# Michigan DNR to stock great lakes muskies this year



## Will Schultz (Aug 4, 2004)

Duke said:


> I think Gabe's just poking a little fun there man! He's cool, no worries. Hey Gabe what's up?
> 
> Although I wouldn't give big Willy all the credit for the GLS program! DNR's been _thinking_ about it for a looong time, they just needed some encouragement to actually GET MOVING. And they need more encouragement from all us anglers to keep making a big push for this native species reintroduction.


Duke is correct, all the credit for pushing this forward goes to the DNR for keeping this brainchild alive for the last 10+ years and to MMA for making sure the muskie program didn't get cut before this became a reality. I was only responsible for putting them on the fish that will make this happen.


----------



## monroeboy1 (Nov 22, 2010)

Me and my son fished at the banana **** on saturday,ended up seeing a big musky on my camera,it was big,also seen 6 walleye


----------



## Ole Spike (Nov 22, 2004)

I thought Obama took credit for it.:lol: Maybe the muskies will eat up all the Asian Carp that will soon be swarming the lakes.:rant:


----------



## pdp3 (Oct 21, 2009)

that would be awesome


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

SWEET!!! 

I think the tittabawassee river, from its convergance with the saginaw all the way up to the dow dam area, could potentially be good muskie territory. Lots of sucker and carp for them to feed on, seems to be good habitat throughout that whole stretch. I'd be all for it


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Brookies- there are already some muskies there!!! Give it a shot. It would be sweet if there were more though, nice stretch of water- until midsummer though. I think especially the bigger fish high tail it out


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

I know there are a few. I always here of a couple caught after the walleye opener, under the spillway at the dam. Haven't heard of any caught farther down though. Not saying there isn't, as it wouldnt surprise me any for someone to hook into one anywhere on that river, especially the closer to sanford you get.

Sounds like you may know something i dont :16suspect, if you do, dont hold out on me bro :lol:


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

brookies101 said:


> Sounds like you may know something i dont :16suspect, if you do, dont hold out on me bro :lol:


Ha! Nah I really don't know more than what anybody can figure out- there are muskies in the river, not tons though. They generally spread out and move around quite a bit, and I think once they get down towards the Saginaw, they probably just stay in that big deep water or wander out into the bay forever.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

Make sure they have the River Raisin on their radar! Once the Dam work is done we can become a pretty important part of getting back a Muskie/Pike Population in Lake Eire.It is already on the up swing but the raisin was historically a very important spawning river for them. Not to mention another large Gamefish that is also on a come back trail in this state.


----------



## monroeboy1 (Nov 22, 2010)

what's the word on the fish ladder they were suppose to construct


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

monroeboy1 said:


> what's the word on the fish ladder they were suppose to construct



They are not fish ladders they're called Natural Fishways. Has of right now everything is going smoothly. Dam 6 and 1 are going to be the 1st ones done this year. Dam 2 may also be added depending on start up time of the work. I got another meeting on March 10th I think it is at City Hall. The river mouth AOC should be delisted in the next year or so,it will become only the second AOC in the country to be delisted if this all happens.

There is also talks of adding the Dam at Ida-Maybe road into this project and useing the old mill race to allow fish to travel all the way up to Dundee.That isn't set in stone yet but many of us on the committee really want to make it happen.

I got a bunch of info over in the SE river Section on this and I have some more coming also. I am waiting to write about it until after the March 10th meeting.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

Two words, Saginaw Bay. Oh, now that would be fun. Kinda like a little St.Clair.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

GuppyII said:


> Saginaw Bay. _Posted via Mobile Device_


 I like the way you think


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

GuppyII said:


> Two words, Saginaw Bay. Oh, now that would be fun. Kinda like a little St.Clair.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Whose to say the fish would stay in the Bay though? It would be pretty cool, but it might be a waste of money to stock fish there as they could just go right into Huron.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

St. Clair is smaller than Saginaw Bay, and the muskies are doing well that were planted in Green Bay!!


----------



## Drisc13 (May 6, 2009)

any idea what size they are when planted? too lazy to look up past plants....


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Usually 10-12" when planted in October


----------



## firetiger (Dec 21, 2010)

You can kiss your jumbo perch and walleye population goodbye! Muskie like jumbos like we do, they love walleye like we do....The Detroit river is filled with boat-stopping size muskie, if you hook one, it will make your boat stop! nobody eats muskie, so the population is growing quickly.... Lake st.clair needs a rule of catch and don't release....


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

firetiger said:


> You can kiss your jumbo perch and walleye population goodbye! Muskie like jumbos like we do, they love walleye like we do....The Detroit river is filled with boat-stopping size muskie, if you hook one, it will make your boat stop! nobody eats muskie, so the population is growing quickly.... Lake st.clair needs a rule of catch and don't release....



yet there is tons of Jumbo perch around in the DR, and there is whole bunch of jumbos in Lake St.Clair


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

firetiger said:


> You can kiss your jumbo perch and walleye population goodbye! Muskie like jumbos like we do, they love walleye like we do....The Detroit river is filled with boat-stopping size muskie, if you hook one, it will make your boat stop! nobody eats muskie, so the population is growing quickly.... Lake st.clair needs a rule of catch and don't release....


 
Nice constructive post dude. By the way, Muskies don't like Walleye as much as you may think, they prefer soft rayed fish.


----------



## Wanderin'_Angler (Apr 12, 2008)

My friend and I were kayak fishing on Saturday just above the Middleville dam. It snowed on us a bit but we had a great time out. We hooked into a Muskie not 200 yards up from the dam. Anyone ever hear of them getting past the Irving dam before? I've never even seen them at Irving and I fish there fairly often. Just seemed odd to see it so far down river.

G


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

If anyone has any questions about how much damage planting muskies can do, ask the locals around Sanford Lake near Midland. It litterally destroyed the crappie and gill populations. I hope they don't plant these anywhere. The small percentage of fisherman that fish for them, combined with the damage they do to fish people do fish for, and the fact that no one really eats them, seems like a waste of tax payer dollars to me. Since most in this post seem to like the idea, let the bashing begin.

Mike


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

mkroulik said:


> If anyone has any questions about how much damage planting muskies can do, ask the locals around Sanford Lake near Midland. It litterally destroyed the crappie and gill populations. I hope they don't plant these anywhere. The small percentage of fisherman that fish for them, combined with the damage they do to fish people do fish for, and the fact that no one really eats them, seems like a waste of tax payer dollars to me. Since most in this post seem to like the idea, let the bashing begin.
> 
> Mike


Check your facts, Sanford is loaded with carp, suckers, bullhead, those are the preferred forage for muskies. Not Bluegill, crappie, and walleye. Do they eat them? sure but not as much as the other fish.
The reason fisherman can't catch that many bigger panfish is because they keep everyone they catch. I fish Sanford alot and there are schools and schools of thousands of 3-5inch bluegill and crappie swimming around. There is no shortage of panfish in that lake!!!


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Wanderin'_Angler said:


> My friend and I were kayak fishing on Saturday just above the Middleville dam. It snowed on us a bit but we had a great time out. We hooked into a Muskie not 200 yards up from the dam. Anyone ever hear of them getting past the Irving dam before? I've never even seen them at Irving and I fish there fairly often. Just seemed odd to see it so far down river.
> 
> G


Yup, there are muskies throughout the entire Thornapple River. As I'm sure you know, Thornapple Lake is stocked and maintained as the primary muskie broodstock lake by the DNR, and some of those fish do disperse out of the lake both up and downstream. Fish originally stocked in the lake have been caught all the way downstream through the Thornapple and even out to Grand Haven via the Grand River. Muskies are just as much at home in rivers, inland lakes and even the Great Lakes- surely some of the Thorn fish are out in Lake Michigan as well. But there are not huge numbers of them anywhere, of course... 

mkroulik : just because someone disagrees with your opinion, I wouldn't call that "bashing"... Just like Bomba said, check your facts man! By the "locals" around Sanford, you must not mean the "local biologists" or anyone else who might actually have a scientific clue. Because there is absolutely NO CHANCE that the numbers of muskies in Sanford-which is not very many- could have any noticeable impact on the numbers of panfish or gamefish in that lake. 

Even in lakes where muskies have been stocked at high densities, like Ovid in Sleepy Hollow State Park, the muskies have made ZERO noticeable impact on the numbers of stunted bluegills in the lake.

I agree that there are less crappies in Sanford than there used to be, but there just is no chance that the few muskies- and probably not even the 100 times more pike that are in the lake- are the cause. I believe it is more likely the zebra mussels clearing the water so much. As I'm sure you know, crappies do best in turbid waters- which Sanford used to be, and no longer is. And the decrease in crappies coincides with the clearing of the water. It is true it was about the same time the muskies were being stocked, but I'm afraid there is just no chance that muskies are selecting crappies and gills- which are NOT the easiest meals to swallow- over all the suckers and carp that are preferred forage. And even if they were, there are no where near enough muskies in Sanford to even make a dent in these fish.


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

Ok, I'm not even going to argue with you on their predation. You cant deny that it's a lot of public money being thrown at a fish that 99% of the fisherman don't target. Seems like a huge waste ofmoney to me. 


Mike


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

mkroulik said:


> Ok, I'm not even going to argue with you on their predation. You cant deny that it's a lot of public money being thrown at a fish that 99% of the fisherman don't target. Seems like a huge waste ofmoney to me.
> 
> 
> Mike


Muskie fishing is one of the largest growing hunting and fishing activities in the country right now. While numbers of anglers targeting other species is declining, muskie fishing is rapidly growing. Minnesota, Wisconson, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana all have muskie stocking programs that have been very successful and greatly increased the fishing oopurtunities in those states. Michigan is way behind the curve on this, and expanding our program is long overdue. The amount of money being used to fund the muskie program is TINY when compared to most of the other stocking programs in the state, especially when compared to trout and salmon. The potential growth of michigan's muskie fisheries and the economic impact this would have make the program a worthwhile investment.


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

mkroulik said:


> Ok, I'm not even going to argue with you on their predation. You cant deny that it's a lot of public money being thrown at a fish that 99% of the fisherman don't target. Seems like a huge waste ofmoney to me.
> 
> 
> Mike


 
There's more Muskie fisherman in this state than you think buddy. Maybe future stocking of our native strain of Muskie will get some interest going. At least Muskies are native to this state and not like Salmon or Steelhead which are not even native. Have you ever tried Muskie fishing? You may find it as exciting as the rest of us do. You can't argue with science, Muskies do sometimes eat Walleyes, Crappies and Blugills but their main and prefered prey are long bodied, soft rayed fish like Suckers, Ciscoes and Shad. Read the studies. Is it possible that the population of Crappies in Sanford could be for some other reason like the ones Duke stated in his post. To me, it seems more feasable that decline in Crappies might be due to overharvest by fisherman or environmental changes. Clearly you have an issue with Muskies but what about the state not stocking Walleyes anymore? If Stocking Muskies is a waste of money so would stocking any fish. There goes the money and population control of Alewives because no Salmon or Steelhead as well as a lot of guide services in this state. I don't fish Salmon, Steelhead or Walleye so am I right to say we should stop stocking them? Seems to me like you're in the minority on this thread because you're the only guy saying anything against it.


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

pikedevil said:


> Muskie fishing is one of the largest growing hunting and fishing activities in the country right now. While numbers of anglers targeting other species is declining, muskie fishing is rapidly growing. Minnesota, Wisconson, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana all have muskie stocking programs that have been very successful and greatly increased the fishing oopurtunities in those states. Michigan is way behind the curve on this, and expanding our program is long overdue. The amount of money being used to fund the muskie program is TINY when compared to most of the other stocking programs in the state, especially when compared to trout and salmon. The potential growth of michigan's muskie fisheries and the economic impact this would have make the program a worthwhile investment.


 
Well said.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

Reading some of peoples comments on this topic I feel the need that some info that is in a blog I did might make for some good reading on this topic.It was more directed toward over harvest, but there is some great basic info in there that might help out here.

http://outinmichigan.com/2011/02/11/stunted-fisheries


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

mkroulik said:


> Ok, I'm not even going to argue with you on their predation. You cant deny that it's a lot of public money being thrown at a fish that 99% of the fisherman don't target. Seems like a huge waste ofmoney to me. Mike


PLEASE DO! Really- I'm asking for you to let me have it! But, I wouldn't call it an argument because this is NOT about opinion. It is about the facts only. And I would love to hear what facts you have on musky predation. If you don't happen to have any facts, then call the DNR in Bay City up. They have specific information on the stomach contents of a few Sanford Lake muskies that were kept and brought into the office. And what they found corresponds with other "Diets of Muskellunge" scientific studies that have been performed throughout the muskie's range. A fisheries biologist friend of mine once said that "scientifically studying fish is just as easy as studying trees- except they move, and you can't see them." You get the point, and what this leads to with casual anglers is a lot of myth, hearsay, wive's tales, rumors and guessing.

But what you will find if you do the research is that muskies and pike are opportunistic feeders- which means they will eat anything that presents itself as an easy meal. Easy to catch, and easy to swallow. You will also find that they prefer large meals, on an infrequent basis. NOT frequent small meals. You do the math on what they forage on. Also, the DNR has tried numerous times in the past to use pike, muskies and tiger muskies (call them all Esox) to control stunted panfish populations in lakes, to try to restore the proper balance like is written about very well by raisinrat on his website. The DNR has since quit this practice entirely because IT DIDN'T WORK. Even in lakes stunted with hordes of panfish, the Esox did not eat them- not nearly enough to make a dent in their numbers, and certainly not enough to keep trying it. Largemouth, walleyes and catfish DO eat lots of small meals though- and bass & cats especially eat lots of panfish...

I really hope you don't think I'm bashing you- and I'm sorry if I am. And Oh by the way, of the Sanford musky stomach contents I have heard of from kept fish it has been bullheads, suckers, carp, and dogfish. Do they eat other fish? Absolutely. And they also have been observed eating ducks and muskrats in the lake. But what do they eat the most? Think about it- what any fish eats the most is what is most numerous that falls into their preference ranges, for Esox that is large, cylindrical shaped fish.


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

So what your saying is that introducing a new top predator into an environment won't have any effect to the current biological balance?? If you really wanted to grow the sport of Muskie fishing stop spreading them around, but a bunch more in the lakes that already have them. Very few people want to fish for the "fish of a thousand casts". There's much better ways to spend the dnr's money. 

Mike


----------



## jasonvkop (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm not going to try and speak for Duke, but I will give my own answer. Of course introducing a new predator will have an effect on the balance, but not a huge one like most people think. As numerous people have said, muskies primarily feed on suckers, shad, ciscoes, etc and aren't constantly feeding on small blue gills like a lot of people think. To put it in human terms; would you rather eat a large pizza at one time or search around and eat 20 pizza rolls with thorns on them?


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

Duke,

I guess that since zebra mussels, quagga mussels and asian carp don't directly eat blue gills and crappies, they will have no negative effects on the bluegill and crappies? Oddly enough new species effect more than just the things the eat. 

Mike


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

mkroulik said:


> Duke,
> 
> I guess that since zebra mussels, quagga mussels and asian carp don't directly eat blue gills and crappies, they will have no negative effects on the bluegill and crappies? Oddly enough new species effect more than just the things the eat. Mike


I'm not sure I follow you here, Mike? Because what I get from this is that you are saying an apex predator like a muskie may not actually eat many panfish, but their presence in a lake has other negative effects on the panfish?? I'm being 100% honest and I am saying have never heard anything remotely close to that, and I can't imagine what indirect negative effects apex predators might have? Seriously, they are an ESSENTIAL part of a balanced, healthy fishery. Look around at every single prime muskie water in the world, and you will see that the same bodies of water are also premier for walleye, perch, bass- there is literally no exception to this rule. I get what you are saying about not introducing them in lots of new places- and I agree. I would also rather see the DNR bolster native populations- but there are also very good reasons to introduce them other places. Places where the fishery pyramid is out of whack- and, yes, to provide a sport fishery. It may be a small % of the anglers who pursue them overall, but looking at every single muskie lake there IS a popular local sport fishery for them, and there is also a VERY small percentage of fishermen that could ever say they DON'T WANT to ever catch a muskie!!! And these are NOT mussels we are talking about here- which without a doubt have been the single most destructive biological force in the Great Lakes ever. 

Unless you are talking about over-stocking of the apex predators, which is definitely a BAD thing, but is a direct negative impact, not indirect. But that is not going on in Sanford, and this has been an issue 5 times ever in Michigan (one of which was Ovid, which I mentioned). And by 5 times I mean 5 individual stockings out of about 400 muskie stockings in the 32 year history of the DNR's database records. And of those 5 times of what could be considered over-stocking, negative impacts were observed on other fish species in just 2 of the lakes. 

And its a bit of stretch to say that muskies have been spread around much- the DNR recognizes 112 waters statewide as having muskies (out of 11,000 lakes), and only 35 of these are the result of stocking. 

Hey thanks for reading all this stuff- I give you lots of credit for sticking up for what you believe. Just want to make sure that what you believe is true, and I personally and am very interested to hear WHY you and others believe what you do about muskies (or pike, or dogfish, or gar, etc.). Tight lines-


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

If muskies start eating all the carp and suckers out of a lake it's taking away the fry that the would have produced as a food source for other fish. Also when you say that muskies mostly eat large suckers and so forth, that may be true for the adult fish, but unless you are stocking sterile fish they are going to reproduce. They dont hatch at 30 inches so at some point they will feed on anything they can, and they are going to do it for the first several years of their lives. You can believe what you want about Sanford lake but the fact is that something destroyed that fishery. If it was over fishing, it would have rebounded by now. In the last 10 years that lake has had about 10% of the fishing pressure it did just 20 years ago. So what devastated that lake? Wixom lake which is just north and in the same watershed only separated by two dams still gets a ton of pressure and does not have these same issues. 1 major difference NO MUSKY stockings. 

Mike


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

mkroulik said:


> If muskies start eating all the carp and suckers out of a lake it's taking away the fry that the would have produced as a food source for other fish. Also when you say that muskies mostly eat large suckers and so forth, that may be true for the adult fish, but unless you are stocking sterile fish they are going to reproduce. They dont hatch at 30 inches so at some point they will feed on anything they can, and they are going to do it for the first several years of their lives. You can believe what you want about Sanford lake but the fact is that something destroyed that fishery. If it was over fishing, it would have rebounded by now. In the last 10 years that lake has had about 10% of the fishing pressure it did just 20 years ago. So what devastated that lake? Wixom lake which is just north and in the same watershed only separated by two dams still gets a ton of pressure and does not have these same issues. 1 major difference NO MUSKY stockings.
> 
> Mike


 
Ok Mike, again check your facts before you post!:lol: 1)Only a few of the northern lakes that have natural GLS muskies, reproduce, most other lakes to not have the habitat for the muskie to spawn, they go through the spawning motions but not successfully. 2), Wixom IS stocked with muskies, and at a higher rate/more fish over the last 10yrs than Sanford has been. The whole Tittabawassee chain has been stocked with muskies at some point. Keep diggin son!:lol:

p.s. You won't win this argument with Duke! LOL


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

Muskies have been stocked in wixom 5 times vs. 23 times in Sanford. If it wasn't the muskies that have been stocked for now 25+ years, that caused the problem in Sanford what did??? You wanna see what an apex predator can do, ask those that hunt the UP how their deer population is doing since we rehabilitated a predator with no predators of their own, the wolf. I'm sure I'm not going to convince Duke and he's not going to convince me, so I guess we will just agree to disagree. But no one has still been able to answer what happened to Sanford?

Mike


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

I am no expert, but I have fished sanford for as long as I can remember. Over the years sanford has become much clearer than it used to be, because of all the mussels is my guess. The lake is also much lower than it used to be, and it was getting lower even before they started this dam project. If the shallows (panfish spawning grounds) are now sticking out of the water it isn't going to do the fish any good. And lastly, when tons of people go out and catch/keep their limits of panfish/crappie every day during the year, people are going to eventually put a dent in the population, kind of like what I think is happening in the saginaw bay and its tribs. When thousands of soon to be spawning fish are caught and kept every single day things are bound to slow down a bit. These are just my opinions on everything, for what its worth

But the idea that newly planted muskie are going to decimate the population of carp and suckers (along with the rest of the soft-rayed food sources) is crazy to me. Those fish seem to survive whatever is thrown at them, with the asian carp being a prime example of that.

Again, I would love to have a good population of muskie living in the saginaw bay and its tribs. I would put away the walleye gear in a hot minute if I knew I had the chance to head out and burn some big ole', gnarley lures through the water and possibly catch one of those monsters. With all the shad in the system right now, I know they would thrive


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

When was the last time you saw tons of people even fishing Sanford? I haven't seen it for atleast 10 years. In 10 years with the huge reduction of fishing pressure those fish would have rebounded. There is some other force at work in that lake. Seems a like every lake now has zebra mussels so I don't see that as the fact. There is no doubt tho that they have do e damage. I hope you're right that these fish don't impact the fishery, but I fear wixom in 10 years is going to be in the same shape Sanford is now. The biggest problem with them is they have no predators. Even fisherman don't keep them. And before you say that I've never caught a musky, that's not true. In fact I was gill fishing with a buddy and he was reeling in a gill and a 41 7/8" musky nailed that gill. He must not have been told he only eats suckers. He landed it and it was fun no doubt but I don't want to damage another fishery to create a musky fishery so that I can maybe catch 1 fish every couple of trips. 

Mike


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

You must not read much of the ice fishing forums because Sanford and Wixom are talked about quite frequently there and most of ice fishing is catch and keep so that's probably where a lot of the panfish has gone. People take the big pannies because no one wants to spend the time cleaning 5" fish so you end up with a lake full of 5" and less. The Titt chain has been stocked because biologists have said it can support populations of Muskies without hurting other fish populations. Chances are there is a more logical reason for the "decline" of panfish in Sanford but blaming Muskie stocking is the horse you're riding. CLearly you have your opinion which you're entitled to but it lacks any scientific arguement or evidence, just your opinion. Duke and vkop both have given you scientific reasoning which you have ignored. Try looking at this with an open mind and it may make a little more sense to you. Muskies are not the culprit here. Changing environmental conditions as well as overharvest is more likely the cause. How many Crappies/Gills do you keep when you fish?


----------

