|
|
| Pepper asked a question in the Bemidji Thread that I may be able to shed some light on... The question was regarding "why Minnesota started stocking muskies in the first place???"
Bob Strand and Co., up in the Bemidji Fisheries office conducted the Leech Lake telemetry study in the late seventies and into the early eighties. Long story short, they found that due to where the Leech Lake/Mississippi strain spawns, it is a viable strain to stock in other waters (spawns away from pike spawning areas) and far better than the Shoepack strain which was previously stocked (very limited size and spawns where pike spawn).
I believe good intentions were simply to stock fish in a number of brood stock lakes which were easier access than netting on big Leech Lake (Elk, Little Wolf, "the Planet" and a few others). Other lakes were stocked to increase numbers of fish which had historically had muskies but the populations were somewhat limited or remnant (Bemidji, Big and some others). The Bemidji office was "ground zero", but other fisheries areas wanted a few lakes in their zones stocked and got permission to do so (Mille Lacs, North Star, Island Res, Vermillion, French, Big Detroit, White Bear, Minnetonka and so on...) since success had been seen on Spirit Lake, IA and Pymatuning Reservoir, PA/OH.
I believe the spirit was as stated, to provide a few extra angling opportunities and get brood stock lakes to gain eggs/spawn - no deep thought into economy and such. Plus, other states were interested in purchasing the Leech Lake/Mississippi River strain - again a reason to go for a brood stock program.
To answer another guy's question as to "where we fished prior to stocked lakes?" Leech, Winnie, Cass, Big Boy, Little Boy, Wabedo, Inguadona, Baby, Mann, Kid, Child, the Mississippi River, Big Wolf, Andrusia, Little Fork and Big Fork Rivers, Deer, Moose, Orange, Kitchie, Woman, Rice, Shoepack, Blandin Reservoir and a number of other lakes. If I remember correctly, there were 30-some lakes with Mississippi strain and isolated strains. There is an exact number of "core" lakes but I'm not going to look it up right now.
Dan Craven |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: United States | I've often thought about this subject and I'm really grateful that the DNRs had the forethought to develop muskie fishing as the sport that it has evolved into. While I'm sure its hard to argue that they essentially created the regional demand. Im not saying people didn't fish for them in prior generations, I'm just happy that I live in Minnesota and there's fantastic muskie fishing all around me.
I guess it's just a matter of luck when the stocking efforts began when they did. It easily could have started years later and not be fully developed like it is. Or maybe I should thank my parents for conceiving me when they did? Though I'm sure that wasn't luck LOL!
Does anyone else feel lucky?
Edited by ILLIFIED 7/23/2010 6:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
| We are lucky. Muskie fishing has been better the last 10-15 years than ever before. Muskie fishing has changed - totally; especially here in MN.
I'm not on a soap-box - I'm not; but there are a few things folks must be aware of...
With the onset and progression of stocking a few things become clear... Stocked fish are easier to catch for several possible reasons - They occur in higher density (per acre) than in natural lakes that are not stocked - especially some of the brood stock lakes. They seem to react differently than non-stocked/natural fish (I believe) for some reason (more aggressive/less wary/less moody) much akin to stocked walleyes or trout in natural streams or rivers. Let's face it, anyone who has fished for stocked walleyes in a number of lakes knows that these fish feed more throughout the day than natural walleyes which tend to feed more during low-light periods. Steelhead fishermen/writers have differentiated between catching "two natural fish" or "five stocked/clipped fish" for thirty years now - are we there with muskies? Just something to be conscious of...
Stocked fish seem to grow larger, especially the first few year classes introduced, much like largemouth bass did once introduced to lakes in southern California. Unknown, for sure, as to "why", but possibly due to the fact that their food source is less limited - more food for fewer predators. This was true in Spirit Lake, Pymatuning and now on a number of the stocked MN waters. After a number of years, given more natural numbers after the more intensive stocking of the first few years, the fish seem to "naturalize" a bit and become somewhat more difficult to catch.
Many of today's muskie anglers have never fished natural fish or fish for them very little - this is even true regarding a lot of the guides nowadays. Big fish are fun to catch. Like an old client of mine used to say - "I want big fish and lots of them!" People will keep chasing them as long as they are a bit easier to catch. Pressure will ebb and flow with fish stocking and fish density. If stocking funds wane away, anglers will wane away, to some degree. Ebb and flow...
We as humans are hard on resources. That was touched on in the other thread regarding talk of "floaters" and such. There is no doubt about it. We are loving these things (muskies) to death, at times, it seems. Mille Lacs, for examples - those fish don't get a rest. Daytime pressure and night time pressure. Yep, it is a huge lake, as is Vermillion, but holy crap... Once Little Wolf was discovered by numbers of anglers (and this is a little lake), I remember seeing 13 boats on it, and I was one of them (I haven't been back since 1991). That is when I started thinking about "how is this whole thing going to play out?" We are there now and starting to feel some of the ramifications (pro's and con's) of this high density muskie fishing. Some of these issues and feelings were rearing their ugly head in the other thread.
It will continue to be interesting as to how this all plays out over the next ten to twenty years - financially, politically, geographically, etc.. As for myself, I've found myself totally gravitating back to natural lakes (LOTW, Leech, Winnie, Boy River chain, other Canadian lakes, etc...) and haven't guided on or fished a stocked lake for roughly five years - kinda weird how things morph.
But we are lucky in this day and age of muskie angling with all the options we have...
Dan Craven
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | Dan,
I'm interested in what you have written about Pymatuning. I was not aware that Leech Lake strain fish were stocked in this reservoir. Do you know when this occurred and by whom?
I know that PA has the Linesville fish cultural station at the lake and uses Pymatuning as one of several sources of broodstock. This may come as a surprise to many in the Midwest, but Pymatuning is actually native musky water. Muskies were native to the Shenango River long before Pymatuning was dammed up in the 1920s.
Muskies are native to Western PA and were historically found in the Ohio River drainage; inclusing rivers, streams and natural lakes feeding into the Ohio. I know that PA has one of the oldest musky propagation programs in the country. As far as I know PA has always used native stocks. They also were pioneers in the fish culture of Tiger muskies and I believe were the first to raise Tiger muskies on dry pellet feed.
Since Pymatuning is a border lake between OH and PA it is stocked by both states. I'm not sure where OH gets all of its musky brood stock, but muskies are also native to OH. They were historically found in streams and rivers draining into the Ohio River as well as Lake Erie. I think at one time Ohio may have gotten some Chataqua stain muskies from NY. Chataqua is part of the Ohio river drainage. It outflow eventually flows into the Allegheny which is a major tributary to the Ohio and quite a good musky fishery. I
f you could provide any more details on the stocking of MN fish in Pymatuning I would be very interested.
Edited by MUSKYLUND1 7/23/2010 9:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Not 100 percent positive at all on that bit about Pymatuning... I am going by what I was told by DNR officials back in the 80's when I did sportshows at Cincinnati, Harrisburg and Cleveland- that at least two years worth of LL strain fish were put in there - that one part could be bad information. I never saw it on paper... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| Dan, that's interesting with your fishing of the natural lakes vs the stocked lakes! I grew up fishing alot of these lakes you mentioned as I am from the area here, I continue to fish these waters still quite often. It is easier to notice the more challenge a little bit with the natural vs the stocked but In my opinion some of these waters could really use some help now with some stocking of muskies! the hackensack longville area little boy chain and what not espicially! these waters being natural havent been stocked but over the years the fish kept by people, the pressure and what not and the constant taking and not giving back is hurt them and like you said where did everyone fish years ago it was here but now years later your lucky to see a fish even. The density in some lakes is really gotten low I believe and fishing quailty has went down hill in my opinion. It would be a big help to freshen them up a little in my opinion, the only fish ever stocked are walleyes! It's nice to have the 48" minimum now though. If you ever want to get out on the lttle boy chain or something drop me a line I'd love to fish some naturals with ya. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Dan, I respect your opinions and you seem very well informed, but I have to question your theory on stocked fish versus natural fish. Some of the best waters I fish for aggressive, multiple catch days are on lakes that receive little to no stocking ( primarily WI and Canada). I personally think that a stocked lake means more muskies, and more muskies means more of an opportunity to encounter a hungry fish. Unless there is something completely different going on in Minnesota, my experiences do not back that up.... |
|
| |
|
| Going trout fishing this morning and want to be out before sunrise, thus my early post - I'm not sleep deprived... Regarding those other, natural lakes and lower numbers - what isn't being talked about much is the affects of spearing on the natural population of muskies - Inguadona, for instance, gets speared fairly heavily and a number of locals quietly talk about spearing them. Yes, concerned anglers do call TIP DNR lines and inform the CO's but these guys are hard to catch. They spear a fish, look out the door of their house and jump on the sled and run 200 yards to their cabin. The other option is that they slide these fish right back down the hole after killing them. This does happen, trust me. It happens on Kabekona Bay of Leech Lake, too, closer to where I live. It is hard for the CO's to catch them in the act... I'm not blaming them.
Regarding the theory of stocked vs natural fish - it very well could simply be the total numbers thing - the density per acre. But I was also fishing these stocked lakes a long time ago (1985) and have quite a bit more experience fishing the MN and IA stocked lakes (and know a number of other good anglers who fished both as well) than most. More are converted into striking close to the boat (per follow), many more can be caught trolling bucktails in shallow water than natural fish and a few other techniques that I, quite frankly, don't want to throw out on the internet.
I fish Canada as well (I leave on Friday for the Vermillion Bay area of Ontario!) and enjoy fishing up there. I've taken that into consideration - like you said, just a theory...; my opinion, nothing else. I've seen these stocked fish do things that I haven't observed on Eagle, LOTW, Leech, Deer/Moose, ILChain and other natural bodies of water. Just an opinion...
Going to catch some rainbows now... stocked raindbows (LOL!!!!). By the way, the Leech Lake fish are heating up and have been for about a week now.
Good fishing! DC
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Stocked fish of any species are easier to catch IMHO.
May have to do with fish growing up in an environment where there are no predators and food is easy to get.
One biologist I know thinks in nature fish that for whatever reason aren't as wary as others get killed before they ever reach fingerling size. Survival of the fittest I guess.
That doesn't happen in a pond of raceway. They pretty much all live.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| Do these stocked fish spawn in the lakes like natural fish? If the do are their fry natural or stocked? Are they then easier to catch then the fry of natural fish? Is the result of a natural fish spawning with a stocked fish easier to catch? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I really don't agree with the theory on stocked fish either. Makes a nice six beer discussion at a bar, but... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Well the "evidence" in regards to muskies may not be as clearly defined, but look at trout.
Stocked trout are very easy to catch. Anyone who fishes self-sustaining streams or lakes and stocked systems will agree with that. It doesn't come down to a matter of there just being more trout to catch either. They just are more willing to fall for an anglers presentation. They aren't nearly as wary IMHO.
At any rate, I don't think one can deny the difference in the environment that stocked fish grow up in vs. naturals.
What that may mean is up to debate.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Depends on when and where the trout are stocked. In a put-and-take small pond, lake, or stream where the trout are stocked as adults or nearly adults in large numbers, I agree. If they are stocked as fingerlings or fry, I'm not sure I can agree; they had to adapt to the environment quickly, and are residents for a few years before most are captured the first time by an angler. I think Dan hit it, it could be the numbers. I'm absolutely certain of that with the muskies here, we've had several of my favorite lakes go from little or no stocking historically to big stocking numbers in the 80's to zero since '98. Fewer fish. Not harder to catch, just fewer fish to contact. But...the average size is much better because there's also been a 45" to 50" limit put in place. The cessation of stocking was done on some potential trophy waters to see if NR will keep up, drop the density to about 1 per acre, which should improve the 'quality'.
There has been some trout/salmon work done that shows avoidance after several generations to certain predator scents ( I remember bears upstream of the fish as one) by trout, though, which leaves the door open for speculation.
FSF, I agree, and will take you up on that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Most stocked muskie are in a completely different environment for 3-5 years before they even hit 30", with a number of predators willing and able to eat them including their own kin.
Most trout are stocked ready to catch, and besides being stupid about predation they are also stupid about finding food, and are multiple daily feeders. Give them three to five years in a stream environment and tell me how that easy catching deal works for you and me.
I would be more likely to consider that some strains are more aggressive than other strains, than the stocked vs wild theory. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 7/24/2010 8:59 AM
Depends on when and where the trout are stocked. In a put-and-take small pond, lake, or stream where the trout are stocked as adults or nearly adults in large numbers, I agree. If they are stocked as fingerlings or fry, I'm not sure I can agree; they had to adapt to the environment quickly, and are residents for a few years before most are captured the first time by an angler. I think Dan hit it, it could be the numbers. I'm absolutely certain of that with the muskies here, we've had several of my favorite lakes go from little or no stocking historically to big stocking numbers in the 80's to zero since '98. Fewer fish. Not harder to catch, just fewer fish to contact. But...the average size is much better because there's also been a 45" to 50" limit put in place. The cessation of stocking was done on some potential trophy waters to see if NR will keep up, drop the density to about 1 per acre, which should improve the 'quality'.
There has been some trout/salmon work done that shows avoidance after several generations to certain predator scents ( I remember bears upstream of the fish as one) by trout, though, which leaves the door open for speculation.
FSF, I agree, and will take you up on that.
I see we are on a similar track here, but let me warn you, I start slurring pretty bad at 5!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2076
| I dont know.. on LOTW I average a fish in the net every 6 hrs of fishing over the last 5 (boat average is probably every 3 hrs) - I think its pretty easy to catch fish there compared to most stocked lakes that get hammered with pressure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Never fished rivers where trout are stocked bigger than fingerlings. But the common theme I've noticed among stocked rivers vs. natural is that trout, no matter how old they are, feed much more aggresively on the surface. Natural fish, especially the older ones, are more frequently caught under the water and are more easily spooked by flies landing on the surface when they are feeding up top.
Anyway, you either believe it or you don't I guess.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | john skarie - 7/24/2010 10:37 AM
Never fished rivers where trout are stocked bigger than fingerlings.
JS
So essentially you are talking about something you have no experience with then? I've seen plenty of hummdinger trout wallop a dry fly. I've seen plenty of dink trout hammer a nymph. Match the hatch. Some fish are dumb some fish aren't, just like people.
I'll give you credit for being the best bar stool biologist on site though. Oh I forgot you worked for a hatchery for a year or something. That must have given you an honorary PhD. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'm commenting on what I do have experience with. Streams where stocked trout are young. Their behavior doesn't seem to change as they grow older. More aggresive on top than natural fish.
Did I say I've never caught big trout on dry flies, or small ones on nymphs?
Didn't think so.
JS |
|
| |
|
| Think about it...
A stocked fish never had to learn how to hunt or aviod predation. When it comes to trout? I don't know if they still do, but the hatcheries used to hand feed the fish. OVer time, those fish were conditioned to associate a figure standing on the shoreline and stuff being thrown into the water with feeding time. Juslt like the fish in your fish tank at home -- when you open the lid they know its time to eat. It's not a stretch that a trout from that environment, that never had to escape a bear or ambush its food would easily fall victim to the first angler that happened past.
I believe the same holds true for stocked muskies. Perhaps to a lesser degree, but conditioning happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskies are raised in ponds, and fed live minnows in large numbers as soon as they are able to feed on minnows, and are not fed one minnow at a time by a human. They are quite young at release, from fry to 12" fish. If they were as 'conditioned' and unable to adapt as is suggested, they would die of starvation waiting around for the same minnows they've been exposed to.
Adaptation is a wonderful trait, and Muskies adapt quickly after stocking. In any case, they grow to maturity in the wild, and nothing we offer them, lure or otherwise, looks or acts or sounds anything like what they were fed their first few months of life. If anyone is suggesting a stocked muskie is less cautious of a boat and a lure...I'd like an explanation as to why that would be. No exposure to either at the hatchery, and absolutely no association to angling practices to any feeding they may have done there. No negative reinforcement from boats and angling for little wild muskies, either...pretty much a non issue unless I'm missing something.
Trout..There may be a 'numbers' factor in stocked rivers; since there's more competition, there's more aggressive behavior, as generally speaking, there's more fish in regularly stocked streams than natural, unless we are talking natural streams in Wyoming or other pretty much untapped waters. Those trout eat nearly anything that moves, and there's a ton of 'em.
If what we are talking about is genetic imprinting theory, I'd like some opinions on that, too. The salmon study was on avoidance behavior to Grizlzy bear scent in the water and it took several generations NR after introduction to note any, if I remember correctly. Not sure if that's even relevant to this conversation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | My theory in muskie raised in our local ponds is that they are all competing for the same food and become very aggressive. DNR peeps will go and check the minnow populations and when they get low they add more. We frequently fund additional forage for them.
I think that they develop a more aggressive feeding behavior due to being in a small environment with a forage base that becomes low at times.
But what do I know, guess I'm just a bar-room biologist.
JS
Edited by john skarie 7/24/2010 1:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | john skarie - 7/24/2010 1:11 PM
My theory in muskie raised in our local ponds is that they are all competing for the same food and become very aggressive. DNR peeps will go and check the minnow populations and when they get low they add more. We frequently fund additional forage for them.
I think that they develop a more aggressive feeding behavior due to being in a small environment with a forage base that becomes low at times.
But what do I know, guess I'm just a bar-room biologist.
JS ;-)
So what does this have to do with trout, since you hypothesized about the behaviors of wild and hatchery fish?
Of course the muskies develop a more aggressive feeding behavior in a hatchery pond where there is a tiny forage base that is supplemented fairly often, as you've stated. Simple competition for a limited resource. That theory doesn't take a degree in rocket appliances.
|
|
| |
|
| Any time you have to pay for it, it is typically easier is my guess;) I know from fly fishing the streams here in CO, that natural fish are much stronger. It is noticeable from my experience, but they are all typically easy to catch, they are fish...BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If that were true, then stocked fish would, by their 'nature' weigh more that naturals of the same length as they would feed more aggressively. And They also would tend to out compete the fish that were not stocked, and that doesn't seem to happen either. The opposite is true here. Same logic, and yes I know what the the holes are in it, just looking for comments. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride - did you wake up angry today or are you always this way???
I noticed someone mentioned conditioning... I believe these stocked fish do become conditioned to being caught a time or to - or I used to believe this, I should say. Now I firmly believe it. I think this is why a number of these lakes, especially the smaller ones, seem to "naturalize" and the muskie population becomes a bit harder to catch... Prior to a discussion I had with Steve Quinn last year I had observed several interesting behaviors in following muskies in heavily fished, and stocked muskie lakes a few years back. Twice I saw muskies follow to the boat, once seeing/detecting the boat both fish did the same thing, dove under the boat and rocketed into the air (not hooked, didn't even strike). Do you think this fish had been hooked before??? My guess is yes...
So, back to Steve Quinn. I asked Steve what the latest research is regarding conditioning (to baits/being caught), since he is in contact with biologist all over the country. He said, "Some very interesting studies were just concluded - they point towards bass not only become conditioned from being caught but from seeing other bass being caught." Wow... No - muskies aren't bass, but it isn't a quantum leap to assume the same with muskies. And on these stocked lakes, it is common to see a number of muskies hanging out in very close proximity. They also see each other get caught.
And no, I never sit at bars, Pointerpride; I don't even drink beer...
Dan Craven |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ho does one reconcile several muskies I recaptured during the MI Monel tagging days as many as 5 times in a year..on the same lure? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| sworrall - 7/24/2010 4:50 PM
Ho does one reconcile several muskies I recaptured during the MI Monel tagging days as many as 5 times in a year..on the same lure?
That's crazy Sworrall 5 times on the same bait, that's awesome, I would have to admit that with all the talk of muskies being conditioned and boat shy and all the stuff that goes with fishing pressure that it is a good thing to still hear about stuff like that makes confidence levels stay a little higher! |
|
| |
|
| I fished Little Wolf last year opening morning...only boat out there at all until 2 walleye boats came out mid-morning.
I fished the north end of Bemidji this morning 6am-noon...saw exactly 2 other muskie boats and had no competition for the spots I wanted - on a Saturday in July.
#*^@ pressure is ruining this state...
|
|
| |
|
| Re: the reconcile thing... Heck - they are cold-blooding critters with a little bit wider spot on the spinal chord that we call a brain. I know - I've caught the same fish bass/muskies several times myself. How do we predict how they are going to react in every situation. I'm just saying what the studies Steve referred were pointing towards. If memory serves me correctly, "hard" baits were more easily conditioned to than "soft" baits or surface baits - but that may have been an earlier study done on bass that Ron Lindner discussed with me. It all blurs with age and time.
Cold blooded creatures are going to make mistakes. How many times did you fish for that fish? Did he/she bite a soft bait or surface bait? And, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Maybe he/she was a poor student! HA! Interesting stuff. Off on a guide trip... |
|
| |
