|
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Would like to hear your thoughts on this article. Submitting without opinion.
http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_25914335/minnesota-muskies-gr...
When Minnesota muskie anglers take to the water this weekend, they'll be chasing bigger and bigger fish -- but apparently less and less of them.
That's the emerging suspicion of state biologists monitoring populations on a number of Minnesota's roughly 100 lakes with strong populations of muskellunge. What they've seen is that as the population of muskies ages and fish grow larger -- a trend almost certain to continue as the state adopts a 54-inch statewide minimum next year -- densities of muskies are falling.
The phenomenon -- suspected to be the result of big muskies eating smaller ones -- is eye-opening to researchers because numbers of the fast-growing, voracious fish are naturally low to begin with.
For example, 6,581-acre Lake Bemidji is now believed to have a mere 500 to 600 adult muskies in it, according to a two-year population estimate completed last month by the Department of Natural Resources. "You'd think there'd be room for more than that," said Gary Barnard, the DNR's Bemidji area fisheries supervisor.
But the good news for trophy seekers: Those fish are huge.
"There are a lot of 'em, a lot of really big muskies," Barnard said. "A lot of fish over 50 inches."
In the second half of May, DNR electrofishing crews examined 80 muskies in spawning grounds of Lake Bemidji. As to be expected, most were males, but a number of them were "approaching 50 inches," Barnard said. That's a monstrous size for male muskies, the females of which are larger and generally seen as the prizes. Of the females caught, roughly 1 in 4 was longer than 50 inches, Barnard said. The biggest weighed 46 pounds.
"We started seeing this last year on Bemidji, and we were surprised by the size distribution," he said. "So this year we spanned the entire spawning period to make sure we weren't doing something that was biased toward capturing bigger fish. We found the same thing this year: A lot of these fish are big."
In other words, the lake has no problem growing healthy, long-lived, enormous fish, but it might be at the cost of total numbers of fish.
Barnard doesn't believe there's anything wrong with what's happening, but he said he hopes anglers this season -- which started Saturday -- understand that they may see less "action" from 35-inch to 45-inch fish -- because there appear to be less of them in many waters than a decade ago.
That jives with what the log books of muskie guides and online bragging boards of muskie groups have been showing for several years, said Shawn Kellett, vice president of the Twin Cities Chapter of Muskies.
"Catch rates are going down across the board," Kellett said. "This is real."
LOW DENSITIES
An old adage of muskie anglers held that a body of water could support one adult fish per acre. In the past few decades as musky fishing, stocking and studies have surged, biologists have come to believe densities of healthy muskie populations are lower than that. Fish are often stocked at one fish per littoral acre. The littoral zone refers to fertile waters generally shallower than 15 feet deep where most aquatic plants, spawning habitat and young fish are located.
Lake Bemidji has about 1,860 littoral acres and is stocked every other year with about that many fish -- fingerlings large enough to have high survival rates. Yet the population of 500 to 600 suggests a density of less than one fish per 100 acres, or one for every three or so littoral acres.
Bemidji is considered a "restored" muskie lake. Natural reproduction occurs, but it's limited, and the DNR continues stocking to supplement the population. In theory, stocked fish should fill in during "off" years when natural reproduction, for whatever reason, is low.
Yet, it appears that the majority -- two-thirds or so -- of the stocked fish aren't surviving to adulthood.
The phenomenon isn't isolated to the largest of Minnesota's roughly 100 muskie waters. "It's a pattern," Barnard said.
For example, 300-acre Elk Lake in Itasca State Park has received roughly 150 muskies annually for years. Current population estimate: 50 adult fish. The DNR uses the population as a brood stock to gather eggs for its stocking program, so biologists are familiar with its population and study it closely.
"That's just not a lot of fish," Barnard said. "The notion that these lakes are full of fish is just not true."
CANNIBALISM?
Here's what the DNR thinks is happening:
When major stocking efforts of pure strain muskies started on many lakes two decades ago or sooner, the fish had little competition from larger muskies, and they survived well.
"They filled a void," Barnard said. "We probably went through a period of higher abundance from introduction by stocking."
Then, as some fish grew huge -- more than 50 pounds on some waters -- the populations appear to be stabilizing at lower levels.
It's called "recruitment suppression," and it happens with many fish. Sometimes there isn't enough spawning habitat or food in a lake to support a population that boomed after being introduced. But that doesn't appear to be the case with muskies.
So what's happening to them? With no signs of disease or other cause of mortality, the most likely explanation is they're being eaten by other muskies.
"That seems to be the case," Barnard said, "and it's made us wonder amongst ourselves."
The notion that 500 or so muskies could find so many of their kind on a large lake like Bemidji -- a lake with an ample population of ciscoes, the muskies' preferred forage -- suggests that the fish might concentrate their feeding in ways scientists don't understand.
It also might have ramifications as the DNR moves forward with plans to re-work northern pike regulations over the next few years. Among the goals is to grow huge northern pike, which are disappearing throughout Minnesota, on lakes capable of producing them.
"We don't really know what these climax pike populations looked like," Barnard said. "We know the fish were there, and we've always thought they were fairly abundant, but maybe they weren't. And maybe really large pike are able to keep smaller pike in check the way it looks like muskies are doing. We're learning from both species."
ALTERNATE THEORY
It's possible the data is wrong, and muskie populations haven't actually fallen as the fish have aged and grown.
Barnard said that would be true if the DNR was missing fish in their spring population assessments. The only reason they would be missing fish is if the fish weren't coming in shallow to spawn. And the only reason that would be is if they were delaying their sexual maturity so they could grow bigger.
The theory is that, say, 50-inch-plus females might have a spawning advantage over 45 inchers, and that might cause the 45 inchers to delay putting energy into making eggs until they're larger. Male bluegills exhibit this behavior, but it's never been documented in muskies. And it would be hard to confirm, Barnard said, because muskies are notoriously hard to capture outside spawning areas in significant numbers.
Meanwhile, the state is moving toward managing its muskie population to become essentially a catch-and-release fishery with the goal of growing the biggest fish possible. Last month, Gov. Mark Dayton signed legislation to increase the statewide minimum to 54 inches on most inland waters, up from 48 inches currently.
Kellett doesn't believe the increased minimum, which he and other muskie advocates lobbied for, will have much bearing on the apparent falling numbers of fish, but he said the muskie community is watching closely.
"There's a lot of consternation in the muskie world right now," he said. "We're seeing a lot of these lakes crash, and then we see the DNR pull stocking back to see if there's natural reproduction. The DNR did a great job creating a world-class muskie fishery, but now we need to maintain it.
"There's a lot going on that we don't know about muskie populations. I'm a little hesitant to say this is happening or this is not happening."
Not that any of this will alter the summer plans of devotees of the muskellunge, fabled to be "the fish of 10,000 casts."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | I have spent time talking to Jerry Younk and electroshocking Lake Bemidji. I also have ten years of catch data on the lake. In this particular study there could possibly be a variety of contributing factors: escapement to four other connected lakes, cannibalism, catch and release angling, and an established old population preventing any recruitment. The same can be seen on Elk Lake, and a number of lakes with population estimates done "now and then." On Elk only a handful of females controlled the population. The 54in minimum isn't responsible for something that has been looming for years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | This is exactly what has happened to Island Lake in Duluth. You could switch the lake names and write the same article. Island Lake was booming 5-6 years ago. Now it is TOUGH to even see a muskie. And i have not caught a 30-35 inch muskie on Island Lake in 3-4 years.
This year the DNR increased stocking by 33% as they know the population is low. The flood 2 years ago...walleye anglers keeping fish and losing fish through the dam have all contributed though.
I think the baits we are using are too small....lol...how about a 5 Pounder!!
Edited by Lundbob 7/31/2014 3:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | The walleyes ate all the muskies, lol, there is a lot going on in the fisheries and kevin touched on some of them, what about delayed mortality, the boom let to a lot of fish being caught and being handled. Stocking has fallen off on certain lakes, and weather has impacted spring spawns. Yes seen it coming, been alot of talk about this for years, but everything is okay cus we were catching fish now, and the future is here.
Troy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| I always understood that the stocking/reintroduction of muskies into many MN lakes produced population booms/peaks as the first generations reached top sizes. Wasn't it anticipated that those population levels weren't sustainable, and that the populations would eventually reach equilibrium and stabilize at lower levels? I'm not saying populations aren't down now, even relative to equilibrium levels, but I'm not certain that the catch rates during the population booms that occurred in many lakes of 10-15 years ago should or will ever come back (or in the case of Island, which was stocked later, 5 years ago). Just a theory or even a question for those who know more, I guess. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | An adult fish for every 10 acres +/- isn't a bad mix if you want the size structure.
The math in the article is not accurate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 409
Location: Almond, WI | I would bet escapement is a bigger issue on the lakes connected to other water bodies than most think. I also wonder if natural reproduction of stocked fish isn't lower than anticipated. Ultimately, people need to be realists as well--not every fish is going to live to be 54"+ no matter what the size limit or however good fish handling is. There's a reason the 50" mark was such a time-honored trophy standard--fish bigger than that are either 1. genetic freaks or 2. old fish. Stocking has just enabled us to inflate those numbers.
One more factor no one has mentioned that I would be betting on as a missing factor: predation of young fish by birds. When I was growing up, loons, bald eagles, ospreys, egrets, etc were fairly rare. I've seen more of them in the last five years than the previous 25 combined. I have seen muskies with scars that appear to be talon marks, and have witnessed birds carry off muskie fingerlings. My uncle caught a 38" with fresh talon marks a few years back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I caught a 35 incher on Waconia and a 39" on the St. Croix in 2008. I haven't caught or netted a fish under 40" in the metro since. That is just not right. They all have to pass 30" to get to 50" and it's a major event to even see a little one now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| The stocking program, (adult muskies), that made Mille Lacs, Tonka, Vermillion, into world class fisheries has been abandoned by the DNR. Stocking fry and fingerlings does very little to large lake except feeding the other fish. The DNR has told me for 20 years that these fish do spawn but unsuccessfully, 1-10%. Now they are saying they are reproducing at 30 to 40%. You don't have to have a degree in biology to know that the population of muskies on these 3 lakes has dropped sharply. It will continue to drop until the DNR returns to the "successful" plan used in the 80s. Unfortunately, it will take several decades to bring them back to where they were. I really don't think the DNR wants these lakes to return to the world-class muskie fisheries that they previously were.
The northern lakes like Bemidji, Leech, Cass, are natural muskie lakes and have had natural reproduction. If those levels are also dropping, I have no idea as to why. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I have no clue...
Possibly a stocking program that is behind demand?
Increased number of people targeting muskies which increased that demand?
More educated fishermen catching more fish overall?
A higher level of delayed mortality?
Non spawning fish that are spending their entire lives over open water/suspended?
Higher catch-to-keep ratio among fisherman who are not familiar with the differences of muskies vs pike?
Spawning conditions varying year to year thus affecting how well the fish spawn?
Spawning in different areas than what we have found?
Spawning deeper than what we know?
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Seems like a perfect storm coming together. Stocked fish reached maturity with no predators to affect them. Now these fish are the predators and the newly stocked fish have an uphill battle, how can that not affect numbers unless stocking increases? Combine that with a very limited number of lakes and an exponential increase in anglers and corresponding increase in fish kept over 48" and delayed mortality. I also wonder if the pressure has caused fish to move to deeper structure and basin areas? There's plenty of food out there.
If they (the DNR) already see the writing on the wall, why aren't they doing anything about it? Maybe it's a money issue, but if this trend doesn't reverse or at least stabilize in the somewhat near future, it's going to be a long road to recovery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. It really puzzles me why some people read this and think that something is wrong. I seem to recall several years ago that there were a number of folks who predicted that something like this would happen. It is important to remember that many if not most of these new Musky lakes in MN were new fisheries entirely created by stocking. The boom years were expected just as we should have expected that at some point the boom years would come to an end. Now the MN DNR has a chance to experiment with regulations and stocking practices on individual lakes to try to reach desired population outcomes. If anyone thinks that the boom years were normal and could be maintained forever then they probably have unrealistic expectations. I doubt that just increasing stocking on these lakes would return them to the former glory of the initial population boom phase. Everyone was saying just a few years ago how smart the MN DNR was for creating such great Musky fisheries. I don't think they suddently got much dumber over the last 5 years. It's probably too soon to say what some of these Musky fisheries will ultimately be like in the long term or how much stocking will be required to maintain fishable populations.
Edited by MUSKYLUND1 8/1/2014 3:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Forest Lake, MN & Bemidji, MN | I hope these pictures help everyone feel a bit better. I don't believe that the DNR knows everything about these fish or these fisheries. Fair to say they make educated guesses and there are simply a lot of things in nature that escape man's understanding. It's extremely arrogant to think otherwise in my opinion. My old man was a MN C.O. for 9 years in Bemidji and I have heard some great stories. Not bashing what they do and I appreciate the efforts they make, just saying nobody's perfect, myself included. In most cases with respect to musky population man is attempting to influence and control nature. That's an awfully hard thing to do.
Here are two 30" class lake Bemidji fish and two 30" class lake Minnetonka fish all caught in 2013 or 2014. They exist! I have seen plenty more where these hawgs came from. Guess I should buy more lottery tickets cause my boat sure is lucky to find these needles in the haystack. I think if we all keep supporting stocking efforts on our local waters and practice catch and release we will always have someplace to chase these fish. I like being positive I guess.
Best of luck to everyone out there!
Edited by jfreborg 8/1/2014 7:51 PM
(b066d377-55b1-4cf1-be18-a09068fa446c_zpsa558d53e.JPG)
(ddd845e9-9023-4257-8b61-bfc5a0c1d55a_zpsfe858452.JPG)
(3cc65ecc-6d92-4aeb-a3cb-162a08a0432d_zpsaad34858.JPG)
(587e616b-5471-4d40-b2c4-2af00a7cfe30_zpsd65d5a45.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 b066d377-55b1-4cf1-be18-a09068fa446c_zpsa558d53e.JPG (100KB - 305 downloads)
ddd845e9-9023-4257-8b61-bfc5a0c1d55a_zpsfe858452.JPG (155KB - 335 downloads)
3cc65ecc-6d92-4aeb-a3cb-162a08a0432d_zpsaad34858.JPG (212KB - 323 downloads)
587e616b-5471-4d40-b2c4-2af00a7cfe30_zpsd65d5a45.JPG (71KB - 426 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Leech and Cass cant be put in the same category as Lake Bemidji. The Power Dam was created on Lake Bemidji in 1907. This stopped the direct flow from the Cass chain. All the natural lakes that I fish show different year classes and we consistently catch fish of all sizes. I have spoken with many anglers that fished Lake Bemidji 50-60 years ago. Muskie catches were rare up until the early 90s even accidental. The largest fish that were caught out of Bemidji were caught in the late 90s. This was the first years' classes (14-16 yr old fish). Legit 50lb were caught and harvested. There were also lots of up and coming year classes ('96-'99) that were caught in more recent years. Behind those years it seems like fish are scattered. I am convinced that the large females suppress the smaller fish during the spawn. The old fish may not be as fertile as the younger year classes which also possibly hurts natural reproduction. You could look at the low density as a muskie angler created problem. We all want to keep those large fish in the system but if they are present it creates other unforeseen problems. The DNR numbers for Cass and Bemidji coincide with my catches of tagged and microchipped fish. I would say that they are accurate in their recent population estimates. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Forest Lake, MN & Bemidji, MN | So if larger fish suppress the smaller fish during the spawn, does it make sense that if stocking continues while the large fish die off, that the regularly stocked fish would begin to get a better foothold as the larger older fish pass and hopefully start the whole process over?
It seems this type of a cycle would result in a lull in numbers of large fish followed by a lull in numbers of smaller fish and so on? Isn't it the unknowns that can throw a monkey wrench into things? Angling pressure should ebb and flow with the quality of the fishery too right.
Edited by jfreborg 8/1/2014 11:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | I think the alarm comes from the increase in angling hours to catch a fish. Also the lack of small fish being sampled/caught is not the norm either for stocked lakes. Small being under 40. There has been a steady decrease of small fish for the last ten years. Lake Bemidji is possibly one of the more extreme cases in the state. The Elk Lake population estimate is more concrete and maybe more accurate since it is a small lake and the fish are easier to track. The population on Elk decreased substantially while the size structure increased. I believe I heard approximately 60 fish on Elk. Same thing on Bemidji but half the density.
All the old fish in the system of a year class die at different times. There wont be smaller fish to take their place if they don't exist. I guess if every fish over 50 was killed over time the smaller fish would have more of a chance which would give way for them to survive. That doesn't mesh well with muskie angler's beliefs and definitely not mine. The case is being studied and taken seriously by our local biologists. I will say after talking to the biologists they are concerned with the current and future status of the fishery.
Edited by kevin cochran 8/1/2014 11:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Forest Lake, MN & Bemidji, MN | Bummer. I meant a large fish dying naturally of course. I hope that some of the smaller fish have disbursed rather than just all being dead! Have they sampled Irvine recently? It maybe be a good follow up to the Bemidji study. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Lake Irving is Bemidji. Marquette, Carr, Irving, Stump are all part of the Bemidji "chain." Stocking numbers only take into account Lake Bemidji. Therefore stocking is determined for that one specific part of the chain. The upper and lower basin of Lake Bemidji. Escapement isn't taken into account.
Hoop nets and electroshocking took place in Lake Irving during the population estimate since it is ideal spawning habitat. It cant be classified as a separate lake.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Forest Lake, MN & Bemidji, MN | Interesting to know that's how things are viewed from a management standpoint. I guess I am old fashioned in viewing them as not part of Bemidji rather just connected. Gramps never told me we were going to fish the Bemidji chain. Just Bemidji or Irvine or maybe the mississipi. With the Mississippi moving through she makes one heck of a chain  I know I know it would stop at the power dam, just messing around. Thanks for all the insight into the report. Makes much more sense now.
Edited by jfreborg 8/2/2014 12:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Watersmeet, Michigan | I certainly don't know enough to comment, other than to note that Tony Rizzo wrote about this back in 2005.
http://www.musky.com/2012Single/RizzoTrophyMusky.htm
Fr. K |
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
| If it were simply a case of larger fish eating the smaller ones, then wouldn't this happen in every lake (not just lakes in MN)? From everything I've read the main diet of muskies is slower moving, easier to catch fish. I'm not saying that it never happens but there has to be something else going on as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| Howdy,
I think it does happen elsewhere, we just don't hear about it as much. MN has a much more sophisticated DNR compared to most states that have muskies, and a lot more modern data related to populations from initial stocking to present. Add in years of C&R and we have a much more accurate snapshot of the resource than we would have in other regions or states where muskies were pounded and harvested for decades.
Also, consider that the "rap" on so many trophy lakes is the same, "big fish, but not a lot of fish". I suspect this phenomenon is one of the reasons this holds true all across the muskie range. If a system has the genetic potential to grow giants, and is allowed to do so by design, angling ineptitude, lack of pressure or whatever, it seems to be the case.
Furthermore, look at recent pike management and the success that we are only now starting to have with slots. No doubt, the biggest reason for the success is the canibalistic behavior that pike start to exhibit after getting over 24 inches. This thinning of the herd has done a great job of eliminating hammer handles and allowing big pike to mature. Look no further than Vermillion as an example.
I think the lesson here, if there is one, is to enjoy every muskie you catch, big or small, and to accept that like so much in life everything is a compromise. If you want trophies fish trophy waters and be honest with yourself on what you expect to happen. If you want numbers go to action lakes.
By the way its not just stocking that can cause the boom. Look at what VHS did to lakes like St. Clair. Suddenly a vacancy was created for giants to grow when so many fish died off. Catch rates are showing it. Inevitably, however, we will see the lake settle to the same equilibrium point that we are seeing in MN, it will just happen for different reasons.
Take care,
Ruddiger |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | It isnt just cannibalism. There are many other contributing factors that were already discussed in the above case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
| I understand that cannibalism isn't the only thing but according to the article the DNR thinks it's the major factor (unless the article wasn't accurate -- which certainly can happen). Other people have brought up other theories here but again, none of those things are strictly native to MN waters -- many lakes have all those issues. I just think it's funny that 10 years ago people in WI were all over the DNR to be more like MN and get the same strain they have, do what they do, etc.. But somehow WI has managed 7 times the amount of musky lakes that MN has and people are catching bigger and more fish than ever before here. I've never understood why MN has so few musky lakes -- maybe someone can fill me in on that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Everybody knew that the MN fisheries would mature eventually. Those first few year classes came up with the entire lake ecosystem to themselves. No competition... As those same fish have reached their maximum size, it stands to reason that there would be more of them than any subsequent year class. Makes for an amazing fishery for a few years, but a top heavy population can't stay that way forever. It seems weird to say, but its probably a case of too many big fish. As those first several year classes start dying off, I think things will start to resemble a more "normal" fishery. Lower densities, fish of all sizes spread more evenly throughout the system, and very few giant fish.
I don't think it's a situation unique to MN or unique to muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Our friend and nationally recognized muskie/fisheries manager Dave N. calls what addict described as 'new reservoir syndrome'. Works the same way with Bass, Walleyes, and other prized game fish too.
This was all part of the huge debate a few years back over the 'it's the fish' stance. In the biology forum, and a heck of a read if you have a couple weeks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 441
| I've been catching a lot of 30-40" class fish on the Big V, the last couple of years. It's good to see. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The muskie pictured in the article looks like it hasn't been eating much of anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
Location: Duluth, MN | bucknuts - 8/3/2014 12:57 PM
I've been catching a lot of 30-40" class fish on the Big V, the last couple of years. It's good to see.
Ditto |
|
| |
|
| Lots of 30"-40" Tonka fish too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 122
| We have caught 14 fish this year so far.... One 45.5 and the rest smaller...one older lake and one newer lake. The lake with fish in it for less the 15 years we saw more youngsters but still not to bad from lake that was an older lake....
However I told my husband as we fish the young Muskie lake that the fish compared to even a couple years ago seem to look thinner or are struggling more. Vicious bite there! Lots of later 30s fish to so the first ones that were created natural sprung up well. Be fun to track the lake we plan to keep going there to see how things change with time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I believe in studies of "unmolested" populations of fish, free from the influence of man, that those populations normally consist of mainly larger, mature specimens and ordinarily fewer numbers of small fish. We're used to looking at population charts that start high and drop with age/size. In a situation where there is very little harvest (ie influence of man) these populations should start looking like this. There are many reasons the DNR doesn't catch smaller fish in their assessments. I can vouch for small fish in lakes like Bemidji. They are there. They just don't live near/hang out a lot where larger muskies are often known to frequent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| Muskies are next to impossible to net so it doesnt surprise me that the findings from surveys dont show well.
The one thing I think people (us) fail to consider is that over time (last 10 years) what has happened to the size of the most popular baits? They have all gotten bigger. What happens when you fish these huge lures? You tend to get bigger fish right?
I remember when I first started musky fishing and I used the mepps musky killers, the billy fin spinner baits and other lures that by today's standards are TINY. I caught tons of fish. Between my buddy and I we would average 3 or 4 fish per day with some days close to a dozen fish. Never had any fish over 45" at that time, because they didnt exist on the lakes we fished at the time, since they were newly stocked.
Fast forward to the last 5 years. The baits I throw are twice the size and my last outing on the same lake produced 2 fish ALL DAY. 1 42" at sunrise and a 49.5" at moonrise which was close to sunset. Those were the only two fish we saw all day!
We didnt try a single small lure. Had we done that I am sure we would have found some smaller fish. One of my buddies who lives on the lake casts for bass and catches mid 20"s muskies all the time.
I think the fish are there, but 1) we use lures that arent going to attract the smaller fish and 2) surveys dont work for muskies well 3) the population was bound to level off due to the intense initial stocking (same thing is happening to zebra mussels (after 10 years the population drops then levels off-- happening on mille lacs now). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My son Keith worked for the WIDNR gathering spawn each spring for Muskies and Walleyes raised at the Woodruff hatchey. He had little trouble fyke netting muskies for that purpose. It certainly isn't easy, but not impossible.
Population estimates are also done using creel reports, boom shocking, and other data. A big muskie IS hard to shock, they scoot out of the way often. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| sworrall - 8/4/2014 1:08 PM
My son Keith worked for the WIDNR gathering spawn each spring for Muskies and Walleyes raised at the Woodruff hatchey. He had little trouble fyke netting muskies for that purpose. It certainly isn't easy, but not impossible. Agreed. If they are going after fish to use in hatcheries they will likely yield better results, but "traditional" survey methods do not work well especially the timing in which they do them.
There is some raising concern about a new musky fishery in MN as well. One that was first stocked in 2011. The first couple years people were catching/seeing muskies somewhat regularly. Now the last two years there are none to be found/heard of.
They started with some adults then followed up with fingerlings.
I would have a hard time believe that rogue biologists could harm them too much (there was a lot of controversay about the stocking), but it may be cause for some concern.
Personally I think it was a mistake to begin putting fingerlings in there until the catfish had been brought into check. It was probably just a feeding frenzy for them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 18
| I'm not sure why fingerlings and fry are even stocked at all in the larger lakes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | What new system was first stocked in 2011, are you referring to the Sauk Chain? I didn't think it was that early. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| Yes, it was initially stocked in the Fall of 2011.
http://dairylandpeach.com/2011/11/sauk-river-chain-of-lakes-stocked...
Edited by Captain 8/4/2014 3:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| What is the cost of stocking adult muskies on a per fish basis compared to stocking fingerlings? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I was on Leech a couple of weeks ago and saw a lot of mid-30 to low 40 inch Muskies. It seemed as if the smaller and larger Muskies were hanging out in different areas and structure type. I expect every lake is somewhat different, but one part of the issue may that as Muskie population matures, they begin to separate based on size structure. I'm sure everyone has seen that with Walleyes and Pike where the smaller fish avoid areas when the larger fish are present. I have seen that trend on Minnetonka where spots that used to hold smaller Muskies no longer seem to and those spots now only seem to hold fewer, but larger fish. Likewise, there are some areas where smaller fish are abundant, but one rarely sees a large fish any more.
Seems the fish are always changing their habits. They just don't play fair, eh? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| We've had many conversations about that very same thing on our annual trip to Eagle Lake.
We catch a lot of fish in the 37"-42" range, a fair amount from 43-47", the occasional 48" and up fish...
We've only seen one fish over the years that was under 37". You KNOW there are muskies of all sizes. There's this years hatch, yearlings, 2 year old fish, 3 year old fish.... Where do they go? Where are they hiding? Are they around and they just ignore the lures we throw? We never catch them walleye fishing or smallmouth fishing. They never follow musky lures. My guess, which is what Herb eluded to, is that they're all back in the shallow bays somewhere hiding in the weeds in a foot of water where we just don't fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 193
Location: Mayer, MN | The majority of the muskies we catch on Minnetonka are 38" to 40". We often fish the same spots and similar techniques. Maybe its location? Then again we throw a lot of smaller stuff.
Waconia became really tough for me and my friends. When we started in 2004 we had no clue what we were doing and always had follows and caught a few. Pressure became unbelievable out there and many incidental catches were made and kept, which was within the rules of the time. At that time I think the minimum size limit was 40". I have discussed my observations with others that used to fish the lake extensively and they had similar results on Waconia. It was incredible to see and hear most fishing boats throwing Dawgs and 10s during the muskie fishing boom. I can't comment on the current state of lake, the boat was sold a few years back. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | imo it isn't just a MN thing... from what I can tell this summer has been one of the worst for overall totals of fish and big fish..(unless you fish LSC .;) ) I know guys with hundreds of hours who haven't cracked 40" yet. Look at the Big Fish entries on here for 2014... last year by this time there were 194 or so entries to 8/10, 2013 there were 180 or so, this year only 90... unscientific I know but look at the #s guys are getting for weeks on Eagle or LOTW...lots of boats coming back with single digit numbers for a week up there... most of the guys I know who are good fishermen are not getting the #s of fish for the hours they are putting in they normally do... imo this is not just a MN thing.. it could just be all over... more weather than anything else? maybe so.... just my 2 cents
Edited by BNelson 8/12/2014 9:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| It is very hard to draw conclusions, let alone support them with the publicly avaliable data. Just as an example, the lungelog has it's problems:
How many fish were not reported?
How skilled were the anglers?
What about data integrity?
Etc.
From a more qualitative standpoint:
Having fished Tonka for five years I've watched a Fishery go through massive change. Patterns that were great 4 years ago are total dogs now. Pressure, Invasives, Weather, all takes it's toll. You'd think that if there were some sort of die off we'd hear about tons of floaters on a given lake. I haven't seen that where I fish, I think things are just dynamic and we need to roll with the punches. "Jamm'in" as Larry Dahlberg likes to say.
I think it is more likely that the fish respond to their environment and do things that we just haven't figured out yet. As the apex predator these fish are affected by everything. If their preferred forage has a bad year, they HAVE to adapt. If weather causes the food to do weird things, they HAVE to adapt. Does that mean a large % of the population starts feeding somewhere else or at a depth we do not normally fish? Could be? Tonka has been dolling out an education on this as the Zeebs have taken hold and the water clarity has increased dramatically. Weather plays into it as well. What else is going on that we do not yet know or understand?
Last year Tonka was brutal to me all season. Then Turnover happened and suddenly patterns took shape that I understood. The fish were there and so was the size. They didn't die off, they didn't leave, what I was doing in Sept and August just wasn't the right thing...
I do not have the answers, but I do know that this sort of challenge is what keeps me coming back. The puzzle is never fully solved, we just get better at solving enough of it to be consistent in our daily Musky Adventures.
Edited by Brad P 8/12/2014 10:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| In line with what Brad and Brad said, we have to remember that we're coming out of nearly a decade of atypical weather patterns. Early ice out, drought, abundant weeds, hot summers, late turnover, late ice in the fall... A lot of us, myself included, have fished our entire musky "career" in conditions that haven't been normal. Now that we've had a season where we're seeing more typical weather patterns, the fish just aren't where we think they should be when we think they should be there.
The fish have tens of thousands of years of evolution on their side. They adapt because they have to in order to survive. We've seen the Cisco populations on a lot of our area lakes up North decline to almost nothing over the last ten years. Muskies in those lakes might be thinner these days, but I'd bet they are still eating something. If we have a few cool summers, and the Cisco population starts to rebound, the muskies will go back to eating them. Think about that for a minute. That should change how we fish those lakes. More often than not we just go out there and do what we've always done and scratch our heads when it doesn't work because it worked last year and the year before and the year before that.
I don't doubt the decline in quality of the MN fisheries. Lots of folks saw that coming. But we're seeing a slow year EVERYWHERE. The fish haven't gone anywhere.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I hate to say it, but the weather patterns are going to continue to vary. Always have. Always will. The past decade, despite all of the hype, was nothing unusual when compared to the decades of the last century. Some dry years, some wet, some warm and some cold. The only thing that can be counted on with weather patterns is that they will change. This year has been cool, next year could be warm. What it does.
As for the Muskies, I believe they are moving to areas with little or no fishing pressure. We couldn't find a fish on Leech last weekend in Portage Bay where there were many boats. But then we went to some out of the way places and found numbers of fish. And we didn't see a single Muskie boat where the fish were. Sometimes its worth trying something or somewhere new.
Edited by Herb_b 8/12/2014 12:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The fish are altering their behaviour based on the presence of humans? It's about time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I agree with BNelson. I have a pretty good pipeline throughout muskie land and it basically tough all over. Even when numbers are good, the size structure is down. I have been in Canada 2 different weeks this summer and our numbers and size both are down 60 to 70% over normal weather years. Just back from my latest trip and the jet stream kept the day and nite time temps down around 15 degrees colder than we normally experience at this time of year. Weather now, combined with the very late spring and minimal to no weed growth in normally good/weedy spots have also affected the big picture. Ma Nature giving the girls a break! |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | It has been a year of the baby muskies for me. A few 40+ but mostly 20-mid 30's. This has been happening on multiple pieces of water and I have been hearing the same thing from others. I guess it is good to see the little guys for the future but it gets a little frustrating.
It is kind of relieving to hear others are struggling this year. I have roughly twice the amount of time on the water compared to last year and half as many fish.
One of the waters I fish regularly has seen a big drop in large fish due to a flood we had recently. Now we mostly catch dinks on the spots that used to produce large fish. After reading this article it got me thinking that maybe all the small muskies are there because there are no big ones to chase them off of the prime spots. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Good point Nershi. I too noticed that the majority of the fish we caught were males, far more than normal. And we caught several smaller muskies that we don't normally see in the "big fish" spots. Good sign for the future, but... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Ben, those are the fish that we've been stocking that are tagged for our fingerling vs. yearling study. Please be sure to check for the tags below the dorsal fin as I know you catch a lot of fish out there. Too many people aren't doing it and we need the data. They should be 25-38" by now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 441
| I've noticed a lot more smaller fish, on Vermilion, the last couple of years.
It's great to see. It's also been a more consistent year, as far as fishing.
The pressure is horrible, but still putting some nice fish, in the net. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Just me, but we're seeing as many fish as we ever have. We've been seeing and catching fish on every lake except Mille Lacs this year. (Mille Lacs = dead sea.) We've been mostly fishing Leech and a few of the metro lakes. We haven't boated any +50s yet, but we sure are seeing them. I had a mid 50 to the boat last week and my daughters both brought up large fish too. I messed up and lost a couple of big fish, but that is nothing new. What is different this year for us is that we're actually seeing the largest fish on small to mid-sized spinner baits bounced over the cabbage tops. Small to medium sized CJs and Rad Dawgs have been working best. Nothing on the larger baits yet. Not even a follow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Bucknuts, Just curious.....What side of the lake is pressured more ?
What side do you fish more ? |
|
| |
