Long Range Plan has been approved

[Muskiefool]

I got confirmation and wanted to thank all of you that made the calls, wrote the letters and sent e-mails to help the DNR conclude this plan and I hope fully funded and implemented.

Thank You for all of your help the fish will reward you and future generations.

You guys had to be sick of hearing me go on about it now I'll shut up for awhile HAHAHA

John Underhill

Here is the link to the new plan

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/muskiepike_2020.html

[MUSKY18]

That is just awesome!! I know alot of guys put in some serious time and effort to make sure that this happened. Thank you to all who fought for this!

Don't want to jump the gun, but now that the plan is approved, how long before they start thinking about and looking at what lakes are going to be stocked? Will public forums be held in order to decide what lakes should/will be stocked?

[Tim_Anderson]

Indeed it is good news that we will have some more musky lakes and musky stocking. This state has a good thing going, and with the increase in popularity of musky fishing, it really needs to look to the future to keep that good thing going.

Unfortunately, to everything there is a flip-side. Once again, Gull Lake was shot down. Fishing pressure in Crow Wing County is just insane, and yet with over 400 lakes, we cannot seem to get one started with muskies in it. It is not logical, and it is not fair. I'm afraid the DNR commissioner just does not have the courage to stand in the face of some of the anti's up here and show them that this will work. People who complain get what they want, and the commissioner, by his actions, has rewarded and re-inforced this. The overall musky fishing community is a different breed. We have really not stooped to that level (and consequently don't necessarily get what we want)...but perhaps it is time??? All I know is, I'm extremely frustrated with it.

But, I hate to rain on anyone's parade. I'm happy for those of you who will be getting a lake stocked with muskies in your neighborhood!

[ole matty]

God I hope they stock it in typo lake! Only closest lake to my home!

[PDOGG]

how long before they start thinking about and looking at what lakes are going to be stocked? Will public forums be held in order to decide what lakes should/will be stocked?

I would like to know this as well.

[MUSKYMAN1011]

Even the Legendary fishing Guide Marv Koep did not want to see Muskies Stocked in Gull Lake.

I have to take sides with him on this one. Although Gull had the right characteristics for musky stocking

I’m glad the DNR made the decision not to stock it with ski’s.

I’m quite confident the DNR will find other suitable Lakes to stock. I’m also confident the future will be bright for Minnesota musky fishing opportunities.

Brian K

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

[Tim_Anderson]

With all due respect for Marv, he is a walleye guy, and Gull is one of his main go-to lakes. He is not a musky guy.

Crow Wing County has over 400 lakes. Everything in this area is stocked and managed for Walleyes (probably well over 100 lakes?), with absolutely no effort toward musky fishing, which is the fastest growing sport in freshwater fishing.

The very best musky lakes in this state are also the best for walleye (Mille Lacs, Miltona, Bemidji, etc.) Gull would be the same. To not stock it does not make sense!

The pressure in our area is insane. Ramp and boat rage is getting to be the norm on lakes like Mille Lacs and Vermilion. We need a plan to spread out the fishermen and provide more opportunity as soon as possible. Musky fishermen ARE getting a bad rap because of this.

Gull is the best fit for our area. The Whitefish Chain would be next. Hopefully they propose it for the future, and don't give the anti's 4 years to gather strength and complain. If they do, I fear the same thing will happen. The DNR is ultimately in control. The commissioner needs to act like it.

This IS a step in the right direction for us. I'm glad the plan was approved...just really frustrated with the situation here around Brainerd.

Sorry John if this is hijacking your thread. I'm done!

[Muskiefool]

In the link posted above it addresses all of the meeting questions in detail, There is no list I know of that pertains to candidates; some MI chapters and the MMA have made recommendations but thats it, the DNR has said nothing about any other than Pokegama this fall, Tim you've definitely not hijacked the post, we need these discussions, I know Sportsman for Responsible Muskie Management, The Dark House Assn and Northers Inc are the ones we blame for getting this Gull deal killed despite 8-1 favor by the public, but other factors could be at hand as well.

I think there may have been other influence involved as well possibly of the highest order, some guys don't mind making money off Muskies but they just don't want them in "Their" lake for whatever reason, I was talking to a friend last night that sited an instance of a guy buck 20 years ago that sold allot of baits but said he would kill any Muskie he caught, they just don't want them and cant wrap their archaic minds around any new info or biology; their 1 call can mean as much as 1000 letters.

The MMA Stocking Committee Chair has requested information on how the decision was made from all avenues, Its not going to left to die without finding out all of the information, we need to learn from this.

Time will tell how much passion will be shown at the next meeting for a new lake, when these guys stand up with a book of misguided anecdotes and try to kill stocking without basis, will we to stay and fight or will we hope someone else will run into the fire? I hope we can all stand together as Muskie Anglers and conservationist and support the things we have learned over the past 25+ years.

If we do not come to these meetings and voice our needs, concerns and hopes for the future of Muskies in MN "ALL" future lakes will meet this end.

The DNR at the top is very political and they make decisions made along political lines this doesn't mean they are bad people or don't understand the needs, I mean the squeaky wheel get the grease, and most actions that are at all controversial have been running down the center of a fine line leaning towards safety.

This plan is a departure from that with the exception of Gull, I think the reason for the lack of action in the past is due to the fact the people that care about the future of the resouce no matter if its Eyes, Pike or Muskie they just dont show their presence at any level, while the opposition to positive changes to help the fishery through regulation or stocking is out with a box of Kleenex and a bottle of viniger and water to get the sand out.

Anglers have left there supporters at the DNR hang out to dry in the past on several different issues and they got burned hard, we are always fighting each other for the most trivial things, we need to work together to strengthen our stance and support the good decisions.

We need to support this plan by acting in numbers and showing the DNR and the legislature we mean business when it comes to conservation, funding and regulations to enhance and protect the resource and the future of Large Pike and Muskies in MN and beyond.

Don't be done Tim, things are just starting and Muskies and Pike need people that care.

[cjac]

Great insight and information John, thank you for this and all your efforts!

We've only just begun......

Chris

[SJonesi]

Underhill, you are a STUD!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone fishing muskies in this state should consider themselves lucky to have an advocate like you on our side. Too bad there has to be "sides" at all. Vinegar/sand..... hahahahahahaha.When are we fishin' again? Money Shot Guide Service!

[Scott M]

Pokegama (Itasca) will get the go ahead, maybe as soon as this fall.

[RK]

Hiya -

I think the long range plan is a huge step in ensuring the muskie fishing in Minnesota stays at a world class level. The process of putting it together was a pretty fascinating experience, and not without its heated moments, believe me. There were a few times in those meetings where I was sure I was having a stroke... Guys like John, Shawn Kellet, George Selcke and others on the working group deserve a lot of credit for what was accomplished. That credit extends as well to those who expressed their opposition to some of the things in the plan, but in the end worked very hard to come to consensus on what the plan should look like.

I'm disappointed in the decision not to stock Gull, but I can't say I'm surprised. It was always a little bit fo a head-scratcher to me why they chose Gull. Yes, from a biology standpoint it's a good candidate, but the reality is there's a social aspect to any fisheries management decision, whether it's stocking or slot limits or anything else, and from a social standpoint, Gull was going to be a tough sell.

The good news is the long range plan includes a very well defined process for selecting new waters in the future that will really help insulate the process from being completely dominated by social and political considerations as was the case with Gull.

As John very rightly points out that if this plan is to ultimately be successful, it will need continued support from us as anglers. Those who oppose muskie stocking aren't going to go away because this plan was approved. If anything, their attempts to derail muskie stocking in the future will be, by necessity now, even more political in nature. Muskie anglers have an unfortunate track record of only being motivated by a crisis, and when politics is involved, by the time the crisis is apparent it's often already too late. The lifting - by legislative fiat - of the spearing ban on French Lake is a prime example, as John knows all too well. It's up to us to stay involved. It's one of those weird ironies, but keeping the management of our fisheries from becoming a politicized process will require a lot of political involvement on an ongoing basis.

Now, for those of us on the Esocid working group, what will probably be our most challenging work is going to begin - working in pike management in Minnesota. Just a guess, but I'm thinking the muskie management issue will seem like a cake walk compared to pike management issues.

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[Tim_Anderson]

John and Rob,

Thanks for your explanations.

When I said "I'm done"....I meant that I was done creating an atmosphere for debate and argument on your thread. I don't like it when a positive thread like yours turns into an argument, and something other than what was intended initially.

When it comes to the musky stocking program, I tend to think I will just get more and more involved. So far, I have been one of the guys in the background who, every time there is a call to action for letters, emails, and phone calls, I jump and get busy.

I am kind of curious though...does anyone have any idea why our area in particular (as compared to the rest of the state) is so opposed to musky stocking? Why do the anti's have so much clout with the commissioner when they are outnumbered 8-1? That might be a better question. I fear that lakes like Pelican or the Whitefish Chain will come to the same end.

I was fishing with a friend the other day, and he mentioned that the DNR should propose two lakes in the area, so that they have a bargaining chip to compromise with. Then they can give in on one if necessary, on the condition that they can do the other. It makes sense to me. Wish we had had that option with the Gull thing, and had Pelican waiting in the wings.

[Muskiefool]

I keep telling the wife that Jonesi HAHAHA I'll fish with Money Shot Muskie Guide service any day of the week since my guts just stopped hurting from Junes trip LOL.

Honestly my part was 1/17th or less at best, I felt like stroking out a few times myself Rob but I would have never know you were even suffering from a twinge, you taught me much and I appreciate all you've done and continue to do for all fish, Minnesota is very lucky to have you and your dedication.

Now if you woulda been in the lounge that night of the round table a vessel may have popped LOL

Enjoy the fishing guys, gals and kids of all ages and help a Muskie when you can.

[50inchpig]

Curious - looking back, do you think we might have shot ourselves in the foot by going after Gull? Seems like that's the Holy Grail for the spearers. Would the dogs have barked as loud as they did if we went for Whitefish instead? We were so close down here to putting fish in a new lake before the Gull lake thing went down and the DNR put everything on hold - frustrating.

I'm not second guessing by any means, I'm fully on board. Figured since there were some informed voices in this thread I'd ask for opinions, not looking to hijack the thread either.

[B420]

50,

We are going to have one heck of an uphill battle to get any lake in the Brainerd area stocked. The head of anti muskie group SFRMM ,Kirk Schnitker has a place on the Whitefish chain and anti muskie joneser Marv Koep lives on Pelican, which would both be great options. Gull wasn't approved for stocking due to "opposition" and nothing factual. There will stiff opposition to stock any lake, you can bet on that! Sucks cause we needs some muskie lakes in the area to spread out the pressure a bit.

[MUSKY18]

I know it will be an uphill battle but isn't that kind of the beauty of the long range plan? It has been agreed that x number of lakes in the regions will be stocked. Lakes are going to be stocked and they will have to accept that.

[B420]

Bret,

You can bet on it being on long uphill battle for sure! "Lakes are going to be stocked and they will have to accept that". They aren't going accept any proposed stocking in this area without a serious battle and legal action in my opinion. They are very well connected at the state level and obiously have those folks ear at the moment.

I would be pleasantly suprised if the brainerd area got a new lake stocked by 2020, but I ain't holding my breath.

[AWH]

The Long Range Plan is going to be a great help as we move forward. But (correct me if I'm wrong), the plan calls for "up to" 8 new lakes. So a certain number of lakes to be added has not been agreed upon. And I think if we take the approach that we are going to get new lakes and people will just have to accept it, that this is not the message to send. I agree with B420 in that this is still going to be a very dfficult uphill battle. We need everyone that supports the efforts to speak up and support the DNR on this. It's my fear that too many people (as history shows) will sit back and just assume that other people will take care of things. Even though there was a ton of support for Gull Lake, not enough people speaking up in support was our down fall. If we want things to happen, we're all going to have to do our part to make it happen. We know the opposition isn't going to sit back and be quiet because of the now approved Long Range Management Plan. They will be just as vocal as they always are.

Aaron

[ozzie]

Why would we want lakes stocked with more invasive species? They don't belong in those waters why change the complextion of these waters by adding a non-native species just for your enjoyment of catching and releasing cause it seems no one keeps these.......There have been studies that I have read that says they hurt a system and studies that says they help a system but I think they are like most things that are placed in water systems they shouldn't be and they do more damage than good!!

[AWH]

Ozzie,

Please share these studies that show that they hurt a system. I'd be interested to see them, as I'm sure others would. We need to be careful when we call stocking muskies as being an invasive species. As soon as we do, we better look at the majority of our stocked walleye lakes in the same exact light.

Aaron

[Muskiefool]

Like Aaron I would like to see any study on the matter that shows any damage at the levels the MN DNR manages Muskies.

I know the old invasive species makes good scare tactics to anti Muskie purveyors, I find it of the highest humor, Do you like Pheasants?, how about the lakes and rivers stocked with Rainbows, Brookies, Browns? or the Thousands stocked with Walleyes, Salmon, Sauger, Largemouth Bass or Splake?, why don't we stop the Turkeys too?, should game farms be able to release chuckers and other non natives such as Afghan Black Pheasants? strictly for your pleasure or palette; while most of these species do little to enhance the systems they "invade", Right or Wrong?.

As a matter of fact I would pay $100.00 to see any study that shows Muskies cause any harm at the levels MN DNR stocks and manages at, yep 100 donuts, smackers or bones.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/special_reports.html

look at 166, but you've probably already seen that one.

[MUSKY18]

Aaron:

You are correct in that having the attitude of "the lakes are going to be stocked, so tough cookies" is probably the wrong approach to have. Just seems that some of these "anti" folks would be better off with a club along side the head, then people talking to them until they are blue in the face. Guess my grandfathers philosophy of "You can get farther with a large club than with a kind word" has stuck with me a bit!!

[ozzie]

I am not sure as to where I read them and I really don't care but think the studies were done in WI. Now I don't know what MN plans on stocking and what WI stocks in the lakes the studies were done. I agree that the DNR should not stock lakes with walleye that never had walleye in them to begin with. I am not trying to get you guys riled up I just don't like the ideas of us always changing the make-up in lakes. Lakes should be managed for the species that has and will always exsist in that particular system.