DNR seeks public comment - Muskie and Pike Management Plans

General musky fishing discussions and questions.

Moderator: Cyberlunge

Duke
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:11 am
Location: Lansingish

DNR seeks public comment - Muskie and Pike Management Plans

Post by Duke » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:52 pm

Second crack at the DNR esocid management plans boys and girls - let em have it again!!!!

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html

KWB
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:03 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by KWB » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:35 pm

Done...

I sure hope the St. Joseph River is still scheduled to get some of these Great Lakes Muskie strain stockings...

Don't get me wrong, I love steelhead fishing, but it gets old seeing all this money go into non-self sustaining fisheries like the Trout & Salmon and the native species kind of take a back seat...

User avatar
Kingfisher
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Muskegon, MI
Contact:

Post by Kingfisher » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:21 pm

Done, I emailed my recommendations. Mike
""WILL FISH FOR FOOD""

http://www.fishall-lures.com

pikerule2
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Battle Creek, MI

Post by pikerule2 » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:44 pm

Thanks Duke, just sent my pike response and will speak to muskies later. Thanks in advance to all others who voice their support toward improving our Esocid fisheries. Our pike and musky resources have amazing potential, here's to hoping we can realize more of it through better management practices.

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:36 am

Am I the only one that doesn't see a link on that page to the actual plans?

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Muskegon, MI
Contact:

Post by Kingfisher » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:00 am

Yes, I read the entire report. Antrim chain harvest rate was 36% of tagged fish. the goal is 5% There is only one way they can get that number down and that is with a tag system or closing the season during winter months. Mike
""WILL FISH FOR FOOD""

http://www.fishall-lures.com

Scrappy
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:02 pm
Location: Sanford, MI

Post by Scrappy » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:09 pm

Done!
Stupid Fish!!!!

User avatar
hemichemi
Posts: 2280
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:54 pm

Post by hemichemi » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:22 pm

Will Schultz wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't see a link on that page to the actual plans?

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html
Muskie plan:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/M ... 4153_7.pdf

Pike plan:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/M ... 4154_7.pdf
Alcohol and calculus don't mix —
Don't drink and derive.

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:07 pm

hemichemi wrote:
Will Schultz wrote:Am I the only one that doesn't see a link on that page to the actual plans?

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html
Muskie plan:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/M ... 4153_7.pdf

Pike plan:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/M ... 4154_7.pdf
Yes, the link I posted takes you to the page w/ the plans. The initial link didn't have the links to the pdf(s).
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

Duke
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:11 am
Location: Lansingish

Post by Duke » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:08 pm

Just for the record, the original link did take you to a page with a link to a page with a link to a page with links to the pages (plans)!

This is state gov't after all...

Duke
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:11 am
Location: Lansingish

Post by Duke » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:43 am

Hey I just wanted to encourage everyone to take your time and craft a thoughtful response about the information and goals in these plans. Not that anyone here would, but don't don't just fire off a "please stock muskies in my backyard" or something. For example, do you agree that "Michigan statewide muskellunge regulations are among the most conservative" in the Great Lakes states? Even in the simplistic comparison of Minimum Size Limits only, Michigan is not on the conservative side any longer. Used to be, but not any more. Minnesota, New York, Ontario, Illinois, and even Wisconsin have all increased either the statewide or lake specific MSL's.
Last edited by Duke on Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hamilton Reef
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Montague, MI on White River

Post by Hamilton Reef » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:03 am

My first round of comments covered specifically the drown-river mouth lakes reintroduction and restoration projects I've been working on for several years. I knew MMA would do a good job statewide. My second round of comments will cover the other topics the MMA strongly support.

User avatar
Esoxonthefly
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Charlotte, MI

Post by Esoxonthefly » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:01 am

Just finished mine. I think I hit the major points.

User avatar
Steve S
Posts: 2769
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Grass Lake

Post by Steve S » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 pm

Me and Microsoft Outlook don't get along. So I called C. Smith and left a message, so he called me back today. Talked to him for 15 or 20 minutes and told him my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps!

LonLB
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Sturgis, MI

Post by LonLB » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:28 pm

This is something I'm going to have to print out, and go over with a cup of coffee after we get the kids in bed. :oops:


With that said, I do have a question, and I'm going to go ahead and start a new topic about it.

Post Reply