|
|
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | North of 8 - 4/12/2024 8:05 AM
Just a thought: If folks really want to make fishing better, maybe spend some money on stocking, habitat improvement, etc. instead of multiple graphs, etc. I see what trout fishermen do to improve streams, Walleyes Forever does something similar for walleye,
They spend their own money rather than depending on financially strapped state agencies. Volunteers go out at night in the spring to make sure poachers don't take sturgeon that are on spawning runs on the Wolf.
Musky fishermen do some things, but maybe instead of 30 Bulldawgs, buy 15 and donate the difference to stocking and habitat improvement.
This winter, on one of the few truly cold weekends we had, a group of folks from the lake association spent the weekend creating 'fish sticks'. They cut large hardwoods near shore, cable them together, attach concrete blocks and when the ice melts they sink near shore, creating a place where fry of all species can hide. I didn't help with the labor but donated money to the effort. All required permits had to be obtained in advance, etc.
I think if the DNR would do it people would gladly donate but the opportunity is limited. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime. |
|
| |
|
| TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| We ran into this with our club. I believe when we went to use our funds to stock some area lakes, the DNR indicated that they would reduce the amount of fish they were stocking that year by the same amount. We wound up using that money to stock lakes in another state instead. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | North of 8 - 4/16/2024 6:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
That is a very good question. You'd hate to have a fishery be too good! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 529
| North of 8 - 4/16/2024 7:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
I am not coming from a place of authority on this topic. I feel that some of rational for not wanting the public to stock muskies in to lake is because the state has biologists on staff that work to keep a balance of top tier predators. The biologists have a goal to maintain a level of muskie based on the prey density of each lake.
By letting the public randomly stock lakes will alter trends and data that might have been watched for decades by the state. The added stocking would muddy the waters so to speak on management decisions, and could have a long term effect on any information collected and could affect the future of the fishery.
A body of water can only support so much biomass. If a lake is known for putting out giants at 1 muskie per 2 acres of water, you would be foolish to think that raising the density to 2 fish per acre will continue to produce giants long term. I'm sure we all have seen a natural pike density make a factory of 22" hammer handles, and struggle to find anything over 28". Muskies can do the same thing.
I say let the state manage the fisheries, you might not agree with what they do. But im sure their results will turn out better than letting the public do what they think is right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | anzomcik - 4/18/2024 6:07 AM
North of 8 - 4/16/2024 7:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
I am not coming from a place of authority on this topic. I feel that some of rational for not wanting the public to stock muskies in to lake is because the state has biologists on staff that work to keep a balance of top tier predators. The biologists have a goal to maintain a level of muskie based on the prey density of each lake.
By letting the public randomly stock lakes will alter trends and data that might have been watched for decades by the state. The added stocking would muddy the waters so to speak on management decisions, and could have a long term effect on any information collected and could affect the future of the fishery.
A body of water can only support so much biomass. If a lake is known for putting out giants at 1 muskie per 2 acres of water, you would be foolish to think that raising the density to 2 fish per acre will continue to produce giants long term. I'm sure we all have seen a natural pike density make a factory of 22" hammer handles, and struggle to find anything over 28". Muskies can do the same thing.
I say let the state manage the fisheries, you might not agree with what they do. But im sure their results will turn out better than letting the public do what they think is right.
It would not be random. It would, of course, be approved and administered by the DNR but Muskies Inc or whoever could help fund additional stocking. There are also many seasons where the DNR does not actually stock as many as they would like to. Random stocking of lakes is not the objective of anyone. |
|
| |
|
| Had the opportunity to speak to warden about this. He is also a musky fisherman, and feels it could really be a difficult reg to enforce. He did understand the concern and has heard it from anglers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| To be clear, all stocking needs permission from the DNR. When the DNR has allowed outside muskie stocking, it has primarily been in a couple metro lakes. The TC chapter has done some in tonka, and we have done some in Bald Eagle. I believe a lake or two out west, has been allowed as well. Many requests have been turned down, even on lakes that have not even been stocked to their planned quota. Pretty much any lake association that wants to stock more walleye, even when it's in excess of the planned stocking, is given the OK. To be fair, I have been told by DNR personnel, that with walleye, it really doesn't matter, as any over stocking is just feeding fish, and if people want to waste their money, they are not going to stop them.
Regarding muskies, when discussing some of the items in the MMPA letter to he and the commissioner, the head of fisheries said he didn't know of any muskie requests that had been denied. This caused some jaws to drop, as it has happened frequently. Don't know if it's a CYA situation, complete ignorance of the situation, or blatant obfuscation and dishonesty. This was a couple weeks ago, and I believe there was a scheduled meeting, since then, and I haven't heard how that went, yet. Up to now, anyway, for the last several years, communication with stakeholders has been almost non-existent. Used to be exemplary. |
|
| |
