# inland muskie lakes



## BradU20

Ieatantlers said:


> Ummm, no. Sleepy got planted with a ton of tigers years ago, and they have all basically disappeared. I live near that lake and know of tons of anglers out there, and about 0 are pulled out each year now. To top that off its nearly impossible to troll 2/3 of that lake because of the weeds- trolling being about the only way to cover enough water to catch the scarce musky that MAY be left. Don't know where that info came from, but its false.


Easy there....take a breather buddy.

There are still muskies in Sleepy. A friend catches them here and there throwing buzzbaits for bass. Nothing huge, 24" - 36" is all I have seen.


----------



## Duke

Ok, First off- Lake Ovid/ Sleepy Hollow. The DNR has planted 4450 pure strain muskies in the lake since 1999, and without exaggeration it is probably the BEST lake in the entire state if you want to catch a musky. Yes, including St. Clair. And the largest fish in the lake are now over 48". There are actually about 90 muskies in the lake right now that even have tags in their back, because they were caught and released by members of the Michigan Muskie Alliance last summer for the DNR. Ovid is a VERY good muskie lake!! AND- the DNR has also planted aquatic beetles, called weevils, that eat only milfoil and they have almost completely eliminated the problem weed you speak of! This is an incredible success story. The lake still gets covered with curly leaf pondweed, but that is a cool water only weed that virtually disappears and dies out by July. The lake is MUCH different than you remember it!

Murray Lake- muskies have never been documented by the DNR to have naturally reproduced. Actually, not in ANY Lower Michigan lake has natural reproduction been shown to occur. Not to say that it isn't/hasn't, but it has never been proven and the DNR is actively looking for this evidence. Muskies are a very particular, very non-prolific spawning species that is not very good at making more muskies- which is just the way nature intended, of course. So even if they were reproducing, it is definitely not in any great numbers anywhere near the levels that are stocked and controlled.

All predators are programmed to prey upon the most abundant forage that fits their eating habits. Muskies eating habits are large, infrequent meals avergaing about 25% of their body length. To eat prey this big, they have be slender, cylindrical shape without sharp spines so they can be easily swallowed. So first off, bass being a fellow high level predator, are always less numerous than the available prey. Nature has designed forage species to be higher in numbers, because that is their survival defense- not heightened senses, but just shear numbers. Predators must have the 'heightened senses' I'll call em, so that they have an advantage over their prey and can make a living off them. Muskies have NO advantage over bass, except for size. They are not an easy target. I am not saying they don't ever eat a bass, they certainly will strike whatever makes and easy mark when they are hungry. But DNR studies have shown that bass very rarely are eaten by muskies. The over-riding factor that all predators take advantage of is picking off easy meals- prey that are sick, distressed, distracted, wounded, we all know this. That is exactly why muskies eat bass and any other fish that is hooked and fought back to the boat- it is a meal opportunity that muskies can easily capitalize on! And that is why many muskie lures try to imitate that same action- the best muskie lure in the world is a hooked fish swimming unnaturally, no contest.

So what are the forage species? Where present, which is just about everywhere that muskies live, suckers are by far and away #1. Perch can also fit the bill, a little further south its shad. Carp have also been shown to be a preferred prey, but they grow fat (like a bass) and are difficult to swallow once they grow too big. But to finally answer your question AMAS (sorry for the length) in Murray Lake the muskies are programmed to eat CISCOES!! Murray is a rare lake in this part of the state in that it has a very high population of ciscoes (herring) that happen to fit a muskies preferences exactly. They are an open water suspended forage that muskies are very well adapted to keying on.

My last thing, I promise, thanks for hanging in there anyone who still is! The bass in Murray- they have not all been eaten by muskies, but they have been DISPLACED by them. Muskies like to hang out in the same habitat that bass do, so when the big guy moves in, the bass move out (because they are smarter than a forage species!). So you have to fish differently in a lake with a strong musky population. Generally that is going to be deeper, and in Murray the bass will also be out eating the ciscoes, they too can eat in open water. In Murray your deep weed edge is around 20 feet- are you guys fishing that, or are you pounding docks? 

I am definitely interested to hear your experiences relating to the apparent decline in the bass though. Michigan Muskie Alliance has been trying to convince the DNR to stock less numbers of muskies spread over more lakes, as opposed to the old way of creating artificially high numbers in only a few lakes. I will freely admit, even though I am a total musky nut, that Murray (and Ovid) for example, have more muskies than should ever be planted in a lake. The DNR did that because both lakes have very high forage bases and the muskies SHOULD not put excess pressure or competition on the other gamefish in the lakes, but I still don't like the idea and I am curious to know if you think it has done that. THANK YOU!!!


----------



## waterfoul

I was on Murray 3 times last year and struggled to catch a legal bass. And yes... I fished the deep weed edges HARD... it's what I do best I think. The bass being displaced makes sense because 20 years ago I caught plenty of decent sized bass in Murray. I'm a much better fisherman now and I've really struggled there in recent years.


----------



## Ieatantlers

Found an old post from 1995 with two guys holding up pure muskies, 39" and 43" long. Guess the guys I know that fish ovid all the time just don't know how to catch musky. Like I said, I haven't fished the lake in a couple years, guess I shouldn't take info from others. My bad.

Sadly the guys were KEEPING the 43 incher. What a waste.

http://www.michiganwalleye.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104212


----------



## fishinthed

Great post, Duke.

There are _a lot of_ factors that could affect populations of various fish species in any given lake, so I'd be careful before jumping to conclusions.

Bear in mind there are hundreds and hundreds of good bass lakes and streams, and very few good musky lakes or streams. Not all that many waters that have good prospects for real "gator" pike in southern lower Michigan, either, being a bit warm for ideal pike habitat.

Lake St. Clair fits the bill for all 3. It appears the musky, pike, and bass populations (not to mention the monster sized rock bass) have _all_ benefited in size and numbers from the changes brought about by the zebra mussels (clarity, weed growth), and gobies (food source).

I've read that Hudson, Sanford, and Thornapple lakes and the Lower Huron River all have musky populations sustained by natural reproduction. The catch levels are just _way_ out of line with the stocking data. Like the pike in Kent Lake, they _must_ have found a way...


----------



## Duke

I have not read that info about Hudson, Thornapple and Sanford having natural reproduction. I'd be extremely interested to see that though, but I have to also say that the information is completely false for Hudson and for Thornapple. Those 2 lakes are the broodstock musky lakes for the entire state musky program currently. The DNR is in each lake every spring netting hundreds of muskies for eggs and sperm. Every musky they catch is implanted with a PIT tag and is aged. They have never found a fish that didn't correllate to the stocking year classes in either of those lakes. And knowing what types of habitat muskies need to successfully spawn, Hudson does not have a prayer, Thornapple barely does only because of the river but even then it is too subject to runoff flows. Sanford has a legitmate shot, my gut feeling is they do/have reproduced at a very low level. But DNR surveys there also have never aged a musky that did not match with a stocking year class.

Great discussion guys, helping to pass the winter time!!


----------



## Will Schultz

I think it&#8217;s funny that we (humans) tend to blame some creature instead of looking in the mirror. This banter about the muskies affecting the bass in Murray reminds me of an interaction from many years ago&#8230;

*Older gentleman:* You muskie fishing?
*Me:* Yep, how did you do out there today?
*Older gentleman:* Caught 6 crappies big enough to eat.
*Me:* Sounds like a good day, those should make a nice dinner.
*Older gentleman:* No the fishing isn&#8217;t good at all, not like it was five years ago before those muskies got planted.
*Me:* Really, was the fishing better back then?
*Older gentleman:* When I first found the crappies in here we used to take a bucket full home a couple times a week. It was that way for a couple years until the muskies wiped out the crappies.
*Me:* How long ago was the great crappie fishing?
*Older gentleman:* About the same time they stocked the muskies, I wish I would have found it before though.
*Me:* Do you think that maybe it was angler harvest and not the muskies that changed the crappie fishing.
*Older gentleman:* No way, those muskies eat everything.
*Me:* Actually, the crappie isn&#8217;t a preferred forage of the muskie they would prefer to eat other fish in this lake like suckers and carp.
*Older gentleman:* Of course you&#8217;re going to say that! You are a muskie fisherman&#8230; (as he gets into his truck and drives off)

Back to topic&#8230;
If the muskies have been present in Murray for 30 years and the &#8220;perceived&#8221; decline in the bass fishing has come in the last few years lets explore that a little more&#8230;

About 12 years ago another lake in the GR area was great bass fishing. Pretty soon there were two weeknight tournaments and a weekend tournament almost every week. Soon the bass fishing declined and it took until the last couple years for it to recover. Murray, in the last eight years, has had an increase in the number of bass tournaments (my observation). I see lots of floating bass during the summer on Murray and I still haven&#8217;t seen one with teeth marks&#8230; I have seen them with hook marks and even line that was cut sticking out of their mouth because they were deeply hooked.

Is it perhaps more likely that we are responsible for the "perceived" decline in bass fishing?

Let me offer this bass mortality information:
_By using holding pens to observe mortality on fish __released after weigh-ins, researchers were able to determine __that substantial numbers of fish died after release even when __they appeared healthy following weigh-in. Approximately_
_50% of fish released sank after dying; a phenomenon that has __led many tournament participants to underestimate the __amount of mortality caused by their events._

_http://www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/Reservoir/blackbass/livebass2.pdf_

Just for argument sake let&#8217;s not even take the worst case scenario, lets take the best case scenario&#8230; If the tournament mortality is only 10% and there is a 20 boat tournament that all weigh in five bass that would yield 10 dead bass. If there are 20 tournaments there during year then we&#8217;re talking *200 dead bass* annually from tournament fishing alone.

Sorry to be the one to hold up the mirror&#8230;


----------



## waterfoul

Let me say this... the fact that Murray doesn't produce good bass for me really doesn't bother me at all. There are a TON of other lakes in the area that produce great bass... and aren't even as far away! Having a couple decent opportunities in the area for Musky on the other hand sounds great. I'm not in any way condeming the musky in Murray. I'd love to catch one for sure... and may be giving it a shot or two in the spring!


----------



## fishinthed

Great post, Will! 

Let us not forget that bass tend to be handled less carefully than we ski heads handle our toothy critters, even outside of tournaments...

Yes, Duke I have heard that Lake Hudson was a broodstock lake for muskies, but wasn't aware that was the case for Thornapple.

As for natural reproduction, I'm just thinking in _logical_ terms. I don't see _how_ a population can be sustained from a few thousand stocked fish per year with _no_ natural reproduction. With cannibalism, winter kill, angling (I'm sure a lot of "dinks" are caught again and again), it just seems like too much of a _uphill battle_ for those lakes to be as good as they reportedly are (I've never fished them, but may hit Hudson this spring) from stocked fish alone. 

Like the Kent Lake pike before they really got established. Now I hear the DNR doesn't even stock pike in Kent Lake, but they obviously somehow figure out how to spawn despite the annual "draw down" of the water level. Probably go upriver...

Watch out, Waterfoul, once you get into some musky action, you might get _addicted. _I suffer _happily_.


----------



## waterfoul

I've only ever caught one and it was a blast.


----------



## AMAS77

Ok first off thanks alot for all of the research and information duke.
As far as your question about if we are looking deep enough for the bass, I think so. 
The only tournament that I fished on murray last summer I fished all the way from 10 to 25'. I did catch a number of short fish. At the end of the tournament my dad had one keeper bass and I caught two muskies on a crawdad immitating jig.
Even if its not because of the muskies I definately feel the numbers of bass are down.


Now, will: Jordan lake in Ionia co ( I bevieve), receives at least 10 tournaments to every 1 tournament on Murray. The bass fishing on jordan has always been great and seems to get better every year. So I cant buy any kind of tournament mortality theory. 

Also, I would never blame a "crearure" for killing and eating anything. My blame was pionted at the people who overstock predator fish and the people who whine that muskies dont naturaly thrive in their local lakes.


----------



## Will Schultz

fishinthed said:


> As for natural reproduction, I'm just thinking in logical terms. I don't see how a population can be sustained from a few thousand stocked fish per year with no natural reproduction. With cannibalism, winter kill, angling (I'm sure a lot of "dinks" are caught again and again), it just seems like too much of a uphill battle for those lakes to be as good as they reportedly are (I've never fished them, but may hit Hudson this spring) from stocked fish alone.


It isn't that they don't try but there has never been any documented success in any of the inland stocked water. Pike are a completely different animal that have greater success spawning because their eggs will adhere to plants before settling to the bottom and into the silt. Muskie eggs arent so lucky, just natures way of making sure the apex predator isnt too numerous in any water. Is it an uphill battle to keep the lakes sustained? It was until about eight years ago things have changed drastically here in Michigan and will continue to improve. It really doesnt take too many fish to sustain a lake with zero natural reproduction. Lake Webster in Indiana has 5-6 adult muskies per acre (a lake which also has outstanding bass fishing!) and Webster is completely sustained by stocking.

If you want to learn about the inland opportunities we would love to have you join us on March 7th at the Kellogg center. http://www.michiganmuskiealliance.org/docs/Banquet_2009.pdf
A little of what MMA has done:
- More than 45,000 muskies stocked throughout the state from our cooperative program with the Iowa and Michigan DNR
- 50" size limit on Thornapple Lake (Hudson doesn't have a 50" size limit)
- Thousands of dollars in hatchery improvements to allow increased fall fingerling production
- Feed (minnows) in times of need when the hatchery is short on funding
- Thornapple Lake Tracking Study
- Elk Lake Chain Muskellunge movement study
- Know the Difference signs




AMAS77 said:


> Now, will: Jordan lake in Ionia co ( I bevieve), receives at least 10 tournaments to every 1 tournament on Murray. The bass fishing on jordan has always been great and seems to get better every year. So I cant buy any kind of tournament mortality theory.
> 
> Also, I would never blame a "crearure" for killing and eating anything. My blame was pionted at the people who overstock predator fish and the people who whine that muskies dont naturaly thrive in their local lakes.


Your sentiment



AMAS77 said:


> Stay and keep as many as you can.


That is like the guy that is keeping all the bass he catches because he thinks the bass eat all his perch.

The stocking in Murray isnt anywhere near a level that could be considered overstocked, the abundance of pelagic forage keeps the muskies well fed without the muskies needing to feed on anything but cisco. In fact, theres lots of bass out suspended with the cisco too, Ive caught a number of 6-8 pound bass while muskie fishing.

Im only here to offer that there are many other more likely reasons for the perceived decline in bass fishing than the muskies.

As for Jordan lake well, that is a bass factory with a lot more spawning area than a lake like Murray or Reeds. With greater success spawning obviously a lake can handle greater pressure.


----------



## fishinthed

That's a _real_ nice one, Waterfoul!  Where did you catch her?

Interesting you mention the MMA banquet, Will. Some of us LSCMI (Chapter 58) folks may be invading an MMA meeting or three. Be great to coordinate a bit.

Come to think of it, there are the many lakes out west that have decent tiger musky fishing, which _must_ be sustained by stocking.

The lower Huron River, with its feeder streams and varied habitats, probably has the best potential for natural musky reproduction among inland SE Michigan waters. I seem to recall seeing a musky or 2 from there in recent master angler data, though very few people fish for muskies in the river. As an amusing aside, I've heard some reports of 4 foot long fish seen in tiny 3 foot wide tributaries in the spring, presumably to spawn. 

I've also read some reports that indicate muskies and pike are starting to gradually re-populate western Lake Erie, particularly near the Huron and Detroit Rivers, as the water has cleared a bit and weed beds have re-established, but such information has been spotty. I might troll some 5 inch and larger cranks near the river mouths this spring and find out for myself. Could at least get a giant walleye or 2.


----------



## AMAS77

Will Schultz said:


> It isn't that they don't try but there has never been any documented success in any of the inland stocked water. Pike are a completely different animal that have greater success spawning because their eggs will adhere to plants before settling to the bottom and into the silt. Muskie eggs arent so lucky, just natures way of making sure the apex predator isnt too numerous in any water. Is it an uphill battle to keep the lakes sustained? It was until about eight years ago things have changed drastically here in Michigan and will continue to improve. It really doesnt take too many fish to sustain a lake with zero natural reproduction. Lake Webster in Indiana has 5-6 adult muskies per acre (a lake which also has outstanding bass fishing!) and Webster is completely sustained by stocking.
> 
> If you want to learn about the inland opportunities we would love to have you join us on March 7th at the Kellogg center. http://www.michiganmuskiealliance.org/docs/Banquet_2009.pdf
> A little of what MMA has done:
> - More than 45,000 muskies stocked throughout the state from our cooperative program with the Iowa and Michigan DNR
> - 50" size limit on Thornapple Lake (Hudson doesn't have a 50" size limit)
> - Thousands of dollars in hatchery improvements to allow increased fall fingerling production
> - Feed (minnows) in times of need when the hatchery is short on funding
> - Thornapple Lake Tracking Study
> - Elk Lake Chain Muskellunge movement study
> - Know the Difference signs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sentiment
> 
> 
> 
> That is like the guy that is keeping all the bass he catches because he thinks the bass eat all his perch.
> 
> The stocking in Murray isnt anywhere near a level that could be considered overstocked, the abundance of pelagic forage keeps the muskies well fed without the muskies needing to feed on anything but cisco. In fact, theres lots of bass out suspended with the cisco too, Ive caught a number of 6-8 pound bass while muskie fishing.
> 
> Im only here to offer that there are many other more likely reasons for the perceived decline in bass fishing than the muskies.
> 
> As for Jordan lake well, that is a bass factory with a lot more spawning area than a lake like Murray or Reeds. With greater success spawning obviously a lake can handle greater pressure.


I would love to hear about all of these othr reasons for the decline in bass fishing at murray.
Maybe I jumped to the muskie conclusion to soon.
I think that I would rather hear the reasons from a guy like duke. He doesent feel the need to jump out of the box and start dragging tounament anglers through the mud by talking about floating and misshandled fish.
you sound more like a spokesperson for peta than a michigan sportsman.

By the way Jordan lake is not a special case. I fish over 25 bass tournaments a year and murray is the only place that gets worse IMO every year. Or maybee I just "percieve" all these other lakes getting better.


----------



## waterfoul

That's a LSC musky. Caught on opening day 2007 while fishing with Dew51 and the Tin Navy!!


----------



## Will Schultz

AMAS77 said:


> I would love to hear about all of these othr reasons for the decline in bass fishing at murray.
> Maybe I jumped to the muskie conclusion to soon.
> I think that I would rather hear the reasons from a guy like duke. He doesent feel the need to jump out of the box and start dragging tounament anglers through the mud by talking about floating and misshandled fish.
> you sound more like a spokesperson for peta than a michigan sportsman.
> 
> By the way Jordan lake is not a special case. I fish over 25 bass tournaments a year and murray is the only place that gets worse IMO every year. Or maybee I just "percieve" all these other lakes getting better.


That's just rude... PETA? Honestly dude, just because I stated anglers have a greater impact on a fishery I'm like a PETA spokesman? I didn't drag anyone through the mud, go back and read that again. I didn't state the floating fish were from tournament anglers just that they were obviously from humans not muskies.

In fact, I have fished many bass tournaments in the past and I don't have a problem with tournaments. The stats I posted were real and that is simply one of the factors to be considered. We have a great impact on our fisheries and need to understand all of the aspects before jumping to conclusions about a fishery.

However, I just took a look at the recent survey numbers from Murray and the bass population is well represented in all age classes compared to other lakes. Any decline in bass fishing isnt due to a lack of bass


----------



## waterfoul

Maybe the cisco's are eating all the bass? LOL!!!


----------



## Duke

Unfortunately, changes in a lake or a fishery are so difficult to take notice if its really happening, or to measure if it is, and especially to figure out why. DNR survey data is the most reliable, but of course they can't get out and keep tabs on every lake on a regular basis. Any lake that has an intensive stocking program like Murray should be looked at closer though, and angler input is very valuable info. 

There's really only 3 basic reasons why a fishery can go on the decline- decreased spawning success, increased predation or human pressure, or decreased food supply. There can be quite a few causes for each one of those, but the end result has to be one of those. For Murray, the 2 things that jump out are it does not have a ton of spawning habitat, so a little bit of damage by the lakefront owners could go a longer way than it would in a more typical bass lake. The second thing is of course the increased muskie stocking. If there is a decline in the bass there, chances are its something else but these are the easy guesses. On the muskies, if 'overstocked' means there is not enough food to support the number put in, I would agree that is not true. But it has been 'stocked over' what is normally accepted or desired in musky management. There should be enough food for them, and for the bass, and they SHOULDN'T have to eat the bass, but that doesn't mean it isn't going on either. Studies have shown that muskies very rarely eat bass, even less so than they eat smaller muskies/pike, and the best musky lakes usually have great bass and walleye fishing as well. But who knows?


----------



## waterfoul

Duke said:


> Unfortunately, changes in a lake or a fishery are so difficult to take notice if its really happening, or to measure if it is, and especially to figure out why. DNR survey data is the most reliable, but of course they can't get out and keep tabs on every lake on a regular basis. Any lake that has an intensive stocking program like Murray should be looked at closer though, *and angler input is very valuable info.*
> 
> ?


 
This is one of the underlying reasons for the Master Angler program. It is also the reason I like to report Master Angler catches no matter what species it is. Information we give the DNR is invaluable to them... and we owe it to OURSELVES to help them out however we can.


----------



## Alexkauer

I've heard Big lake is pretty good muskie ground. Never tried to catch any. Its in Nothern Oakland County. Went bass fishing there, in the summer and did well. There may be muskies there


----------



## AMAS77

Will Schultz said:


> That's just rude... PETA? Honestly dude, just because I stated anglers have a greater impact on a fishery I'm like a PETA spokesman? I didn't drag anyone through the mud, go back and read that again. I didn't state the floating fish were from tournament anglers just that they were obviously from humans not muskies.
> 
> In fact, I have fished many bass tournaments in the past and I don't have a problem with tournaments. The stats I posted were real and that is simply one of the factors to be considered. We have a great impact on our fisheries and need to understand all of the aspects before jumping to conclusions about a fishery.
> 
> However, I just took a look at the recent survey numbers from Murray and the bass population is well represented in all age classes compared to other lakes. Any decline in bass fishing isnt due to a lack of bass


 Yes, maybe the PETA shot was a little bit below the belt. But wouldn't one angler saying another angler is misshandling fish only be fueling their fire? I think an organization like that would love to see us fighting back and forth about who does a worse job of handling our fish.
As far as why I felt Murray is overstocked, I guess its because ever since I was a little kid my dad always told me that a muskie is "the fish of a thousand casts." Now when I go bass fishing at Murray I catch more muskies than keeper bass. Seems a little unnatural to me, but whatever.
As far as putting my ability to fish up for debate and since you seem to live cute stories and mirrors. Let me offer you this one: every year there is an event in White Cloud where they stock the mill pond with trout. The kids are the only ones allowed to fish until noon. After that the adults are permitted to fish. A group of guys I work with went last year and they had a blast. They like to fish when the pond is stocked and fishing is a lot easier than is should be. They don't want to deal with the challenges normally associated with fishing for wild trout.
Normally this type of fisherman would not question another fisherman's ability to catch fish, but sometimes I guess they do.
Hate to be the one holding the mirror.
Aaron


----------



## Will Schultz

AMAS77 said:


> As far as putting my ability to fish up for debate and since you seem to live cute stories and mirrors. Let me offer you this one: every year there is an event in White Cloud where they stock the mill pond with trout. The kids are the only ones allowed to fish until noon. After that the adults are permitted to fish. A group of guys I work with went last year and they had a blast. They like to fish when the pond is stocked and fishing is a lot easier than is should be. They don't want to deal with the challenges normally associated with fishing for wild trout.
> Normally this type of fisherman would not question another fisherman's ability to catch fish, but sometimes I guess they do.
> Hate to be the one holding the mirror.
> Aaron


Aaron - I didn't question your ability to catch fish, once again you are reading something into what I typed. "Any decline in fishing isn't due to a lack of bass..." simply says that the numbers in the DNR survey are good. I didn't say that YOU must not be able to catch fish, sorry if it came off that way.

I also just pointed out my observations. Because of PETA we're supposed to ignore the reality of fishing? Somehow that seems like them controlling us and I'm not going to tolerate that. If our agenda as fishermen isn't to leave our fisheries better than we found them then we are no better than those before us that simply used up the resource. If anglers can't talk about delayed mortality and the effect that has on a fishery then aren't we our own worst enemy? I'm certainly not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore the effect of habitat loss, invasive species, delayed mortality and other factors that could be trouble for our fisheries. IMO throwing out the "one sportsmen against another" is a cop out for having a real discussion about this. Anglers kill fish whether intentional or not it's a fact BUT we have the power to improve our footprint on our fisheries.

Now... as far as you comparing muskie anglers fishing stocked water to fishing trout ponds... do you know that of the more than 11,000 lakes in Michigan only 95 are managed for muskies and less than 40 are regularly stocked? If someone wants to catch a muskie they don't have many options and once again you have gone below the belt and made this personal. This was a discussion about a fishery and I'm not going to trade jabs with you...


----------



## AMAS77

Fair enough, I checked out your website, pretty impressive actualy. I guess when your the president you automaticly get nominated to deal jerks spouting off on the internet forums. I think my biggest problem is that I get a little to bored in the winter unless I am in trouble with someone (probably the reason I got married).:lol:
No doubt that bass and blugill fishing is a joke on murray and I still have alot of cocerns about the affects of stocking. I am getting a little more open minded and I have learned alot from you and duke.
I'll try to catch a seminar on susspended bass fishing, and check out those cicos this summer.


----------



## Duke

AMAS77 said:


> I think my biggest problem is that I get a little to bored in the winter unless I am in trouble with someone (probably the reason I got married).:lol:



SAME HERE!! A little trouble on the net is impossible to avoid over the winter... and hey we can all be men about it. I have to say that I really appreciate your willingness to listen, and I hope that you got the same impression from the muskie side of the discussion. I wouldn't say Will gets nominated to deal with this stuff because he is Mr. Pres of MMA, I would say he is Pres because he really knows his shtuff. Sometimes I think he could use a press secretary to run things by first , but ah what the hell anyway!...


----------



## vano397

Just another example for the bass fisherman out there...I have read other posts about this and pike in hamlin lake by ludington... If you research what states do for bass overpopulation problems, they don't plant pike or musky...They claim the esox species are not predatory enough on other predator fish to cause a change in the local populations, and their survival rate as planted fish is not high enough to be cost effective. The fish that canada, minnesota, and wisconsin all use (and Michigan lately, especially in private lake associations) is the wonderful Walleye!!!
They eat more, grow faster, and are more voracious!


----------



## ZFK

What about the Muskie in Secord Lake? I dont believe they were ever stocked in there, but yet they have been caught by bass fisherman in bass tournaments. I understand that this lake is very large and offers quite a bit of fishing opportunities, but i have yet to personally see one come out of it.


----------



## deadboi77

if you want to travel a bit more north,there is 3 other musky lakes.all within a short drive of each other.ross*gladwin*,wixon*gladwin/midland*,and sanford*midland*.all connected with the tabacco/tib rivers
also budd in clare county


----------



## finlander

There was a round of VHS in Budd a year or so ago that took out a few skis', one that was quite large according to a MMA member. Dont know what is left there. www.michiganmuskiealliance.com is the place to ask on their general forum. I am looking for more info from bass fisherman who have caught an occaisional muskie fishing for bass on Mona Lake in Muskegon County. Been hearing stories....


----------



## headbanger421

finlander said:


> There was a round of VHS in Budd a year or so ago that took out a few skis', one that was quite large according to a MMA member. Dont know what is left there. www.michiganmuskiealliance.com is the place to ask on their general forum. I am looking for more info from bass fisherman who have caught an occaisional muskie fishing for bass on Mona Lake in Muskegon County. Been hearing stories....


 
It's actually www.michiganmuskiealliance.org . That way you get to the right spot. Lots of help there too./


----------



## RobFromFlint

I caught a 22 inch muskie in the Cass last summer. Don't know how he got there, but it was definately a muskie.


----------



## finlander

Sorry about the mis-direct. I have it in my favorites and never type it in anymore. That dot.com is an automatic thing these days. Murray gave me a five pound largemouth a few falls ago on a bucktail. I always fish for 'skis there though, driving for 55 miles.


----------



## deadboi77

finlander said:


> There was a round of VHS in Budd a year or so ago that took out a few skis', one that was quite large according to a MMA member. Dont know what is left there. www.michiganmuskiealliance.com is the place to ask on their general forum. I am looking for more info from bass fisherman who have caught an occaisional muskie fishing for bass on Mona Lake in Muskegon County. Been hearing stories....


i believe it was last year.i was talking to a DNR officer about it,and he said they lost a few.i went over there,didn't catch any.plenty of pike,but no muskies.


----------



## finlander

I talked with 2 bass fisherman who were drifting by the property today. One had heard of some taken in the past but had not seen any personally. His dad had taken a pike this year. They seem to fish Mona alot as they are members of the Boat Club. I was hoping for a better response, more sightings anyway.


----------



## redear

caught a 40+ incher and lost one just as big at the boat today on lake hudson


----------



## Duke

ZFK said:


> What about the Muskie in Secord Lake? I dont believe they were ever stocked in there, but yet they have been caught by bass fisherman in bass tournaments. I understand that this lake is very large and offers quite a bit of fishing opportunities, but i have yet to personally see one come out of it.


Secord is a beautiful body of water, with great fishing like all of the other Titt impoundments. It looks more like a Kentucky lake- narrow with lots of coves and fingers. The muskies in there were all stocked by the DNR.


----------



## ZFK

Duke said:


> Secord is a beautiful body of water, with great fishing like all of the other Titt impoundments. It looks more like a Kentucky lake- narrow with lots of coves and fingers. The muskies in there were all stocked by the DNR.


Ahh, okay. I saw the DNR out there this weekend doin about 40 in there boat going to the launch. I couldnt ask them as they were going way to fast to be checking licenses and answering questions.


----------



## wango ze tango

i was on murray lake this past summer and got skunked on everything, is the water usually productive for pike or muskie or is it kind of slow?


----------



## Duke

As far as muskie fishing goes, Murray is one of the most productive lakes. Even on the best of lakes muskies can be very tough, that's their nature. And there are still not that many of them, when compared to bass or pike in a typical lake (although there are not many pike in Murray). Keep trying!


----------

