Great Musky Articale

[mrmanners]

Looks like every one knows that MN is now the king of Musky fishing.

http://www.twincities.com/searchresults/ci_6030522

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Looks like every one knows that MN is now the king of Musky fishing.

http://www.twincities.com/searchresults/ci_6030522

---

Nice read.

The one thing that kind of worries me is the influx of out of state guides to MN. There are MANY, that leave more southern locales, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, to name a few, to come here and pound the lakes in MN.

I know that Musky anglers in general are a very ethical bunch, but these folks are coming here to make a buck. Do they really care about what happens to the fish?

There was a segment on the Channel 11 news last week where they talked about Mille Lacs and the muskies. They had a fisheries guy on there and he said 1 of 6 fish they trapped was over 50 inches. That is extradordinary!

He also commented that this is about as good as it is going to get, meaning it will be on a downward trend for Mille Lacs. I am not sure how he came to that conclusion if there is not enough baitfish to sustain this and the fish will begin dying off or what, but it was interesting.

I have never landing anything decent out of Mille Lacs, but my first musky ever came out of those hallowed waters.

[RK]

Hiya -

About the Mille Lacs population...

This winter I wrote a piece on Mille Lacs for the In-Fisherman and talked to Tom Jones, the DNR's Large Lake Specialist for Mille Lacs. Here's a short version of the story on the population there:

Right now there are more adult femail muskies OVER 49" than under in Mille Lacs. The initial stocking year classes are 15-16 years old, and about that size. When Mille Lacs was first stocked, they stocked it anually for 5 years with an average of 5,000 fish/year. One year it was 10,000. After that stocking went to an every other year rotation, with 3,000 or so fish/year.

So the huge numbers of big fish we've seen the last few years are a real population bubble moving through the system as a result of those early, intensive stockings. In addition to going to an every other year with fewer fish stocking rotation, there was a gap introduced into the year classes - they skipped a year of stocking so no fish were stocked for 3 years - so that the DNR can assess the level of natural reproduction in the lake. Knowing how much, if any, natural reproduction is going on will help the DNR set stocking levels going forward.

You keep hearing that Mille Lacs is 'peaking' right now, and maybe in terms of size it is, but in terms of actual population, it already HAS peaked - several years ago in fact. In terms of total muskies in the lake, Mille Lacs probably peaked in 1998 or so.

So, long story short, the muskie fishery in Mille Lacs as it is now isn't sustainable. In terms of total number of fish it's already over the hump. Don't get me wrong - it's still going to be a good muskie lake, and the DNR will definitley manage it as a trophy fishery, but it won't be like it is now. As the 1st generation from those initial stockings die off, fishing success will see an inevitable decline. This isn't doom and gloom mind you - it's just doing the math. It'll still be a good muskie lake, but what you're seeing now is a once in a lifetime deal...

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Hiya -

About the Mille Lacs population...

This winter I wrote a piece on Mille Lacs for the In-Fisherman and talked to Tom Jones, the DNR's Large Lake Specialist for Mille Lacs. Here's a short version of the story on the population there:

Right now there are more adult femail muskies OVER 49" than under in Mille Lacs. The initial stocking year classes are 15-16 years old, and about that size. When Mille Lacs was first stocked, they stocked it anually for 5 years with an average of 5,000 fish/year. One year it was 10,000. After that stocking went to an every other year rotation, with 3,000 or so fish/year.

So the huge numbers of big fish we've seen the last few years are a real population bubble moving through the system as a result of those early, intensive stockings. In addition to going to an every other year with fewer fish stocking rotation, there was a gap introduced into the year classes - they skipped a year of stocking so no fish were stocked for 3 years - so that the DNR can assess the level of natural reproduction in the lake. Knowing how much, if any, natural reproduction is going on will help the DNR set stocking levels going forward.

You keep hearing that Mille Lacs is 'peaking' right now, and maybe in terms of size it is, but in terms of actual population, it already HAS peaked - several years ago in fact. In terms of total muskies in the lake, Mille Lacs probably peaked in 1998 or so.

So, long story short, the muskie fishery in Mille Lacs as it is now isn't sustainable. In terms of total number of fish it's already over the hump. Don't get me wrong - it's still going to be a good muskie lake, and the DNR will definitley manage it as a trophy fishery, but it won't be like it is now. As the 1st generation from those initial stockings die off, fishing success will see an inevitable decline. This isn't doom and gloom mind you - it's just doing the math. It'll still be a good muskie lake, but what you're seeing now is a once in a lifetime deal...

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

---

Thanks Rob! That is the person I saw on the episode of Kare11 News the one night with Ron Schara. That definitely puts some perspective or details to his comment. They didn't have a bit segment, so they didn't get into much specifics.

My question is this. If the population has peaked, which I believe you when you say it has, and the population of adult females is declining or near, why don't they boost the stocking efforts again in the hopes to maintain this level?

I am sure cost is a factor, but I, along with MANY other avid musky anglers would be more than happy to foot the bill via a stamp or some other mechanism if the dollars were going to a good cause.

I thought it was also interesting that Tom said the largest fish are from the Wisconsin strain right now because they are the oldest fish in Mille Lacs. I wasn't aware they stocked anything other than Leech strain, but now that I think of it, looking at the fish it is obvious since many of the big fish are not spotted.

I know it is a dream world, but it would be nice to see Mille Lacs maintain its current level for years to come. It would be fun for my kids to experience it.

[delmuts]

hey rob! weren't you working on a book ?? del

[RK]

Hiya -

There are probably quite a few reasons why the population level we see now isn't sustainable, not the least of which is the cost. As it is, the DNR can barely make their production goals. Part of that is $$, but some of it is just plain infrastructure and hatchery capacity, not only for the muskies, but the suckers it takes to feed them, etc. This is a whole 'nother can of worms, but things like VHS and some of the tighter wetland rules regarding aquaculture have an effect too. They're necessary restrictions, but the effect is it's much tougher to find ponds to raise fish. They can't just dump 'em wherever.

Beyond the economic and logistic reasons though, it's probably a valid statement to say that the lake can't sustain that population level over the long term. that level of population would be beyond what's naturally sustainable from a forage standpoint. The goal for the DNR, as with any introduction, is to develop a self-sustaining fishery if possible. Right now they're trying to model what kind of population numbers to shoot for.

Del - Yeah, have been working on a book. It's actually done, and at the publisher. Looks like it'll be coming out sometime in late summer or fall? Not sure exactly. Once it's at the publisher it's sort of out of my hands...

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[fishermusk]

I heard someone say that you cannot tell the differance between leech lake fish and wisconsin fish simply by appearance, I connot remember who it was but he was a DNR biologist. So I don't believe that all the biggest fish are wisconsin fish, if they are they are over 20 years old I believe. If I am not mistaken the DNR finaly figured out where leech lake fish spawn and started trapping them for egg stripping in 1987.

Good Luck,

Dave

[bassNspear]

Pretty Sweet!!!!!!

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

I heard someone say that you cannot tell the differance between leech lake fish and wisconsin fish simply by appearance, I connot remember who it was but he was a DNR biologist. So I don't believe that all the biggest fish are wisconsin fish, if they are they are over 20 years old I believe. If I am not mistaken the DNR finaly figured out where leech lake fish spawn and started trapping them for egg stripping in 1987.

Good Luck,

Dave

---

Leech Strain fish are spotted and Wisconsin strain are more barred. At least that is how I have always known them to be. The comment about the Wisconsin strain fish being larger came right from Tom Jones, the person RK references in his post, who is conducting the surveys. It shouldn't be a surprise that they are the largest since those fish are the oldest and were stocked first.

[fishermusk]

Muskies can be spotted barred or clear phase all in the same body of water and also the same strain.

Good Luck,

Dave

[delmuts]

RK when it comes out, i want a signed copy!!!! del

[RK]

Hehe - you got it Del... Maybe we'll have a book party at Thorne Bros or something..heh.

Actually writing the book was a pretty neat project, although it was a lot of work just because of how long we had to work on it (we wrote it in 3 months basically.) Forced me to articulate a lot of things I've thought about and done over the years but never really put into words. The other interesting part was co-authoring it with Jack Burns. Jack and I agree on a lot of things, but there are some areas where we disagree wildly, and we had to, ah, settle our differences in order to decide what to put in the book. We never resorted to violence but it was close a few times when one of us dug their heels in on some crackpot theory...

End result though is I think it'll be a pretty good book.

About the WI vs LL strain fish in Mille Lacs. According to the DNR, a lot of the bigger fish they've surveyed are WI strain, which were stocked in there the first 3 years. Not that there aren't some big LL strain fish in there too - they're there obviously - but big WI ones as well. Not ALWAYS easy to tell the difference, but having fished another lake with both for many years, you can usually tell.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Not ALWAYS easy to tell the difference, but having fished another lake with both for many years, you can usually tell.

---

That's what I thought too. I have looked at all the pictures of the fish I have caught over the years and about 95% of them have distinct spots, especially near the tail. But, like you say, some are harder to tell than others. Is this what you are referring to when you say "tell the difference" spots, versus bars?

I even spent some time surfing the web and Leech Lake fish (from Leech) have distinct spots and lakes that have been stocked with these fish seem to have them as well, like Plantagenette. I have never seen a barred fish come out of Plantagenette. I think some lakes, the ones that have been stocked sooner, had other strains put in them and that is why you may see some differences.

[Muskycrazy]

Rob ,

Size aside for a moment I have often wondered if a Muskies appearance ( spots , stripes , clear , etc. ) is 100% genetic or are there any enviromental influences ? Some animals , as we know , will alter their appearance to blend in better with their surroundings . Any such thing happening with Muskies ?

[MSRiverdog]

Great thread, it reminds me of a day many years ago when I was in a bait and tackle store in Chippewa Falls. I had just bought the Wisconsin Muskie lake book, I asked if they had one for Minnesota, the two guys in the store looked at each other, laughed and said, "do they have Muskies in Minnesota?"

Guess it ain't funny anymore.