake continues to prosper.

Aaron

[10,000 Casts]

I have heard a story of a guy catching one in Margeret back in the 1920's, that was also mounted. I sure would think they are natural.

[AWH]

Ace, I've bold faced many of the key points here. This was written in regards to the anti-muskie folks in your previously linked to HSOforum.

Aaron

-------------

Balance In Muskellunge Populations

Dave Neuswanger

Published January 26, 2007

I supervise fishery management in the six-county Upper Chippewa Basin for the Wisconsin DNR. One of the fine senior biologists on my team is Mr. Thomas (Skip) Sommerfeldt. Skip has the daunting challenge of managing the fisheries of hundreds of small lakes throughout the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, under contract with the U.S. Forest Service. Minnesota anglers and other lake users should know that Skip's management evaluations and ideas on the impact of muskellunge on other fish in small Wisconsin lakes have not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal or agency-endorsed report. But for almost 20 years he has sampled fish populations in small northern Wisconsin lakes; and he has observed that lakes with exceedingly high numbers of adult muskellunge often have problems with other species that may be related to the overabundance of muskies. Conversely, lakes with too few large predators have problems too. Generally speaking, we seek a state of balance.

Our colleagues with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are in the best position to judge exactly where that 'state of balance' exists in the waters they manage. Water chemistry is different in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Many Minnesota lakes are more productive than Wisconsin lakes in many respects, and therefore can accommodate a greater number and variety of fish. Minnesota DNR and Wisconsin DNR biologists focus on different things to measure, too. For example, Minnesota DNR does a good job obtaining information about prey (food fish) populations with their standardized gill net sampling program; whereas Wisconsin DNR knows very little about the type and abundance of prey species (yellow perch, ciscoes, white suckers, etc.) in its waters. On the other hand, Wisconsin DNR does a good job estimating the actual density (number per acre) of adult muskellunge in Wisconsin waters, something Minnesota DNR biologists have not done routinely. So Minnesota knows more about the prey, and Wisconsin knows more about the predators. What we both need is better information about entire aquatic ecosystems before any firm conclusions can be reached about the role and impact of muskellunge. Staffing is an obvious limitation to obtaining all the information we need.

Skip and I feel that some of the statements in his unpublished management reports and draft manuscripts have been taken out of context and used to promote the agenda of a few folks in Minnesota who have expressed the unfounded fear that any number of muskellunge in a lake are bad for the rest of the fish community. That is a misuse of Skip's data and a misrepresentation of his opinions. Skip may have evidence of adverse impacts of extremely high numbers of adult muskellunge (over 1 adult per acre) in several lakes where he has actually estimated the density of adult fish. But nobody can legitimately assume that stocked muskellunge would become a problem in any given lake in Minnesota, especially if there is no information on the number of adult fish there. It is quite possible that some of the more productive lakes in Minnesota could support more adult muskies than most lakes in Wisconsin, simply because those Minnesota lakes probably produce more prey. Other fish populations (northern pike, yellow perch, etc.) might even benefit from the introduction of muskellunge into certain Minnesota waters.

My recommendation to anyone concerned about stocking muskellunge in their favorite Minnesota lake is to contact the local Minnesota DNR biologist and ask for his or her professional opinion on the number of muskies that lake could support given the level of productivity and prey availability. Trust in their professional judgment. They know their home waters better than we do. Please do not use concerns expressed under different circumstances in Wisconsin to force your biologists to abide by strategies that may not work in Minnesota. You have good biologists there. They deserve your respect and support.

I have no interest in becoming involved in this controversy. But I feel this letter is a necessary attempt to prevent a small group of Minnesota residents from misusing Wisconsin DNR data by pulling it out of context and using it to support an agenda that few, if any, professional fishery biologists in North America would support.

David J. Neuswanger

Fisheries Team Leader Upper Chippewa Basin

Wisconsin DNR, Hayward

715-634-9658x3521

[CrappieAttitude]

A+ !!!

[Nick Kuhn]

If anyone hasn't noticed I like working with numbers.

I whipped up a little graph. I selected Bayfield County, WI, for it's relative percentage of muskie vs non-muskie waters so that it had enough lakes to make some sort of comparison. I used the most recent walleye population as listed by the DNR here (note I used all the lakes, I did not hand pick): http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=158:1:0::NO:1:P1_COUNTY_NAME:BAYFIELD

[Mr.690]

Muskies are an illusive fish and something it might take years for people to catch which makes it far a more exciting and rewarding experience IMO. Sounds to me like Ace likes the ultimate reward of having to work hard for something and finally getting what he has worked for (and he is willing to go to a perfectly good lake that does not require stocking and already contains muskie). People want everything to be easy and an instant reward. Muskies should not be stocked in Gull, its stable and is a huge tourist draw for the surrounding area as it is, further more stocking should not take place anywhere other then to replenshish what was once naturally there or at least has been there for the past generation. History is full of instances where man has tried to alter the eco-system and messed it up beyond repair. My guess is Muskies already exsist beccause some dumb hillbilly decided he knew best and began releasing fish, in which case you all have your wish and so cork it.

Further more I do not see any upside to stocking muskies, other then some lazy Gull Lake home owner can now fish from his dock, or the poeple who are not willing to drive the 10 or 20 min and spend the 12 dollars in gas to fish a lake that already has muskies in it. There is only two real outcomes, stocking muskies has no effect, or it screws everything up and Gull becomes [PoorWordUsage] (or somewhere in between in which case it is still negative). No matter how many studies you site or have been done everyone has their own agenda and there is no way of knowing how the indrocution of large numbers of a new speicies will effect the fishery until its to late.

There is also an additional cost to this, who is going to have to pay for the additional stocking operation, the management and the studies that will come after this takes place. The government surely does not have the extra cash to spair, and I am not willing to pay extra for this. Are you? Why not spend the money to figure out why this lake and the thousands like it need stocking, what are the causes and how can it solved so that lakes can become self sufficient as they once were.

To wrap this all up I find the lazyness of people is shocking, I personally like the idea of working hard and spending large amounts of time to chase that illusive fish. A fish that not everyone has caught or can go out for 20 min and catch. Who cares if it takes 10,000 casts, that makes the reward that much sweeter. Its called fishing not catching like most of you on here want it to be.

I await the huge backlash and that this post is likely to generate.

[10,000 Casts]

Quote:

The government surely does not have the extra cash to spair, and I am not willing to pay extra for this. Are you?

I sure am! Just tell me who to write the check to.

Quote:

To wrap this all up I find the lazyness of people is shocking, I personally like the idea of working hard and spending large amounts of time to chase that illusive fish. A fish that not everyone has caught or can go out for 20 min and catch. Who cares if it takes 10,000 casts, that makes the reward that much sweeter. Its called fishing not catching like most of you on here want it to be.

are you kidding? lazyness??? Learn how and where to fish and it won't be so tough for you... Stocking Gull has nothing to do with being Lazy..

[Nick Kuhn]

I'll go first then.

The ratio of stocked walleye to walleye fisherman is about 100 times that of stocked muskie to muskie fisherman. Look at my post on the first page. There are more people trying to catch muskies than their are actual muskies to catch. The intention is not to make it easy. The catch rate will never be much better than 1 fish per 25 hours of fishing effort and this is the goal catch rate, it is currently not met in 95% of muskie waters), even if every lake in Minnesota were stocked with them. The reason to add more lakes is to give the fisherman some options, not make it easy. Muskie fishing is currently so crowded that it's downright unenjoyable during peak times.

[AWH]

there is no way of knowing how the indrocution of large numbers of a new speicies will effect the fishery until its to late.

[Acemac]

sounds like they just need to make a lottery for muskie fisherman so there is not as many of you chasing the fish. then they could just give out 1000 muskie licenses a year then you would not need muskies in every lake in Minnesota.

you guys are like girl friends.... if you give a mouse a cookie he will want a glass of milk.

[Acemac]

FYI dont buy the walleye bait sounds like they dont work.....

[AWH]

They must eat a lot of acid rain too. That one's been my best seller out of those! I don't see many "walleye" baits that actually look like a walleye. Most of them look more like a carp.

Aaron