Michigan Muskie Alliance

200,000 vigorously healthy, 12" natural muskie yearlings (no more-no less) to plant into Michigan's waters -

Where COULD/SHOULD/WOULD they go?

I'm curious to know what you're all thinking out there... Now, Please limit yourself to THREE systems per person, Johnny Llungenseed!

They should have gone to Long (grand traverse)... oh wait... already had that chance...

Ideally we would have enough fish to stock many of the drowned river mouth lakes and river systems where they have potential for Natural Reproduction and where wild muskies historically existed. I would love to see Manistee Lake, Pentwater lake, Muskegon lake, White lake, etc stocked if we had that many fish. Since we can't produce that many fish though (unless you know something I don't), its important that we try to get a lot of bang for our buck so to speak. Stocking smaller inland lakes like Murray, ovid, etc seem to provide the best survival and returns when it comes to the stocking program.

That is a pile of fish, and it is hard for me to not spread them all over if living in fantasyland.

If only 3 systems I would stock the Indian river system, the antrim chain, and the grand river system.

Ideally with that many fish, I would create many opportunities all over with smaller prescriptions in established lakes, boost to already self sufficient populations, and create and bolster new fisheries in the drowned rivermouths across the state.

Scott Williams wrote:That is a pile of fish, and it is hard for me to not spread them all over if living in fantasyland.

If only 3 systems I would stock the Indian river system, the antrim chain, and the grand river system.

Ideally with that many fish, I would create many opportunities all over with smaller prescriptions in established lakes, boost to already self sufficient populations, and create and bolster new fisheries in the drowned rivermouths across the state.

I'd have to agree as well with the Indian river system and Antrim chain. But with me being way over here on the east side of the state, my third choice would have to be the Huron river system.....

Well , Rebuilding the Antrim chain would be first on my list. COULD USE 50,000 of them up there. Indian river system, and Saginaw Bay rivers.

On a side note they could put 500 in Big Blue Lake in Muskegon county .

I also echo Mayhem , Muskegon, White , Macatawa, Pentwater and on up the coast. won't take long to use up 200,000

I would say Antrim, can't remember if it's Gull or Gun and educate people so they don't do what they did to them before. Not trying to be greedy here (maybe) but make Hudson another stocking lake it would be like the same as Thorn minus pike!!

But everybody wants them everywhere so why don't we think of this first. Is there only one pond at the hatchery for Musky? If so why don't we raise the money to have one or two more ponds and grow them bigger so there not snacks for all the bigger fish.

I would say Keweenaw Bay, Muskegon Lake and Saginaw bay if it was up to me

Lower Antrim Chain first, Grand Traverse Bays at the Boardman and Elk Rivers second, then the West side river mouth lakes starting with Spring Lake. Those would be my top 3 in this dream world.

I realize that many people love the smaller inland lakes that have previously been planted with muskie, but I would much rather see the few fish we have put to better use in places where these planted muskies can continue to make more muskies on their own naturally, rather than just be there to be there...

I couldn't agree more with the lower antrim chain, and the Indian river system, obviously only if they know they are not going to have a negative genetic impact. As for a third one to create, I would find it hard to argue with spring lake or muskegon lake... but if your doing the muskegon river, why not do croton and hardy too, right???
I know the last one is just cuz i want them there, but I really do think they would thrive there and would have a decent chance of survival and reproduction.

Kingfisher wrote:Well , Rebuilding the Antrim chain would be first on my list. COULD USE 50,000 of them up there. Indian river system, and Saginaw Bay rivers.

On a side note they could put 500 in Big Blue Lake in Muskegon county .

I also echo Mayhem , Muskegon, White , Macatawa, Pentwater and on up the coast. won't take long to use up 200,000

And of course, Austin :-)

it would take a lot more than 200,000 for any of them to survive in lakes like muskegon, spring lake, etc.. especially a breeding population. With the amount of other predatory fish in those lakes i couldn't see many surviving unless they dumped a massive amount in there

swanezy wrote:it would take a lot more than 200,000 for any of them to survive in lakes like muskegon, spring lake, etc.. especially a breeding population. With the amount of other predatory fish in those lakes i couldn't see many surviving unless they dumped a massive amount in there

There are lots of predators because there's lots to eat, I would expect a higher first year survival rate compared to many inland waters.

However, there's a problem with establishing anything since our hypothetical question is only dealing with 200k fish. So, what would I want to do with the fish? I would trade them to another state in exchange for them rearing 40k per year for the next five years.

Don't run down for one when you can walk down for all of them...

Great idea!

I'm excited by the idea of the Portage/Torch system and connected waters up'a dere in Houghton/Keewenaw. It's big and warm enough for a viable and tremendous muskie fishery like Michigan deserves!