|
|
| With all the talk about milfoil, VHS, size limts and such I was wondering what you thought is the biggest problem facing the musky fishery today.
Now keep in mind, I think that the fishery is in great shape and love the fact that I can drive 1 1/2 blocks and be on awesome musky water and will fish for many more years!
I think one that is overlooked a LOT is shoreline development.
Take the poll! | |
| | |
| Milfoil continues to be misunderstood,,,,,Look at the monster muskies that come out of the milfoil infested waters of the twin cities,,,The B.A.S.S. guys also rate Minnetonka one of the best bass lakes so its not all highere size limits and genetics,,,milfoil ROCKS!!!! | |
| | |
| I agree, though it can ruin a lake when it gets to thick. Most of the larger lakes are big enough to support some milfoil.. I think it shys some musky guys away because they don't know how to attack milfoil. love hate for me.
bret
much rather have cabbage though | |
| | |
Posts: 227
Location: New Brighton, MN | I voted "catch and Keep", but also think that rough handling kills alot of fish each year. Especially on lakes that are fished by multi species anglers who arent expecting to catch Muskie. | |
| | |
| Catch and keep is the biggest issue we face to a limited degree within the musky community but mostly with the general fishing population who are misinformed about musky forage and impact on a fishery. All these issues are very important and we need to do what we can to work for positive change | |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| Good list overall. Went with shoreline development. Another overlooked issue is misidentification. Hate to think about the numbers of fish that are taken through the course of the year on the "gee, that's a funny looking pike" premise. | |
| | |
| I voted for stocking problems, which covers a pretty wide area. I think the MN DNR is trying to please some of these groups like "No More Muskies", and Lake Associations too. They don't stock Lake Miltona to the level they can, and they recently put a temporary stop to getting fish in Pokegama and Gull Lake because of a few concerns from a couple of people. A bunch of people had worked very hard for a long time on that project, and they listened to the minority opinion instead.
My Chapter of Muskies Inc. offered to pay for high quality aluminum "Know the Difference" sign to be posted at local Public Accesses. They said they didn't really want the signs there. Why not? Because Walleye fishermen would know Muskies are in the lake? Give me a break.
Muskies are not like Largemouth Bass, in that in most instances we need fish to be stocked. If the DNR isn't going to do it, it will make it extremely difficult to get "new" lakes stocked, or even keep fair numbers in current lakes. My $0.02 | |
| | |
Posts: 12
| Well spending most my time fishing Northern WI and IL--I would have to say size limits and spearing. Both are problems in the Vilas/Oneida County area. I guess fishing pressure would be a close third with many lakes getting pounded on a daily. | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | happy hooker - 5/14/2007 9:37 AM
Milfoil continues to be misunderstood,,,,,Look at the monster muskies that come out of the milfoil infested waters of the twin cities,,,The B.A.S.S. guys also rate Minnetonka one of the best bass lakes so its not all highere size limits and genetics,,,milfoil ROCKS!!!!
Milfoil Rocks????? no way, no how, no ifs, no ands, or nor buts, milfoil SUCKS. Skis on leech lake have adapted/evolved to spawn over the Chara spp. beds on Leech, not pondweeds, not Elodea spp., not common milfoil, nor lily pads. Would you like to see milfoil take over the Chara beds in Leech? Not me. Invasive aquatic plants are bad news. People have come so accustomed to metro lakes choked out with curlyleaf pondweed they have been numbed to believe it is a natural plant. The state record LMB just came out of Auburn, a lake rimmed in milfoil. The lake is disgusting. Often times milfoil flourishes in productive, nutrient loaded systems. Think about it, how many natural musky lakes are nutrient loaded?
"Milfoil continues to be misunderstood"
I would agree, the above quote illustrates such. | |
| | |
|
Pressure is the number one issue for all species of fish.
Whether fish are kept intentionally, or die after release, increased pressure is the number one thing we have to contend with.
While the percentage of the population which fishes may be decreasing, the number of anglers that are fishing increases every year.
These fishermen have better electronics, bigger boats and more access to fishing info.
Brad, what are you talking about? The DNR never said they don't want signs up because then wallleye fishermen will know there are muskies in the lake.
The DNR doesn't work for muskie anglers, you make it sound like a couple of people stopped new stocking projects. It's a little more complicated than that.
The MDNR has made a muskie fishery that is the best in the US right now. Seems like you complain an awful lot about them considering that fact.
John
| |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | John, Gull and Pokegama have been stopped by 2 people in particular. Yes the DNR didn't have their ducks in a row like they should have, but it does boil down to 2 people raising a stink. | |
| | |
| Thanks Shawn. I also had a question mark behind my statement about the DNR not wanting the signs at the boat ramps. I don't know why they don't want them there, but clearly they don't. If it wasn't an issue, I believe we'd have done that project. | |
| | |
Posts: 284
| I voted for shoreline developement because it can lead to milfoil problems. Thus being the culprit for two of your candidates. When shorelines are developed people fertalize their yards and that fertilization seaps into the groundwater and into the lake fertalizing the milfoil may already be running rampant. | |
| | |
|
Shawn, weren't those 2 people representing groups of opposition?
That was my point.
It isn't like 2 individual people can get a lake stocked any more than 2 can stop it.
Ducks in a row or not, throwing stones at the DNR is out of line just because there has been a setback.
JS | |
| | |
|
Brad the DNR already has signs up at muskie lakes.
We've gone over this at several of our chapter meetings.
With all the exotic signs, special regs for northerns, slots for walleyes and the signs they already have explaining it's a muskie lake, they don't need any more.
If every group out there wanted to put up their own signs how many would there be? It's a policy told to all people that want thier own signs up, it's not just a decision they made about our muskies signs.
JS | |
| | |
| In my opinion, the DNR could be doing a lot better than they are. I don't see why that statement bothers you so much. I think they sometimes make simple things way more complicated than they need to. If it were up to me, Muskies would be in many more lakes than they are, with higher minimum length restrictions, and larger numbers of fish. I'm not about to say I'm completely satisfied with everything they're doing, even though it may be all that they can do. Just my $0.02 | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I went with catch and keep but the biggest problem that i see is not enough musky lakes where we need them the most. We need expansion badly in some areas. Southeastern wisconsin, all of minnesota, northen illinois and northern indiana are in dire need of more lakes. | |
| | |
Posts: 357
Location: Long Prairie, Minnesota | Okay, Brad and John.......I find your posts quite interesting, and they have brought up a couple of questions. First of all........how come it seems that the MDNR is so quickly pushed away from stocking a lake with Muskies? It seems that they bring up the idea, and if one person/group says no, they back away and forget about it. Why isn't it just as easy for them to say, "Tough, we are stocking this lake". Last time I checked, the people who reside on the lake, own the property around the lake, not that actual lake itself. I thought the lake belongs to all of us. What would be the effect if the DNR stopped stocking Walleyes in Miltona? I could probably hear people screaming across the state. It just seems like the MDNR is way to happy to keep the masses happy and not worry about the little guy, the Muskie fishermen. If they deem a lake worthy to stock the great Muskie, why not just do it? | |
| | |
| That pretty much was my point. They currently stock 20% less fish than what they could be putting into Miltona. In my opinion, that was done in an effort to calm down the No More Muskies group. Well why don't you just come right out and say you agree with No More Muskies, because to me, that's what that looks like to the general public. How many people fish for Muskies, and how many people belong to the anti-Muskie group No More Muskies? Why do ANYTHING to please THEM? I guess "Majority Rule" is not an accepted practice anymore.  | |
| | |
| I look over a very interesting list, and find the common denominator to be...MAN.
We are our own worst enemy.
From the introduction of non-native species to the destruction of habitat, man is the one who is damaging muskies and muskie habitat and muskie fishing. I don't care what color he is, or where he is from or what he does for a living. Everything listed is a result of man screwing with the earth in one way or another. | |
| | |
|
As I stated before, the DNR works for the State of MN, and all it's residents.
Last I checked, we did raise size limits in many of our lakes. We stocked Many Point lake last year for the first time, and are in the process of stocking more waters. Now we are in the process of making a 10 year plan for muskie management in MN. Actually maybe it's longer than that, Shawn would know more about those details.
Seems to me they are doing a lot for muskie anglers and the fishery.
The Dark House Ass. has about 20,000 members in MN. When a group like that talks, than the state has to listen. Northerns Inc. also has raised red-flags regarding muskie stocking.
No More Muskies had over 5000 thousand signatures to halt stocking in Miltona and all lakes in MN. They also had the ear of several state legislators whom can dicatate what the DNR can and cannot do by passing laws.
Not that long ago the legislature mandated more walleye stocking by the DNR even though they were opposed to it.
Brad you might not like the processes that happen regarding public hearings and how the DNR handles public input, but you don't have a clue about how hard it is to deal with all these different special interest groups and try to make everyone happy.
If you want to complain about the DNR, then call them up and make things happen.
Our chapter has had a great working relationship with many DNR officials, taking pot-shots at them from the peanut gallery is pretty weak.
John
| |
| | |
| I still think fishing pressure on some of the more well know waters is going to affect them the most in the near future. Maybe some of the canadian waters with their size can withstand this but the MINN--WIs waters are going to suffer. I know there is alot of catch and release going on but there still is going to be a mortality rate even with those release's. Then there are the catch and keep guys also on the waters. | |
| | |
| Well John, I'm entitled to my opinion, and I've given it. I really don't think what I said would have made any difference anyway. You seem to have a problem with me personally for some reason. I could have posted that the MN DNR was the best thing to happen for Minnesota since the incandescent light bulb, and you would have posted a contradictory opinion after me. For whatever reason you question my credibility and qualifications after almost every post I make, both on this site and the Muskies Inc. site. It's getting tiring.
I don't think groups like No More Muskies deserve the same respect as the Minnesota Muskie Alliance, or Muskies Inc. for that matter, and I don't think the DNR should do a single thing to appease them. That is MY opinion. Maybe I'll get 10 friends together and start a "More Muskies" group. Would they double their stocking efforts to please my group?
If you have an issue with me, then contact me about it. Don't waste everyone's time trying to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about just because you personally don't like me or my opinions. Thanks.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | John, I'm not throwing stones at the DNR. It's a fact they didn't have their ducks in a row on Gull and they've admitted as such. If they had it probably wouldn't be on hold. And yes it does come down to 2 people who held this up, the head of PI and Kirk S of the new NNM group. Neither has any credible data on their side and the NNM group doesn't have any members other then the Kirk. The DNR knows this as well.
The problem resides in that one of these guys knows people above the head of everyone we deal with. We're working on getting an audience with that person, but it isn't too easy to get in to see the Gov. I should be "bumping into him" at one of the Fish-a-thon events that he participates in this summer. Funny, our chapter just happens to be one of the main sponsors of the event...
Edited by Muskie Treats 5/15/2007 8:32 AM
| |
| | |
|
Shawn I didn't meat to imply that you were the one throwing stones, the stone throwing was done before you posted.
I know what you mean by saying it was held up by a couple of people, but when those people are representing a group, no matter how credible they are or not, the DNR has take that into consideration.
It's just the dirty game they have to play.
It's frustrating, but it's better to have them address these issues and groups in a way that doesn't make them go over thier heads and try to get legislators to mandate DNR decisions.
I don't think many people realize how close we were to having No More Muskies get a bill passed to eliminate Muskie stocking in MN.
The DNR struck a compromise with them, less stocking for a period of X amount of years, than the issue would be re-evaluated to see how that effected or didn't effect Miltona.
Personally I'm very glad that they made that deal, and elimintated the threat of that group getting legislation to ban stocking.
John
| |
| | |
| No more muskies/sporstman for responsible muskie management is a head without a body!! theres the guy who runs it and who else???? At the Gull lake hearing I think he had 'one' sidekick with him.I was sitting in the seat directly behind him | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi
I'm with John on this. It does no good to cheap shot the DNR. I had this same debate with Larry Ramsell about some of his projects on stocking in Wisconsin. Say what you will but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
What bothers me Brad is that you have a Muskie Inc. board member coming on a public forum and spouting off about the very people we depend on to help us musky fisherman out. Not cool at all Brad and I hope you are not speaking for the current MI board. Yes you have your personal opinion and I agree you have every right to express them however you feel and wherever you feel. But please be aware of the fact that some of the people you are representing find the trash talking and chest thumping completely out of line.
Work for us as a group and not against us. Thats what your asking the DNR to do yet you seem unwilling to do the same.
Dave VanDoorn
Edited by Hunter4 5/15/2007 8:59 AM
| |
| | |
| TFOOTSTALKER
you bring up some good points about leech,,,however would you concede that milfoil might be the best thing that EVER happened to the metro fisherie based on what it was 20 yrs ago,,,Tonka bass have NEVER been healthier and lakes on the HWY 5 Mitchel,Lotus, Ann etc on a stable weather day is possible to catch 20 -30 bass in the 2-3 1/2 lb range, And has you mentioned the state record bass came out of a milfoil packed lake ,Also its been an absolute BOON for inner city lakes that would be devastated by harvest from all the Imigrants that have moved here and were raised in a culture where all fish regardless of size are food,,Milfoil limits the shore acess they have to the fish otherwise everything would go into their ice cream pales for dinner,, Take a look at the Ron Schara tourney held on the city lakes in the late 70's winning stringer was 6 bass for a total of less then 12 lbs this was a tourney with the likes of Al and Ron Lindner, Capra,Bolig an invitational field of whos who etc, That would be a pretty so so day out there today, On the flipside theres no stacked milfoil on the Ford Dam section of the Miss River and fishing isnt a shadow of what it was 20 yrs ago, Milfoil Rocks in heavy pressured Rural areas | |
| | |
Posts: 3147
| make that 'urban'areas | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | It's too hard to cite one single element that is the worst for fish populations. All of the above mentioned negative influences can have an effect. Now one must also bear in mind that there are individual effects and population effects. Affecting an individual fish's survival is rarely detrimental to a population (that's why size and bag limits have been established). One may or may not agree with limits, but like it or not, there is in most cases a harvestable surplus of fish from almost any population, if not, the regulations should be tweaked to accommodate that. So as a rule, I don't tend to make a big deal out of things that can have adverse effects on individual fish. Things like disease, habitat reduction (or destruction), invasive species, etc., and the cumulative effects that occur when one or more of these stressors is added to a water body seem to have the biggest effect. Add to that, the relative severity of the problems are often perceived most obviously on a local level. For instance, for me VHS is the number 1 problem since in it's current state of affairs, it means no more muskies at all for Utah. Milfoil and shoreline development mean nothing to me personally. So what this boils down to is that they all are bad, and we must work to minimize their effects across the range (and extended range) of muskies and not turn this into a 'popularity contest' of the worst of the worst based on personal opinion.
Sorno | |
| | |
| I support the DNR, and will be talking with one of their representatives later today. I gave my personal opinion, which I didn't think was in any way "bashing" or "throwing stones". Sometimes I think they could do a better job than they currently are. I'm not sure why stating that is so offensive to some people. I know their hands are tied, and there's only so much funding to go around. I meant no disrespect to the MN DNR. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh in my earlier posts. Good day. | |
| | |
|
I would tend to agree with Hooker that Milfoil doesn't hurt the fishery per se, it just takes away the "swimming" pool that lakeshore owners want.
Now we might be singing a different tune 50 years from now about milfoil, but so far it hasn't had a harmful effect on fish populations that I'm aware of.
| |
| | |
| Oneida Esox - 5/14/2007 8:39 AM
With all the talk about milfoil, VHS, size limts and such I was wondering what you thought is the biggest problem facing the musky fishery today.
Now keep in mind, I think that the fishery is in great shape and love the fact that I can drive 1 1/2 blocks and be on awesome musky water and will fish for many more years!
I think one that is overlooked a LOT is shoreline development.
Take the poll!
Selling/trading 80% or better of your DNR hatcheries fish out of state, while pretending that your own state program is in good shape. | |
| | |
| bad handling | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| Considering the number of 50" fish coming out of MN compared to WI, IN, IL, IN,KY, VA, WVA, OH and NY COMBINED, I'd say MN's musky program is the best there is...
| |
| | |
| I talked with the DNR personel today about the netting done on two area lakes. Two of the three lakes that were netted produced 4 fish at 50 inches or better. One lake had 91 fish in the nets, with a 53" being the largest. The other lake was rumored to have produced a 54 inch fish in the nets weighing 44lbs., but that was not confirmed. Looks pretty promising for the 2007 season. I think the Fargo-Moorhead Chapter lead Muskies Inc. for the 2nd year in a row with about 40 fish at 50 inches or better. Not all were caught in this area of MN, but I belive quite a few were. None were caught by yours truly of course, but maybe I can change that this year. | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | happy hooker - 5/15/2007 9:11 AM
TFOOTSTALKER
you bring up some good points about leech,,,however would you concede that milfoil might be the best thing that EVER happened to the metro fisherie based on what it was 20 yrs ago,,,Tonka bass have NEVER been healthier and lakes on the HWY 5 Mitchel,Lotus, Ann etc on a stable weather day is possible to catch 20 -30 bass in the 2-3 1/2 lb range, And has you mentioned the state record bass came out of a milfoil packed lake ,Also its been an absolute BOON for inner city lakes that would be devastated by harvest from all the Imigrants that have moved here and were raised in a culture where all fish regardless of size are food,,Milfoil limits the shore acess they have to the fish otherwise everything would go into their ice cream pales for dinner,, Take a look at the Ron Schara tourney held on the city lakes in the late 70's winning stringer was 6 bass for a total of less then 12 lbs this was a tourney with the likes of Al and Ron Lindner, Capra,Bolig an invitational field of whos who etc, That would be a pretty so so day out there today, On the flipside theres no stacked milfoil on the Ford Dam section of the Miss River and fishing isnt a shadow of what it was 20 yrs ago, Milfoil Rocks in heavy pressured Rural areas
Point understood. Aquatic systems are complex and they virtually all respond differently. While I understand your point, it is a dangerous one. One that could be perceived out of context.
Something else to consider Mitchell winter killed this year (I think we are talking about the same one), although the extent is not known. Winter kills occur when the large biomass of vegetation decays (among other things). Was this increased/caused by a higher plant biomass composed of milfoil? Tough to say. | |
| | |
Posts: 468
Location: Not where I wanna be! |
Selling/trading 80% or better of your DNR hatcheries fish out of state, while pretending that your own state program is in good shape.
this is too true!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 785
| Good point man, I voted Catch and Keep becouse in my local water that is the biggest problem. Shoreline developement came before the musky stocking program, and even though the 40" length limit is also a negative if people wouldn't keep them than it wouldn't matter. Also stocking could be a way to offset the harvest of fish. THis 3600 acre lake got a wopping 129 muskies stocked in it for that past two year period... total! The up side is that few people waste there time trying for muskies there so I've found that they have no fear of large musky lures becouse its the walleye jigs that get most of them. | |
| | |
Posts: 1058
Location: Medford, WI | Oneida, glad to see that you brought up shoreline development! I just did a big paper on the economics of shoreline development and the environmental problems it causes for my Environmental Economics course. Very interesting stuff and I believe educating the landowners is the main key to helping decrease it.
As far as musky-fisheries specifically, I'll say size-limit.
-Jake Bucki | |
| | |
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Beware of the DNR Visioning Lake Management Planning that they are conducting with the Lake Associations. We had a session on Solberg Lake (Phillips, WI) with Dave Nueswanger (DNR - Hayward) and Jeff Scheirer (DNR - Park Falls). It is an excellant planning exercise that that they conduct with one major flaw, a small group can decide the future management plan for a lake. That's my only beef, not the hard work they put in or how they conducted the exercise, just that the people there had to much influence into the results and I'd rather let more of the managing fall to the DNR professionals.
The exercise prioritizes the species of interest, identiifies the relative importance of numbers versus size and catch versus release. It was understood that professional fishery managers would select the most appropriate strategies once goals and objectives were developed with "help" from local stakeholders and adjusted to incorporate statewide angler preferance and capacity of the lake to produce what is desired.
The "help" part apparently turns out to be the major influence in what is done.
Coming to Solberg Lake from the Sayner area I was unprepared for the hatred for muskies coming from a group of residents that live on the lake. They complain about the large population of small walleyes but in the next breath blame the muskies for eating all the walleyes. How you can have a large bunch of walleyes if the muskies are eating them all escapes them. I've talked about muskie diet studies at our meetings but I could never sway the gang of 20 to see the light. In spite of this approx. 5 years ago we voted about 45 to 25 to raise the size limit to 40". But in a blow to democracy the gang of 20 talked our Lake Association President into vacating the vote because as he told me "they didn't think it was a good idea".
Here comes the rub. This group was out in force with their wives for the planning session with the goal to get rid of or diminish the population of the dreaded muskies. Some of them rarely fish, I'm not sure some of them even have a license. Unfortunately I was the only one of what I consider Solbergs 8-10 hard core muskie guys at the meeting. Plus none of the fishermen at the county campground that come here to camp and pursue muskies were there either. No one from the two trailer parks, three bars, or two resorts either.
Still the muskie vote went - Fishing interest: High 11, Medium 9, Low 10, None 9 and for Numbers versus Size went: Numbers over size 0, prefer balance 18, size over number 9. and Catch and Release went: C & R 17, Balance 8, Maximum Sustainable Harvest 2. As stated in the Draft of the Managent Plan "some of those that expressed no interest in muskies actually had highly negative feelings toward muskellunge. These preferances are in stark contrast to the preferances of anglers at many traditional muskie waters in the Upper Chippewa Basin. Because muskellunge are held in lower regard and not valued as a trophy fish in Solberg an objective was chosen to maintain a low to moderate population density and reflect the interest in conservative size structure but not necessarily trophy-sized fish". What about the 40" limit we wanted? Why wasn't historical interest taken
into account?
In the end the 20 that expressed a high to medium interest lost out to the 19 that had a low to none interest. So much for the majority wins. The moral of the story is to make sure that if your lake is having one of these planning sessions to get everyone there to shift the vote to whatever your group wants.
It was decided that Solberg is now a lake that will have the major emphasis put on bluegills even though traditionally this has been a poor panfish lake.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the gang of 20 hates all weeds of any type, also any logs, stumps or any other fish cover habitat. But they want more bluegills.
Deliver me from evil.
Buddy
Edited by buddysolberg 5/16/2007 9:09 PM
| |
| | |
| I support us stopping this crap the fish will never have a break from the spear it's on the docket as far as I can see
Sec. 37. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 97C.335, is amended to read:
15.3397C.335 USE OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS TO TAKE FISH PROHIBITED.
16.1 A person may not use artificial lights to lure or attract fish or to see fish in the water
16.2while spearing, except that while angling or spearing, a person may:
16.3 (1) affix to the end of a fishing line a lighted artificial bait with hooks attached to the
16.4end of a fishing line; or
16.5 (2) use a lighted decoy for spearing.
16.6 Any battery that is used in lighted fishing lures cannot contain any intentionally
16.7introduced mercury.
HF.1116
| |
| | |
| This is what I've been pouring over for weeks and days, we have no lobbyist we have no Frank anymore, so we all need to keep an eye on whats happening at the capitol, it really sucks but this is the only thing that will keep another French Lake from happening, all you do is put in Key words 1 is best (Spearing, Spearing Ban, Designated Lakes or Muskellunge) and scan the results I freaked when I saw the lighted amendment LOL I need more sleep.
http://ros.leg.mn/revisor/pages/search_status/status_search.php?bod...
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/stat...
Please help, so far Ive found nothing really other than they want lighted decoys I suppose this helps in low light conditions for the discriminating spearer and the Dark House and Ice shacks going to a 3 year and changing the dates the Lic is valid through.
VHS could prove total devastation
Edited by Muskiefool 5/17/2007 4:30 PM
| |
| |
|
Musky Problems