|
|
Posts: 114
| Let me start of by saying this has to be the worst muskie season I've ever experienced in the past 12 years. I primarily fish east metro waters which has produced well in the past. I consider myself a pretty decent muskie fisherman and have learned to adapt to new techniques in order to contact/catch fish over the years. To my main point:
I've been noticing a steady decline in fish seen/caught over the past 3 years. Each year keeps on getting worse for me. I have yet to net a fish in over 10 outings (only seen 2). Not only have I been struggling but my network of friends including some very well known guides have expressed their concerns as well. I wanted to figure out in my mind what has happened. I went to the DNR website and was analyzing the stocking of 3 particular lakes Waconia, Minnetonka and WBL. After looking at the data I believe what is happening is the DNR is not stocking enough adult muskies in the 3 main metro lakes.
White bear lake stocking of adult muskies from years 2003-2008 was 1875 lbs and from 2010-2016 the DNR has only stocked 99lbs. Yes they have been stocking fry and fingerlings but how many of those fish actually reach adulthood? Some of the best fishing I had on WBL lake was the first year I started fishing it in 2013 and 2014 which would make the adult fish they stocked in the early 2000's over 40 inch fish.
Minnetonka stocking once again the DNR has not been stocking adult muskies since 2010. See pic below
Waconia they have not stocked adult muskies since 2010. See attachment
I wish that the DNR would take better care of the main muskie fisheries in the metro (WBL,Tonka and Waconia) rather then just stock them heavily for 10 years then move onto the next lake. Yes I believe they need to keep adding new lakes but they also need to sustain the main metro lakes by consistently stocking adult muskies in these lakes. What happens if the fry and fingerlings don't make it and eventually the older adults die off then we are left with nothing.
The future of metro muskie fishing is not looking good with the number of anglers increasing and the lack of stocking of adult muskies decreases.
Edited by bbradley 6/30/2017 10:28 AM
(Minnetonka Muskie Stocking.png)
Attachments
----------------
 Minnetonka Muskie Stocking.png (5KB - 384 downloads)
waconia 1.png (5KB - 370 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | the WI DNR allows the various muskies inc and other clubs to buy fish and stock lakes... so we don't soley rely on DNR to do it...why doesn't the MN DNR allow the same? Seems to me with the # of musky fishermen in the Metro area there would be sufficient $ to buy some fish and put in... ?
the old "if you want something done, do it yourself" adage
Edited by BNelson 6/30/2017 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| There's no arguing with facts. There's just not the fish in the metro lakes that there used to be. Stocking fingerling is not effective/sufficient. These lakes are so loaded with Bass, Pike, and yes - Walleyes (especially weed Walleyes), fingerlings get chowed.
BNelson - that is an interesting question regarding private/club stocking, I am not sure if they allow it. They do it for Walleye stocking on Tonka, and the impact to the Walleye fishery has been incredible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | BNelson - 6/30/2017 10:19 AM
the WI DNR allows the various muskies inc and other clubs to buy fish and stock lakes... so we don't soley rely on DNR to do it...why doesn't the MN DNR allow the same? Seems to me with the # of musky fishermen in the Metro area there would be sufficient $ to buy some fish and put in... ?
the old if you want something done, do it yourself adage
Private money isn't the problem as you said, the issue is the DNR bowing down to lake shore owners and the declining walleye fisherman. This issue isn't just the metro is vermillion,Mille lacs. Other states are doing a much better job of taking care of Muskies |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so if the Metro Club wanted to buy say $20k of fingerlings and put them in, the MN DNR would say no? or what? curious why it is so different there... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Yea the MN DNR did a great job establishing the muskie fishery. They are not doing a good job maintaining it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| .
Edited by bbradley 6/30/2017 12:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: MN | NathanH - 6/30/2017 10:29 AM
Private money isn't the problem as you said, the issue is the DNR bowing down to lake shore owners and the declining walleye fisherman. This issue isn't just the metro is vermillion,Mille lacs. Other states are doing a much better job of taking care of Muskies
As Nathan stated I believe this is the main issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| I know Private organization such as muskies inc has stocked lakes in the past. But I don't know if they were adults, fingerlings or fry. Word is that rearing ponds are getting harder and harder to come by. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | BNelson - 6/30/2017 10:32 AM
so if the Metro Club wanted to buy say $20k of fingerlings and put them in, the MN DNR would say no? or what? curious why it is so different there...
Correct they would say no, I've been told, as we're the members of my club a wealthy MN wants to stock vermillion, and Mille lacs and they brought it to the DNR and they won't sign off on it. This information came from two of the most respected guides in the state. That's the nice thing in wisconsin you guys can step in and say let's make a difference . I guess they could have made it all up but I doubt it.
Edited by NathanH 6/30/2017 10:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Well, try to get a meeting with the DNR and get them to change their stance on that... it sounds like they aren't going to stock more fish without a reason, and if they aren't... only way to get the #s back up is to get them to agree to let the clubs stock... it's too bad the #s are going down like that.. it only adds more pressure to other lakes in MN which isn't good for anyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Just wrote the DNR fisheries to see why they haven't been stocking adult muskies. I will let you know if and when I hear back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1126
Location: Minnesota. | All I can say Ben is that I totally agree!!
Thanks for taking the time. Here's hoping.
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Definitely agree on the steady decline of the metro musky fishery. Let us know what you find out bbradley. This is the first season in many I've headed north more than to Tonka or Waconia. Sucks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
So then what is your explanation on why lakes have gotten so bad. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | bbradley - 6/30/2017 11:27 AM
So then what is your explanation on why lakes have gotten so bad.
I do not have a clue but I don't think it has anything to do with adult stocking. There are lakes with good populations in this state that have got very very few adults stocked. I haven't looked at all the stocking reports but I wouldn't be surprised if there are lakes that haven't received any adults. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| You know the DNR is in shambles when you go to write the fisheries department and the email address comes back as unbelievable.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It has been awhile since I read the Minnesota Muskie Management Plan, so correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the DNR raises any fish to adult age for stocking purposes. I believe the adults that get stocked are fish used for egg collection in brood stock lakes that need to be taken out. Raising a fish to adulthood is not cost effective or practical. The cost difference to raise them to a yearling vs a fingerling is pretty substantial from what I have heard from DNR folks. Just pointing that out because OP's post focuses on adult stocking and I don't think that is something that will ever be in their plan.
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
Then why did they used to stock adult muskies? If that was part of their 'establishment' plan - it worked. Their 'maintenance' plan, which does not include stocking adults - is not working, so maybe they need to switch gears. I understand that fisheries level out over time, but when you completely stop stocking adults, and even yearlings in Waconia's case, what the $^&# do they think is going to happen? It is obvious that maintaining our muskie fisheries with fingerlings is not going to work. They need to revisit their 'plan', plain and simple. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | JTHIRY - 6/30/2017 11:36 AM
Then why did they used to stock adult muskies? If that was part of their 'establishment' plan - it worked. Their 'maintenance' plan, which does not include stocking adults - is not working, so maybe they need to switch gears. I understand that fisheries level out over time, but when you completely stop stocking adults, and even yearlings in Waconia's case, what the $^&# do they think is going to happen? It is obvious that maintaining our muskie fisheries with fingerlings is not going to work. They need to revisit their 'plan', plain and simple.
Did you read my post? From what I understand the adults come from brood stock lakes and those fish were used to gather eggs and milt. They take them out when they are no longer needed in the brood stock lakes. They don't raise them to adults for stocking purposes. They still do stock some adults when they have the fish from the brood stock lakes.
I agree with your point on fingerling stocking only which is why I mentioned the study on fingerlings vs yearlings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
|
Did you read my post? From what I understand the adults come from brood stock lakes and those fish were used to gather eggs and milt. They take them out when they are no longer needed in the brood stock lakes. They don't raise them to adults for stocking purposes. They still do stock some adults when they have the fish from the brood stock lakes.
I agree with your point on fingerling stocking only which is why I mentioned the study on fingerlings vs yearlings.
I glanced at it... I get what you are saying though.
It's just tough to see when they go from stocking hundreds of lbs of adults in consecutive years to 0 for the past 7-8 years.
Edited by JTHIRY 6/30/2017 12:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | we don't stock adults in Madison, we have as much or more pressure as anywhere, we stock 1 yr old fingerlings just like they do in MN..there are many stocked lakes in MN that they only put in the 1 yr old fingerlings that are great lakes... the Metro doesn't need to be stocked with more adults, if anything just needs more fingerlings... no reason those lakes need to be stocked with adults, and that simply is never going to happen...your best shot is simply more 1 yr olds put it, by the DNR or you are probably going to have a better shot at doing it with club money. if you can get the OK
Edited by BNelson 6/30/2017 12:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32784
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Nershi - 6/30/2017 11:25 AM
It would interesting to see a study on survival rates to adulthood of yearlings vs fingerlings. You could stock two lakes with similar features and compare one lake with fingerlings with the other that gets yearlings. The survival rates of fingerlings has got to be pretty low based on the population density of some lakes I fish that get a good number of fingerlings per acre. Just a guess but I would think it would be more cost effective to stock much lower numbers of yearlings instead of stocking high number of fingerlings that just become fish food. That said, I am sure there is a lot more cost factors to consider that I am not aware of.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/westmetro/mue_study.html
To me, the yearling vs. fingerling thing is a simple efficiency calculation. If it takes 3x as many fingerlings to produce an adult but they cost 1/10 as much, stock fingerlings. If it takes 10x as many and they cost 1/3, then stock yearlings. The answer is probably not the same on every lake, depending on other species present among other things. The bottom line is minimizing the $ spent per adult muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| sworrall - 6/30/2017 12:14 PM
The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please.
From what I heard Paul Hartman just got access to Frankies rearing ponds this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8716
| Those first few stockings led to a "population explosion" of muskies. First few year classes coming up in an established system with no competition for forage and the entire lake to themselves... Not saying that the lakes can't be more effectively managed or stocking #'s adjusted, but what we were seeing a few years ago was literally "better than it gets" and probably won't be recreated again anywhere except on new waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | sworrall - 6/30/2017 12:14 PM
The term you are searching for is 'Extended growthers' fed from fry to several inches long. My son was with the WIDNR for 13 years, and was very instrumental in the muskie program over here.
Paul Hartman used to raise muskies in a pond working with Frankies, if I remember correctly. Is that still happening?
Also, due respect for the DNR fisheries folks in any state is required here, so keep your frustration in check to that point. please.
This is happening again Steve, Paul got the green light this year to start up a similar project with Frankies and muskies are growing as we speak.
Raising fish to "adult" stage is very, very expensive and both funds and resources are not available for it.
As far as local clubs having the funds for it, that's unreal. The metro has the Twin Cities and North Metro chapters of Muskies Inc. and neither have abundant funds to stock the entire metro. If you're not a member of either, or any muskies inc chapter, do yourself a favor and join and become part of the solution |
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | From the Twin Cities M.I. website, stocking White Bear Lake
http://www.twincitiesmuskiesinc.org/node/2
I've been away from Muskie's Inc for a number of years due to personal issues so I'm not as up to date as I used to be. I hope that at some point in the future I can get involved again. I forget exactly what year it was but 2006 or 2007 I helped stock some adults into White Bear that were donated by Twin Cities M.I. I can't say what has happened since then with stocking White Bear.
I expect that sooner or later Happy Hooker or Muskie Treats will jump on this thread with better info than I can provide.
Edited by fishpoop 6/30/2017 12:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | There is a study about this on the WDNR site called Muskie Stocking Guidelines. Here is the part about cost per size stocked and % that survive.
Costs and Cost-effectiveness of muskellunge stocking (from 1999 report) - The cost to produce and stock muskellunge increases considerably with size, from about $1.36/1000 fry (WLAB 1997) to about $5.20/spring yearling (Margenau 1992); production costs can also vary considerably from year to year (Margenau 1992). Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per stocked fish that is recruited to the fishery (i.e., of catchable size). Cost-effectiveness could also be measured as the cost per fish caught or harvested by anglers. The cost-effectiveness of stocking various sizes of muskellunge varies considerably among waters and years due to variability in survival and variability in production costs.
In general, stocking fewer large fish has been shown to be more cost-effective than stocking many small fish. For example, with muskellunge fry stocking, the costs are relatively low but the survival of fry is highly variable and the likelihood of any muskellunge surviving at all in any given year is very low (Hanson et al. 1986). Given a survival rate of 0.004% to fall (Hanson et al. 1986) and a survival rate of 4.2% from the first fall to the next fall (at 18 months of age; Margenau 1996), 588,235 fry would need to be stocked to result in 1 surviving muskellunge, at a cost of about $800.00 per muskellunge. Cost effectiveness of fall-stocked fingerlings to 18 months of age averages about $70.75 per surviving muskellunge. Cost per spring-stocked yearling muskellunge surviving to 18 months of age averages about $27.42 per muskellunge.
Attachments
----------------
stocking.jpg (191KB - 371 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 296
| Pretty sure most of the adults stocked throughout the state are a product of mild winters. They try to use ponds that die off every winter because they get better growth of the new stockers. Bonus is we get more adults/juveniles but not quite as good of fingerlings.
Started fishing the metro the year the same year as the stocking charts in the OP. I think the fall off was greater in the 2011-2013 range. There was a huge glut of large adults at that time and it's been normalizing ever since the 1st generation or 2 have died off.
June 2017 was 2nd worst June for catching with the vast majority of that time over the years on the 2 lakes in the charts. However I think it was my best June ever for # of fish contacted per hour in the boat. Seems to get tougher and tougher every year to get them to open their yaps.
I'm mildly optimistic with what I have been seeing the last couple years that we will get a mini peak in the coming years. Been seeing more small less than 40 type fish than I ever did when I first started. Maybe the die off of the huge adult population left a gap so we will get better recruitment of the fish stocked the last 5 years? |
|
| |
