Muskie Stocking

[Nick Kuhn]

7 hours ago, delcecchi said:

muskies attract muskie fishermen, looking for the hot bite.  Why would any lake local want that?  

 

Because muskie fishermen take up spots at the landing of people that would be out there running around wakeboarding or catching and keeping the species you are fishing for. Also the muskie fishing issue stems from there not being enough muskie lakes in Minnesota. Where I fish in Wisconsin it's rare to more than 3 other boats fishing muskies even if I'm out there all day. It's not like they are bad lakes either, it's just there are so many around that people spread out on where they fish them. I usually don't even care where the bite has been because it changes so fast: I go to the lake that best fits the weather.

[Deet]

18 hours ago, delcecchi said:

muskies attract muskie fishermen, looking for the hot bite.  Why would any lake local want that?  

 

Some locals might want the extra traffic, many, of course, would not. Personally I would be neutral about muskies being added on a local favorite of mine IF I didn't fish muskies, but since I do, I'd love a new local muskie lake. 

Obviously things like this are perceived many different ways; appreciated by some and detested by others. Luckily that's not all that matters. But it's really silly when people go berserk about it, make up a bunch of horror stories, etc.

[CaptainMusky]

21 hours ago, delcecchi said:

muskies attract muskie fishermen, looking for the hot bite.  Why would any lake local want that?  

 

Couldn't the same be said for walleye, bass, crappie, pike, panfish, catfish or any other fisherman? Of course they are looking for the best bite or the best chance at a big fish. Kind of a ridiculous comment.

[ozzie]

In my opinion (doesn't mean much but) I think this is a poor decision by our DNR to disrupt the ecology of another lake by adding a species that doesn't belong in the system!  Just like the stupid rule that muskies have to be released unless they are over what 52" or something absurd like that?  To those that say the system won't be changed with the introduction of musky is fooling themselves!  Maybe the musky doesn't prey on walleye exclusively but they do prey on the same forage as a walleye such as perch, whitefish, and tulibee.  If you get low on the numbers of bait fish for the walleye, they do what they have been doing on mille lacs, and prey on the young walleye.  Now when you have a rule that basically says you can't keep muskies now you have this eating machine that only will get bigger, and with that, a bigger appetite to destroy the system!  I just don't get it and I sure hope they f up the Gull Lake Chain just like they have with Mille Lacs!!!!  Trusting in a government division that is swayed by minority personal interest groups is a mistake!!! 

[AWH]

I'm curious why they "don't belong" in Gull Lake? They are already in there and are native to those waters. Do the dams "belong there" that humans put in place to create the Gull Reservoir and prevent fish from swimming freely from the Mississippi River?

The next lake that is stocked with muskies in MN that hurts other fish populations will be the first.

Per the Ahrenstorff study, an average 1000 acre lake will have 47,870 northern pike. It's safe to assume that this many fish will consume an incredible number of other fish. Northern pike are currently the single biggest issue we have in the state when it comes to having a negative impact on other species. And it comes down to a numbers game and how they can deplete the forage base that other species also rely on. But that's an entirely other matter, and the reason that the DNR is looking to change/improve on our northern pike regulations.

 

This same average 1000 acre lake with muskies will 270 adult muskies. We probably don't even need to do the math on this one when comparing 47,870 to 270 when it comes to just how much food they consume. But obviously, muskies are a larger predator. So it's not as simple as only comparing those two numbers. And what this study shows is that your typical muskie population will consume 96% LESS than your northern pike population in that same body of water. It's quite eye opening.

 

So just how is it that muskies are feared as a species that will decimate other fish populations? If they existed in the numbers that northern pike or walleyes did, it would absolutely be a concern. But this is simply not the facts. When we look at the facts, we can see that muskies will not cause any noticeable impact to other game fish populations. And it's quite possible that they could even provide some benefits. And they certainly provide benefits to those that enjoy using these public waters and surrounding businesses as well.

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by AWH

[CaptainMusky]

9 hours ago, AWH said:

I'm curious why they "don't belong" in Gull Lake? They are already in there and are native to those waters. Do the dams "belong there" that humans put in place to create the Gull Reservoir and prevent fish from swimming freely from the Mississippi River?

The next lake that is stocked with muskies in MN that hurts other fish populations will be the first.

So just how is it that muskies are feared as a species that will decimate other fish populations? If they existed in the numbers that northern pike or walleyes did, it would absolutely be a concern. But this is simply not the facts. When we look at the facts, we can see that muskies will not cause any noticeable impact to other game fish populations. And it's quite possible that they could even provide some benefits. And they certainly provide benefits to those that enjoy using these public waters and surrounding businesses as well.

 

Don't start using your brain and logic when commenting on stuff like this. Too many people are just too stubborn to actually research some of this stuff before they comment.

Muskies already reside in Gull, though in numbers that wouldn't make sense to target them. It will be a fun lake to fish for them for sure and a lake I already frequently fish for other species.

[ozzie]

I have done my research n have read plenty on the issue!  Ultimately no one knows how a system will react with intruducing musky into it! Musky fisherman only make up of about 16% of fisherman in the whole state yet they have or around 35% of the states surface water to fish them n all they want is musky in every lake!  The pretentious regulations that have been placed on this fish are rediculous n the need to f up lakes by putting them in is absurd!!!  I am not completely anti musky at all but with the regs n the pushing for stocking in all these lakes makes me 2nd guess the DNR again giving into special interest groups without really knowing the impact a species will cause! 

[CaptainMusky]

11 minutes ago, ozzie said:

I have done my research n have read plenty on the issue!  Ultimately no one knows how a system will react with intruducing musky into it! Musky fisherman only make up of about 16% of fisherman in the whole state yet they have or around 35% of the states surface water to fish them n all they want is musky in every lake!  The pretentious regulations that have been placed on this fish are rediculous n the need to f up lakes by putting them in is absurd!!!  I am not completely anti musky at all but with the regs n the pushing for stocking in all these lakes makes me 2nd guess the DNR again giving into special interest groups without really knowing the impact a species will cause! 

There are less than 100 lakes in MN that are managed for Muskies. Where are "all these lakes" you speak of? The DNR was hoping to add 8 lakes by 2020. They already did 3 and 2 more are planned this Fall so that makes 5 of the hoped 8.

How many lakes are stocked with walleyes in this state?

What part of "low density" do you not understand? Reread AWH's post a few more times. There is more fact in that single comment then all the other "research" I am sure you have done elsewhere.

[ozzie]

Don't question my intelligence just because I don't agree with your stance on the issue!  I have yet to read anything of knowledge that you have put on this subject, rather all you do is rip on anyone that doesn't have the same position as you on the subject!!!  If you don't have something to contribute to the discusion then don't say anything at all!

Edited July 27, 2016 by ozzie

[delcecchi]

20 hours ago, CaptainMusky said:

Couldn't the same be said for walleye, bass, crappie, pike, panfish, catfish or any other fisherman? Of course they are looking for the best bite or the best chance at a big fish. Kind of a ridiculous comment.

Sure, but most lakes have those species and are in the "average" category.   No one has yet explained to me why someone who is not interested in fishing for muskies (I personally like the idea that I could get one on while fishing for northern or bass here on Vermilion) should favor having muskies in the lakes they fish, or having the DNR spend money doing so. 

The muskie fans vilify their opponents too much in my opinion.   Not wanting muskies does not make one evil or ignorant. 

Denigrating the comments of those who don't think the same as you is not productive, but typical of musky boosters.  

[Deet]

ozzie, I don't think anyone questions your intelligence based on your stance but rather on the content of your posts. For example:

" Ultimately no one knows how a system will react with intruducing musky into it! "

but yet you say:

" The pretentious regulations that have been placed on this fish are rediculous n the need to f up lakes by putting them in is absurd!!! "

If "no one knows how a system will react" then why do you say "the need to f up lakes by putting them in is absurd" ? It's obvious you're very anti-musky, so to say you are not also hurts your credibility. You'd be better off just admitting you hate the idea of stocking muskies anywhere, any time, because then at least you're being honest.

Also, we do have a pretty good idea on how systems react by introducing muskies because, like you've said, which is true, the DNR has done it a bunch of times. So far so good, as far as muskies not screwing up the systems.

Now, I totally get where delcecchi comes from saying 'why should someone who is not interested in fishing for muskies be in favor of having muskies in lakes they fish'. That's a good question, and it's reasonable for them to not be interested in having muskies. I'll admit that I'm not interested in having catfish stocked in lakes I fish, because I don't care to fish for catfish. I wouldn't vehemently oppose stocking catfish; I'd be impartial. I guess to be honest, I would rather that money be spent on something else. 

CaptainMusky - I believe ozzie's 35% stat speaks of surface area of water in the state, not lake numbers. So he's right, there's a lot of water that contains muskies in this state.

[ozzie]

Deet- What i meant is they (DNR) don't really know how a new fish will ultimately effect a fishery until they place them in n see what happens.  It is a fish with such protection, that it has a chance to become such a big fish, that I believe they can decimate a forage base in a system and that does effect a lake.  I am not against muskies, just against the idea of messing with lake systems when we won't know the overall effect for years!  To say muskies are not screwing up systems- that is debatable.  Alot of of lakes have so many factors playing into them, that to say the new wave of having multiple 50"+ eating machines in a lake won't have any effect on other fish is laughable!  I am not against the fish...more so against protection of them to a point that they become 40+lbs and if a person were to dare want to mount or eat one they can't.

[ozzie]

Oh n yes my statement on "35% of the states surface water to fish them" meant just what it said...35% of our states surface water has fishable muskie in them.  There is plenty of fishable muskie water in our state compared to the percentage of people that actually fish them.

[CaptainMusky]

1 hour ago, ozzie said:

Deet- What i meant is they (DNR) don't really know how a new fish will ultimately effect a fishery until they place them in n see what happens.  It is a fish with such protection, that it has a chance to become such a big fish, that I believe they can decimate a forage base in a system and that does effect a lake.  I am not against muskies, just against the idea of messing with lake systems when we won't know the overall effect for years!  To say muskies are not screwing up systems- that is debatable.  Alot of of lakes have so many factors playing into them, that to say the new wave of having multiple 50"+ eating machines in a lake won't have any effect on other fish is laughable!  I am not against the fish...more so against protection of them to a point that they become 40+lbs and if a person were to dare want to mount or eat one they can't.

Ozzie, I apologize you took my comments as questioning your intelligence because that most certainly was not my intent. My point was you keep going back to how these fish ARE going to decimate the lake because in your words they are "eating machines". I refer you once again to AWH's post about Northern Pike numbers and by contrast what Muskies are managed to in the same fishery. The difference is Muskies are stocked in low density as in CONTROLLED by how many fish the management goal is.

Northern Pike are solely controlled by people who harvest them which in most cases isn't very many people because people in general hate cleaning them even though they are very tasty.

Pike are extremely virulent spawners while muskies are not. Most lakes that muskies are stocked into they do not naturally reproduce or at a very low success rate.

So when you go off on how much these muskies are going to eat, you really need to look at what is a much larger risk the northern pike.

There has yet to be one lake where muskies have been introduced that the other popular fish have had negative effects. You look up lake surveys for each lake and you will read things like "all time high", "greater average size", etc to describe panfish, walleyes, bass, etc populations.

The comment about "35%" of all water is really irrelevant because 90% of that 35% is not fishable water or where muskies would be able to be targeted.

Mille Lacs is an enormous lake and just a few years ago I was out there fishing muskies with a buddy and there were 15 boats basically following each other along the breakline and easily that same number of boats on the inside weed edge. Its not enjoyable to have this much activity on spots. Now that lakes like Cedar, etc have muskies in them, the pressure on Mille Lacs has greatly dropped off.

[delcecchi]

The pressure on Mille Lacs probably dropped off because the musky guys are jumping on the next lake where the fish are new and naive.   Way fewer guys on the west end of Vermilion this year, as opposed to a few years ago when it looked like you needed a reservation to fish our bay, with multiple boats 24/7, and fishing smallies on the reefs was taking your life in your hands. 

Looking at some other comments on various sites, sounds like folks are also frustrated at the disinterest/inability of the DNR to maintain quality fishing for walleye and other species on some popular lakes while spending money stocking muskies or proposing to, in those same lakes.    

Telling folks that the DNR knows what the effect of Muskies will be rings sort of hollow after the debacle of Mille Lacs showing that they really have no clue as to what is going on or why in a given lake.  (west end of Vermilion as well).   

[CaptainMusky]

7 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Sure, but most lakes have those species and are in the "average" category.   No one has yet explained to me why someone who is not interested in fishing for muskies (I personally like the idea that I could get one on while fishing for northern or bass here on Vermilion) should favor having muskies in the lakes they fish, or having the DNR spend money doing so. 

The muskie fans vilify their opponents too much in my opinion.   Not wanting muskies does not make one evil or ignorant. 

Denigrating the comments of those who don't think the same as you is not productive, but typical of musky boosters.  

I can understand someone not wanting muskies stocked but at least use the real reason and not use made up propaganda like "destroying a lake" as the basis for being against it.

The reason you may see snarky responses from so called musky guys is because they are always in the defense and trying to educate people who take every opportunity they can to spread fear and hate about a fish that really doesn't deserve it.

I can respect someone's opinion or questioning why someone who may be in the fence about should support it. That is a great question. I guess I look at it as I enjoy catching pretty much any fish. I enjoy fishing many different lakes too just to see new areas of the state or learn new lakes, etc. I'm not a property owner on a lake. I could see how someone such as yourself who has property would be lukewarm about something like this but reasonable people who are provided factual information can at least agree that If they are introduced they will not destroy the lake. Whether you become a muskies inc member and lobby for more lakes or invest thousands in tackle really isn't the point. But maybe showing some interest and respecting that others do enjoy targeting them is.

[CaptainMusky]

6 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

Telling folks that the DNR knows what the effect of Muskies will be rings sort of hollow after the debacle of Mille Lacs showing that they really have no clue as to what is going on or why in a given lake.  (west end of Vermilion as well).   

Very valid point. I do think though the dnr earns a lot of praise internationally for what it developed in the musky fishery here. It isn't real fair to Look at the dnr through the lens of the walleye issue in mille lacs and think they will screw up other lakes by adding muskies because there are more factors in play and they really do have a good track record of musky stocking.

Walleye management is a much different animal because of the harvest of the fish and the fact that more people target them. I see what you are getting at though.

[delcecchi]

Didn't the DNR tell us the problem with the walleye on Mille Lacs was Smallies and we needed to eat more smallie?  Then it was northerns and we needed to spear and catch all the northerns?  Then it turned out to be the dumb gluteus maximus slots put in place by the DNR creating an adverse size distribution....  Ooops, sorry about that.  Too bad about all the big pike harpooned.   Never mind.  Too bad about all the trophy smallies in the pan, never mind....  

 

The DNR has no credibility.  They are just trying to sell licenses and keep their budget (at the high levels.  no problem with the working dudes) 

[CaptainMusky]

Like I said del, there were many moving parts that created the walleye issue in mille lacs. First and foremost the terrible management of the slot which was brought in by the treaty agreement. 

I think it's a tremendous mistake to say the dnr has no credibility because of this one issue which is not at all related to all the positive things with the musky program.

That's similar to saying Ford builds terrible cars because of the pinto.

Of course they are trying to generate revenue it's what justifies their existence. If money wasn't brought in by licenses etc they most likely wouldn't be stocking anything anywhere or have near the level of enforcement they do. Maybe you would be ok with that? I wouldn't. We have in general some really great fishing opportunities in this state and to discount all of that because of mille lacs I believe to be a mistake.

Edited July 28, 2016 by CaptainMusky

[roony]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

Didn't the DNR tell us the problem with the walleye on Mille Lacs was Smallies and we needed to eat more smallie?  Then it was northerns and we needed to spear and catch all the northerns?  Then it turned out to be the dumb gluteus maximus slots put in place by the DNR creating an adverse size distribution....  Ooops, sorry about that.  Too bad about all the big pike harpooned.   Never mind.  Too bad about all the trophy smallies in the pan, never mind....  

 

The DNR has no credibility.  They are just trying to sell licenses and keep their budget (at the high levels.  no problem with the working dudes) 

Aren't you the one that is fond of quoting the dnr's blue ribbon panel that claims the netting and spearing of Walleyes and other fish during the spawn has no adverse affect on their numbers?

[Nick Kuhn]

This walleye vs muskies thing has been going on for a long time. Just going to put up this up here: this is the walleye population of every lake they've assessed in Bayfield county Wisconsin, organized by whether or not muskies are present in the lake.

 

 

[Deet]

10 hours ago, Nick Kuhn said:

This walleye vs muskies thing has been going on for a long time. Just going to put up this up here: this is the walleye population of every lake they've assessed in Bayfield county Wisconsin, organized by whether or not muskies are present in the lake.

 

 

While that is an impressive chart at first glance, it could very easily be an incomplete, and possibly misleading picture by selecting the (18) lakes that exemplify the desired relationship. Not saying that IS the case, but it COULD be. 

Probably, though, the (18) lakes were selected as a good representative of the whole, i.e. without bias toward any preferred conclusion.

[CaptainMusky]

34 minutes ago, Deet said:

While that is an impressive chart at first glance, it could very easily be an incomplete, and possibly misleading picture by selecting the (18) lakes that exemplify the desired relationship. Not saying that IS the case, but it COULD be. 

Probably, though, the (18) lakes were selected as a good representative of the whole, i.e. without bias toward any preferred conclusion.

Valid point, but he did say it was "every lake surveyed" so they didn't exclude lakes from the results, they would have chosen to NOT survey them in the first place.

Any insight into what % of total lakes in the area this represents? Seems like a good number of lakes.

[CaptainMusky]

55 minutes ago, CaptainMusky said:

Valid point, but he did say it was "every lake surveyed" so they didn't exclude lakes from the results, they would have chosen to NOT survey them in the first place.

Any insight into what % of total lakes in the area this represents? Seems like a good number of lakes.

I did a quick internet search and found a site that listed all the "lakes" by county in WI. It lists 898 "lakes" in the county of which 23 have muskies in them. Of note 627 of them list no fish in the description. The other thing was many of the lakes are tiny. 858 of them are under 100 acres. Still an interesting chart regardless...

[Nick Kuhn]

That's every lake in the county they have measured walleye populations in (in Wisconsin this generally means lakes that receive significant fishing pressure and have public access). I really can't report the walleye population of lakes they haven't performed that calculation for. Click the link below, I didn't intentionally omit any. Granted the file was dated 2009 so there are a few new data points since then.

 

https://cida.usgs.gov/wdnr/apex/f?p=158:1:0::NO:1:P1_COUNTY_NAME:BAYFIELD