|
|
Posts: 1300
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Great Lakes muskies are being stocked in new waters
Scott D'Eath and Brad Horton with a Lake St Clair muskie. (Courtesy | Dave Kenyon, Michigan DNR)
Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press By Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
on February 09, 2014 at 6:57 AM, updated February 09, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Anglers are going to see a new apex-predator swimming in certain western and northern Michigan waters in future years. The DNR is continuing to expand its Great Lakes muskie program. I suspect an increasing number of anglers will be rising to the bait.
“Being able to raise Great Lakes muskies opened up the opportunity to stock drowned river mouths and lower river systems in western Michigan,” said Jay Wesley, the DNR’s southern Lake Michigan management supervisor. “We are going into a new era with these muskies.”
You may recall that the DNR switched to raising Great Lake muskies exclusively in 2010 when the state launched its Great Lakes muskellunge program after decades of stocking northern muskies, a strain native to parts of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
Fisheries officials and representatives from groups like the Michigan Muskie Alliance have said the Great Lakes strain is preferable because it is indigenous to more waters and can be stocked in more places.
The first crop of those fish was distributed in 2012. More were shipped out in the fall of 2013, including to several western Michigan waters for the first time. Fall fingerling muskellunge were stocked in Lake Macatawa, Mona Lake, Muskegon Lake, and on the Lower Grand River in Lloyd’s and Bruce bayous and Indian Channel.
“These drowned river mouths are entering a new era,” Wesley said. “It will be three or four years before sub-legal fish are caught and six to eight years before we see 42-inch muskies, the legal size. It will be 10 to 15 years before we see 48-inch or 50-inch fish, trophy size.”
Mona Lake got 1,043 fall fingerlings and will continue to get the same in future years. Other western Michigan waters got only a percentage of the desired stocking goal. Muskegon Lake got 6,846 fall fingerlings. The goal is eventually to stock 12,696. Each lower Grand River site got 1,100 fingerlings. The goal is to stock 1,500.
Muskie stocking today is limited by production at Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery in Mattawan, where space for the program is limited. Wesley and others hope that will grow in future years.
“We’ve had to convert an old laboratory into a rearing facility there and have had some challenges with disease and other stuff,” Wesley said. “Last year was our best year so far. We raised and shipped 45,000 fall fingerlings.
Raising muskies can be a challenge, according to Wesley. There is a learning curve even for experienced hatchery personnel. The hatchery took delivery of 1.2 million muskie eggs, collected from spawning fish on the Detroit River and Lake St, Clair where Great Lakes muskies thrive. Those eggs produced a half-million fry.
At a certain point in a muskie's young life they start to eat minnows. If none, or too few are available, they will eat each other. It’s taken a couple of years to learn and fine tune the feeding program. The hatchery suffered nearly an 80 percent loss in the meantime, Wesley said.
Ramping up the program is likely to require a new or expanded facility. DNR staff have discussed and requested a coolwater rearing facility, one that would be geared towards species like muskie, walleye, lake sturgeon and northern pike. But getting there is likely to cost $3.5 million.
In the meantime plans are underway to grow the program as best possible, which includes attempting over the next decade to convert Thornapple Lake, in eastern Barry County, into a broodstock lake for Great Lakes Muskies, saving the time and effort of needing to collect eggs from the Detroit area. It has been a western Michigan bloodstock lake for northern muskies.
A similar conversion is also planned for Big Bear Lake in eastern Otsego County, according to Tim Cwalinski, a senior fish biologist from the DNR’s Northern Lake Huron Management Unit.
“It’s been stocked (with Great Lakes muskies) for two or three years now and we hope in 10 years to be able to go into it for eggs for the program rather than down to the Detroit River,” Cwalinski said.
Four other northern waters got stocked with Great Lakes muskies last fall for the first time. Some had been stocked with northern muskies previously. Stocking practices have been erratic in the past. The plan now is to stock them consistently.
Those waters include Lake Besser and Lake Winyah, two impoundments on the Thunder Bay River upstream from Alpena. Lake Winyah got 2,295 fall fingerlings last November and Lake Besser got 588 fall fingerlings. Otsego Lake, in Otsego County, got 2,978 fall fingerlings. It had been stocked with northern muskies in the past. Cooke Pond on the AuSable River got 2,913 fall fingerlings.
Big Bear Lake got 1,800 fall fingerlings in November, the same as in in 2012. It got 3,046 in 2011.
The conversion to Great Lakes muskellunge and the expansion of waters that have them is likely to spark additional interest in fishing in Michigan. That is good for the state and the economy. It could well draw anglers in from other areas. No doubt, it will be several years before they are abundant in the catch. But if Lake St. Clair’s Great Lakes muskie fishery is any indication of what is possible, that’s something well worth waiting for.
Email Howard Meyerson at [email protected]; follow him on his blog: The Outdoor Journal at howardmeyerson.com and on Twitter at twitter.com/hmeyerson
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Des Moines IA | Nice job Michigan... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Very Cool.....Hopefully this will catch on in other states. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 310
Location: Lake St.Clair | Heck Yeah!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| Larry - Mr. 51#,
I don't ever recall hearing the term `drowned river mouths', it was used several times in the article. What does it refer to?
Thanks,
Rich Wren |
|
| |
|
Posts: 362
Location: Western U.P. | Hopefully the Michigan DNR will be able to continue to move forward with this plan, and it can expand to include lakes in the Upper Peninsula. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | One of the other achievements not mentioned is the new tag law regarding bag limits. Our old law was such as a fisherman could kill and keep one 42 inch Musky per day. That has changed to one 42 inch Musky per Year and must have an attached tag. Add these new regulations to the stocking efforts and we are on our way to becoming the newest destination Musky fishing hot spot. I live Minutes from all those Drowned river mouths.. To answer the question. A drowned river mouth is a River that ends in a lake and is connected to Lake Michigan via an unobstructed channel or river. Macatawa,White and Muskegon Lakes are classic drowned river mouths. The Muskies in these lakes will have access to Lake Michigan and all of the Trout, Salmon, Walleye, perch, Lake trout, Whitefish, Pike, Suckers, Carp etc. that run up into those lakes and rivers to spawn. They will grow fast on the over abundance( Over populations) of Gizzard shad and Sheep head and Carp already in those lakes and rivers. Lake Macatawa and Mona Lake are solid Gizzard Shad from top to bottom . Your graph never stops showing bait fish from one end of the lake to the other. This over population of trash fish is directly related to poor Pike Regulations for decades that allowed the taking of 5 Pike 20 inches or larger. per day. These Muskies are going to grow fast and huge on all this fat greasy Shad. Our New Governor has a lot to do with empowering our D.N.R. to create this fishery. It will bring tourism to the sate and create jobs. This program is a Win Win one for me as we will have baits in many local Musky shops now and my pro shop here in Twin Lake is minutes away from all 4 of these new Fisheries. W e are very happy about this. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
Location: Knot on the WATER | Could the DNR introduce them to the Chicago area on the lake front? Would bring a lot of revenue to the state/city, or are they crying the funds are empty? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: Wakefield, MI | Cedar - 2/11/2014 1:00 PM
Hopefully the Michigan DNR will be able to continue to move forward with this plan, and it can expand to include lakes in the Upper Peninsula.
Hopefully they do some stocking up here. Lakes in my area were last stocked 20-30 years ago.
I was hoping the new regs had something else coming with them. This makes me happy.
Edited by milje 2/11/2014 5:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Lots of good stuff going on in Michigan, the future is bright.
Edited by Will Schultz 2/11/2014 11:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
| muskyman72 - 2/11/2014 2:18 PM
Could the DNR introduce them to the Chicago area on the lake front? Would bring a lot of revenue to the state/city, or are they crying the funds are empty?
That would be a great idea. Plenty of forage fish in the Chicago River for muskies to eat. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Fishboy19 - 2/12/2014 9:49 AM muskyman72 - 2/11/2014 2:18 PM Could the DNR introduce them to the Chicago area on the lake front? Would bring a lot of revenue to the state/city, or are they crying the funds are empty? That would be a great idea. Plenty of forage fish in the Chicago River for muskies to eat. I don't think Illinois has a source for GL strain muskellunge. I know Michigan doesn't have any to give since we're already sending fish to WI each year. Eventually they will make their way around the south end of the lake from Michigan. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | when will Wisconsin wake up and implement something similiar as the 1 fish per season.. MN gets it...MI gets it.. WI.. not so much. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | BNelson - 2/12/2014 11:08 AM
when will Wisconsin wake up and implement something similiar as the 1 fish per season.. MN gets it...MI gets it.. WI.. not so much.
That's funny as we proposed this idea several years ago and it got shot down on this board as well as others. So when WI does try to do something not even the musky community will support it let alone try and get the general public to. Then when another state implements it is such a great idea, and we look like a bunch of weenies.
Is it the system regs have to go through in WI that prevents us from making the next step? Or is it sometimes WI is perhaps before the times on some things and we push for something before everyone is ready for it?
It's great this is happening for MI! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| If they keep after it like they're doing Michigan will be the next Minnesota. I like the bag limit. I wish (amongst other things) Iowa would place a restrictive bag limit like this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 209
| but..... since we can troll MI won't we just decimate the new fisheries.......................
Sorry had 2  |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | correct me if I'm wrong but MN changed their size limit to 48" by basically one guy or committee w the DNR saying it made sense, and so it shall be law. MI, they switched to 1 per season without the publics input or a vote right?
Edited by BNelson 2/12/2014 12:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | BNelson - 2/12/2014 1:39 PM correct me if I'm wrong but MN changed their size limit to 48" by basically one guy or committee w the DNR saying it made sense, and so it shall be law. MI, they switched to 1 per season without the publics input or a vote right? Yes, you can stand corrected. Almost all regulations go through a public review/comment period, if after this period there are any significant change to the suggested regulation it will go through the public comment/review again. The process is a little different here but there's no less red tape to get something like this accomplished. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | sweet, well, since you got it voted in over there, we should push for it again over here... so we don't look like 'weenies' 
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI |
BNelson - 2/12/2014 2:26 PM sweet, well, since you got it voted in over there, we should push for it again over here... so we don't look like 'weenies' There are three ways to reduce harvest to acceptable levels, through size limits, bag limits or in extreme cases both. In most cases it's possible to achieve the same level of harvest reduction through one or the other. The hard part is to determine what the public and the biologists find acceptable. We had great data that there was harvest beyond what our management plan determined was acceptable. Most average anglers and many of our biologists weren't comfortable with a statewide increase in size limit but a reduction in the bag from 1/day to 1/license year was acceptable to all stakeholders. This package also didn't remove the biologists option to place higher size limits where harvest needed to be reduced further. Bottom line is that 1/license year was right for our circumstances but might not be right for somewhere else.
Edited by Will Schultz 2/12/2014 1:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Will Schultz - 2/12/2014 2:42 PM
BNelson - 2/12/2014 2:26 PM sweet, well, since you got it voted in over there, we should push for it again over here... so we don't look like 'weenies' There are three ways to reduce harvest to acceptable levels, through size limits, bag limits or in extreme cases both. In most cases it's possible to achieve the same level of harvest reduction through one or the other. The hard part is to determine what the public and the biologists find acceptable. We had great data that there was harvest beyond what our management plan determined was acceptable. Most average anglers and many of our biologists weren't comfortable with a statewide increase in size limit but a reduction in the bag from 1/day to 1/license year was acceptable to all stakeholders. This package also didn't remove the biologists option to place higher size limits where harvest needed to be reduced further. Bottom line is that 1/license year was right for our circumstances but might not be right for somewhere else.
The biologists having the option to increase the size limit is a great thing to have. We've already seen this in action, as one of our natural muskie lakes (which has undergone substantial kills) has its size limit raised to 46" vs the 42". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 618
Location: Michigan | ...MI gets it...
The only problem is most anglers in Michigan aren't muskie fishermen and don't get it. The new regulations help a lot, but the general mind set around here is still 'catch and kill.' Don't get my wrong, I love the new regulations, but the ultimate goal is to change that 'catch and kill' mindset so muskies are being released regardless of what the regulations are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 243
| Certainly we've made progress to protect/improve populations on a number of waters. Unfortunately, non-native spearing for muskies is legal on a number of lakes statewide. Still a little work to do there. I am optimistic we will get another hatchery opened here in the Upper Peninsula as a result of funds being generated by revised license fees. Plenty of places to put them and not enough fish to go around. Great to be recognized for the good things going on related to the "new" perspective on management here in MI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 360
Location: Algonac, MI | Thanks for posting Larry.
Much of the credit goes to MMA, and a few other Michigan clubs, whom worked together with the MDNR for improved regulations and elevated interest in stocking programs. Often, fishing group ideas, are discounted by Natural Resource departments, but we were lucky to get a voice.
Pages and pages could be typed, about behind the scenes that went on, which Will, and MMA is most close to. This was not something that happened over night, and has been years in the making. This was no easy task, and was not completed with out miles of red tape to get through. Surveys, meetings, votes, repeated over a period of years.
My part in this was very small compared to Will. I am just a "lucky" guy that got to hold a nice spotted musky for a picture, on a fishing outing with Brad Horton, Will Shultz, David Kenyon and his son one day on LSC.
Best Regards
Scott D'Eath ( aka Contender)
Edited by Contender 2/12/2014 8:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 360
Location: Algonac, MI | Will Schultz - 2/12/2014 11:35 AM
Fishboy19 - 2/12/2014 9:49 AM muskyman72 - 2/11/2014 2:18 PM Could the DNR introduce them to the Chicago area on the lake front? Would bring a lot of revenue to the state/city, or are they crying the funds are empty? That would be a great idea. Plenty of forage fish in the Chicago River for muskies to eat. I don't think Illinois has a source for GL strain muskellunge. I know Michigan doesn't have any to give since we're already sending fish to WI each year. Eventually they will make their way around the south end of the lake from Michigan.
I am surprised, fish from Green Bay have not found their way to Chicago in search of bait. Tagged muskies from LSC, have been caught in Georgian Bay and vice versa. So they are not afraid to travel. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Contender - 2/12/2014 9:22 PM Will Schultz - 2/12/2014 11:35 AM Fishboy19 - 2/12/2014 9:49 AM muskyman72 - 2/11/2014 2:18 PM Could the DNR introduce them to the Chicago area on the lake front? Would bring a lot of revenue to the state/city, or are they crying the funds are empty? That would be a great idea. Plenty of forage fish in the Chicago River for muskies to eat. I don't think Illinois has a source for GL strain muskellunge. I know Michigan doesn't have any to give since we're already sending fish to WI each year. Eventually they will make their way around the south end of the lake from Michigan. I am surprised, fish from Green Bay have not found their way to Chicago in search of bait. Tagged muskies from LSC, have been caught in Georgian Bay and vice versa. So they are not afraid to travel. I won't be surprised when someone catches one there. There have been three Green Bay fish caught in lower peninsula waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I have actually trolled for muskies in Lake Michigan off Holland. Lake Macatawa has had a few for a while now and some of them venture out into Lake Michigan when the Perch come in. Now that the Spotties are going we should see a trolling bite develop from Holland to Ludington. I just hope I live long enough and stay healthy enough to see it all happen. The future is looking good. All this Musky talk has me filling up our boxes with new baits. Cant wait for the opener. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I'm in MN. and I am all for seeing another State step up and take the lead in the progressive Muskie stocking & management Tactics. I wish it would not take so long for the economic realities to come into light!! My personal belief is the MN DNR could use a severe awakening on the subject. When the resources are great is not the time to relax and allow devastation. It is the time to build on it!!
Mich. may want to look at raising that min size limit. Imagine having resources with good numbers of 50" fish...oh ya that's MN now. Sad to say but I would spend my money to travel in Mich. and fish the great fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
Location: Duluth, MN | jakejusa - 2/13/2014 11:57 AM
I'm in MN. and I am all for seeing another State step up and take the lead in the progressive Muskie stocking & management Tactics. I wish it would not take so long for the economic realities to come into light!! My personal belief is the MN DNR could use a severe awakening on the subject. When the resources are great is not the time to relax and allow devastation. It is the time to build on it!!
Mich. may want to look at raising that min size limit. Imagine having resources with good numbers of 50" fish...oh ya that's MN now. Sad to say but I would spend my money to travel in Mich. and fish the great fish!
Exactly. Seems like MN is now sitting back on thier heels and basking in thier success.
Now is not the time to sit by and revel, we worked too hard for what we have to sit back and let it fall apart. Requires continuous effort and hard work to maintain what we have created.
Were seeing this first hand on one of our local waters by Duluth, the fishery is declining rapidly and nothing has been done to stop it. Our Muskies Inc chapeter is getting the ball rolling to try and stop it, but I hope were not too late.
Nice work Michigan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | Kudos to Michigan. It sure sounds like they are on the right track with their musky management plan. I wish it was easier to effect change here in WI. I'm not a lifelong WI resident so the whole Conservation Congress process still perplexes me. I do think it is a good thing to give stakeholders some say, but I have to say that it seems like the process is unecessarily cumbersome.
One of the big problems we have here in WI is that many of our lakes are overpopulated with muskies. There I said it. What I mean is that many of our lakes have so many muskies that few have a chance to grow to 50" and above. There are exceptions of course. The Green Bay fishery has been a wonderful sucess and there are others with true trophy potential. I'd like to see the WI DNR stock Great Lakes fish in more waters, but not all waters. I also would not mind seeing more Leech Lake fish in some of waters, but I don't think that is the panacea to creating a trophy destination in every lake.
I'm personally OK with having some waters managed for action and some primarily for trophies. It just that I'd like to see more overall quality. I do think musky management in WI has signifcantly improved since I moved here in 2001, but we could also improve in many ways. It is unfortunate that our current system makes it so difficult to implement common sense approaches. I think the DNR overall does a good job with what they have to work with. Are they perfect? Not by a longshot, but the Conservation Congress system sure doesn't make it easier for the DNR to implement the changes many would like to see. That is just my two cents. I could be wrong.
Edited by MUSKYLUND1 2/13/2014 1:00 PM
|
|
| |
