|
|
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 ? |
|
| |
