|
|
Posts: 69
| Definitely a great time to be a musky fisherman in MI, the next decade should be real interesting! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Hopefully the success of the new Michigan regulations will help Wisconsin make some more changes for the better. I am very impressed with the new Michigan regs, it is what Wisconsin needs.
There are plenty of Catch and Kill people in Wisconsin, they just know to keep it on the low.
Wisconsin musky regulations are pathetic and the system to get anything changed by the public is a joke. It took us over 6 years and four years of successful Conservation Congress hearing votes to get the Green Bay size limit increased from 50" to 54". Our governor was just pushing to legalize trolling 3 lines statewide, to "simplify regulations". Luckily we shot that down. I think things used to be way better when the governor didn't appoint the Secretary of the DNR. It's more about politics now and not so much about the best interest of natural resources and the sportsmen.
Regardless, way to go Michigan! I am jealous |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I don't know the exact details but our previous Governor (Granholm) had no clue in regards to fisheries and she had the D.N.R. all split up into separate units. Snyder put them all back together again and things started rolling almost immediately. I am sure they saved money this way. His biggest change was to put district Biologists back in charge of their district management plans. This way we don't need to burden the congress with all these details that they know nothing about. I mean lets face it guys how many congressmen or women know anything about fisheries? Our Governor got out of the way so to speak and let the people who know about the fisheries do their work. Will Schultz Knows more about this then I do as he was on the ground floor during this change of governors. I was never impressed with Granholm's way of doing things here. It seems to me once she was out of the way things moved a lot smoother. JOMUSKY, I feel your pain as we fought and fought with Granholm for years. Too much input from politicians who know nothing about fish and fisheries. Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 2/14/2014 4:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| Thumbs up to my fellow club members(MMA Chap 47) and all others involved in helping to keep Michigan's muskie fishing future bright!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Neal Long and Tony Rizzo thought up the tagging system back in 1991, cant believe it took 23 years to finally get implemented somewhere. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 63
Location: Maribel WI | From MI DNR last Fall: At the esocid committee meeting it was decided that Michigan will only be rearing GL strain musky for the unforeseen future. There was some interest by managers in the western end of the UP for the continuation of the northern strain for some waters. The department intends on working with WI to provide northern strain fish for some waters that have existing or extirpated populations which were once natural. I can’t say for certain when this cooperative venture will take place.
The only issue I have with this is that I forsee the UP getting shortchanged with a limited number of available GLS muskies. The relatively few UP lakes that have received stocking in the last 15 years will have trouble getting fish stocked. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | H2O - 2/19/2014 2:14 PM
From MI DNR last Fall: At the esocid committee meeting it was decided that Michigan will only be rearing GL strain musky for the unforeseen future. There was some interest by managers in the western end of the UP for the continuation of the northern strain for some waters. The department intends on working with WI to provide northern strain fish for some waters that have existing or extirpated populations which were once natural. I can’t say for certain when this cooperative venture will take place.
The only issue I have with this is that I forsee the UP getting shortchanged with a limited number of available GLS muskies. The relatively few UP lakes that have received stocking in the last 15 years will have trouble getting fish stocked.
On the flip side some of those UP lakes could probably benefit from NOT being stocked for awhile. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Michiagn stocked about 3000 NMUS last fall that was a result of a trade with WI. These same fish will go to UP waters that should only get NMUS. There aren't many that should only get NMUS, only the naturalized or natural populations need NMUS. Lakes that rely entirely on stocking can/should change over to GLMUS. Unfortunately, what has happened in some UP lakes is that the requests weren't in place when fish were available while other UP lakes got fish they didn't need. The current system of requests and prescriptions isn't perfect and will be a focus for development in the future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 243
| There are countless bodies of water in the Upper Peninsula capable of supporting muskies outside of the waters that have received stocking in the last decade (or ever) and those that are sustained naturally. Among other things, we've been limited by manpower in the Fisheries Department to conduct surveys which lead to stocking prescriptions. Travis, I'm not sure which lakes you're referring to exactly, but I doubt they've been stocked recently. The launch of a muskellunge program on the northern shore of Lake Michigan alone could use all of the muskies currently being reared statewide. Lots of opportunities on the table for us with the increased emphasis on management.
A second DNR rearing facility at the Thompson Hatchery near Manistique would be a great next step in the process and something the Boundary Waters Club is pushing for. Anyone interested in hearing the latest from Senior Fisheries DNR personnel from both MI and WI is welcome to come to the BWMC annual event on Saturday. Agenda attached.
Edited by IM Musky Time 2/19/2014 10:23 PM
Attachments
----------------
 BWMC 2014 Presser.pdf (188KB - 313 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | H2O - 2/19/2014 3:14 PM
The only issue I have with this is that I forsee the UP getting shortchanged with a limited number of available GLS muskies. The relatively few UP lakes that have received stocking in the last 15 years will have trouble getting fish stocked.
What do you mean the UP will get shortchanged? All muskie waters will have "trouble" getting fish stocked. Every angler wants more muskies in their own home water. Unless there are 2 or 3 hatcheries, there will never be enough fish to go around to every lake that "needs" them. But, the UP is not by any means on the bottom of the list. When fish get stocked, they are put where needed. Take a look at this map where stocking occurred in 2012. As you can see, if you live anywhere in the state of MI, you can get to a stocked water within an hour-ish. They are pretty evenly distributed. Now, if waters were going to get stocked by population of people in areas, that map would look a whole lot different. The waters would be concentrated more around Lansing & Grand Rapids since those cities have the largest populations. But, that's not how it is done.
And, just because we switched to GLS over NMUS, doesn't mean there will be less fish. In fact, in 2013, we broke the all time record for fish stocked EVER. The lead biologist at the Wolf Lake Hatchery is really getting these fish nailed down. We had 140,000 TOO MANY fish to go into the special lined ponds last year. We had to put them in an empty earthen pond instead. But, then the problem arose that the DNR ran out of money for food to feed these extra fish, so Michigan Muskie Alliance bought the minnows to feed them.
Edited by JimtenHaaf 2/20/2014 7:40 AM
Attachments
----------------
2012stocking.jpg (32KB - 604 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 371
Location: Dixon, IL | Interesting! My mother in law live in Upper peninsula and I fished Bond Falls Flowage few times. Lot of small pike and Hooked one musky but lost it! I found out that few muskie in Bond Falls and I think its natural reproduction and always low in number. Lake record musky is I think 41 lbs and biggest pike I think 38 lbs but that's a long time ago. Today too many small pike and maybe few over 40 inch and large musky out there is possible. Would be nice to remove many small pike and stock musky in Bond Falls Flowage. I don't fish Paint Lake but hard to get there! I think this lake have good number of between 30 and 40 inch musky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | IM Musky Time - 2/19/2014 10:18 PM
There are countless bodies of water in the Upper Peninsula capable of supporting muskies outside of the waters that have received stocking in the last decade (or ever) and those that are sustained naturally. Among other things, we've been limited by manpower in the Fisheries Department to conduct surveys which lead to stocking prescriptions. Travis, I'm not sure which lakes you're referring to exactly, but I doubt they've been stocked recently. The launch of a muskellunge program on the northern shore of Lake Michigan alone could use all of the muskies currently being reared statewide. Lots of opportunities on the table for us with the increased emphasis on management.
A second DNR rearing facility at the Thompson Hatchery near Manistique would be a great next step in the process and something the Boundary Waters Club is pushing for. Anyone interested in hearing the latest from Senior Fisheries DNR personnel from both MI and WI is welcome to come to the BWMC annual event on Saturday. Agenda attached.
Benji you are right that they have not stocked most of the lakes in the U.P. in a while. Good deal in my opinion. My only concern was having too many fish in a lake so it was just a personal opinion on not needing more stocked. It sounds like MI is on the right track on their management program, and it also sounds like a lot of “unknown” people are to thank for it. Since my cabin is very near the border I would like to thank all of you that have had a part in the MI fishery management plan. I am excited for the future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: Tower, Lake Vermilion | Minnesota isn't just standing back to see what happens next. The MMPA has been working hard to see that this doesn't happen. Minnesota will be going to a new 50" state wide minimum next season and the possibility of lakes with "special regs with a 56" minimum will be a real possibilty in 2015. If you want to get involved instead of complaining, join the MMPA at the Minnesota Muskie Expo.
"Ace" |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI |
Stocking is a tricky deal and this is where anglers and biologists (or many of us armchair biologists) differ. The solution would seem like stocking makes sense everywhere but the first step to managing natural populations, specifically, should be management through regulation and habitat protection/restoration. Why waste a limited number of hatchery fish on waters where they naturally reproduce? Let them reproduce but protect them from harvest and help them spawn. Stocking should be used to restore native extirpated populations and build new populations that will naturally reproduce. Why not let muskie clubs stock it then? Sure that's an option but no, or very few, musky clubs have tons of money to throw around and to stock a single water with a limited number of fish is a complete waste of money IMO. Thousands of dollars goes a long way to habitat restoration which provides long term benefits. Thousands of dollars into a minnow fund for a state hatchery raises thousands if not tens of thousands of extra fish. Muskies management is never simple, you can't make everyone happy. In theory, to be successful, everyone needs to adopt a "what's best for the state" attitude but most people have their own agenda. As Jim noted above, sure everyone wants the waters in their backyard stocked. Personally, I would sacrifice my "local" waters if it meant the state could stock more fish where the long term benefit is far greater than a put-n-take fishery that's nothing but a drain on the hatchery. Michigan is on the right track, changes over the last ten years will benefit our children and their children. Man… I hope I'm still around to enjoy it in 25 years.
Edited by Will Schultz 2/20/2014 11:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
Location: Duluth, MN | aceguide - 2/20/2014 11:00 AM
Minnesota isn't just standing back to see what happens next. The MMPA has been working hard to see that this doesn't happen. Minnesota will be going to a new 50" state wide minimum next season and the possibility of lakes with "special regs with a 56" minimum will be a real possibilty in 2015. If you want to get involved instead of complaining, join the MMPA at the Minnesota Muskie Expo.
"Ace"
I assume this was directed towards my comment...
I am a member of the MMPA and MI.
The 50" state wide size is great, and should help, although 55" would be better, its a start.
My comments were more directed towards what is happening to certain fishery in my local area. I wont go into details, but what was once pushing a world class fishery has fallen into the "well we got it to where we want it, our work is done" approach and we are seeing a drastic decline int he quality of a once great fishery.
We are working to reverse this trend, and hopefully it goes well. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
Will Schultz - 2/20/2014 11:48 AM Michigan is on the right track, changes over the last ten years will benefit our children and their children. Man… I hope I'm still around to enjoy it in 25 years. Same here but I would be 90... yikes! I think Michigan's “got it” thanks to a lot of hard work and perseverance by many volunteers. Most sincerely; I'm not sure if you can find a better ambassador than Will who has been a major force in spearheading the movement. Nice work gentlemen! I can foresee the next Green Bay in Traverse Bay… IMHO it has the potential to be something even more special with it’s diversity. I think a key component for Traverse Bay would be the potential for a true self sustained fishery with the drowned river mouths connected to spawning habitat. I know this is on your radar, and sincerely hope that it becomes a reality for the next generation. To follow King Fishers post from page 1; I have fished East Traverse Bay for muskie and there's definitely a density population issue there… it kind a makes the Elk Chain look like a stocked trout pond eh'. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Question for Will Schultz, The Great Lakes Strain of muskies that WI got from the Indian River were hitting 50" in 10 years on the Bay. Im wondering if the GL strain of fish that have been planted in Michigan will show those same growth rates in inland lakes? Also what is the growth rate of St Clair fish?
Edited by Mr Musky 2/21/2014 11:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 63
Location: Maribel WI | I do agree some lakes in Western UP (only lakes I know since Im coming up from WI) would be considered action lakes and dont need any fish stocked any time soon. However, I think there are some large bodies/systems of water that could use some stocking to allow them to reach their potential. Outside of the 1300 GLS muskies stocked in two lakes the last two years (which Im all for), there has been NO stockings of muskies west of Escanaba since 2005. Agree that stocking is not always the answer and the local Biologist will probably always want more muskies than available - so my concern is that with only GLS muskies, the priority will most likely be placed on Lake Mich, the Bay, and its tributaries. Which again is great, but I think may leave the western UP out in the cold. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Jerry, I want to see fish added to the Elk Chain. This chain is still getting speared every year and this season is going to be one of the worst as we will have solid Ice all the way to march 15th when it closes. We had no thaw this winter so they were on the ice in December and have been all winter. As for the Grand traverse Bays Im all for seeing Muskie stocked in there but going back to my post from page one I am showing you there and have explained why muskies are needed in two of those lakes. Lake Macatawa has a warm water discharge in the upper end. The entire lake is stuffed with trash fish from one end to the other. You can smell the Shad while on the water. This lake spews trash fish out into Lake Michigan like a Giant fire hose. The D.N.R. stocked some Northern Strain Muskies in there a while back and the growth rates were unbelievable. My wife caught a 40 inch Musky that weighed near 25 pounds . It was huge in the belly with a small head. Looked like a football. Putting the Muskies where they are needed first is going to do two things. #1 help get those trash fish numbers under control and #2 grow a trophy fishery in short order. We still need some better Pike regulations on some of these lakes as well. Mona Lake in Muskegon had a die off of Gizzard shad a few years back and this is what has prompted the stocking of this lake. Again the lake is solid Shad from one end the to other. The lake stinks of shad due to zero predators. White and Muskegon Lakes both have plenty of forage to also grow big muskies fast and for this reason both my wife and I are going in for our captains licenses and resuming our guide service in the next couple of years. I am really excited about the fish being stocked into the Muskegon River above Hardy Pond. This is going to create a very large inland fishery that should be self sustaining.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Mr Musky - 2/21/2014 12:27 PM Question for Will Schultz, The Great Lakes Strain of muskies that WI got from the Indian River were hitting 50" in 10 years on the Bay. Im wondering if the GL strain of fish that have been planted in Michigan will show those same growth rates in inland lakes? Also what is the growth rate of St Clair fish? Some should and some will not. When forage is overflowing, as it is in Green Bay, growth rates will be off the chart especially for an introduced species that has little competition for preferred forage. You really can't take the growth rate of where the fish come from and translate that to where they're stocked. Genetics plays a part, of course, but forage is key and why growth rates of a first stocking into any water yields growth rate far above what can be expected for future stocking. In some of the waters where the GLMUS have been stocked we will see 50" fish in 10 years. Others with established populations will have more competetion for forage at all phases go their life and will grow slower, it's just the nature of the beast. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Has there been any discussion surrounding the stocking, or possible reintroduction of G.L. Strain Muskies into Little Bay De Noc? Having fished there a few times, it is an obvious look with the forage/rivers/proximity to Green Bay. However, I completely understand that it is also a world class Walleye fishery, that there would no doubt be considerable push back, and that not 'every' body of water 'needs' Muskies. With that said, I often talked to our(WI) biologists about the prospect and all agreed just what a magnificent fishery that could be. I once researched the presence of Muskies in the area, and found some anecdotes of fish being caught from the Escanaba river mouth, so it is possible they were always there, just that harvest/pollution took their toll as happened in the lower Bay. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 243
| Reef Hawg - 2/24/2014 4:16 PM
Has there been any discussion surrounding the stocking, or possible reintroduction of G.L. Strain Muskies into Little Bay De Noc? Having fished there a few times, it is an obvious look with the forage/rivers/proximity to Green Bay. However, I completely understand that it is also a world class Walleye fishery, that there would no doubt be considerable push back, and that not 'every' body of water 'needs' Muskies. With that said, I often talked to our(WI) biologists about the prospect and all agreed just what a magnificent fishery that could be. I once researched the presence of Muskies in the area, and found some anecdotes of fish being caught from the Escanaba river mouth, so it is possible they were always there, just that harvest/pollution took their toll as happened in the lower Bay.
Yes, there has been and it seems to be widely supported by the walleye community at this point. We had a discussion about it over the weekend with the DNR---timeline is not clear at this point, but I think the chances are good some will land in LBDN in the near future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | IM Musky Time - 2/25/2014 8:03 AM
Reef Hawg - 2/24/2014 4:16 PM
Has there been any discussion surrounding the stocking, or possible reintroduction of G.L. Strain Muskies into Little Bay De Noc? Having fished there a few times, it is an obvious look with the forage/rivers/proximity to Green Bay. However, I completely understand that it is also a world class Walleye fishery, that there would no doubt be considerable push back, and that not 'every' body of water 'needs' Muskies. With that said, I often talked to our(WI) biologists about the prospect and all agreed just what a magnificent fishery that could be. I once researched the presence of Muskies in the area, and found some anecdotes of fish being caught from the Escanaba river mouth, so it is possible they were always there, just that harvest/pollution took their toll as happened in the lower Bay.
Yes, there has been and it seems to be widely supported by the walleye community at this point. We had a discussion about it over the weekend with the DNR---timeline is not clear at this point, but I think the chances are good some will land in LBDN in the near future.
That is the best news I've heard in while. A Musky fishery there would most surely rival most any. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 36
| Great news, bay de noc would be great along w the entire menominee riiver system. There's a low population that sustains itself in the menominee so even small stocking efforts would increase the population to fishable levels |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Jschinderle - 2/26/2014 9:06 PM
Great news, bay de noc would be great along w the entire menominee riiver system. There's a low population that sustains itself in the menominee so even small stocking efforts would increase the population to fishable levels
True that. MI could step to the plate and assist with what WI has started/can't sustain, for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 36
| bay de doc would be world-class and turn Escanaba into a major tourist destination. Would be great to see |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Reef Hawg - 2/27/2014 12:59 AM Jschinderle - 2/26/2014 9:06 PM Great news, bay de noc would be great along w the entire menominee riiver system. There's a low population that sustains itself in the menominee so even small stocking efforts would increase the population to fishable levels True that. MI could step to the plate and assist with what WI has started/can't sustain, for sure. Widespread stocking will be much easier 10-12 years down the road when both states have their GLMUS brood lakes established and egg taking will be consistent. Right now 1/2 million eggs goes a long way, 1.5 million eggs would allow three hatcheries to rear 30-50,000 fall fingerlings. I can't imagine what 150,000 muskies stocked could do for the lower rivers, drowned rivermouths and bays of the great lakes. Michigan biologists have taken the stance that if a population is established and self sustainable, even at low density, that it should not be stocked and instead regulations should be used to increase numbers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| Tons and tons of open water out there, every once in a while someone hits the lotto
http://www.mlive.com/sports/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/07/grand_haven_... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Watersmeet, Michigan | The point no one is addressing here is the stocking of Great Lakes strain muskies in inland waters. The DNR will no longer be raising and stocking the so-called "northern strain" of muskies which are currently found in our inland lakes and rivers. It is possible that this practice may result in the near extinction of that sub-species, which would be a shame. I'm not sure why this decision was made, but I understand very few of MIDNR's decisions.
Kudos however for the decision to stock muskies in a number of lakes in an effort to control sucker populations. If this works out, Upper Michigan will see improved walleye fishing and great musky hunting.
Fr. K |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yooper Padre - 3/3/2014 4:58 AM
It is possible that this practice may result in the near extinction of that sub-species, which would be a shame. I'm not sure why this decision was made, but I understand very few of MIDNR's decisions.
Fr. K
Not if they naturally reproduce in which case there is no need for stocking. |
|
| |
