|
|
Posts: 60
Location: Lake Minnetonka | I just read an article that said the DNR's "proposal calls for dropping 7 of the 21 lakes currently stocked..." (article was about tiger muskies in the Twin Cities). All I had heard about is there was going to be 8 "new" muskie lakes stocked in the Long Range plan. I hadn't heard about the reduction in muskie lakes at the same time.
So if I do the numbers.. 8-7 = 1 additional muskie lake by 2020...
Can someone tell me if I'm missing something here?
Edited by PostFrontal 7/3/2011 1:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
| i think the tiger lakes 'dropped' are going to be stocked with purebreds instead |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
Location: Lake Minnetonka | Hope that is right, but the way the article reads, is that the 7 that haven't been successful with tigers are going to be dropped, and some of the other 14 left that have been successful are going to get the pure strains.
The article is too vague to know what they mean for sure... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| If I remember right the lakes dropped some had bad results like Bush lake,,,I also remember that the remaining tiger lakes would then be stocked at a much higher rate,,but this subject twists quite a bit |
|
| |
|
| After what happend with Tetonka do you really trust the DNR any more? I know I don't.
Dan Crooms 54 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
Location: Lake Minnetonka | That's understandable. But I thought we would have an additional 8 lakes.
Maybe I just misunderstood what everyone was saying when the Long Range Plan was announced. I must of mistook that they meant going from ex. 80 to 88 lakes, not dropping from 80 lakes to 73 then adding 8 back in for a total or 81 lakes by 2020? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | dcmusky - 7/6/2011 3:55 PM
After what happend with Tetonka do you really trust the DNR any more? I know I don't.
Dan Crooms 54
Posting that should improve relations between the MNDNR and Muskies Inc.
Just a point to ponder... |
|
| |
|
| Don't worry they've already heard the less restrained verstion of my thoughts on this. If you'd like I could go into great detail on what I think is happening here. But I'm not going to do that on a public form. I think Post Frontal has a great piont and a point I think hasn't been answered by the St Paul DNR. Just my 2 cents though and not nessasarally the expresions or veiws of any Muskie group I may affiliate myself with. Man who would of thought I'd need a disclaimer. 
Dan Crooms |
|
| |
|
| You always need a disclaimer on the site! 
DJS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| has anybody seen the latest figures on how much money is projected to be lost in the shutdown,,,well be lucky if they do ANY future stocking
Edited by happy hooker 7/7/2011 1:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32803
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Not pretty at all. Hope they fix this soon, I'm headed over in August. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | A couple thoughts. First, folks commonly mistake the verbiage, and intent, of the Long Range Plan. The plan lays out guidelines for UP TO 8 new lakes. It does not state there WILL BE 8 new lakes. Second, RE the Hybrid program. This is exactly how fisheries management should work. A management technique (stocking hybrids) was tried in select metro lakes. After a period of time that technique was assessed. It was after this assessment (that covered several years by the way) that it was recommended changes to the hybrid program be made. I can't recall the numbers, but overall the numbers of hybrids stocked on a yearly basis is not as reduced as you wold think. This is due to the recommendation to increase stocking in lakes that have proven to be successful. Basically, the lakes that didn't work (well) are being dropped and the lakes that did work will potentially work even better due to increased stocking rates/frequency. There are two angles here that need to be recognized. One can disagree with the individual lake selection (removal), or one can disagree with the process entirely. However, anyone who disagrees with the process of adaptive management basically then disagrees with modern fisheries management. Is this also not how we (the muskie community) handle public perception of creating/improving new muskie fisheries? If anything this will help further the cause in the long run. We can now say we tried a muskie lake, it didn't work out as we thought, so we are recommending a change in management. True transparency and honesty. Nothing is set in stone on this either. As with most management decisions in MN, public comment will be collected and considered before any final recommendations are made. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| IMO the MNDNR has done an outstanding job establishing quality musky fishing in nearly all corners of the state. By establishing a long-range plan they have outlined how they hope to continue to manage the species successfully by managing current waters and potentially adding others.
For someone to take a poke at the DNR for an isolated case about one specific body of water is a little short-sighted IMO. If you look at the "battle" as a whole it has been extremely successful. Yeah, there have been some losses that would have been fantastic wins for Musky fanatics, like Gull Lake in Brainerd, but you cannot win them all and sometimes big money talks and those folks have the ears of legislators.
I just hope they get this straightened out soon so there isnt a serious decline in the coming years. That would be a tragedy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| tfoot's a state employee he now get ta go fishin everyday!!! hes probably got his own private lake-ELK since im guessing the park is closed,,hes won the lottery lifestyle even though they cant sell tickets here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: deephaven mn | mr tfootstalker
the long range plan lays out guidelines for up to eight new muskie lakes. i for one am not mistaking the verbiage.
for me it reads the DNR of minnesota WILL introduce muskies to eight new lakes in the next twenty years. ( the number
was going to be twelve but because of opposition from others eight lakes was chosen as a managable number)
It may be awhile for these lakes to be stocked and become fishable but it is exciting to know what is in plan for the future
as we all have expereinced the very succesful results of the DNR's work in stocking minnesota waters.
the misunderstanding is thinking that the reduction in hybrid lakes is part of or effects the long range plan of pure strain
(spotted giants that i can hook and lose at boatside)
go ! go! long range plan! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
Location: Lake Minnetonka | From the Long Range Plan:
"Increase pure strain muskellunge opportunities by up to eight additional waters
for a total of 103 pure strain waters (does not include hybrid muskellunge), by the year 2020...."
"Evaluate the number of lakes managed with tiger muskellunge and potential to
discontinue their management or substitute pure strain muskellunge in select metro area lakes...."
I should have done my homework and read the plan itself and would have known they were going to add and subtract waters. 8 "New" lakes not "additional" lakes.
So as it stands right now, we've gained 2 lakes and lost 7. So that would be a negative 5 lakes.
With the increasing amount of muskie fisherman, I guess it still begs the question if they are essentially going to be doing "no net gain" of muskie lakes at the best, what does that do to help the increasing pressure?
Edited by PostFrontal 7/8/2011 6:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 454
| I could be completely wrong, but my feeling is that many more people target pure muskellunge than tigers. Eliminating some tiger lakes while adding pure strain waters should help. The tiger lakes in the west metro are pretty quiet when I have been there.
|
|
| |
