|
|
Posts: 5
Location: Wright County MN | Does anyone know if the new MN Musky Management plan has been finalized yet? I know they were taking input last year on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1358
| It's been sent to the top for a final look, before it hits the public for a comment period. That should happen sometime in May. It looks good. Addresses many things we have been complaining about. Of course, continued funding will ultimately determine how much of the plan they are able to implement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 577
Location: deephaven mn | in the past The "20 year plan" everything in the plan was implemented. The new plan is a 15 year plan and has been resently competed and ready for review like stated above. It has however taken almost 6 years from the end of the 20 year plan to get this one in to action. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
| TCESOX - 4/17/2025 5:55 PM
It's been sent to the top for a final look, before it hits the public for a comment period. That should happen sometime in May. It looks good. Addresses many things we have been complaining about. Of course, continued funding will ultimately determine how much of the plan they are able to implement.
Has there been any input on expected budget/potential shorfalls of money that would threaten the plan? I know the economy and state level funding across the US is a bit sketch right now and I'm afraid of the impact it might have. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2356
Location: Chisholm, MN | bloatlord - 4/18/2025 9:23 AM
TCESOX - 4/17/2025 5:55 PM
It's been sent to the top for a final look, before it hits the public for a comment period. That should happen sometime in May. It looks good. Addresses many things we have been complaining about. Of course, continued funding will ultimately determine how much of the plan they are able to implement.
Has there been any input on expected budget/potential shorfalls of money that would threaten the plan? I know the economy and state level funding across the US is a bit sketch right now and I'm afraid of the impact it might have.
t wouldn't affect how the plan reads but implementing could be a problem. Hard to say what will happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1358
| The last management plan was adopted late in 2008 as a "10" year plan that was to run through 2020, so we are 5 years behind, in adopting a new 10 year plan. Without the dogged determination, threats of going "nuclear", and a virtual hostile takeover of the esox workgroup, by the MMPA leadership, this still may not have been done. To the DNRs credit, once this started rolling, they have been nothing but engaged, cooperative, and positive. The plan is basically the way the DNR intends to manage muskies in Minnesota. There are many things that can effect their ability to do it. Things like difficulty in rearing fish, staffing, budgetary constraints, etc., can all hamper the plan. On the other hand, if there can be "found" money or new funding, it could enhance their ability to implement the plan, and move faster than anticipated. That's why it's called a plan. Nothing in the plan has specific, dedicated, defined, funding. It's just funded as part of the fisheries budget, which can be cut or enhanced. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 373
Location: Browerville, Minnesota | Anxiously awaiting the plan to be put out to the public to read what it all entails. Guess I am, at best, cautiously optimistic as to how the plan gets implemented. I have no doubts that with the groups that worked hard on it, it will be great the biggest concern I have is money constraints. Not trying to be political, but when the state goes from an 18 billion dollar surplus to a 6 billion dollar deficit, something is going to get shorted funding. Not sure where the DNR ranks for getting budget cuts handed out, but I am sure it will be seen. Interesting to see how much funding is needed to get the plan off the ground and running in year 1. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1358
| My biggest concerns regarding the plan, center around rearing fish. Minnesota is getting a new hatchery, which I believe will start construction this year. It's a new (to Minnesota) technology, and am hopeful it's as good as it's supposed to be. We'll see. Also, one of the main items new in this plan, is to increase the stocking of yearlings, versus fingerlings. Biggest hurdle here, is over-wintering ponds that won't have winter kill. They have some options, but it will be a new process, so it's a fingers crossed type of thing. And, as in any year, simply having good years of rearing fish. Some years they get good numbers of nice sized fish, and some years, numbers can be down, or size can be down. Mitigating predation in the rearing ponds, will also be important. As long as they have adequate staffing, and good success in rearing fish, they should have no issues meeting the plan's goals. |
|
| |
|
| I have read that yearling musky need minnows for feed and that is why they are very expensive to raise in a hatchery. Does anyone know why that is? My brother-in-law had a home on the Wolf River and next to his home he had a large pond that was fed by a continuous flow of water from an artesian spring. The pond was always turning over as overflow went into the river so it had nice, cold water. He planted some rainbow trout in there one year and they grew quickly to 15-18" and hefty on a diet of fish meal pellets. Pen raised Atlantic salmon are fed something similar. Musky won't eat fish meal pellets? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1358
| I'm not sure. Might have something to do with wanting them to adjust to catching their own prey, or something. While the cost per fish is higher with yearlings, the cost per fish that makes it to year 3 or year 5, is much less, and you can get more 5 year old fish in the lake, while stocking way fewer fish, at an over-all lower cost. I don't trust my notes, so I don't want to give specifics and get it wrong. If you dumped 100 $20 fingerlings into the lake, you'd cry if you knew how few of those fish made it to year 5. You'd feel like you're just dumping money into the lake. Those 5 year old fish ain't cheap. It's somewhere between that fingerling stage, and the yearling stage, that they achieve a size that is the tipping point, to where way more of those fish are big enough to survive to age 5. If Muskie Inc. chapters want to get more bang for their buck, rather than buying fingerlings for additional stocking, they could assist the DNR by helping them get netting to help prevent avian predation in the rearing ponds, and getting minnows to help feed the fish. By saving more fish from early mortality, in the rearing process, you'll get more and healthier fish into the lakes, on the front end. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Duluth | TCESOX - 4/21/2025 9:39 PM
I'm not sure. Might have something to do with wanting them to adjust to catching their own prey, or something. While the cost per fish is higher with yearlings, the cost per fish that makes it to year 3 or year 5, is much less, and you can get more 5 year old fish in the lake, while stocking way fewer fish, at an over-all lower cost. I don't trust my notes, so I don't want to give specifics and get it wrong. If you dumped 100 $20 fingerlings into the lake, you'd cry if you knew how few of those fish made it to year 5. You'd feel like you're just dumping money into the lake. Those 5 year old fish ain't cheap. It's somewhere between that fingerling stage, and the yearling stage, that they achieve a size that is the tipping point, to where way more of those fish are big enough to survive to age 5. If Muskie Inc. chapters want to get more bang for their buck, rather than buying fingerlings for additional stocking, they could assist the DNR by helping them get netting to help prevent avian predation in the rearing ponds, and getting minnows to help feed the fish. By saving more fish from early mortality, in the rearing process, you'll get more and healthier fish into the lakes, on the front end.
From my notes on French Lake (Rice County)
Fingerlings:
Annual costs of Fish (400 @ $29/fish) $8000
Estimated # of Recruits (12% Survival) 48
Estimated Cost/recruit $167
Yearlings:
Annual Cost of Fish (80 fish @ $29/fish) $2,320
Estimated # of Recruits (91% survival) 73
Estimated cost/recruit $32
$ Spent on fingerlings to achieve every $1 spent on yearlings=$5.21 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 463
| Not sure how the price to raise a figerling and a yearling would be the same? I look forward to reading the plan, but sounds like from what I heard on the Backlash podcast that the new hatchery wouldn't be build till like 2027?
Really need an emphasis on protecting the resources Minnesota still has, as it will be probably 2040 before the new plan starts kicking out larger trophy caliber fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 577
Location: deephaven mn | the New London hatchery wintered over a batch of fingerlings last (dont know the number) inside their building feeding them pellets. This is a first time trial run. Interested to hear more about growth rates and success. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
Location: Wright County MN | Was there someone on the backlash podcast that works for the dnr? Or is it just “my buddy knows a guy”. Im not sure why but I have just never been a huge fan of their podcast. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1358
| I think CincySkeez had a typo on the cost of fingerlings. Should have been $20 per, if you do the math he provided. The hatchery will probably take a year or more to build, so 2027 sounds about right for becoming operational. Unless there is a last second change, the plan calls for a goal of 20% stocking of yearlings. Of course this is dependent on successful over-wintering, which could have a bit of a learning curve, as well as finding adequate ponds to do the over-wintering. Also, not all lakes will necessarily require yearlings, as some bodies of water, for whatever reason, have a much higher survival rate of fingerlings, while many, do not do as well. They will be collecting data the whole time, which should guide their efforts as they go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Duluth | TCESOX - 4/24/2025 6:19 PM
I think CincySkeez had a typo on the cost of fingerlings. Should have been $20 per, if you do the math he provided. .
This is correct, was typing in a hurry at work. |
|
| |
