|
|
Posts: 114
| Let me start of by saying this has to be the worst muskie season I've ever experienced in the past 12 years. I primarily fish east metro waters which has produced well in the past. I consider myself a pretty decent muskie fisherman and have learned to adapt to new techniques in order to contact/catch fish over the years. To my main point:
I've been noticing a steady decline in fish seen/caught over the past 3 years. Each year keeps on getting worse for me. I have yet to net a fish in over 10 outings (only seen 2). Not only have I been struggling but my network of friends including some very well known guides have expressed their concerns as well. I wanted to figure out in my mind what has happened. I went to the DNR website and was analyzing the stocking of 3 particular lakes Waconia, Minnetonka and WBL. After looking at the data I believe what is happening is the DNR is not stocking enough adult muskies in the 3 main metro lakes.
White bear lake stocking of adult muskies from years 2003-2008 was 1875 lbs and from 2010-2016 the DNR has only stocked 99lbs. Yes they have been stocking fry and fingerlings but how many of those fish actually reach adulthood? Some of the best fishing I had on WBL lake was the first year I started fishing it in 2013 and 2014 which would make the adult fish they stocked in the early 2000's over 40 inch fish.
Minnetonka stocking once again the DNR has not been stocking adult muskies since 2010. See pic below
Waconia they have not stocked adult muskies since 2010. See attachment
I wish that the DNR would take better care of the main muskie fisheries in the metro (WBL,Tonka and Waconia) rather then just stock them heavily for 10 years then move onto the next lake. Yes I believe they need to keep adding new lakes but they also need to sustain the main metro lakes by consistently stocking adult muskies in these lakes. What happens if the fry and fingerlings don't make it and eventually the older adults die off then we are left with nothing.
The future of metro muskie fishing is not looking good with the number of anglers increasing and the lack of stocking of adult muskies decreases.
Edited by bbradley 6/30/2017 10:28 AM
(Minnetonka Muskie Stocking.png)
Attachments
----------------
 Minnetonka Muskie Stocking.png (5KB - 420 downloads)
waconia 1.png (5KB - 408 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | the WI DNR allows the various muskies inc and other clubs to buy fish and stock lakes... so we don't soley rely on DNR to do it...why doesn't the MN DNR allow the same? Seems to me with the # of musky fishermen in the Metro area there would be sufficient $ to buy some fish and put in... ?
the old "if you want something done, do it yourself" adage
Edited by BNelson 6/30/2017 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| There's no arguing with facts. There's just not the fish in the metro lakes that there used to be. Stocking fingerling is not effective/sufficient. These lakes are so loaded with Bass, Pike, and yes - Walleyes (especially weed Walleyes), fingerlings get chowed.
BNelson - that is an interesting question regarding private/club stocking, I am not sure if they allow it. They do it for Walleye stocking on Tonka, and the impact to the Walleye fishery has been incredible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | BNelson - 6/30/2017 10:19 AM
the WI DNR allows the various muskies inc and other clubs to buy fish and stock lakes... so we don't soley rely on DNR to do it...why doesn't the MN DNR allow the same? Seems to me with the # of musky fishermen in the Metro area there would be sufficient $ to buy some fish and put in... ?
the old if you want something done, do it yourself adage
Private money isn't the problem as you said, the issue is the DNR bowing down to lake shore owners and the declining walleye fisherman. This issue isn't just the metro is vermillion,Mille lacs. Other states are doing a much better job of taking care of Muskies |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so if the Metro Club wanted to buy say $20k of fingerlings and put them in, the MN DNR would say no? or what? curious why it is so different there... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Yea the MN DNR did a great job establishing the muskie fishery. They are not doing a good job maintaining it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| .
Edited by bbradley 6/30/2017 12:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: MN | NathanH - 6/30/2017 10:29 AM
Private money isn't the problem as you said, the issue is the DNR bowing down to lake shore owners and the declining walleye fisherman. This issue isn't just the metro is vermillion,Mille lacs. Other states are doing a much better job of taking care of Muskies
As Nathan stated I believe this is the main issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| I know Private organization such as muskies inc has stocked lakes in the past. But I don't know if they were adults, fingerlings or fry. Word is that rearing ponds are getting harder and harder to come by. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | BNelson - 6/30/2017 10:32 AM
so if the Metro Club wanted to buy say $20k of fingerlings and put them in, the MN DNR would say no? or what? curious why it is so different there...
Correct they would say no, I've been told, as we're the members of my club a wealthy MN wants to stock vermillion, and Mille lacs and they brought it to the DNR and they won't sign off on it. This information came from two of the most respected guides in the state. That's the nice thing in wisconsin you guys can step in and say let's make a difference . I guess they could have made it all up but I doubt it.
Edited by NathanH 6/30/2017 10:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Well, try to get a meeting with the DNR and get them to change their stance on that... it sounds like they aren't going to stock more fish without a reason, and if they aren't... only way to get the #s back up is to get them to agree to let the clubs stock... it's too bad the #s are going down like that.. it only adds more pressure to other lakes in MN which isn't good for anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Just wrote the DNR fisheries to see why they haven't been stocking adult muskies. I will let you know if and when I hear back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1144
Location: Minnesota. | All I can say Ben is that I totally agree!!
Thanks for taking the time. Here's hoping.
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Definitely agree on the steady decline of the metro musky fishery. Let us know what you find out bbradley. This is the first season in many I've headed north more than to Tonka or Waconia. Sucks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
So then what is your explanation on why lakes have gotten so bad. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | bbradley - 6/30/2017 11:27 AM
So then what is your explanation on why lakes have gotten so bad.
I do not have a clue but I don't think it has anything to do with adult stocking. There are lakes with good populations in this state that have got very very few adults stocked. I haven't looked at all the stocking reports but I wouldn't be surprised if there are lakes that haven't received any adults. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| You know the DNR is in shambles when you go to write the fisheries department and the email address comes back as unbelievable.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
Then why did they used to stock adult muskies? If that was part of their 'establishment' plan - it worked. Their 'maintenance' plan, which does not include stocking adults - is not working, so maybe they need to switch gears. I understand that fisheries level out over time, but when you completely stop stocking adults, and even yearlings in Waconia's case, what the $^&# do they think is going to happen? It is obvious that maintaining our muskie fisheries with fingerlings is not going to work. They need to revisit their 'plan', plain and simple. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | JTHIRY - 6/30/2017 11:36 AM
Then why did they used to stock adult muskies? If that was part of their 'establishment' plan - it worked. Their 'maintenance' plan, which does not include stocking adults - is not working, so maybe they need to switch gears. I understand that fisheries level out over time, but when you completely stop stocking adults, and even yearlings in Waconia's case, what the $^&# do they think is going to happen? It is obvious that maintaining our muskie fisheries with fingerlings is not going to work. They need to revisit their 'plan', plain and simple.
Did you read my post? From what I understand the adults come from brood stock lakes and those fish were used to gather eggs and milt. They take them out when they are no longer needed in the brood stock lakes. They don't raise them to adults for stocking purposes. They still do stock some adults when they have the fish from the brood stock lakes.
I agree with your point on fingerling stocking only which is why I mentioned the study on fingerlings vs yearlings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
|
Did you read my post? From what I understand the adults come from brood stock lakes and those fish were used to gather eggs and milt. They take them out when they are no longer needed in the brood stock lakes. They don't raise them to adults for stocking purposes. They still do stock some adults when they have the fish from the brood stock lakes.
I agree with your point on fingerling stocking only which is why I mentioned the study on fingerlings vs yearlings.
I glanced at it... I get what you are saying though.
It's just tough to see when they go from stocking hundreds of lbs of adults in consecutive years to 0 for the past 7-8 years.
Edited by JTHIRY 6/30/2017 12:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | we don't stock adults in Madison, we have as much or more pressure as anywhere, we stock 1 yr old fingerlings just like they do in MN..there are many stocked lakes in MN that they only put in the 1 yr old fingerlings that are great lakes... the Metro doesn't need to be stocked with more adults, if anything just needs more fingerlings... no reason those lakes need to be stocked with adults, and that simply is never going to happen...your best shot is simply more 1 yr olds put it, by the DNR or you are probably going to have a better shot at doing it with club money. if you can get the OK
Edited by BNelson 6/30/2017 12:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32892
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 422
Location: MN | Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/westmetro/mue_study.html
To me, the yearling vs. fingerling thing is a simple efficiency calculation. If it takes 3x as many fingerlings to produce an adult but they cost 1/10 as much, stock fingerlings. If it takes 10x as many and they cost 1/3, then stock yearlings. The answer is probably not the same on every lake, depending on other species present among other things. The bottom line is minimizing the $ spent per adult muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| sworrall - 6/30/2017 12:14 PM
The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please.
From what I heard Paul Hartman just got access to Frankies rearing ponds this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8789
| Those first few stockings led to a "population explosion" of muskies. First few year classes coming up in an established system with no competition for forage and the entire lake to themselves... Not saying that the lakes can't be more effectively managed or stocking #'s adjusted, but what we were seeing a few years ago was literally "better than it gets" and probably won't be recreated again anywhere except on new waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | sworrall - 6/30/2017 12:14 PM
The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please.
This is happening again Steve, Paul got the green light this year to start up a similar project with Frankies and muskies are growing as we speak.
Raising fish to "adult" stage is very, very expensive and both funds and resources are not available for it.
As far as local clubs having the funds for it, that's unreal. The metro has the Twin Cities and North Metro chapters of Muskies Inc. and neither have abundant funds to stock the entire metro. If you're not a member of either, or any muskies inc chapter, do yourself a favor and join and become part of the solution |
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | From the Twin Cities M.I. website, stocking White Bear Lake
http://www.twincitiesmuskiesinc.org/node/2
I've been away from Muskie's Inc for a number of years due to personal issues so I'm not as up to date as I used to be. I hope that at some point in the future I can get involved again. I forget exactly what year it was but 2006 or 2007 I helped stock some adults into White Bear that were donated by Twin Cities M.I. I can't say what has happened since then with stocking White Bear.
I expect that sooner or later Happy Hooker or Muskie Treats will jump on this thread with better info than I can provide.
Edited by fishpoop 6/30/2017 12:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | There is a study about this on the WDNR site called Muskie Stocking Guidelines. Here is the part about cost per size stocked and % that survive.
Costs and Cost-effectiveness of muskellunge stocking (from 1999 report) - The cost to produce and stock muskellunge increases considerably with size, from about $1.36/1000 fry (WLAB 1997) to about $5.20/spring yearling (Margenau 1992); production costs can also vary considerably from year to year (Margenau 1992). Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per stocked fish that is recruited to the fishery (i.e., of catchable size). Cost-effectiveness could also be measured as the cost per fish caught or harvested by anglers. The cost-effectiveness of stocking various sizes of muskellunge varies considerably among waters and years due to variability in survival and variability in production costs.
In general, stocking fewer large fish has been shown to be more cost-effective than stocking many small fish. For example, with muskellunge fry stocking, the costs are relatively low but the survival of fry is highly variable and the likelihood of any muskellunge surviving at all in any given year is very low (Hanson et al. 1986). Given a survival rate of 0.004% to fall (Hanson et al. 1986) and a survival rate of 4.2% from the first fall to the next fall (at 18 months of age; Margenau 1996), 588,235 fry would need to be stocked to result in 1 surviving muskellunge, at a cost of about $800.00 per muskellunge. Cost effectiveness of fall-stocked fingerlings to 18 months of age averages about $70.75 per surviving muskellunge. Cost per spring-stocked yearling muskellunge surviving to 18 months of age averages about $27.42 per muskellunge.
Attachments
----------------
stocking.jpg (191KB - 404 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 297
| Pretty sure most of the adults stocked throughout the state are a product of mild winters. They try to use ponds that die off every winter because they get better growth of the new stockers. Bonus is we get more adults/juveniles but not quite as good of fingerlings.
Started fishing the metro the year the same year as the stocking charts in the OP. I think the fall off was greater in the 2011-2013 range. There was a huge glut of large adults at that time and it's been normalizing ever since the 1st generation or 2 have died off.
June 2017 was 2nd worst June for catching with the vast majority of that time over the years on the 2 lakes in the charts. However I think it was my best June ever for # of fish contacted per hour in the boat. Seems to get tougher and tougher every year to get them to open their yaps.
I'm mildly optimistic with what I have been seeing the last couple years that we will get a mini peak in the coming years. Been seeing more small less than 40 type fish than I ever did when I first started. Maybe the die off of the huge adult population left a gap so we will get better recruitment of the fish stocked the last 5 years? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 251
| I have been told that the Natives do not need to get permission from the DNR, If there is added revenue to their businesses from musky fisherman, that could help. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | one other thing to consider, I'm not sure I'd put all your stock in the population being that low. If you keep an eye on the bite in other areas, you would know that overall it was a very slow June. LSC was even "slow" most of the time. Madison lakes have been very slow for most, we have tons of fish but it is simply taking more hours on the water to catch them ...if you talk to other guys fishing other areas of MN, in general they have said it has been slower than normal...yah sure some guys will have a great day or trip here and there, but if you look at the big picture, overall this June was slow versus last year....so... while your lakes may not have as many fish, I'm sure part of it has to do with the fact it was a slow June ....
Edited by BNelson 6/30/2017 1:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | BNelson - 6/30/2017 1:42 PM one other thing to consider, I'm not sure I'd put all your stock in the population being that low. If you keep an eye on the bite in other areas, you would know that overall it was a very slow June. LSC was even "slow" most of the time. Madison lakes have been very slow for most, we have tons of fish but it is simply taking more hours on the water to catch them ...if you talk to other guys fishing other areas of MN, in general they have said it has been slower than normal...yah sure some guys will have a great day or trip here and there, but if you look at the big picture, overall this June was slow versus last year....so... while your lakes may not have as many fish, I'm sure part of it has to do with the fact it was a slow June .... It's not about June, it's about the last 5/6 years steadily declining. There are just not the # of fish there were. Angler numbers up significantly, stocking is actually down from what it was 10-15 years ago, pretty simple. It is absolutely in decline. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | agreed, the #s aren't there from what you guys say... hope it turns around for you... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| MN DNR has recently moved toward using fewer natural muskie rearing ponds and raising most of their fingerlings in drainable ponds. This is because natural ponds have trended toward not winterkilling as frequently as in the past and their production has not been as consistent. No carryover muskie exist in drainable ponds. All older stocked fish come from natural rearing ponds that carryover fish that aren't harvested because they didn't winterkill. There may be DNR interest in using more natural ponds again. This may mean that more carryover fish could be available in the future. I emphasize MAY. As was stated earlier, natural rearing ponds are selected that tend to winterkill frequently so they can be used more often for raising fingerlings. If they don't winterkill, you cannot use the pond again until it does as the remaining muskies will eat just about every little muskie stocked in the pond. The number of frylings produced at hatcheries is not excessive so to waste fish by dumping them into a pond full of carryover muskie isn't very smart. That is the beauty of using drainable ponds as they are devoid of competition from other fish when the frylings are stocked. Also, to try and raise yearling or 2 year old muskies would be extremely expensive as aeration would probably be required and possibly feeding fish would be necessary. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 983
| Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
There is info out there on yearlings vs fingerlings and yearlings survival rate is a lot higher than fingerlings....My question why could you just raise them until they are 2-3 years old should be plenty big by then to survive at a much higher rate...a yearling is almost doule size of a fingerling so a 2 year fish has got to be over 20 inches for sure id think maybe close to 24 and I would think a fish that size would have a much higher survival rate |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | 25homes - 6/30/2017 2:31 PM
My question why could you just raise them until they are 2-3 years old should be plenty big by then to survive at a much higher rate...a yearling is almost doule size of a fingerling so a 2 year fish has got to be over 20 inches for sure id think maybe close to 24 and I would think a fish that size would have a much higher survival rate
I think there isn't enough resources to make something like this happen, physically and financially. The costs associated with raising a fish that long are exponential. Not to mention the risks involved (disease, winter kill). Putting a lot of eggs in one basket. If the DNR had the resources to raise fish longer they would already be doing so.
Stocking fingerlings to adults is probably a 1000:1 exchange |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3150
| IMHO
"No more Rod Ramsell"!! To me that's most of the answer especially in the west metro look at the time periods of when it was his reign and when the fishing was the best, Rod should have probably been in the CIA because he was a "ends justifies the means" type who ruffled some feathers but what He did worked!!!,,Rod Ramsell was the best friend metro muskie fisherman ever had and I don't think we ever see fishing like that again.
White bear lake,, Originally The TC chapter of MI approached the DNR wanting to stock it, DNR said "we don't think it will work too many pike and bass" but they let us if we treat it like a puppy and WE take care of it "stocking the fish" which the MI chapters did and it became a great lake,,Dnr started stocking too afterwards and MI continues to this day putting fish in when needed and allowed to.
Minnetonka gets shorted once in a while??? Well maybe it's a case when there's not enough fish raised Tonka gets shorted because somebody figures once the TC chapter of MI finds out their favorite lake isn't getting stocked they will want to annie up and buy the fish from the private growers,,which they have done every time when needed just let us buy more if available!!
My opinion is let us convert some of the little used tiger lakes to purestrain which is what metro guys want to fish for " we will buy the fish",,"Too shallow,too small,too soft and dark to grow decent pures" is the response you hear but yet the number one brood stock lake in the state lake Rebecca is what 200 acres less then 40 feet and about has soft and dark has a triple chocolate shake. This lake doesn't even fit the so called needed criteria but yet it harbors nice enough specimens to be the number one brood stock. Let us stock lakes like Phalen,Bush Pierson,and the other lightly used or former tiger lakes.
Edited by happy hooker 6/30/2017 3:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 386
| I do know that there was a stretch there where the overall Muskie stocking suffered due to poor results with fish making it to fingerlings - there just wasn't enough fish to meet the quotas. If I remember right, it was either 2016 or 2015 was the first year in several they were able to meet the quotas for the lakes that were due to be stocked that year. I do agree, metro lakes have been on the decline - and that was something the DNR was aware of and called it out as the initial "stocking boom" was going to collapse. Either way, it will be hard to convince the DNR to increase stocking when you got the Lake Associations crying wolf. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | bbradley - 6/30/2017 11:35 AM
You know the DNR is in shambles when you go to write the fisheries department and the email address comes back as unbelievable....
Who did you email? What address? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| You guys need to slow your roll on the DNR bashing. They've done an incredible job establishing many world class fisheries and they're adding musky lakes in the face of staunch opposition. Musky fishing is still musky fishing. The pressure over the past 15 years has skyrocketed and fish are getting educated. Some fish die as a result of getting caught. Throw in a slow year or two and we turn into DNR bashing, the sky is falling, whiners like some of the antis? Come on. Too much work went into getting the fisheries we have now to throw the people that got us what we have under the bus. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 716
| happy hooker - 6/30/2017 3:35 PM
IMHO
"No more Rod Ramsell"!! To me that's most of the answer especially in the west metro look at the time periods of when it was his reign and when the fishing was the best, Rod should have probably been in the CIA because he was a "ends justifies the means" type who ruffled some feathers but what He did worked!!!,,Rod Ramsell was the best friend metro muskie fisherman ever had and I don't think we ever see fishing like that again.
White bear lake,, Originally The TC chapter of MI approached the DNR wanting to stock it, DNR said "we don't think it will work too many pike and bass" but they let us if we treat it like a puppy and WE take care of it "stocking the fish" which the MI chapters did and it became a great lake,,Dnr started stocking too afterwards and MI continues to this day putting fish in when needed and allowed to.
Minnetonka gets shorted once in a while??? Well maybe it's a case when there's not enough fish raised Tonka gets shorted because somebody figures once the TC chapter of MI finds out their favorite lake isn't getting stocked they will want to annie up and buy the fish from the private growers,,which they have done every time when needed just let us buy more if available!!
My opinion is let us convert some of the little used tiger lakes to purestrain which is what metro guys want to fish for " we will buy the fish",,"Too shallow,too small,too soft and dark to grow decent pures" is the response you hear but yet the number one brood stock lake in the state lake Rebecca is what 200 acres less then 40 feet and about has soft and dark has a triple chocolate shake. This lake doesn't even fit the so called needed criteria but yet it harbors nice enough specimens to be the number one brood stock. Let us stock lakes like Phalen,Bush Pierson,and the other lightly used or former tiger lakes.
Hooker has as good of a grasp on the issue as anyone as he is always directly involved both on the fishing and getting stuff done fronts. One reality is most people do little to contribute but complain about the results. Ask yourself what you have done to improve the fishery yourself... a little something is way better than a lot of nothing. Know your strengths, if working with the DNR and political avenues is not your strength find a way to support the cause. Help out, write a ck, send an email...do something.
Our unfortunate reality is that if we never fished for them there would be more than enough muskies...kind of a Yogi Berra thing. Fishing mortality is the biggest issue and I'm not sure the DNR is taking that in to account...again I'm not sure so don't take that as a statement of fact. The more people fish for them the more stocking needs to happen to keep up as angler induced mortality is an unfortunate reality. I don't think money is really the issue it's more of a what it takes to get things done thing. That said things are certainly tougher than when things peaked but that is also a reality of introducing a new species into any fishery. Also that said we have an unbelievable availability of trophy fish close to home in the metro area where a 50-55 inch plus possibility is viable on a number of waters every time we launch a boat for those of us who live here.
And the cold weather pattern certainly keeps a lot of "popular" patterns from producing fish...get out of the box a bit and work it. It's still a great place to fish but certainly things can be improved with some cooperation and work.
Edited by bturg 6/30/2017 10:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 815
Location: Waukee, IA | Coming from an outsider looking in. It seems exceptionally difficult to maintain gangbusters fishing success within a metropolitan area of 3.5+ million people. Any good fishery, muskie or otherwise, will get heavily exploited when it's good. That pressure will inevitably affect the fishery, which could be what the TC metro is experiencing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1209
| I would say I have seen 1 fish in four full days on the water and then 3 months later we saw 100 one day and 60-70 the very next day. My belief is the lakes are normalizing to stable populations and the amount of people is to high for the amount of LAKES with population. We need more lakes not more population.
Other things to consider is how the Internet may affect fishing pressure. I see multiple Wisconsin and Minnesota vehicles fishing tiny 100 acre lakes here in ND, along with100's of other people. If WBL is turning on and lots of people have Ben skimming on Minnetonka why would they not go to WBL? My thoughts are simple keep things to yourself two three weeks then share some basic usefull information. But do not give people the keys to what you have learned.
Two examples is last year people kept asking if they have moved up on the rocks at leach yet... Why would people give up what they have been learning with there time?
Also when someone owns 8 lures and isn't moving fish yet I move 2 an hour, why would I tell him what his 9th lure is? I have spent the time washing baits, learning how to manipulate them when and where to use them. If I find a golden ticket I'm going to keep that to myself to make my time on the water, muskies do get educated clearly d10's aren't as good as when they first came out, yes they are still important but they aren't the same. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 753
| bturg - 6/30/2017 10:40 PM
And the cold weather pattern certainly keeps a lot of "popular" patterns from producing fish...get out of the box a bit and work it. It's still a great place to fish but certainly things can be improved with some cooperation and work.
Both sentences could not be more true. Time on the water, thinking out of the box and a reduction in fishing "memories" will get more fish in your boat. Becoming part of the solution and pitching in however one can will put more fish in the lakes... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 561
Location: WI | tkuntz - 7/1/2017 8:37 AM
Coming from an outsider looking in. It seems exceptionally difficult to maintain gangbusters fishing success within a metropolitan area of 3.5+ million people. Any good fishery, muskie or otherwise, will get heavily exploited when it's good. That pressure will inevitably affect the fishery, which could be what the TC metro is experiencing.
Would have to agree. I spent several enjoyable open water seasons from 2009 to 2013 as an average angler learning to fish muskies on Tonka when if a spot looked like a classic muskie spot it probably had one sitting on it. I enjoyed it, but didn't figure it could last w/ the always increasing number of muskie boats out there. Then you had the zeebs clearing up the water and the weedlines expanding deeper. Don't know what it is been like since moving away but it seems like it would be a tougher go with fewer fish, smarter fish, and more places to hide. |
|
| |
|
| just get better at fishing and it shouldn't be a problem. 
or maybe buy one of those $200+ lures. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I don't know if the number of Muskies is down or not. I don't fish nearly as much as many of you. But, I do get out some and have only had one outing this year without seeing a Muskie and that was on Baby Lake near Longville, where I never have luck anyway. What I have found in the metro is the Muskies are changing their patterns and are deeper than they were ten years ago. On Minnetonka, for instance, weeds are now growing in over 20 ft of water where the weed edges used to end about 14 or 15 feet. The clearer water, as a result of the zebra mussels, has simply allowed the weeds to grow much deeper and the fish have moved down in the water column. I've seen the same thing happen on a northern MN lake after the lake shore owners put in improved sewage systems. The water on that lake became much clearer, the weeds grew deeper and the fish moved much deeper as a result. Fishermen that moved deeper caught fish. Those that fished in the same old shallower spots not so much.
I suggest trying to fish deeper. Work a big spinner bait, a diving crankbait or a plastic bait down to near the deep weeds. If the fish are 20 ft down and your lure is only 5 ft down, your odds aren't very good of getting the fish to move. Get that lure down to 15 ft and your odds will increase.
Good luck. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I can chime in on this a bit. A few issues going on here. Let's tackle the fry vs. fingerling vs. yearling thing first. The MNDNR believes (I use that word because I myself do not know for certain) that yearling, despite being much more expensive offer a significant advantage in survivability vs. fingerlings or fry. Thy are doing a tracking study in the metro with PIT tags to assess this hypothesis right now. I believe that study has been going on for three or four years if I am recalling correctly. I think there is website you can go to to see the results, but I'm not recalling the address right now, sorry.
So when looking at stocking numbers it is important to consider what was stocked in the past vs the present. If the previous stockings were fry or fingerlings then the raw number of fish stocked is going to be higher (much higher in the case of fry) but the survivability of those stocked fish is going to be lower. How much is the key question and why they are doing the PIT tag study. Anecdotally, I've do not think I've ever heard someone make a case that the yearlings do not do a lot better in terms of making it to adulthood vs. fingerling or fry. In other words if multiple sizes are present, the numbers are fish are not an apples to apples comparison.
The other big issue is the AMOUNT or LEVEL of stocking. This is a big topic and there are lot of opinions going around. I personally hold the view that was articulated above with the comment about building a fishery vs. maintaining it as I feel the DNR isn't doing the best job of maintaining the fisheries. The Lunge log isn't a perfect source of data by any means, but it shows a general crash in muskies logged in MN starting in 2008. If you really want to get depressed, filter on Millle Lacs over the past 20 years. (SIGH)
I generally feel that more fish stocked is a good idea, but there are counter opinions and I'm not a biologist. So not looking to get into the weeds on that at all. Just sharing some info for your consumption. |
|
| |
