# D.N.R. Muskellunge planting.



## bigberniegb (Dec 2, 2001)

I was wondering why the Mich.D.N.R planteed sixty five Muskellunge in July11,1990 and eighty six only in august 23,1990 and no plantings untill twelve years later .Then in October 3,2002 they planted twothousand ,two years later in June19,2004 they planted an other thousand muskeys.Then in October 13,2004 they planted 4,900 and just lately the planted another 5,000 fish. I ment to say the lake is Lake Margrethe in Craford county Graling Michigan . I guess my question is why don't the D.N.R. plant the fis more evenly? But what do I Know I,m just surching for an answer and the golden rule Like Sir Elton Says in ''Get back ****** jack''.  :tdo12:


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

You didn't say what strain of Muskies. I know the DNR uses certain strains that don't reproduce(tiger muskies) as a way of controlling other fish populations. When the Muskie grow old and die there are no more Muskie in the lake. That could have been the reason for the original plantings, i don't know. Contact the DNR bioligist for the area and I am sure he can tell you exactly why.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Michigan is just now getting its feet under them as far as raising muskies.
We never had the resources or knowledge to raise them correctly.
That is changing, and it will just get better and better from here on out..
They are Northern Muskies that we are planting also. we don't raise tigers anymore.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I've noticed a big move on the DNR's part in the last few years to stock more muskies in more lakes, and I keep hearing the words "trophy fishery".

Not sure how I feel about this, but I do know that a lot of the lakes they'd like to stock are traditionally lakes they've stocked with walleyes, like Margrethe, and that's something that doesn't go over well at all with most walleye anglers, concerned about the effects of putting a large predator like a musky in with the walleyes. Many claim that the walleye don't need another predator-they already have enough.

Interesting the swing we see in the goals of the DNR fishery guys. Musky are hard to catch, as anyone who has ever targeted them specifically can tell you, and not something that the average guy with a cane pole can catch from a dock. 

Which concerns me a bit...we should be planting more fish for this type of angler-the guy we'd like to get back into fishing, or get started in fishing...what happened to perch as a preferred species in this state??


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Although a musky will eat the ocassional walleye or panfish, they would prefer to eat soft ray fished, like a sucker, carp or bullhead... the
MYTH of "the musky is eating all my panfish or walley" is just untrue, any bioligist will tell you that. IMO they are a good thing, every lake needs a top of the line predator.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Yes, I've been told that it's a myth, so have a lot of other people. But that's hard to make people believe when the walleye fishing keeps going downhill on some of these lakes, despite frequent stocking. 

For instance, Intermediate Lake, which I live on. Stocked again a year or so ago with walleye, stocked many times over the years-no apparent natural reproduction, apparently. Very few walleye caught, and only then at certain times of the year in certain locations, most of them small, which indicates a lack of forage to most people, yet we're scheduled to have even more predator fish put into the lake. 

Anglers up here have let me know in no uncertain terms that they don't feel musky should be stocked in Intermediate at all (it's on the list for future stockings)-we already have an existing, and growing population, of musky. But, as far as I know, we're still on the list. 

And no one's tried to prove to these anglers that musky don't eat walleye, or compete with them for forage of small minnows, etc. That needs to be done before the DNR can expect anglers to accept musky stocking.


----------



## Northbound (Sep 17, 2000)

The DNR stocked Intermediate Lake with, up to 70,000, walleyes (1997) every other or every third year, depending. That combined with natural reproduction had a tremendous effect on the walleye population creating a definite boom for anglers. 

In 1999 the DNR conducted a fish survey, following that survey walleye stocking came to an abrupt halt. I was told during one of my annual conversations with DNR fishery biologists, that, the DNR felt the population of predator fish in Intermediate lake was too great and that any future stocking of walleye fingerlings would &#8221;End up in the stomach of a predator fish&#8221;. They also theorized that we caught smaller walleyes because &#8220;Mature walleyes are too smart for the average angler&#8221;, yes, that&#8217;s a quote.

Since then the DNR has stocked 49,000 walleye, in the past six years. They are however anxious to add to the already exsisting population of musky in Intermediate Lake, despite their clam that Intermediate has an over abundance of predator fish which prevents them from their historical frequency of stocking walleye.

The vast majority of anglers on Intermediate Lake would rather see walleyes stocked more frequently and not have the introduction of more musky into our lake. Further more the Lake association will strenuously oppose musky being stocked into Intermediate Lake. After all, if we are not adept enough to boat larger walleyes we would have no chance with the wily musky. Perhaps Torch lake would be more receptive to musky being introduced to their lake.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

First: The DNR is stocking ONLY Nothern Strain Muskellunge and has been since 1991.

bigberniegb:
The Michigan DNR has only recently started to stock lakes that the local biologists have requested for MANY years. Lake Margrethe is one of those that has been on the list of lakes for many years. Until recently there haven't been enough fish available from the hatchery to stock the lake. This is why before 2002 and stocking was VERY limited. As long as the hatchery can keep production levels high Margrethe will continue to be stocked every other year with 1-3 fish per acre. Margrethe is being stocked because the biomass of the lake suggests the need for a large predator to keep a balance.

Lind G and Northbound:
The population of Muskellunge in Intermediate Lake is a natural/native population. From my understanding, the Walleye is NOT native to Intermediate lake. Our goal as sportsmen should be to protect these native populations even if we have to sacrifice a put-and-take species like the Walleye. For this reason, once Michigan has the ability to stock Great Lakes Muskellunge many of the natural populations will get supplemental stocking. As of right now Michigan can't stock the lakes on the Indermediate Chain, Torch Chain, Indian River, Black, Burt, Mullet or any of the drowned river mouth lakes where muskies are a native species because there is not a Great Lakes Muskellunge rearing program. Many of these natural populations have been deciamted by pollution, habitat degradation and overfishing.

The DNR stocks lakes with a variety of fish to keep the fishery healthy. Without an apex predator like muskellunge fisheries are out of balance. Where suitable the DNR will maintain muskellunge populations through stocking.

Walleye are not a preferred food of muskellunge. In a study done in Wisconsin, where Walleye populations are higher than Intermediate, the Walleye made up less than one percent of a muskies diet. Throughout North America walleye anglers understand that apex predators, whether Northern Pike or Muskellunge, will actually improve the quality of the fishery.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Very interesting data.

I am not sure if you are correct or not about the walleye not being a native of Intermediate, there are many historical records up here of fishermen with walleye, dating back to the lumbering days, but they could have resulted from some ancient stockings, like the brown trout in Torch Lake were. 

Whatever-what I do know is that there are a whole lot of anglers up here that would say "native, schmative"...and a belief that we will NEVER be able to return our lakes to what they once were, because they're not...there's simply too many people living on these lakes and too many changes over the years to the eco-system. 

Not to mention the fact that musky, because of their difficulty in taking a bait, are simply not as popular as the walleye is. Nor as good to eat. LOL

I was under the impression that Intermediate Lake was not immediately slated for stocking because of concerns regarding musky pox in hatchery fish...which would certainly make introducing stocked fish to this lake a disaster. Is this why we don't have a stocking program at the present time for Great Lakes Muskys?

Interesting topic, I'm planning an article on this soon.


----------



## Northbound (Sep 17, 2000)

Granted, musky would not pose an undue threat to Intermediate Lakes walleye population. However, The Intermediate Lake Associations position is that a shift in the DNRs stocking program from walleye to musky would be unwelcome. 

I was told by DNR biologists that we had good natural reproduction of walleye in 1998. Since then our booming population of rusty crayfish eliminates any natural reproduction efforts by eating the eggs. With that, we have become very much a put-n-take fishery, without more frequent stocking from the DNR our population of walleye will swiftly decline.

If at some point in the future the DNR chose to stock musky in ADDITION to walleye then the ILA may view that program differently.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Is there any data out there on the cost of raising 40,000 walleye fingerlings as opposed to stockings of the average 2-5,000 muskies??

I don't see the need for musky stocking on this lake at all, personally, Northbound. There's just not enough angler interest. And we already have a musky population, and if the DNR did some surveys, they'd find they're doing much better in the last 20 years than they were doing. A lot of anglers, not me, say they're eating walleye. 

And somehow, it would be money out of some other fishing stocking program's pocket...that's how it works. Guess which program it might come from...walleye, maybe? 

A study in Wisconsin may work for Wisconsin, but may not be comparable to many areas of Michigan, where the water quality and surrounding habitat may be completely different. And I'd like to know when that study was done--last year, the year before, or 25 years ago?

How's the walleye fishery on St. Clair, which has booming populations of musky, doing these days? As good as it was 25 years ago? How about Black Lake-Cheboygan County? Lake Bellaire, which connects directly to Clam Lake, which has an excellent musky population?

We had good natural reproduction on Intermediate in 1998?? Proof?? Or is it possible that the 1997 walleye released just didn't grow that much? Why would we have good reproduction in just one year but not any of the other years?? Doesn't make sense to me. 

Ah, rusty crayfish...the ignored exotic. They are decimating many of our lakes, but they are ignored. You don't even hear any discussions of rusties by the DNR when it comes to how they affect fish populations.

But they do have one benefit-we've seen that. The mergansers and common loons LOVE them...LOL


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Linda G. said:


> Very interesting data.
> I was under the impression that Intermediate Lake was not immediately slated for stocking because of concerns regarding musky pox in hatchery fish...which would certainly make introducing stocked fish to this lake a disaster. Is this why we don't have a stocking program at the present time for Great Lakes Muskys?
> 
> Interesting topic, I'm planning an article on this soon.


Not true, there has never been an case of piscirikettsia (muskie pox) in the Wolf Lake Hatchery. What you might be thinking is that the best option for GL Muskelleunge eggs is Lake St Clair, all muskellunge in St Clair have piscirikettsia. The fertilized eggs can be treated to kill the piscirikettsia, so in reality it's not an issue. The primary reason is that there is not enough space in a hatchery that is already full of walleye, steelhead, etc. to attempt to rear GL Muskellunge.

The bottom line is that muskies and walleye live together in many places but too often the muskie is used as a scapegoat for poor fishing. In reality the strain of walleye being stocked, the time of year and size of the walleye when they're stocked will have a greater impact on survivability than the presence of muskellunge in that body of water.

With regard to an article I trust that you would use facts and actual data from local biologists and not heresay, speculation or feelings.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Linda G. said:


> And somehow, it would be money out of some other fishing stocking program's pocket...that's how it works. Guess which program it might come from...walleye, maybe?


That's how it works? Not exaclty, the money has been there all along for the muskie program but only recently has it been used for muskies. Other species have been getting the benefit of money that was supposed to go to the muskie program. Money spent on muskies is in the thousands, while money spent on walleye, salmon and others is in the millions. In fact, in the last four years outside assistance (money) has been used to support the muskie program - www.michiganmuskiealliance.org

Why? Your argument of no angler interest might be one reason but in reality it's not interest that is the problem. Instead I would suggest that the muskie fisheries in many areas of northern Michigan are barely hanging on. These fisheries don't provide the angling opportunity to attract fishermen from out of state or even within Michigan. Good muskie fishing brings tourism dollars and often when it's not peak season.

St Clair is an example of a fantastic fishery for all species and all have improved in the last 20 years. Largely because the OMNR and MI-DNR have kept their hands off and let the fishery manage itself.

Gun Lake in southern Michigan would be the opposite example. Gun had a population of muskies being sustained through stocking. The locals (not the DNR) determined that the muskies were eating all the stocked walleye. The locals petitioned to have the muskie stocking stopped and the DNR reluctantly agreed. What has happened in the 20 years since? The muskies are gone, the walleye fishing hasn't improved, the bass are smaller, the panfish sizes are smaller. If there was ever an example of feelings and specualtion getting in the way of proper management it is Gun Lake.

With regard to Intermediate, muskellunge stocking wouldn't replace walleye stocking. As adults they compete for different forage and have a VERY different impact on a fishery. There isn't a bilogist in the world that would tell you one would replace the other.

Linda - Feel free to email me for info on data: [email protected]


----------



## Cyberlunge (Mar 5, 2005)

I live in the area as well, not on Intermediate but I live on the upper stretch of the Big Manistee River in Mesick. Mnay people believe that I live on a meandering chunk of heaven where there are trout and Walleye by the thousands waiting to be scooped up and carried home. The problem is that too many people do exactly that. How is a Walleye ever going to_ be _a predator when it is someones dinner? There are a huge number of meat fishermen in this state--I know this sounds offensive but its true-- If they catch a legal or close to legal fish they keep it. They say "I don't put in my time to go home with nothing" If people just want fish to eat it is cheaper to go and by them. How does this relate to Intermediate? I have been there many times I have watched people catch and keep walleye and panfish that needed to be thrown back. I would suggest that the same people who complain about the muskies are the ones who keep all the barely legal fish. This is a problem EVERYWHERE however we often fear that which we do not understand. Does any one truly understand the nature of the fish they are bashing? What would happen to the bio-mass of the chain if all the muskies and pike were gone? Would the increase in the quantity of bottom feeders choke the lake to death like it has in some southern lakes? Do we really want to find out? I know several people personally who fish the chain and catch large Walleye consistently every year: they do this by fishing in low pressure periods like the middle of the week and using un-conventional techniques. This is all too reminiscent of the decline in the adult male deer population, everyone blames the DNR and the angle of the moon and the weather but no one says "hey maybe we should ease up on the harvest" Michigan is a destination state for hunters and fisherman from several other states, we need to start thinking differently than we did even twenty years ago if we are too sustain a healty wildlife population of ALL species. This problem is not limited to a lake or a county the only solution is a cohesive effort by a large group of well educated people working on a scientifically based long term solution. This problem did not occur overnight and will not be fixed overnight. The Genocide of a species is not the answer in any case for any lake.
In parting: Thought before action facts before words.
Kevin Kimble


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

What you say may very well be true. 

The problem is, you have to convince the general fishing population of that. 

Blaming a problem on people who keep "barely legal" fish doesn't work, although I have no doubt it's true. But folks only keep barely legal fish when they can't catch anything else. 

We have to provide people with a species of fish that's fairly easy for the average fisherman to catch, with a cane pole if that's all he's got, if we want to have the sport of fishing remain a popular activity that people are willing to fund.

They don't understand musky because they don't know anything about the musky because they've never caught a musky. 

I've never known musky to be easy to catch. Imho, we need to stock our lakes with fish that are relatively easy for people to catch, whether that's musky, walleye or perch. And musky don't fit that criteria. 

Just look at how little interest this thread has garnered from anyone but us...


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Linda, no interest in this thread becasue it's in the ice fishing forum :lol:


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Hey, you're right. Never even noticed that, since all I ever go to is "view new posts"...

Maybe we can get it moved?


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Linda G. said:


> Just look at how little interest this thread has garnered from anyone but us...


Likely because it's hidden here in the ice fishing area of the site. I'll be the first to admit that I would never have seen it here if someone hadn't e-mailed the link to me.



Linda G. said:


> I've never known musky to be easy to catch. Imho, we need to stock our lakes with fish that are relatively easy for people to catch, whether that's musky, walleye or perch. And musky don't fit that criteria.


I would disagree wholheartedly. We need to support our DNR when they make decisions based on the best interest of a fishery and not on the perception of joe public. A healthy fishery isn't always a fishery where species are plentiful and easy to catch. If we (Michigan) managed fisheries this way we would be destroying them. Do we want fisheries like Intermediate turned into trout (walleye in this case) ponds like you can see at the sport shows? I hope not...

In the position of journalist, which I assume you are from an earlier reference, you have a forum to give people the right information. All too often the facts and science behind decisions made by the DNR gets portrayed as "us against them" by those in the media. Why not take your position to educate people that spread misinformation? When dealing with fisheries issues the hardest thing to do is educate the public.

A closing thought...
Bob was at a boat launch complainging that the muskie were eating all the crappie in the lake. Fred asked Bob why he thought that way. Bob replied, "I used to catch 25 big crappie each night and every weekend we would have a big fish fry. We did this every weekend for five years! It was so good that everyone I knew had a freezer full of crappie fillets. Then, five years ago they started stocking muskie and now the crappie fishing is terrible."

Fred wonders if Bob's last name is "muskie"...


----------



## Cyberlunge (Mar 5, 2005)

Linda, you said...

_What you say may very well be true. 

The problem is, you have to convince the general fishing population of that. 

_Who is in a better position to do that than an outdoor writer? I guarantee you that every member of the MMA would be willing to puy you in the boat for a day and give you any information you might want and then some. I am sure that we all have valid opinions it is a matter of meshing them together and making it work fairly for everyone. I have a seat open for you anytime you would like to go. Seriously I'm not just saying it.
Kevin


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Linda said "But folks only keep barely legal fish when they can't catch anything else"

People not being able to catch bigger fish is the fault of the person fishing
not the top of the line predator like a Muskie or Pike. I fish a lake for muskie over here on the east side, this lake gets Walleye plants. I've never
heard a local complain about not being able to catch walleye or panfish.
I catch huge smallmouth, largemouth, and walleye, all while fishing for muskies. The fish are there people are lazy they have to adapt to the conditions.. Fish different locations or different presentations. MOST people
don't want to take the time to figure it out. 
As Kevin stated, you are more than welcome to come along on a trip with
me also anytime you would like..


----------



## 4899 (Jan 8, 2003)

Linda

I think that you should take Don or Kevin up on fishing with them before you write your article. These guys volunteer countless hours for the fish they target to improve and educate people. These guys also take a picture and release every and any muskie that is caught. I work with Don and 5 years ago I knew nothing about muskie's. I have had an opportunity to fish with Don and it is the ultimate cat and mouse game. I am more of a trout fisherman but if I dont get away from Bomba I might become a muskie fisherman......lol


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Will-are you sure Bob wasn't a deer hunter? LOL

Gentlemen-I thank you very much for your kind invitations, and perhaps some day, I can even take you up on them. 

But your problem isn't with me. Your problem is with convincing JQ Public that he can catch just as many crappie, walleye, whatever, with muskies stocked in his favorite lake...and that he, too, can catch musky with a minimum of time, money, experience, and patience. 

I've had the honor of fishing with a number of expert musky fishermen, including Esox from this forum, and if there is one thing I have learned from my experiences, it is that you must dedicate a great deal to the sport to become good musky fishermen. 

But most people won't do that, as we all know, and have learned, from a number of other experiences in this state. That's why the DNR, whom I work with all the time, continually strives to provide more "opportunity" in almost every outdoor sport we partake in. Stocking musky, imho, doesn't fit that criteria, not unless you figure out a way to teach every once or twice a year angler out there an easy way to catch them. 

Most people, your average joe, want what's easy. Musky aren't. Many people want fish that are good to eat, not something they will feel forever guilty about for killing because they chose to keep one to mount, and many people want to catch something they can take home to display...Musky is a trophy sport in all the states I've ever fished for them in, including Michigan. They are the fish of a thousand casts. 

That's not probably going to change regardless of what we teach people about what's in the best interest of the fishery. Yes, I can help, and I do what I can, but we have to reach the guy who doesn't even read the outdoor page...there's lots of them. 

Good luck, it's sort of like the situation with the deer hunting...a long, hard road.


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

I read this thread over...and I really don't want to point fingers or blatantly bash anyone, but I couldn't help thinking that one who is so adamantly against stocking Muskellunge for the aforementioned reasons is being a bit selfish.

Here's my reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong, but millions and millions of walleye are stocked each year. Not nearly as many Muskies are, and the lakes in which they _are_ stocked are fairly widespread across the state when compared with lakes containing walleye, whether stocked or natural population. I suppose my question is why not? Why not have a few (or more than a few)_ good_ lakes around the state where anglers don't have to drive 100 miles to get to?

For me, the prospect of catching a Muskie is so much more exciting than catching a walleye. After attending one of Will Shultz's seminars, it was almost unbearable. This summer, I had a Muskie on my line, but it got off right at the boat. I would absolutely love to catch a muskellunge, but I have doubts about going back to that lake because it has been poorly stocked.

I'll admit to being naive. This is just my opinion.


----------



## RichP (Jan 13, 2003)

I love walleye, but I also would like to see an increase in stocking mooskies. 

Before my time is up, I would like to boat one of these great creatures...


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I am not against stocking musky...what I am against is stocking muskies in lakes where they're not wanted or needed or in lieu of other easier to catch species...or where muskies already exist, without the approval or knowledge of all the anglers who use that body of water.

And yes, I know that's tough to do, but that's where folks like Will Schultz and Cyberlunge come in. And folks like me will be happy to report on their work to do so.


----------



## HuRon (May 11, 2002)

Great thread. Alot of good solid information to address some of the concerns & opinions many share. Any time the subject of fish plants (any species) comes up, everybody's got their own agenda. If it (planting) was based solely on fish management & fish biology, it probably would be a fairly straight forward science. But you start mixing in the politics of tourism, lake associations, public opinion (informed or otherwise), license sales, cost effectiveness, exotic species, international waters, treaties, on & on...... What a mess. And unfortunately whats best for the fishery, often times, takes a back seat. 

I'm a multi-species angler, love my walleye fishing as much as the next guy. Never fished Musky, but someday I might. I've noticed the DNR seems to be expanding the program, even in my area. Lake Dianne down in Hillsdale Co. has received some Musky plants lately, walleye, too. Long Lake in St. Joe Co., also. Thornapple is really the only established Musky lake closest to me. Fair walleye fishing, there. And Mr. Schultz's example of Gun Lake is correct in my opinion. Alot of factors to the walleye's population in there, & I don't think Musky's was one of them.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

I don't have the computer know how of some of the folks on this board so I can't retrieve the article for this discussion. However earlier this year some woman from Saginaw caught a 48" musky on Sanford Lake. She loves to fish and had never caught a fish that big before. It made the local papers. When is the last time a 5 pound walleye made the papers?? 

Linda I am not trying to make this sound harsh but I am not being politically correct I guess either. People are stupid, bottom line. The walleye population is great in LSC according to the folks fishing in Port Huron, the perch numbers haven't been better, and the smallmouth size and numbers are out of this world. 

The muskies from that area you're talking about are famous even to the people that don't fish for them. I work in a sporting goods store in lower Michigan and the number of people up there that love to see and talk about the muskies in the Torch River during the spring is simply incredible.

Walleyes are not always easy fish to catch, especially in a crystal clear lake like Intermediate if they used to be easy to catch and they are not now, well maybe it is you. I know I have had lots of trouble catching walleyes on Mullet as of late, but other people haven't. I am still fishing the way I did 10 years ago and wondering why I can't catch anything. The guys running planner boards are coming in with fish everytime.

The DNR has gotten on board and they have seen the value of having a musky fishery. Lets go with it.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

well, hopefully we'll see what you think this spring of the musky fishing. If there's still musky coming into the Torch River, there can't be very many, I work a part time job right there and haven't seen any in years...never hear of any, anymore, either, but I do see Atlantic salmon in the river, from Torch, in the late fall. Those muskies would be from Skegemog. 

Intermediate, although it's still a fairly clean lake, is not oligotrophic like Elk, Bellaire, and Torch. I forgot what the term is for lakes like Intermediate, but you can't see bottom past 20 feet or so except in the very early spring. I'm told that's why the muskies are doing fairly well here, same for Skegemog Lake. 

Sanford's getting pretty well known, probably too well known, for its muskies. Don't they have a musky tournament on that lake every year now?

Walleye fishing IS great on the St. Clair river near Port Huron, I was down there last year, first time in years...had a ball. But I was talking about the walleye fishing in Lake St. Clair, which used to be some of the best in the country-anybody know what's going on with the walleye there in recent years?

Smallmouth is really, really good on Intermediate, too, that's probably a direct result of the explosion in rusty crayfish numbers, I'm told. But we never hear anything any more about perch-that could be because of the rusties, too, I'll bet. I know Hubbard Lake, which used to have a stupendous perch fishery, has been struggling of late, they have even more of a problem with rusties than we do.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Linda G. said:


> Sanford's getting pretty well known, probably too well known, for its muskies. Don't they have a musky tournament on that lake every year now?


Linda, the tourny you are speaking of is the Sanford Fall Shootout. Its held every September. Jays sporting goods has been kind enough to sponsor this the last few years.. The Michigan Muskie Alliance puts this tournament on(term loosely used) every year. I am the tournament director. It's a great time, it's a catch and release tourny, and all the money goes towards the MMA helping the MDR with stocking of muskies in one way or another..
It's a great time you should come down and fish it and check it out this fall.
Sanford is a prime example that all species can co-exsist together.
Big large and small mouth, walleye, tons of crappie and bluegills, and the lake has some big toothy critters called muskie swimming around.. The Muskie dont' seem to be bothering any of them


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

The musky tournament on Sanford is being hosted by the muskies inc. chapter in Michigan (MichiganMuskieAlliance.org) and it is 100% catch and release. It is a very fun tournament but it does need a better turnout. There are no negatives to having healthy musky populations in Michigans waters.


----------



## Darkhouse Angler (Jul 25, 2005)

Linda, you're absolutely "right on" about your perception the fishing public has toward muskies. As a "selective harvest" angler, every muskie I have harvested, winter or summer, have had bluegills, crappies, pike, yellow perch, suckers and walleyes in their stomachs. It just depends on the body of water fished. "Angling opportunities" is perceived in different ways. By musky fishermen, it is excessive size limits and "no kill", catch and release regulations. By the rest of the anglers it is reasonable sizes and creel limits. Everyone doesn't want to "catch and release" and a trophy to most anglers is anything they catch on an outing. This myth of "catch and release" is starting to come back and bite us in the......DNR's pocketbook. People want to catch and eat fish, period. I have no problem with catch and release, I do it alot. What I do have a problem with is someone or agency putting unnecessary, reduced creel limits and increased size limits on species to accomodate a small minority of fishermen. 
You can't expect to get public support for a "trophy fishery" when the angling public doesn't accept it. What should be done, is reduce the size limit on musky to a reasonable length and let the angling public decide if they want a trophy fishery, by "voluntary catch and release". If the angling public wants a trophy fishery, it will come out of this "voluntary" action and along with it comes public support for DNR fisheries. 
Here in the UP, when the creel limit on brook trout was decreased to 5, I know of many trout fishermen that gave up trout fishing. I also know of others that still stop at 10. It was an unwanted law change orchestrated but a small group of "catch and release" anglers that had direct influence on DNR fisheries division. And let's not get into the public hearings that were held prior to the law change. I was at three and the majority of the fishermen present were against it. Fortunately, some of our NRC commissioners agree and have voiced they will look into returning the creel to 10. 
I fish for muskies and if I catch a legal one, I usually keep it. They are great eating. There is nothing wrong with eating a musky. I would prefer to harvest one for eating that is 32", but am forced to take them at 42".
Linda, I will also extend an invitation to you to fish, summer or Darkhouse angle through the ice in the winter, in the beautiful Upper Peninsula. You will have the "option" to, catch and release or harvest the legal size fish you take.




Linda G. said:


> Will-are you sure Bob wasn't a deer hunter? LOL
> 
> Gentlemen-I thank you very much for your kind invitations, and perhaps some day, I can even take you up on them.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

Darkhouse Angler said:


> People want to catch and eat fish, period...


I don't. Ever. In the 12 years I have been fishing, I've taken home approximately 20 fish. It's even hard for me to see people who have kept a 30inch pike, just because it won't be swimming around any more, and that's one less fish that I will be able to catch. There's nothing wrong with keeping fish, as long as its in reasonable limits, but I strongly prefer not to.



Darkhouse Angler said:


> You can't expect to get public support for a "trophy fishery" when the angling public doesn't accept it.


Anglers who have chosen to chase Muskie as their fish of choice almost never harvest the fish they catch. Why? Because they, the ones who actually fish for Muskie, supported the decision to nurture a "trophy fishery". I am puzzled as to why the entire angling public should _have_ to support a decision like this when only a small percentage of them actually target these fish, have researched their habits and biological tendancies, as well as the impact that size limits have on their population. If these guys put so much time and effort into catching such a beatiful fish, shouldn't they at least be rewarded with the feeling of catching a trophy fish?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

The MMA muskie guys know that I come to the muskie discussion from a slightly different approach. I spent half my career raising walleye starting in 1977 to get my hometown Muskegon Lake and Muskegon River (later statewide) reestablished with a healthy population. You now enjoy the walleye program from our brood stock. Now I'm involved with the locals to reintroduce the muskie back into our area lakes. I would not dare do this after thirty years of walleye work (1) if there was conflict to the established walleye fishery after all that work invested, (2) I did not have the support of the local sport fishing organizations including the walleye clubs, and (3) I'm not about to do harm to my panfish, walleye, and bass fishing I grew up with.

Our local fishing clubs are well educated to the fishing methods and over the years have expanded to educate themselves more on fishery biology, fish culture, and they are willing to help the DNR. We know our local drown river mouth lakes biomass is over weight with rough and forage fish due in large part to altering by the exotics. We don't have a top predator for much of the present forge goby, gizzard shad, sheepshead, carp, suckers, etc. The excess forge competes for food-shelter-reproduction (biology 101) needed by our desired panfish, walleye, bass, etc. By converting that wasted biomass to a sport fish muskie greater than 42", the muskie are helping the other sport fish survive and providing a great tourist fishery. The local pike fishers will have an expanded season and may begin to realize what a pike might look like if they were allowed to live to full potential.

My local salmon and walleye charter guys know that on bad weather or bad bite days they can simply switch tackle and go for muskie as charter day saved. The pike in warm 70-degree water go deep, and the muskie are happy in 70/80-degree water. Yes, a whole new fishing experience. Again the muskie is proving too valuable to kill when the muskie live 20-25+ years providing a dozen plus thrill photos while still providing their service to keep the excess forage in check.

The local fishermen admit that their interest in muskie fishing is high, but low in activity because there are no muskie present at this time. That's simple enough to understand. All we can do is read about fishing muskie. Once a year I save up for a trip to LSC and I have caught a couple of muskie. Meanwhile our best supporters of introducing muskie are our local walleye and salmon clubs. More education leads to more support for top predator balance we need and increase fishing opportunity.

There is one ironic note. The local environmentalist are quick to point out the zebra mussel concentrate the toxic contaminants and are ate by the goby and sheepshaed so forth up the food chain to where a 10-15 year old trophy muskie could not possibly be safe to eat. I say great! Now turn it loose again to give the next kid a thrill of his life.


----------



## rockinmichigan (Feb 22, 2004)

Cyberlunge said:


> I live in the area as well, not on Intermediate but I live on the upper stretch of the Big Manistee River in Mesick. Mnay people believe that I live on a meandering chunk of heaven where there are trout and Walleye by the thousands waiting to be scooped up and carried home. The problem is that too many people do exactly that. How is a Walleye ever going to_ be _a predator when it is someones dinner? There are a huge number of meat fishermen in this state--I know this sounds offensive but its true-- If they catch a legal or close to legal fish they keep it. They say "I don't put in my time to go home with nothing" If people just want fish to eat it is cheaper to go and by them. How does this relate to Intermediate? I have been there many times I have watched people catch and keep walleye and panfish that needed to be thrown back. I would suggest that the same people who complain about the muskies are the ones who keep all the barely legal fish. This is a problem EVERYWHERE however we often fear that which we do not understand. Does any one truly understand the nature of the fish they are bashing? What would happen to the bio-mass of the chain if all the muskies and pike were gone? Would the increase in the quantity of bottom feeders choke the lake to death like it has in some southern lakes? Do we really want to find out? I know several people personally who fish the chain and catch large Walleye consistently every year: they do this by fishing in low pressure periods like the middle of the week and using un-conventional techniques. This is all too reminiscent of the decline in the adult male deer population, everyone blames the DNR and the angle of the moon and the weather but no one says "hey maybe we should ease up on the harvest" Michigan is a destination state for hunters and fisherman from several other states, we need to start thinking differently than we did even twenty years ago if we are too sustain a healty wildlife population of ALL species. This problem is not limited to a lake or a county the only solution is a cohesive effort by a large group of well educated people working on a scientifically based long term solution. This problem did not occur overnight and will not be fixed overnight. The Genocide of a species is not the answer in any case for any lake.
> In parting: Thought before action facts before words.
> Kevin Kimble



I can't say I totally disagree with you, but I don't think the walleye is the example to use in the case you're making. I can't speak for everywhere else in Michigan and other areas, but in '05 it appeared to me that the walleye catch was dismal. I fish regularly spring to fall in a few spots along Lake Erie (Michigan waters) often fishing at a boat marina at the peir. A lot of boaters coming in from a day of fishing came in telling me that they didn't reach the limit, usually catching two keepers, if they caught any more they were throw back because they were simply too small. If you catch the legal limit, that's all you need. Morally wrong? Maybe. Legally wrong? Of course not. Like I said, I'm fishing from one of the most best walleye waters in the region, if not factual at least in my opinion. I can't speak for the inland lakes or any of the other Great Lakes, but if people aren't bringing the walleyes like they should from the major lake like I'm talking about, I bet that people aren't bringing them in for much the same reason in other lakes. Many people thought it was because of the weather. This last summer was one of the hotter summers around here that we've had in a couple years. The 'eyes were in deeper waters. Now, with all this said, I can't pull up newspaper articles or website articles giving you actual facts. So technically I can't validate all this, but this is strictly observation on my part, and what was told to me by fishermen coming into the marina. For the record, I was fishing 2-3 days a week last year, and the marina is Bolles Harbor.


----------



## Darkhouse Angler (Jul 25, 2005)

Cyberlunge. You're missing the point on the item in discussion. I think it's great you and your clubs do what you do. I've done it myself with fish and wildlife clubs for years. I've milked muskies, pike, walleyes and worked my butt off building bank cover in blue ribbon trout streams and worked for weeks on walleye cribs in below 0 temperatures. But the point the organized clubs miss, and I've seen it in almost every outdoor club I've been affiliated with is, no matter how much $$$ you raise or hands-on labor you supply, the resource is still belongs to everyone who buys a fishing license, not to the well meaning clubs. The organized clubs efforts are commendable but that still doesn't and shouldn't, give that organization any more access to the sway the fish managers decision to regulate that species of fish. That's the issue that Linda touched upon. Some of the fishing clubs are viewed as, "playground bullies" to the general angling public. They aren't interested in the amount effort your group puts toward a particular species of fish. What they do notice, is that particular organization that lobbies for increased size limits and reduced creel limits as imposing thats organizations values upon them. Just because a body of water is capable of raising "trophy size" fish doesn't mean it should be planted with that species. In regards to musky, which I fish for, they are native to the Great Lakes and connecting waters, not inland lakes where they are viewed by many as an invasive species. They are not native to many of the inland lakes now planted. I have heard and seen the anger first hand when musky are planted in a lake that produces good catches of native species. So, just because it can grow big muskies, should it be done? No. This is the point of the conversation. You say in 12 yrs. of fishing you've only eaten 20 fish. Wonderful, if that's what you "choose" to do, great. But when you or your organization critizes other angles because they "choose" to harvest and consume fish or maybe because it's a fish which you angle for, then, you are wrong. Supporting the fisheries division with $$$$ may help the resource. But if you support them with $$$$ expecting the rules should be changed to your idea of what fishing should be, then I think you are doing it for all the wrong reasons. 
I'm not saying that an organization that supports the fisheries division with $$$$ is right or wrong. But you must consider the majority of other anglers. Up to now, the large organizations haven't done that. That's why you don't and won't have most anglers support. 



CubanFisherman said:


> I don't. Ever. In the 12 years I have been fishing, I've taken home approximately 20 fish. It's even hard for me to see people who have kept a 30inch pike, just because it won't be swimming around any more, and that's one less fish that I will be able to catch. There's nothing wrong with keeping fish, as long as its in reasonable limits, but I strongly prefer not to.
> 
> 
> Anglers who have chosen to chase Muskie as their fish of choice almost never harvest the fish they catch. Why? Because they, the ones who actually fish for Muskie, supported the decision to nurture a "trophy fishery". I am puzzled as to why the entire angling public should _have_ to support a decision like this when only a small percentage of them actually target these fish, have researched their habits and biological tendancies, as well as the impact that size limits have on their population. If these guys put so much time and effort into catching such a beatiful fish, shouldn't they at least be rewarded with the feeling of catching a trophy fish?


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Darkhouse Angler said:


> Linda, you're absolutely "right on" about your perception the fishing public has toward muskies. As a "selective harvest" angler, every muskie I have harvested, winter or summer, have had bluegills, crappies, pike, yellow perch, suckers and walleyes in their stomachs. It just depends on the body of water fished. "Angling opportunities" is perceived in different ways. By musky fishermen, it is excessive size limits and "no kill", catch and release regulations. By the rest of the anglers it is reasonable sizes and creel limits. Everyone doesn't want to "catch and release" and a trophy to most anglers is anything they catch on an outing. This myth of "catch and release" is starting to come back and bite us in the......DNR's pocketbook. People want to catch and eat fish, period. I have no problem with catch and release, I do it alot. What I do have a problem with is someone or agency putting unnecessary, reduced creel limits and increased size limits on species to accomodate a small minority of fishermen.
> You can't expect to get public support for a "trophy fishery" when the angling public doesn't accept it. What should be done, is reduce the size limit on musky to a reasonable length and let the angling public decide if they want a trophy fishery, by "voluntary catch and release". If the angling public wants a trophy fishery, it will come out of this "voluntary" action and along with it comes public support for DNR fisheries.
> Here in the UP, when the creel limit on brook trout was decreased to 5, I know of many trout fishermen that gave up trout fishing. I also know of others that still stop at 10. It was an unwanted law change orchestrated but a small group of "catch and release" anglers that had direct influence on DNR fisheries division. And let's not get into the public hearings that were held prior to the law change. I was at three and the majority of the fishermen present were against it. Fortunately, some of our NRC commissioners agree and have voiced they will look into returning the creel to 10.
> I fish for muskies and if I catch a legal one, I usually keep it. They are great eating. There is nothing wrong with eating a musky. I would prefer to harvest one for eating that is 32", but am forced to take them at 42".
> ...


Mike - Once again your perspective of muskie fishermen and your attitude toward what MMA is trying to accomplish in Michigan is completely off base. Muskie fishermen did not establish the current size limit, the DNR did that. The size limit currently in place allows female muskies to reach adulthood. The size limit is a mangement tool and has little to do with creating a trophy fishery. The term "trophy fishery" is not being used correctly by you and many others. Trophy fishery means that we have a fish, in this case the muskie, that can be managed to produce a large gamefish. Trophy fisheries are meant to appeal to anglers that are interested in catching larger fish regardless of species. These trophy fisheries can be economically important to areas of the state that could benefit from a boost in tourism.

Creel restrictions and size limits are in place to ensure we maintain our fisheries for generations. Limiting harvest is necessary since most people will obey the law. As you noted, in the Brook Trout example, some people don't obey the law. *I can't believe that as a former law enforcement officer you would look the other way just because you don't agree with the creel limit.*

Current management practice with general statewide regulations means that on some water the regulations will be too little and other water too much. There are a very limited number of muskie lakes in Michigan and as you should know a fish that takes 5-8 years to reach sexual maturity is difficult to manage.

Sure it would be great if we could trust anglers to choose but that doesn't work. I can site the number of Muskies harvested by spear in Black Lake last winter as a prime example. A very large number of female muskie were harvested, that represented a large percentage of the spawning females. These fish would have ranged in age from 12-20 years old. It will take many years for Black Lake to recover from loosing that many adult females. In this instance even thought there is a size and creel limit in place for muskies it backfired allowing a substantial overharvest.

Is it really that off base for the DNR to establish 20-30 quality muskie lakes out of 11,000+.

Also, you are incorrect that muskies are not native to inland lakes. You need to do some research before giving your opinion about something you haven't even educated yourself about. Linda was discussing Intermediate Lake which has a native population of muskies.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Yes, Intermediate Lake has a native population of Great Lakes Muskies, but you have to remember that Intermediate is not totally an inland lake-until the dams were built back in the 20's, you had direct access from Intermediate, which was really just a river then, to Grand Traverse Bay and beyond.


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

Will Schultz said:


> Is it really that off base for the DNR to establish 20-30 quality muskie lakes out of 11,000+.


I could not have said it better.



Darkhouse Angler said:


> Cyberlunge. You're missing the point on the item in discussion. I think it's great you and your clubs do what you do. I've done it myself with fish and wildlife clubs for years. I've milked muskies, pike, walleyes and worked my butt off building bank cover in blue ribbon trout streams and worked for weeks on walleye cribs in below 0 temperatures. But the point the organized clubs miss, and I've seen it in almost every outdoor club I've been affiliated with is, no matter how much $$$ you raise or hands-on labor you supply, the resource is still belongs to everyone who buys a fishing license, not to the well meaning clubs. The organized clubs efforts are commendable but that still doesn't and shouldn't, give that organization any more access to the sway the fish managers decision to regulate that species of fish. That's the issue that Linda touched upon. Some of the fishing clubs are viewed as, "playground bullies" to the general angling public. They aren't interested in the amount effort your group puts toward a particular species of fish. What they do notice, is that particular organization that lobbies for increased size limits and reduced creel limits as imposing thats organizations values upon them. Just because a body of water is capable of raising "trophy size" fish doesn't mean it should be planted with that species. In regards to musky, which I fish for, they are native to the Great Lakes and connecting waters, not inland lakes where they are viewed by many as an invasive species. They are not native to many of the inland lakes now planted. I have heard and seen the anger first hand when musky are planted in a lake that produces good catches of native species. So, just because it can grow big muskies, should it be done? No. This is the point of the conversation. You say in 12 yrs. of fishing you've only eaten 20 fish. Wonderful, if that's what you "choose" to do, great. But when you or your organization critizes other angles because they "choose" to harvest and consume fish or maybe because it's a fish which you angle for, then, you are wrong. Supporting the fisheries division with $$$$ may help the resource. But if you support them with $$$$ expecting the rules should be changed to your idea of what fishing should be, then I think you are doing it for all the wrong reasons.
> I'm not saying that an organization that supports the fisheries division with $$$$ is right or wrong. But you must consider the majority of other anglers. Up to now, the large organizations haven't done that. That's why you don't and won't have most anglers support.


I'm not exactly sure if your entire post was directed at me, but I think I should clarify. I am not part of an organization. I am just an angler enamored at the prospect of catching a huge Muskie. Because there are so few quality Muskie lakes in Michigan, I value the stocking programs because I, in turn, have a better chance of catching the fish of my dreams.

And I do believe I stated that there is nothing wrong with harvesting fish, provided it is within the legal limits. I didn't criticise anyone.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

I like to fish for ciscoes and alwives on the great lakes so I believe the salmon that have been planted to be an invasive species. Please stop planting them!!! If you want to catch salmon go to the Pacific coast where they are a native species and leave the great lakes alone!!


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I don't think you can make any kind of analogy between the salmon of the Great Lakes and muskies on inland lakes...size of the bodies of water being the obvious factor here, but there's also the access issue. Look at the crowds of people fishing for the salmon when they come into the rivers, as opposed to the relative handful out there in the summer who can afford the boats and equipment and have the expertise...but even then, you have a sizable charter boat industry, which makes that resource relatively available to the average Joe.

Are there really people out there who like to fish for alewives?? LOL


----------



## Icecreep (Oct 2, 2005)

Linda G. said:


> Are the bodies of water studied in Wisconsin exactly like the bodies of water in Michigan? No, very few are. Where's the Michigan data?
> 
> Guys, I'm not against musky stocking at all, neither is anyone else here. We are just concerned about other species that might be impacted by heavy musky stocking, IF there is an impact, and about people who might lose interest in fishing as a result of not being able to catch these other species as frequently, and not having the expertise to catch muskies, losing interest in fishing altogether.
> 
> ...


"Are the bodies of water studied in Wisconsin exactly like the bodies of water in MIchigan?"-No, no two bodies are exactly the same even in Michigan. That being said, Wisconsin and Michigan share very simular watersheds, along with other states in the upper midwest and great lakes region. Which is why research is accepted from state to state in alot of cases. As an example select bodies of water in Eastern Ontario will adopt slot size regulations on Northern Pike that have been derived from research and studies done on Minnesota lakes.

"Guys, I'm not against musky stocking at all" - Really? In light of good evidence and well thought out lucid feedback, you still seem to have a negative stance. If i'm wrong, I apologize, that is just my observation.

"We are just concerned about other species that might be impacted by heavy musky stocking" - I'll touch on this again, although it has been stated numerous times appearantly to no effect.
Whether or not Musky populations impact Walleye:- No negative impacts have EVER been documented. Furthermore, Muskellunge populations exist at densities to low(even on the best musky waters) to impact Walleye populations.

"Your kind of like some of the QDM deer people when you go off like that" - Like what? Did I miss something?

"We are all concerned about the health of our fisheries" - Again, really? If we were we would be discussing topics like angler overharvest, unchecked shoreline development, habitat changes, water quality and exploitation. Not the age old "tavern" biology myth's (your big mean fish is eating all my fish).
Let's move foward not backward.

I hear you say things like " You have to convince the general fishing public of that " or "Your problem is with convincing JQ public"

Shouldn't the general fishing public be responsable for anything besides the price of a license? There is tons of information out there in the form of the internet,books, TV shows or simply calling a fisheries biologist.
Small groups do their best and can only do so much. The sad truth is the average joe,JQ public or whatever you want to call them, does not want to do research and educate themselves on our fisheries, Nor could they care less about the biological side of things.I say it is everyone's responsibility to educate themselves and others.

Jason Merics


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Do interviews with four or five different state game agencies, the USFWS, the US Forest Service, USDA, and four or five tribal game agencies over the course of the last 20 years, as I have, and you'll find yourself being told, 9 times out of 10, that research isn't accepted from other nearby areas because the habitats are so similar, but because that is the best they have available to them, so they take a gamble...and every once in a while, that gamble's a bad move. Much better to do direct research on the area in question, but in today's tight financial atmosphere, more and more often that is simply not reality. 

Nuff said, guys...


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

synopsis of wisconsin report............................................................Abstract.The muskellunge Esox masquinongy is an important sport fish in Wisconsin and elsewhere, but more information about its diet is needed to better understand its role in aquatic systems and its effects on other fish. Stomach contents were examined for 1,092 muskellunge (2261,180 mm total length, TL) captured in the littoral zone from 34 Wisconsin water bodies from July 1991 to October 1994. Food occurred in 34.3% (N = 375) of the stomachs, with most (74%) containing a single item. Overall, the proportion of muskellunge with food differed significantly among seasons, with the greatest proportion occurring in fall (69.0%), followed by summer (53.5%) and then spring (25.4%). Prey items consisted of 547 fish, representing 12 families and 31 species, along with 35 nonfish items; fish composed 98% of the diet. Relative importance values of diet items varied by taxa, season, and water body, but the main food items eaten by muskellunge in each season were yellow perch Perca flavescens and white sucker Catostomous commersoni. Black basses Micropterus spp., northern pike Esox lucius, walleye Stizostedion vitreum, cyprinids, and other taxa were less common in the diet. Prey fish ranged in size from 6% to 47% of muskellunge total length and prey length increased significantly as muskellunge size increased. Yet the size of prey in proportion to muskellunge size remained the same for all sizes of muskellunge. The results of this study indicate that, if readily available, yellow perch and catostomids will compose a large proportion of the muskellunge diet. Additional studies assessing muskellunge diet among lakes having different prey community types and assessing diet in deeper offshore areas of lakes are needed to better understand the role that muskellunge play in aquatic communities.


----------



## Icecreep (Oct 2, 2005)

A more recent study by scientists at the University of Wisconsin is refered to by Mr. Schultz in a previous post above.

Also:

*-Interactions between Walleyes and four fish species with implications for Walleye stocking-*_Andrew H.Fayram, Michael J. Hansen, Timothy J. Ehlinger. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2005; 25:1321-1330_


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

another synopsis...............bstract.We used a number of different data sets and four criteria to evaluate evidence of competition and predation between walleye Sander vitreus and northern pike Esox lucius, muskellunge E. masquinongy, smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu, and largemouth bass M. salmoides in northern Wisconsin lakes. The four criteria were as follows: (1) indices of population abundance were inversely related, (2) two species had shared resources or one species preyed on the other, (3) competition or predation was strong enough to produce a measurable effect, and (4) experimental manipulations produced results consistent with the hypothesis of competition or predation. Using these criteria, we identified which species interact most strongly with walleyes, determined the most likely mechanism for interaction (predation, competition, or both), and characterized the effects of walleye stocking on these species. Largemouth bass was the only species that strongly interacted with walleyes: (1) indices of largemouth bass and walleye population abundance were inversely related in lakes with self-sustaining walleye populations; (2) the diet of largemouth bass included juvenile walleyes; (3) walleye growth was positively related to indices of largemouth bass abundance; and (4) survival of stocked walleyes was negatively related to indices of largemouth bass abundance, and indices of largemouth bass abundances increased as an index of walleye stocking intensity increased. A bioenergetics analysis of one lake that was stocked with 39,300 juvenile walleyes, but also has some natural reproduction of walleyes, suggested that the largemouth bass population could consume up to 82,500 juvenile walleyes per year. Our findings suggest that largemouth bass interact strongly with walleyes through predation, that they can limit the survival of stocked walleyes, and that walleye stocking can result in increased largemouth bass populations. ......................................................gee, now thats interesting...kill the bass , kill the bass!..lol:lol: .............................................................Ya gotta feel sorry for all the seafood lovers on lk. st. clair..musky eating their perch, bucketmouths eating their walleye!..guess they'll just have to learn how to milk sturgeon and settle for caviar!:evilsmile :lol:


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

only, more recent, roughly related article i can find.............Abstract.We developed a linear discriminant function (LDF) using surface area, mean depth, fetch, and three substrate descriptors to discriminate the presence and absence of walleyes Sander vitreus (formerly Stizostedion vitreum) in 120 northern Wisconsin lakes. The resulting LDF correctly classified 90% of walleye lakes and 85% of nonwalleye lakes. For model validation, the model classified 90% of walleye lakes and 93% of nonwalleye lakes in an independent set of 100 randomly selected lakes. In contrast, within walleye lakes, an LDF using the same variables correctly classified only 60% of 30 self-sustaining walleye lakes and 50% of 30 stocked walleye lakes. For model validation, the model classified 30% of self-sustaining walleye lakes and 73% of stocked walleye lakes in an independent set of 40 randomly selected lakes. To further assess the differences between walleye lakes with self-sustaining and stocked populations, the angler catch rates for largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, smallmouth bass M. dolomieu, northern pike Esox lucius, and muskellunge E. masquinongy obtained from creel surveys during 19902001 were analyzed by means of a principal components analysis. The first principal component explained 29% of the variation and represented a linear contrast between the relative abundance of walleyes and muskellunge and the relative abundance of largemouth bass and northern pike. High largemouth bass and northern pike densities characterized lakes with stocked walleye populations, whereas high walleye and muskellunge densities characterized lakes with self-sustaining walleye populations. We conclude that physical features may be used to discriminate lakes where walleyes presently occur from lakes where walleyes do not presently occur, and that fish community differences exist between stocked and self-sustaining walleye populations in northern Wisconsin.

Received: June 7, 2002; Accepted: February 10, 2003


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

Wow, I cant believe what I just read!! Hello is anyone home here???? I gues only a few folks read important things like Scientific data??. First off I am a retired Guide who used to Guide for Muskellunge and Northern Pike from Muskegon Michigan. Muskies eating Walleyes?? Absolutly rubbish. Muskies take a small walleye now and then but this is a rare thing. As Mr Schultz has pointed out around 1% of an Aphpa Predators diet is comprised of spined finned or (rayed) sportfish. As I guided for Pike and Muskies in your Chain of lakes I was very dissapointed in the Numbers of Large Muskies and Pike. In fact we only caught and released one 47" Musky in 7 years from your Chain while catching and releasing over 400 from other lakes and rivers in this state. I would say that spearing and kill fishing have decimated natural populations of Muskellunge in the lakes of Black, Mullet, Elk and yes Intermediate. On my home waters of White and Muskegon Lakes I have seen a tremendous drop in Northern Pike populations over the last 20 years. In one 10 year stretch the West Michigan Sportfishing association stocked over 10 million walleye fingerlings and have been stopped By Michigan D.N.R. Its about time !!!!!!!!!!!!. What is so very interesting is the results of all this Walleye stocking all over this state. 1987 Muskegon County Big Blue Lake. Tiger Musky were stocked to control the spread of Rainbow suckers. The muskies grew to 48" but were all killed and never replaced. While they were the top predators in this lake Bass averaged 3 to 5 lbs, Pike were often caught near 10 lbs and this lake was one of the best Crappie and Blue gill lakes in my area. Several years after the Tigers were gone they started stocking walleyes. This has continued to date. 2005 summer cant find a Blue Gill big enough to eat, Size limit for Northern pike has been dropped due to stunting( Anglers are encouraged to keep 5 -13 to 20 " Pike per day. Bass are still holding at about 3/4 lbs but they dont really taste good now do they??? And where are all the walleyes??? . This is what is and has been going on for 20 years all over this state. The supply of slop to the hog trough . We have severely hurt hundreds of Great fisheries by over stocking Walleyes. Put a camera down in White Lake and tell us what we already know. Its full of Sheepshead averaging over 6 lbs and growing fast. Where are the 10 million Walleyes??? Chased off the structure by huge trash fish that are exploding in numbers because of the LACK of Huge Predators like Muskellunge and Northern Pike. I tell you the truth, Michigans drowned river mouths are in a serious decline unless of course you enjoy fishing for Catfish,Carp and Sheepshead. I was there watching the 2000 and 2001 slaughter fest on the Channel walls at the mouth of White Lake where walleye fisherman got into fist fights over 12" of standing room and carried off thousands of ripe Female walleyes in buckets. And now these same fools want to blame Muskies and Pike for the lack of Walleyes. What will it take for the average Guy to get the truth into his and her heads??? The Canadians have everything we used to have because they refuse to let thier resources be overharvested and do not over stock middle of the road semi predators like Walleyes. Kingfisher


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

I would like to thank Shametamer for posting real data     I had not read your posts prior to my post. I find the facts on Bass eating walleyes very interesting . read my Blue Lake report. I see a pattern there . Kingfisher


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

For Linda, I would also like to invite you to take a boat ride with Queenfisher and I this summer. The truth can be verified only by experiencing it. May I make a suggestion? Ok I will. Take a ride to the Mouth of the Clam river this Mid. May. say the 15th. Grab a sandwich at the bar and pull up a chair along the bank and look into the water. What you will see is tens of thousands of suckers stacked like cordwood running up the river. What you will not see is a single Musky. Oh there may be a few within a few miles of there but you will not see anything but suckers. Now it has been established that Muskies favorite foods are Suckers and Perch. I have used both for bait and know with out any doubt that a large Sucker is the best bait you can use to bring in a Big Pike or Musky. My point in this post is to assure you that there are more suckers in the Chain of Lakes than any other species except maybe perch and smaller minnow types. One look at the suckers in the Clam which by the way are thoughout the Chain should tell you that there is a huge lack of anything big enough to eat them. The D.N.R. has seen this and has seen fit to place this chain on the supplemental stocking list. The huge masses of suckers are competing with walleye,bass and perch for available forage and there is a need to return balance to this system. With rough fish numbers under control as it used to be before everyone had a 16 foot lund with top of the line electronics. Your walleyes,bass and trout will actully get bigger,spawn and be able to compete better for available forage. We are the top Predators and we must not forget this. We fish out creeks,lakes and rivers by taking limits even when we see the numbers dropping. Then we blame the Pike and Muskies. You said a belly full of Gills??? One Big Pike would take over 1 year to catch and eat 100 Gills. I did it in 4 days. So did another 35 guys until an entire bay on White Lake was completely wiped clean of any big Blue Gill. Not a Musky in sight. I fished for Brook Trout on an Oceana county Stream. In one year I took over 200 ,8 to 16" Brookies from this water in 10 fish limits. The following year I caught 5 all year and they were small. Not a Musky in sight. I watched thousands of Walleyes taken off the White Lake piers in 2000,2001 . Some guys were taking 3 to 5 limits per night of 25 to 30" hens while thier brothers were up in the White river snagging the rest of them desguised as steelhead fisherman. Not a Musky in sight. Big Blue lake, Hamlin lake, Silver Lake with stunted Pike poor panfishing and not a Musky in sight!!. The torch River and the Clam river Full to the top with HUGE SUCKERS AND NOT A MUSKY IN SIGHT!!! We are the cause of the problems that we have. We kill the good fish and throw back the trash. We eat the Walleye and return the Sheepshead. But The Sheepshead has taken over the lakes, Suckers are everywhere!! Gizzard Shad the size of Whitefish!! Carp invading from the south ,Gobies from Detroit to Chicago and you guessed it         NOT A MUSKY IN SIGHT. Be Glad that your D.N.R. uses sound data to plant or discontinue planting certain species. If Muskies were over stocked and plentyfull a smaller size limit as Darkhouse has suggested would be in order. But the way things stand today they are more like an endangered species. We have almost zero Muskellunge where we need them most and very few lakes that can sustain any kill percentage at all. Please get on board, put a camera down in Intermediate and tell us what you see when you write that article. Ill bet there wont be a Musky in sight. Kingfisher


----------



## Darkhouse Angler (Jul 25, 2005)

Hi Will. As you know, I have never and will never be critical of MMA. I support your efforts and would stand by you or any other organization that promotes fishing in Michigan. However, you are the one that represents MMA and are documented on numerous occasions, as to be against Darkhouse angling. I have several emails regarding your comments of negativity against our angling methods as well as copies of some of the negative posts you have made regarding anyone who would kill/eat a musky. You are the one who doesn't want to share the resource. I don't know what you are getting at with regards to Black Lake, but if the muskies harvested were legal, why would you critize the taking of them by legal methods. With a 42" size limit, which I feel is excessive, and you know that, most of these fish are past their prime for spawning anyway, and you know that. Spawn is never taken from muskies larger than 35"-36" because of the viability issue. Ask any fish biologist who has done it. I have and from many states. They all agree, 35" fish have the highest egg viability. The other thing, male muskies rarely grow larger than 36". One fish biologist from Michigan stated, "In 25 yrs. of taking musky spawn, I have only seen one male musky over 36"." I know you probably hate to hear this, but we have some MMA members that are members of our MDAA. 
With regard to my comments on creel limits of brook trout, you over-step you assumption of my "looking the other way" when I hear of overlimits of brook trout being taken. I am retired and have no authority to enforce the game and fish laws. However, when rumors of such actions make there way to me, I pass them along to working Conservation Officers, one being my son. Again, you miss the point of the posting. 
Also, I think you should ask around about muskies being native to inland waters. I know, they are not native to inland waters and have documents that show when many were "introduced" by the fisheries division into inland waters.
"Off base for the DNR to establish 20-30 quality lakes out of 11,000"? Yes, if it means that one angling group is discriminated against by loosing their angling method to another angling group. 
I support musky fishing and I enjoy catching and eating them, too. If you really believed you had support from the Michigan angling community for trophy sizes on musky, then you should lobby for a "no size limit" or "reduced limit". Instead, you attempt to impose your values of a "trophy fishery" upon those that don't feel it is necessary.





Will Schultz said:


> Mike - Once again your perspective of muskie fishermen and your attitude toward what MMA is trying to accomplish in Michigan is completely off base. Muskie fishermen did not establish the current size limit, the DNR did that. The size limit currently in place allows female muskies to reach adulthood. The size limit is a mangement tool and has little to do with creating a trophy fishery. The term "trophy fishery" is not being used correctly by you and many others. Trophy fishery means that we have a fish, in this case the muskie, that can be managed to produce a large gamefish. Trophy fisheries are meant to appeal to anglers that are interested in catching larger fish regardless of species. These trophy fisheries can be economically important to areas of the state that could benefit from a boost in tourism.
> 
> Creel restrictions and size limits are in place to ensure we maintain our fisheries for generations. Limiting harvest is necessary since most people will obey the law. As you noted, in the Brook Trout example, some people don't obey the law. *I can't believe that as a former law enforcement officer you would look the other way just because you don't agree with the creel limit.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

Hi Mike, we emailed back and forth a while back . Number one I believe you to be way off on the size of the Average Male Musky and second the size of Females milked in Michigan. For the last esveral years I have observed 50" class Females and Males in low to mid 40's milked and released from Both Broodstock lakes. It my understanding that passing on these genetics is very important to this program. Will is talking about natural reproduction fish in Black lake. Numbers in this lake are not high and last years banner year for the spearing festival (and it was a banner year) something like 30 Muskies over 42" taken out even though legal will be devastating to this lake down the road. The part about cutting out one group of fisherman doesnt fly either as it applys to trophy fisheries. All forms of fishermen are equal when sizes are high. I cant take one and neither can you. Its fair , it needs to happen and guys who want trophy waters in this state deserve to have them . You should read your own post. We have catering to meat hunters in this state for as long as I can remember and am sick and tired of having to give my money to the Canadians for a taste of real trophy fishing . We have 11000 lakes in this state and having 20 to 30 trophy lakes spread out over the state is not to much to ask. The bullies are the ones who have it all and refuse to give up even a few. I see many more lakes in the U.P. this last year with stunting Pike problems. The list of special lakes is growing. You should be jumping for Joy no size limits and 5 per day. To bad they are all under 20 inches. I can remember when there were two lakes on this list. One was in my home county. This lake is still trashed from over harvest and poor management. Muskegon county Big Blue Lake. I extend my hand to you Mike ,come here and fish this awsome lake that has no size limit and a 5 fish limit. There are no spearing huts there anymore. Your pals have moved on to another lake and I hear old Galen is slaying the 20 lb Northerns again. Ill tell you something , I was a catch and kill lake and creek trasher. I was very good at it and could wipe out most any lake or stream I touched. A few years back I saw the Linders talking about Selective Harvest. You have used this phrase but not the way they used it. I learned that to have a strong eco system there needed to be balance from the top to the bottom (plankton to Alpha predator) Man becomes one of the Alpha predators when he takes from the resource. If man takes the other Alpha predator in this case the Musky or Large Pike out of the system the system suffers as trash fish numbers rise and grow to larger sizes where even the biggest Muskies and Pike cannot eat them. Where you are in the great north you do not see the carnage that has been wreaked down here. You need to see this waste of great water. The limits were set to try and hold off the crash of about 12 drowned river mouths. You want to spear something? come to Macatawa and spear a thousand Sheeps head a day. You wont put a dent in the numbers. You think Im feeding you a line??? Come and see for your self. Ive fished all around your house and you have some good fishing up there . Check out U.S.2 From the bridge to Manistique. Coldwell Banker signs by the hundreds. The hordes are coming Mike . Soon you wont have a lake worth spit. Be glad you have slot limits on De Noc. Without it the Walleye fishing will die. Be Glad there are lakes in your area where you cant use motors and close for the winter. They will still be there when the rest are history. You should be glad there are guys like Will and Me who care about the future of the lakes and rivers in this state. Leaving the regulating to the public is like handing a drunk the keys to your new car. I woke up about 10 years ago. I have seen some changes made that have helped a little. 24" pike and a 2 fish limit have brought the average size of Muskegon Lake Northerns up to 28" . Too bad the sheeps head are that big as well. Come on down here Mike and see how the rest of us live. Kingfisher


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

Well said, Kingfisher.


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

Thanks Cuban Fisherman, You know the sad part is I used to spear and its an enjoyable sport. The problem is not the sport but the targets. Its so bad on some lakes that I hang my head. Ice fisherman used to have an advantage in that Big Pike were really only catchable during the winter months when they moved shallow. Now with so many Guys owning great boats with top shelf electronics and chart plotters and such trolling deep. The Biggest Pike get cropped off so fast its scary. Lakes like White,Muskegon,Macatawa etc should be producing numbers of 20 plus pound Northerns in the hundreds per lake. and I heard of two last year and both were slabbed. Slot limits are the only thing that will get some numbers of 40 plus inch Pike back in the top predator spot. Eat them from 20 to 32" AND release them from 32 to 40" and let the guys take one over 40" . This would do so much for the balance in these lakes and would cut the competition that the walleyes and perch are fighting. Call this trophy managment if you will but in reality its just plain good sense so have big fish in every system. When the trash fish numbers come down and there needs to be some trimming of the big Pike then you up the take limit till its balanced again. Right now as it stands we need some help over here. We also need Great Lakes strain Muskies stocked in every Drowned river mouth with a problem especilly Macatawa, Mona and White Lakes. Kingfisher


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

It's really interesting that the drowned river mouth lakes should need a boost. I would think such bodies of water would have burgeoning populations of quality pike and muskie. There is such abundant forage that isn't easily depleted. I guess it just comes down to what you said, Kingfisher-anglers keeping any fish that they can. I suppose legal limits only go so far; the second half is each angler's responsibility. Like I said before, it just kills me to see someone keep a big pike, just because it won't be out there for me-or others- to catch.


----------



## Cyberlunge (Mar 5, 2005)

Cuban,
The bottom line is overharvest. NO ONE will convince me otherwise. The number of human beings on this planet is not going down and won't ever. Perhaps we should start hanging a few people on the wall because they are"past their prime". I mean if that is the mentality toward other inhabitants of the planet then lets introduce humans into the food chain. No guns, no rods man versus animal equal footing. No more nuisance permits for bears or wolves or coyotes. You have to go out and kill it with your bare hands and if you can't-- well I guess you were at your maximum size. The reason the numbers of fish are down is just what KF said. The alpha predator HUMANS are killing all the lesser ones at a staggering rate. I would support the harvesting of fish more if WE WERE NATIVE TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. I have yet to see a pike come up in my yard and steal vegetables out of my garden or knock off a liquor store. WE are not part of the equation underneath the water and WE ALL need to stop abusing the fish population. We plant Salmon and Trout and Walleye until the lakes are ecologically unbalanced, introduce exotics and drain our sewers into them. Then people actually have the balls to say that they have the right to enjoy the same un-checked level of fish harvest as fifty years ago TIMES CHANGE we must also. This argument will continue until there is nothing left to argue about unless we stop this trend of consuming the planet one bluegill at a time. You want a radical idea?? How about NO harvest of or angling for fish of any kind because we killed them all. Think it's impossible- go ask a do-do bird what they think- oh thats right we wiped them out to. Come to think of it european settlers have a great history of destroying the population everywhere they landed. Looks like fish are just the next link in the chain.
Kevin
Of course you could always argue that the Wolves or the Wolverines or Fishers are eating all the fish no...wait we killed most of them... eagles!! that's it eagles are doing it. OOHH thats right we killed most of those as well. Maybe it has something to do with damming up all the freakin' rivers in the country or acid rain or MAYBE Cormorants... Oh yeah another exotic well we better kill all them and the blue herons before they get all the perch. We know there eating all the perch because 206 people on a perch charter out of Grand Haven saw it happen!!


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

You would think these lakes would be just thick with 25 lb Northerns but the average fish is about 6 lbs but these are young fish. they grow so fast but the harvest just keeps all but few from growing to any real size. Now the two fish limit is starting to show some results and this lack of ice will also add to the numbers making it another year. winter of 2007 could see a bunch of 12 to 15 lbers . But the real reason for guys not to eat Big Pike and Muskies is the P.C.B.S AND MERCURY content. They eat so many trashy bottom feeders that they soak up a ton of polutants. This is why 32" should be a cut off point as these fish are only about 3 year olds. Its the reason that Salmon continue to get a cleaner bill of health on the consumtion advisory booklet. A 20 Lb Pike has 13 to 20 years of pollutants saturated into its flesh. Salmon, Trout and 3 year old Pike ,walleyes and such are much safer to eat anyway so wahy is there a hassle??? I see you are from Grand Rapids. I was over your way today and fished the Thornapple . No luck water very ccccold. Kingfisher


----------



## CubanFisherman (Mar 28, 2005)

Cyberlunge said:


> Cuban,The bottom line is overharvest.


Yup, I know it. It kills me to think of the potential that we have in the lakes, potential we seem to be carelessly wasting.

Kingfisher, where on the Thornapple? I fish it a few times during the summer. Usually the Cascade or 84th street dam.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Darkhouse Angler said:


> You are the one who doesn't want to share the resource. I don't know what you are getting at with regards to Black Lake, but if the muskies harvested were legal, why would you critize the taking of them by legal methods. With a 42" size limit, which I feel is excessive, and you know that, most of these fish are past their prime for spawning anyway, and you know that. Spawn is never taken from muskies larger than 35"-36" because of the viability issue. Ask any fish biologist who has done it. I have and from many states. They all agree, 35" fish have the highest egg viability. The other thing, male muskies rarely grow larger than 36". One fish biologist from Michigan stated, "In 25 yrs. of taking musky spawn, I have only seen one male musky over 36"."
> 
> 
> ​


Mr. Holmes - You are misinforming the public once again and twisting this discussion. This was/is not an anti-Spearing discussion and the MMA is not out to stop spearing as you and Fred Trost have previously stated.
There are many inland lakes with native or historical muskie populations. Most of these, at least in the Lower Peninsula, are connected to the Great Lakes. There are many lakes in the UP that are natural muskie lakes, as you know. There are also lakes where muskies have been introduced because there isn&#8217;t an alpha predator. We also have a few other lakes stocked with muskies to establish broodstock lakes (Thornapple has a historical population).

I&#8217;ve observed and been involved in the egg take at Thornapple for many years and your information is not correct at all. A female muskie usually doesn&#8217;t reach sexual maturity until she is 40-42" 6-8 years old. These fish are NOT at their prime for viability or egg production at 42". Throughout the muskie range, the females are at their best for viability and production in the 45-49" range. Male muskie at maturity will range in size from 32-45". Is one or two years before harvest enough for the female muskies to maintain a population at the acceptable management levels? Where habitat has been destroyed and developed that would be a resounding NO.

So you see, a size limit under 42" would allow harvest of female muskies before they have the ability to produce eggs. If Michigan was a put-and-take state (relying on stocking only) then a reduced size limit might be acceptable. As you have misstated so many times MMA is not after trophy fisheries and I&#8217;ve never said that the size limit needs to be raise without biological reason &#8211; PERIOD. The DNR was able to establish the 42" size limit as an acceptable "trophy" for anglers across the state. Once again, the DNR determined this size limit but it&#8217;s not perfect for all lakes, however, because people like their regulations simple that&#8217;s what we have. The muskellunge fishery is NOT a food fishery, plain and simple. The DNR in Michigan and fisheries managers across the muskie range manage this species to produce a trophy fishery. I personally don&#8217;t consider 42" a trophy but enough people consider that a trophy size fish in Michigan the DNR has decided that 42" is acceptable as a trophy and for management purposes. Since the 42" size limit came into effect there has been an improvement on a number of lakes, particularly those with natural reproduction.

This is not about having a trophy fishery, this is about protecting and establishing muskie fisheries in Michigan. If we wanted to establish true trophy fisheries in Michigan then we would be asking the DNR to establish size limits similar to what Ontario has done to protect it&#8217;s fisheries from over harvest. 48, 50, 54" size limits across Ontario are needed to keep those fisheries at an acceptable management level.

So, if you believe muskies can survive in a body of water without the 42" size limit and spearing allowed, then we should work together to come up with a couple test lakes and that would provide the data.

With regard to Black Lake: I never said anything about the angling methods used but instead that the number of fish harvested was too high for the population to remain at current levels. I don&#8217;t care if there were that many fish harvested in the summer or winter by spear or hook and line. Over harvest is over harvest, the current size and creel limit on the natural lakes can be abused, in the case of Black Lake it was. I'm also not criticising the people that harvested the fish, they were within the law. That's the problem, a person that obeys the law can still be part of overharvest without knowing. The point I'm making is that not all regulations are prefect, what might seem too strict can still be abused intentionally or not.

The bottom line is that you are more concerned about protecting your sport than you are about protecting the resource. In my opinion that is not what a sportsmen should be, plain and simple. Spearing is a traditional sport and should be preserved, I agree. However, some species lend themselves to over harvest with this method and the current statewide creel and size limits.


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 13, 2000)

Cyberlunge ,well said. Will ,well said, Cuban Fisherman well said, Pike in my back yard thats a concept?? We love ya Kevin but Still I like to eat fish too. Balance is the key and we all need to keep pushing for that balance. A balanced fishery (IS) a trophy fishery as all species benefit. Limiting the take and controlling the sizes is the only thing keeping our fisheries going at this time. There is no need to eat 28" walleyes or Pike over 32" or Muskies at all. I enjoy a fat 28" Pike for supper(sorry Chad) love walleyes around 18" . I support Slots ,have always and will always. Slot limits let some get big to spawn and allow the harvest of limited numbers of trophy sized fish while letting people eat limits of smaller ones which are less toxic and not as important in the food chain(also allows the supplemental stocking put and take fish) For example let the big Walleye hens spawn and stock some smaller walleyes along with the naturals for the meat guys. Ill eat some smaller Pike while letting the 32 to 40" Pike spawn while Darkhouse spears a 44 because there are a lot of them. This type of system works for everyone and I hope and pray that our D.N.R. looks in this direction. I for one would like to see the day when there are so many Muskies that we slot limit them as well. I dont doubt that a smaller one is good eating but with numbers where they are it should not be allowed. I think with Muskellunge numbers as low as they are Muskellunge should be catch and release only until there are more of them. Our D.N.R. believes that one per day over 42" is an acceptable loss. On Black Lake it wasnt and I dont know of one inland lake that can handle the current one per day harvest limit. Im glad that most Musky fisherman like myself release all Muskies because if we(the musky fishermen) killed all we caught there would be zero Muskies in this state. Kingfisher


----------



## Cyberlunge (Mar 5, 2005)

I agree Mike that reasonable harvest is the key. The problem in my eyes is that the exponential growth of the human population is not being taken into account when we set harvest limitations. More people + less fish = devastated populations of fish. Some broad slotting and or restricting would allow the spawners to rebound and the stronger strains of fish to dominate. It takes a minimum of ten generations before there can be any significant increase in positive genetic traits.With the rate of kill right now on all species were lucky if we see three generations before a good set of genes is removed from the population. 
Kevin
P.S. Mike I have seen Carp and Suckers in my yard- Maybe a few more esox will stop that.


----------



## John E Sox (Sep 29, 2003)

Darkhouse "Angler"-
Everytime you get on one of these forums you are talking about all these people that want to keep every fish they catch. You are always saying _we_ are tired of higher size limits and _we_ are tired of this trophy mentality. Who is _we_? This time it is the "angling public". Does that include all the fishermen in the state or is it 1 percent of Iron county and a half dozen guys in your club. How come this _we_ you are always talking about only ends up being _you_ when things get heated? Maybe _we_ are not as many people as you think. I still have yet to hear from another muskie angler that actually wants to lower the size limit. It's not a "trophy" thing, it's good management to have low harvest rates on muskies. Low density fish need to be harvested at low rates to help sustain a healthy and fishable population. I think "selective harvest" is great. Your selection is just way off. We are stuards of this land. We need rules and restrictions to ensure that we have resources for the future. Game Wardens are now called Conservation Officers because we need them to _conserve _our natural resources. 
The depression is over. We don't need to keep every fish to survive anymore. You keep pointing your finger at MMA for not being pushy and not sharing but I think that you, or _we_, or whoever I am talking to, are the ones being selfish.


----------



## Sailor (Jan 2, 2002)

Having had many spirited arguments with "antis" of many stripes,I have heard the following comment (the melody not the score) over and over: "I understand a person killing an animal or fish to eat but I can't accept trophy or tournament fishing or trophy hunting". The "Trophy hunters and fishermen" 
(or those of us perceived as such) I feel must embrace those others of us who choose to fish with live bait, spear and eat Musky and Pike, shoot spikes,
use crossbows, trap, run hounds, hunt with falcolns etc. . Like the old saw
states "United we stand-Devided we fall". We need each other. Or take it from an old sailor- It dosen't do any good to have a seat on the top deck if the ship is going to sink!


----------

