new muskie lakes

[esoxhunter11]

What are some future lakes that the DNR will stock?

Also what would be some good lakes to stock that currently do not have muskies or any plans?

I think with the popularity of muskie fishing their should be a lot more lakes stocked.

[Yooperguy]

Good luck with that. Someone needs to get Dirk and Tom off their dead butts grow a pair and do what the long range plan say's. Might be better to put this on the spearing section and ask them what lakes would be ok.

[S.D. Ice Angular]

+1

Good luck with that. Someone needs to get Dirk and Tom off their dead butts grow a pair and do what the long range plan say's. Might be better to put this on the spearing section and ask them what lakes would be ok.

[RawHog]

[Note from Administrator: Please read forum policy before posting. Thank you.]

[Jameson]

What are some future lakes that the DNR will stock?

Also what would be some good lakes to stock that currently do not have muskies or any plans?

I think with the popularity of muskie fishing their should be a lot more lakes stocked.

first question, Can't answer, don't have a crystal ball.

Second question, IMO, go ahead and stock every lake in MN, just don't continually stock any lake. If natural reproduction doesn't happen, then let the lake be without that fish species.

[RK]

Hiya -

I honestly am not sure what lakes are under consideration other than a few that were left pending after the last round, mainly Tetonka in S Central MN.

One thing to keep in mind though is that for all the lakes we have in MN, the number of lakes that are truly ideal candidates for muskie stocking is shockingly small. Seems like at least some muskie fishermen figure if we have 10,000 lakes we should have 1,000 muskie lakes, but that's just not realistic, nor is it something muskie anglers should be striving for frankly. Whether it's forage, potential predation (high pike numbers), size, access (large lakes with small accesses that likely can't handle the additional traffic), or the infamous 'social considerations' some lakes just aren't good candidates. Social considerations doesn't always mean spearing interests, btw. Dead Lake by Ottertail was considered briefly, and biologically would probably make a good candidate, but it's a popular duck hunting lake and the use conflict in the fall would likely have been problematic, so it was - correctly, IMHO - removed from consideration.

I would agree that at times the DNR has been dragging its feet more than necessary. They have a management plan in place and they should follow it. But selecting a lake isn't a simple process, and lakes that look good at first glance might not be ideal at all. But when lakes meet the criteria, have public support, and fit into the overall management plan in terms of geography and biology...simply putting them in limbo without any real reason leads to a lot of hard feelings. Tetonka is the prime example...

Jameson - 100% sincere question about not stocking lakes that can't support reproduction: would you apply the same criteria to other species like walleyes?

[CaptainMusky]

I would like them to enhance some of the natural musky lakes with some stocking efforts. There are some lakes that have naturally occurring populations but very few numbers.

What about the Mississippi river? I suppose there are challenges there due to fish migration.

There are some lakes near my area I think would be good candidates but they would meet opposition. Little birch lake and koronis. Both have very high populations of suitable forage. Lots of depth and structure.

[Jameson]

...Jameson - 100% sincere question about not stocking lakes that can't support reproduction: would you apply the same criteria to other species like walleyes?

Absolutely 100%. My belief is we should stock to start a fish population, but if it can't continue on it's own, so be it. There has got to be wiser ways to spend that money.

[lpeitso]

There are actually quite a few lakes on the muskie list, that do not show any muskies on the lake survey. I think it would be nice to build up the population on some of these lakes. Now, granted most of those lakes are the shoepac strain of muskies. I know the DNR doesn't like to displace the natural strain that is in a lake. They have done it in the past, and it has produced well. They could start to put the Leech Lake strain into these waters.

As far as the Mississippi goes, they do stock near St. Paul, and there are muskies in the Brainerd area, and spots north and south.

[CaptainMusky]

If self sustaining is the goal there would be a small fraction of the current walleye lakes in this state.

Musky stocking is a completely different practice or goal though. It isn't managed for numbers rather quality. The dnr manages walleyes primarily for numbers and harvest.

[10,000 Casts]

Quote:

Absolutely 100%. My belief is we should stock to start a fish population, but if it can't continue on it's own, so be it. There has got to be wiser ways to spend that money.

Quote:

If self sustaining is the goal there would be a small fraction of the current walleye lakes in this state.

I was just going to say that. All the premium walleye and Northern lakes have to be stocked on a regular basis otherwise they would be depleted by fisherman who eat them and other natural preadators like cormorants and esox etc. Fisherman are too good, have too much technology and the fish need to be protected imo.

[thatoneguy]

Quote:

Absolutely 100%. My belief is we should stock to start a fish population, but if it can't continue on it's own, so be it. There has got to be wiser ways to spend that money.

That would eliminate virtually all of the walleye lakes in Minnesota (and the ones that were self-sustaining in the short term would be overrun by fisherman once the others' numbers were depleted), and a big chunk of the multibillion dollar tourism/fishing industry that focuses on walleyes.

There's just too much angler pressure for lakes to sustain without stocking, and not enough catch-and-release ethic amongst walleye anglers like what you have with bass and muskie anglers. That's not a knock an walleye chasers, just a statement of fact. I enjoy a walleye meal once in a while too

[50inchpig]

Absolutely 100%. My belief is we should stock to start a fish population, but if it can't continue on it's own, so be it. There has got to be wiser ways to spend that money.

If the walleyes weren't stocked, people wouldn't fish for them and that money wouldn't be there to spend. Duh.

Aside from being entertainingly asinine and exposing the pervasive, somewhat selfish mindset of a certain 1% of licensed anglers, the only positive thing about that comment is that we know the MDAA doesn't share this opinion, because if they did it would already be law. I wouldn't count on anything less once the spearing bans are removed either. Wish they would just go ahead and get it over with so we can start picking up the pieces and reassembling.

I'm shocked we were finally able to get the Horseshoe Chain stocked, and I'd be more shocked if any new lakes saw muskies in the next 10 years. It's interesting that the DNR site still refers to the Long Range Plan on their HSOforum. It took a long time to get there and one Game and Fish bill to undo most of it. They now hand out copies of the LRP as you're getting off the bus in La-La land. RK is always the gentleman in his posts on threads like this but probably gets tired of gritting his teeth so hard as he writes, because it's a nasty fight. Luckily, we do value our resource, we are mindful of preserving it, and at the present moment we have a pretty decent batch of fish to manage.

[RK]

I asked the question to Jameson mainly to generate this kind of discussion.

This might be a surprise, but I agree with him to a large degree.

I think there are definitely cases where sustaining a population with continued stocking does make sense. There can be a variety of justifications for it - to create angling opportunities in areas where they don't exist otherwise, to sustain a population where reproduction can't occur to the degree needed to support a self-sustaining fishery due to water quality, habitat degradation, etc., or to create fisheries that don't occur naturally at all (think: metro tigers, or stocked trout lakes). I think at least some muskie fisheries fall into this category...especially the metro lakes, which, in terms of utilization, are some of the most heavily-used muskie fisheries we have. In cases like that, I think you can make a compelling case for a stocking-sustained fishery that, even if it isn't a 'put and take' fishery like a trout lake might be, is still money well spent.

But I think those management decisions have to be deliberate and acknowledge as sustaining a fishery where the investment is justified by utilization, etc,.

In the recent past, some stocking-sustained fisheries were abandoned because the utilization didn't justify continuation (some Metro tiger lakes). On the other hand, there are many, many stocked walleye lakes that are stocked more or less because they always have been, even though they're primarily bass-panfish lakes that don't now and have never had viable walleye fisheries. There are also lakes where high populations of small pike make walleye stocking only marginally effective. But we keep stocking them anyhow, even though stocking amounts to a grocery truck for hammerhandle pike.

Although we might disagree on the scale of the particulars, I think Jameson is absolutely right on the consequence - money spent unwisely.

[CaptainMusky]

I am not sure its spent unwisely when specifically looking with walleyes. Billions of dollars are spent every year directly related to the fishing industry in mn. Largely for the walleye fishing. If you stop stocking these "marginal" lakes that will take a serious hit to the States annual revenue. Granted costs may decrease but I would be hard pressed to believe its a one to one ratio. One dollar spent on stocking probably translates to $5 in revenue vs $1.

[jentz]

My question is why stock a riverine fish in a landlocked situation? Course I dont think walleye should be stocked in mud holes either.So whats up?the squeekie wheel gets the grease??

[Jameson]

10,000 Casts, thatoneguy, 50inchpig

Thanks for commenting on my opinion, however your opinion is only as valuable as mine is. Not worth didly. Could you be respectable and answer the OP please?

What are some future lakes that the DNR will stock?

Also what would be some good lakes to stock that currently do not have muskies or any plans?

I think with the popularity of muskie fishing their should be a lot more lakes stocked.

[delcecchi]

They will stock suitable lakes that are ok with the locals and the harpooners.

[Jameson]

I asked the question to Jameson mainly to generate this kind of discussion....

RK, the definition of sincere is without pretense or deceit. If you wanted to ask that question for any other reason than that you wanted to know what my answer was, it was not sincere. G_Y