I don't think Illinois has a source for GL strain muskellunge. I know Michigan doesn't have any to give since we're already sending fish to WI each year. Eventually they will make their way around the south end of the lake from Michigan.

Yes, you can stand corrected. Almost all regulations go through a public review/comment period, if after this period there are any significant change to the suggested regulation it will go through the public comment/review again. The process is a little different here but there's no less red tape to get something like this accomplished.

BNelson - 2/12/2014 2:26 PM sweet, well, since you got it voted in over there, we should push for it again over here... so we don't look like 'weenies'

There are three ways to reduce harvest to acceptable levels, through size limits, bag limits or in extreme cases both. In most cases it's possible to achieve the same level of harvest reduction through one or the other. The hard part is to determine what the public and the biologists find acceptable.

We had great data that there was harvest beyond what our management plan determined was acceptable. Most average anglers and many of our biologists weren't comfortable with a statewide increase in size limit but a reduction in the bag from 1/day to 1/license year was acceptable to all stakeholders. This package also didn't remove the biologists option to place higher size limits where harvest needed to be reduced further.

Bottom line is that 1/license year was right for our circumstances but might not be right for somewhere else. 

 I won't be surprised when someone catches one there. There have been three Green Bay fish caught in lower peninsula waters.

Stocking should be used to restore native extirpated populations and build new populations that will naturally reproduce. Why not let muskie clubs stock it then? Sure that's an option but no, or very few, musky clubs have tons of money to throw around and to stock a single water with a limited number of fish is a complete waste of money IMO. Thousands of dollars goes a long way to habitat restoration which provides long term benefits. Thousands of dollars into a minnow fund for a state hatchery raises thousands if not tens of thousands of extra fish.

Muskies management is never simple, you can't make everyone happy. In theory, to be successful, everyone needs to adopt a "what's best for the state" attitude but most people have their own agenda. As Jim noted above, sure everyone wants the waters in their backyard stocked. Personally, I would sacrifice my "local" waters if it meant the state could stock more fish where the long term benefit is far greater than a put-n-take fishery that's nothing but a drain on the hatchery.

Michigan is on the right track, changes over the last ten years will benefit our children and their children. Man… I hope I'm still around to enjoy it in 25 years.

Same here but I would be 90... yikes!  I think Michigan's “got it” thanks to a lot of hard work and perseverance by many volunteers.  Most sincerely; I'm not sure if you can find a better ambassador than Will who has been a major force in spearheading the movement. Nice work gentlemen! 

I can foresee the next Green Bay in Traverse Bay… IMHO it has the potential to be something even more special with it’s diversity.  I think a key component for Traverse Bay would be the potential for a true self sustained fishery with the drowned river mouths connected to spawning habitat. I know this is on your radar, and sincerely hope that it becomes a reality for the next generation.  

To follow King Fishers post from page 1; I have fished East Traverse Bay for muskie and there's definitely a density population issue there… it kind a makes the Elk Chain look like a stocked trout pond eh'.

Some should and some will not. When forage is overflowing, as it is in Green Bay, growth rates will be off the chart especially for an introduced species that has little competition for preferred forage. You really can't take the growth rate of where the fish come from and translate that to where they're stocked. Genetics plays a part, of course, but forage is key and why growth rates of a first stocking into any water yields growth rate far above what can be expected for future stocking. In some of the waters where the GLMUS have been stocked we will see 50" fish in 10 years. Others with established populations will have more competetion for forage at all phases go their life and will grow slower, it's just the nature of the beast.

Widespread stocking will be much easier 10-12 years down the road when both states have their GLMUS brood lakes established and egg taking will be consistent. Right now 1/2 million eggs goes a long way, 1.5 million eggs would allow three hatcheries to rear 30-50,000 fall fingerlings. I can't imagine what 150,000 muskies stocked could do for the lower rivers, drowned rivermouths and bays of the great lakes. 

 Michigan biologists have taken the stance that if a population is established and self sustainable, even at low density, that it should not be stocked and instead regulations should be used to increase numbers.

Fr. K -

For the vast majority of Michigan waters, UP and LP, the GLMUS is the right strain. If there's a history of muskellunge in a water and that water is connected in any way to the Great Lakes, regardless or the number of dams now in the way, the native strain was likely GLMUS. Many waters were stocked with the wrong strain simply because there wasn't a viable source for GLMUS. There are very few waters in Michigan that have the Wisconsin strain NMUS, naturally occurring. If stocking is needed in those waters it will be addressed, as mentioned previously mentioned, through an annual trade with Wisconsin. There are waters that rely solely on stocking, where it really doesn't matter what strain goes in, and these waters may benefit from a change in strain since it could yield natural reproduction. Why? The strains often select different spawning sites and the same water but new fish may have an impact on spawning success - time will tell. The third category of water is naturalized populations, these waters didn't historically have muskellunge but were once stocked and are now maintained all or in part by natural reproduction. The naturalized waters may or may not be impacted by a change in strain  but if they are naturally reproducing stocking shouldn't be necessary except at a very low "supplemental" density which again can be addressed through the trade with Wisconsin.

This is a good case of management over just throwing fish at a lake. Does Bond Falls really need more fish if the population is self sustaining? If the population doesn't meet management goals it should be addressed through additional protection and habitat improvement.