# Michigan Muskellunge Regulations Change



## Contender (May 18, 2004)

Will Schultz said:


> No tag is required if you only intend to catch and release.


 

Tag is free..correct? 

If you intend to C&R fish only, and a legal size fish dies, for w/e reason. My recommendation is to have a tag, and then one can posses said fish, to transport to shore and do with, as one wishes. 

Otherwise, it gets added as a floater to the water shed it once lived. Same as all other undersize creel that do not survive.

Concerning LSC - this rule change, really has minimal to no effect to 99% of all anglers. Both current muskie fishing clubs on LSC, were involved with the drafting of these regulations.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Too tired to cut and paste all your quotes so I'll just summarize...

OK, good job looking up the report. As they say, you can't believe everything you read and you need to take a logical look at the information presented and not just look for what supports your agenda.

The Northern Muskellunge was stocked because the tiger muskie program was discontinued in 1991 (states that in the report but you missed it). There was angler support to continue a muskellunge stocking program in Murray Lake. It was decided that the lake was suitable and it was stocked. The NMUS program is on hold and the hatchery now raises Great Lakes Muskellunge.

The growth of those fish is actually at or above state average with the females reaching 50" in 10-12 years. However, in a survey the muskellunge are not sexed and therefore a high number of males can drastically skew the apparent growth index dramatically. This is a flaw within the system the state uses. If they aren't sexed then you can't truly determine the growth rate. They didn't capture any 7 year old females because they would have had fish over 45" in the survey. 

Keep in mind, survey results can be skewed based on the season. If the survey was during the bluegill spawn then the biomass would have been dominated by bluegill. This was a spring survey just after the muskies spawned, the majority of the males are still shallow looking for a mate of course they're going to make up a significant portion.

Muskie catch and release people fight fish to exhaustion? Have you ever been muskie fishing and caught one on muskie tackle? The fight is short and intense, I can't recall one lasting for more than a couple minutes. Most muskie anglers also quit muskie fishing in the middle of summer when the water gets too warm to protect the fishery. I'm not going to make this an argument about bass fishing, just pointing out my observations.

However, the stocking initially was too high because fingerling survival was greater than anticipated. That has been adjusted and due to VHS and a couple poor rearing years the lake hasn't bee stocked consistently and the adult population is greatly reduced.

One last note about the "stunted fish" you claim to have discovered in this report. If the muskies are stunted how do I have pictures of fish over 50" from there that can't be more than 14 years old?


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Contender said:


> Tag is free..correct?


Yes sir.


----------



## sw1tch24 (Sep 28, 2009)

I grew up fishing at my cousin's house through the Tiger Stocking and the Northern strain musky being stocked in there.. The bass are still there and plenty of big fish still roam. 

I could still go out and catch 15 bass with an average of around 16-18 inches with my cousin without any issue when the Tiger stocking was at its peak. One thing i have noticed over the years is how many people keep undersized bass out of the lake. I've watched people park in front of their house and boat undersized bass one after another without releasing them. I love how it is automatically other fish's fault that fisherman can't catch a certain species anymore.. So all the riff raff that goes out on Murray that constantly keeps illegal amounts of fish aren't to blame? 

The bigger fish are in different area's than they have been in the past, but they are still very much there..

Crappie fishing is still plenty good out there, and one of the better lakes in the area "IF" you know how and where to fish for them...


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

They should have instituted a 1 fish per season years ago. Glad it passed.

Now if only the musky guys could bite their tounge and congratulate those that choose to keep a fish rather than piss and moan...

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## sw1tch24 (Sep 28, 2009)

> Now if only the musky guys could bite their tounge and congratulate those that choose to keep a fish rather than piss and moan...


Who has pissed and moaned?


----------



## Crayfish Trapper (Dec 19, 2010)

Will Schultz said:


> Too tired to cut and paste all your quotes so I'll just summarize...
> 
> OK, good job looking up the report.


Thanks.
I am trying to be objective about this. 
I have nothing against trying to have some big muskies in some Michigan waters, I just don't want it at the expense of ruining other fishing because of excessive regulations/protections. 
I wholeheartedly believe in fish management and conservation, but not unnecessary regulations that do more harm than good.

I also have no desire for a sportsman vs. sportsman rift.



Will Schultz said:


> As they say, you can't believe everything you read and you need to take a logical look at the information presented and not just look for what supports your agenda.


I understand that you have an agenda. You run a guide service for muskies. 
I'm sure you are very good at it and want to do what you can to promote it and make some bucks.



Will Schultz said:


> The growth of those fish is actually at or above state average with the females reaching 50" in 10-12 years.


Source for this? I can't find one.



Will Schultz said:


> The Northern Muskellunge was stocked because the tiger muskie program was discontinued in 1991 (states that in the report but you missed it).


I read it. I didn't see a reason given as for why the change was made.



Will Schultz said:


> The growth of those fish is actually at or above state average with the females reaching 50" in 10-12 years. However, in a survey the muskellunge are not sexed and therefore a high number of males can drastically skew the apparent growth index dramatically. This is a flaw within the system the state uses. If they aren't sexed then you can't truly determine the growth rate. They didn't capture any 7 year old females because they would have had fish over 45" in the survey.
> 
> Keep in mind, survey results can be skewed based on the season. If the survey was during the bluegill spawn then the biomass would have been dominated by bluegill. This was a spring survey just after the muskies spawned, the majority of the males are still shallow looking for a mate of course they're going to make up a significant portion.
> 
> However, the stocking initially was too high because fingerling survival was greater than anticipated. That has been adjusted and due to VHS and a couple poor rearing years the lake hasn't bee stocked consistently and the adult population is greatly reduced.


OK... this is something I have a problem with.

First you say the DNR report is proof that muskies haven't affected the native Murray Lake fish population.

When I post the results of the DNR report that directly contradict your assertation, showing muskies have overtaxed native populations and adult muskies are stunted (growing slower than average), you then come up with a list of excuses why now we should disregard the report that you touted.



Will Schultz said:


> One last note about the "stunted fish" you claim to have discovered in this report. If the muskies are stunted how do I have pictures of fish over 50" from there that can't be more than 14 years old?


Even a slow growing muskie can reach harvesting size in 14 years instead of the 8 years it should take.


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

Firefighter said:


> They should have instituted a 1 fish per season years ago. Glad it passed.


I agree!
Remember everyone, this has been in the works for a long time and was approved by both hook/line anglers and spearers.


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

Crayfish Trapper said:


> Even a slow growing muskie can reach harvesting size in 14 years instead of the 8 years it should take.


Harvesting size is 42" though so that is a big difference from the 50" mark. It usually should take 8 years or so to reach 42" but after that a fish grows about 1"/year so it would be about 16 years to get to 50". There are confirmed 50" fish caught out of Murray already after 14 years so they are above average in growth rate. I believe there were some 50s caught after 12 years so that would really be high growth rates, but not positive about that. As said before, the main forage in there for muskies is cisco which are high in fat which leads to big, healthy, fast-growing muskies.


----------



## RiverRat22 (May 19, 2010)

Just have a question regarding the Cisco in Murray lake..... To my knowledge they are somewhat similar to whitefish but I have never seen while cleaning Pike nor have I caught any fishing/ ice fishing or seen anyone else catch any. Just curious if these fish aren't usually caught? and has the Dnr confirmed these fish are here in their studies of the lake? 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bill Feenstra (Sep 28, 2009)

I would like to thank those involved for making this regulation change. Much consideration and research was conducted and I believe it is in the best interest of all angling opportunities for not only Muskie but other species and forage bases.

The fact is that humans exploit resources. Rule modifications are made to protect resources. This wasn't an overnight decision-years of study went into this. Good work all!


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Crayfish, yes I do have an agenda but it has nothing to do with guiding. My agenda is to leave our resources better than I found them. I've done that over the last 12 years and will continue to work my agenda.

Source for the fish growing at or above state average? See photos here:
http://www.michiganmuskie.com/Rates.html
One fish a 10 YO at 48" and one a 13 YO at 52".

The reason for the change to NMUS was to increase angling opportunity, it is stated in the survey.

Yes, the report is proof of no impact. I'm not making excuses and it doesn't contradict what I stated. The report simply says a high piscavore pop. can have an impact not that it has caused any problems. Look at the data and what they wrote about each species. It is also noted the lake receives very high fishing pressure. It is noted that nutrient levels have an impact. All of this supports what I stated initially. If the question had been about the Muskellunge growth rate stated in the report I would have noted that their findings are not representative. Growth in Murray has been fast from the with some females reaching 42" by their fifth year.

No, not every muskie can reach harvestable size in 14 years. Male Muskellunge may never reach the legal size of 42" while female Muskellunge often reach 42" before they are mature. This means where the successfully spawn, in the north, they can be harvested before they get a chance to spawn.

The purpose of this regulation change is to provide protection, as needed, to meet the goals stated in the Muskellunge management plan. Muskellunge harvest rate should not exceed 5%, yet we have waters where that rate is 30%+. We have natural populations that are barely hanging on that shouldn't have any harvest. This regulation change went through a long process and was thoroughly reviewed by the members of the Warmwater Resources Steering Committee which contains representatives from angling groups around the state concerned with all species and harvest methods. This is not too restrictive and in fact it was proposed by Michigan Muskie Alliance that the min. size should have also been increased to 46".


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe that one size fits all regulations are more likely to cause imbalances in predator/prey numbers than more complicated regs. Not every lake needs exceptions but some clearly do, whether for musky or bass or bluegill or crappie. Inland is different than great lakes and should be treated differently, too. Let the DNR manage the fish and the fisherman can manage themselves. We should aim for having the best fisheries not the simplest.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Wow, good discussion (and very entertaining), BUT I smell a *serious pot-stirrer* here!

*Crayfish Trapper*: I remember a similar exchange on this site about Murray Lake last spring. Because you seemed to have a good history and experience on the lake, on 4/30/12 I sent you this PM asking:

"how is the bass fishing in Murray? have you noticed any changes over the years? several years ago I heard complaints of bass going downhill, and it was stocked too heavily with muskies during that time. but things should have calmed down by now, not nearly as many muskies now and usually muskies have no impact on bass. Thanks"

And you replied:

"I've never had any problem getting bass in Murray. There are some big'uns in there, and a lot of 2-3 pounders.

One thing I've noticed while fishing bass in Murray is to find a pattern for them..."

Sooo... Are you sure that you have observed the decline in the fishery that you claimed earlier, or not??? Or, after you said this on 4/30/12 was it just a really bad fishing season? If it was, you do realize that there are FAR fewer muskies in Murray now than there was in years past. 

Basically that lake was stocked in 2003 and 2005 at rates that are probably too high for MOST bodies of water. Murray is not like most lakes though, and it turns out that it was a very interesting experiment. Because if you read the full report and not just pull single statements out of context, you will see that other gamefish and panfish populations were not impacted whatsoever by the muskies, even in a lake that had an extremely high stocking rate and survival of stocked muskies. There was concern about overtaxing the cicso population- not because they were observed to be declining, but rather just to be on the safe side.

But, somehow I think you already knew that!


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

RiverRat22 said:


> Just have a question regarding the Cisco in Murray lake..... To my knowledge they are somewhat similar to whitefish but I have never seen while cleaning Pike nor have I caught any fishing/ ice fishing or seen anyone else catch any. Just curious if these fish aren't usually caught? and has the Dnr confirmed these fish are here in their studies of the lake?
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


RR - Sorry I missed this. If you look at the report referenced they caught a good number in gill nets during the last survey. They are a filter feeder so catching them with hook and line can be difficult particularly since they don't grow to large size (10-12").


----------



## Crayfish Trapper (Dec 19, 2010)

Will Schultz said:


> Source for the fish growing at or above state average? See photos here:
> http://www.michiganmuskie.com/Rates.html
> One fish a 10 YO at 48" and one a 13 YO at 52".


That is a link to your own website.



Will Schultz said:


> Yes, the report is proof of no impact. I'm not making excuses and it doesn't contradict what I stated. The report simply says a high piscavore pop. can have an impact not that it has caused any problems. Look at the data and what they wrote about each species. It is also noted the lake receives very high fishing pressure. It is noted that nutrient levels have an impact. All of this supports what I stated initially. If the question had been about the Muskellunge growth rate stated in the report I would have noted that their findings are not representative. Growth in Murray has been fast from the with some females reaching 42" by their fifth year.


The DNR report directly contradicts your assertion:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...2_272831_7.pdf

From the DNR report: *"The poor growth observed for older muskellunge in Murray Lake, coupled with the high predaor-prey ratio during the S & T survey, suggests the current stocking program is overtaxing the forage base."*

It is not even reasonable to believe that stocking and overprotecting an apex predator will not have an impact on the native fish of a lake. 
They have to eat.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

You're loosing me now. The facts are plain as day, if you choose not to agree that's fine, I don't need to convince you. We're now getting into a debate about semantics concerning that report. If you want clarification please contact the district biologist in Plainwell and he can answer your questions. Better yet would have been if you had attended the local public meeting concerning muskellunge regulations, you could have asked him in person.



Crayfish Trapper said:


> That is a link to your own website.


Yes, you wanted a source and that is a source. Personal observation. You can also take a look at the Master Angler awards from 2011 as there is a harvested 49" fish from Murray, which can be no more than 12 years old.




Crayfish Trapper said:


> The DNR report directly contradicts your assertion:
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...2_272831_7.pdf
> 
> ...


If we're still talking about the growth... I'll say it again, the report isn't correct on the growth rate, plain and simple. I don't know how else to tell you that the population surely isn't stunted and growth is at or above state average. If you want we can go out there and catch a fish, record the sex, take a scale sample age her/him and compare that to the statewide average.

This is getting a little picky... Well yes they have to eat, kinda how it works with living creatures. Do they have a negative impact? NO. The lake is being managed for one adult muskellunge per acre, which is in line with the statewide management plan.

As far as the quote you have hung your hat on...
The predator prey ratio includes all piscavores not only muskellunge. As such, the simplest way to reduce this was to reduce stocking because that is in their control. It wouldn't be logical or cost effective to start removing the pike, bass, gar and dogfish, it is much easier to simply stock fewer muskellunge. 

Again, this regulation is not overprotection this is simply putting regulations where they should be to reduce over harvest. If the fisheries managers would have considered this regulation overprotection they would have not agreed this was a necessary step.


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

One addition I will add, to try to keep everything in context here about the growth rates in Murray is:
"Growth of young 
muskellunge was slightly better than the state average (Figure 4). Growth rate apparently declined for 
older muskellunge, as lengths of age 7 muskellunge were well below the state average. "

So it is a forage based issue, as they state in their analysis, and also reflect in their future management directions section. I think it is clear that the stocking till 2006 was a potential stresser on the balance of biomass in this lake. 

I think the beauty of these regulations is that it allows the DNR to more successfully manage muskies in both natural waters and stocked waters. Basically if harvest is limited, and they continue to do creel/catch surveys, and S&T surveys, the populations can be fairly accurately monitored, and managed at a healthy level. The management direction of the DNR has laid out here reflects this way of thinking. This will create, as the fish age, less of a dependence on stocking as a way to build a population, and more stocking to maintain a fish population. Because of these lakes having less of a dependence on stocking (with the lowered amount of harvest) it will allow the future of musky in Michigan to move in a direction of historical significance. Combine these with the direction of the hatchery, and the GLS Muskie program, the DNR will be able to manage stocked lakes, and refurbish depleted populations elsewhere, without using up many more resources, that already stretched too thin. 

So, before we get too hung up on one line of a report that basically made your point but then continued to come up with a solution to rectify the issue, we also need to remember that that particular survey is also nearly 7 years old. the management plan has fixed many of the issues that it said the stocking had previously created, and is now at a point in which they are maintaining the population and managing it at healthy levels.


----------



## knowhowiroll (Mar 30, 2007)

Will Schultz said:


> Regardless of your opinion, Michigan is not Lake St Clair. We have 115 other waters that are managed for muskellunge that desperately need this protection.


Then manage those 115 with their own management. Lake St. Clair appears to be doing just fine thank you.

I saw what the fisheries department did managing Kings in Lake Huron.

How did that work out for us.


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

knowhowiroll said:


> Then manage those 115 with their own management. Lake St. Clair appears to be doing just fine thank you.
> 
> I saw what the fisheries department did managing Kings in Lake Huron.
> 
> How did that work out for us.


Please tell me how this regulation change would be bad for St Clair. Are the sucker, shad, gobie, carp and drum populations suffering?

How exactly did the fisheries department mismanage kings in Huron? It seems to me that a forage collapse of an invasive species likely due to an invasive species is out of their control.


----------



## knowhowiroll (Mar 30, 2007)

Will Schultz said:


> Please tell me how this regulation change would be bad for St Clair. Are the sucker, shad, gobie, carp and drum populations suffering?
> 
> How exactly did the fisheries department mismanage kings in Huron? It seems to me that a forage collapse of an invasive species likely due to an invasive species is out of their control.



They had no idea there were 8 natural producing streams on the canadian side of the lake. I read and re - read the report. Agreed it was a perfect storm.

However these guys were stocking at a time when they had no business doing it. These are the same experts who manage our deer herd.

What a fiasco that turned out to be 15 years ago.

Again I would prefer to leave the big lake well enough alone. We do not keep those fish other than on cameras for most anglers this goes for most if not all.

Tell me the last time you saw a boat full of 42 "plusers" at the launch.


----------



## sw1tch24 (Sep 28, 2009)

stunted muskie in murray? i think not.. I have a lot of pics that say otherwise..

Murray of all our local lakes have some of the thickest, most stout fish in the area.

You need to search elsewhere if you are looking for stunted fish


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

knowhowiroll said:


> They had no idea there were 8 natural producing streams on the canadian side of the lake. I read and re - read the report. Agreed it was a perfect storm.
> 
> However these guys were stocking at a time when they had no business doing it. These are the same experts who manage our deer herd.
> 
> ...


Ok, so I guess I don't get it. How is this going to change anything on LSC if most anglers are releasing their fish. On the other hand, there is a strong push to open Muskie spearing on LSC and if that ever happens this regulation change will be very important.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

knowhowiroll said:


> They had no idea there were 8 natural producing streams on the canadian side of the lake. I read and re - read the report. Agreed it was a perfect storm.
> 
> However these guys were stocking at a time when they had no business doing it. These are the same experts who manage our deer herd.
> 
> ...


So you are saying with a straight face that our DNR should have been tromping around Canadian streams looking for naturally reproduced parr? And apparently the Canadians had no idea their own streams were producing these fish either, because they also continued stocking Chinooks of their own during this period. What total idiots right!

Or, maybe what you really mean to say is these biologists just totally dropped the *crystal* ball they should have been using. Because how in the world could they not have seen something coming in this giant biological experiment (the Great Lakes) that had never happened before, in an extraordinarily rapidly changing environment where new ingredients are constantly being thrown in without any prior knowledge what they are, when they would be coming, and what possible effects they might have. Yeah, those idiots- you would have been way ahead of this thing and had it nailed if you were in charge!

Deer management? might be a different story :lol: but then again it is less about deer management than it is about people management- hunters, biologists, shopkeepers, motorists, insurance companies, politicians... Just get them all to agree, no sweat there either.


----------



## knowhowiroll (Mar 30, 2007)

Duke said:


> So you are saying with a straight face that our DNR should have been tromping around Canadian streams looking for naturally reproduced parr? And apparently the Canadians had no idea their own streams were producing these fish either, because they also continued stocking Chinooks of their own during this period. What total idiots right!
> 
> Or, maybe what you really mean to say is these biologists just totally dropped the *crystal* ball they should have been using. Because how in the world could they not have seen something coming in this giant biological experiment (the Great Lakes) that had never happened before, in an extraordinarily rapidly changing environment where new ingredients are constantly being thrown in without any prior knowledge what they are, when they would be coming, and what possible effects they might have. Yeah, those idiots- you would have been way ahead of this thing and had it nailed if you were in charge!
> 
> Deer management? might be a different story :lol: but then again it is less about deer management than it is about people management- hunters, biologists, shopkeepers, motorists, insurance companies, politicians... Just get them all to agree, no sweat there either.


Ahhh they had a system in place to track natural spawners and sterile fish since you seem to know everything. 

They used a marker in the food fed to the fingerlings.

As part of their checks at the launch they collected sections of back bone to look at under a special light indicating spawners or sterile fish the reared fish would show a specific color under this light.

I watched as a kid in the 60's pile up alewive on the beach in Harrisville and torched them with diesel because of the nuisance.

We caught Coho in the mid teens before the Kings took off. Watched towns die because the fishing died off.

Those in charge are not totally to blame as I indicated (perfect storm) but did nothing to prevent the collapse either. They do not have all the answers.

nuff said, I vote for leaving the big lake the way it is.


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

knowhowiroll said:


> nuff said, I vote for leaving the big lake the way it is.


This has already passed and will take effect next spring so the regs on LSC will change. The DNR had lots of meetings which were open to the public as they wanted as much public comment on this as possible. Hopefully you were able to voice your opinion at one of those.


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

knowhowiroll said:


> Ahhh they had a system in place to track natural spawners and sterile fish since you seem to know everything.
> 
> They used a marker in the food fed to the fingerlings.
> 
> ...


Sorry, didn't mean to be a jerk (I hate computers) ... You're right they used the chemical marker to determine if harvested fish were naturally reproduced or stocked (not to determine if fish were sterile). 

BUT that has almost nothing to do with the collapse, or the management of the fishery by the biologists. Of course they do not have all the answers, nobody ever claimed, at any time, that they are even close to having all the answers. Even with a perfectly functioning crystal ball, no fisheries managers were going to be able to do anything to "prevent the collapse." There is no way that after 40+ years of intensive stocking, even with the combination of increased natural reproduction, that all of a sudden the stocking of Kings was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's just no way that you could pin this one on the DNR.


----------



## Cable (Nov 16, 2000)

I am only getting a tag so that if a legal one dies on me I don't wast it. But does someone under 17 have to get a tag?


----------



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Cable said:


> I am only getting a tag so that if a legal one dies on me I don't wast it. But does someone under 17 have to get a tag?


Yes, all anglers licensed or not, must have the tag in their possession to harvest a muskellunge. Youth, under 17, will likely be required to have a sportscard if they don't have a state ID. I would suggest also purchasing the voluntary youth license for $2. The state gets $2 for the voluntary youth license (and $1 for the sports card if needed) but they also get federal money more than double the cost of the license.


----------

