Cost of muskie production.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:21 pm

From the presentation given at the banquet this year.

Keep in mind this is feed cost, dollars spent on staff, utilities, etc. isn't included.

finlander · Post by **finlander** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:33 pm

Thanks, I guess. So 25K might not be enough. Will the new lottery winners please step forward, we'd like to have a word with you. :D

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:37 pm

No, we can't and wouldn't be expected to feed all the fish. The money we spent last year on minnows for the hatchery ($2500) allowed them to rear an additional 3200 muskies.

Hamilton Reef · Post by **Hamilton Reef** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:06 am

The DNR has final authority as to where the fish get stock. We at MCWA understand this well and hand over the walleye we raise for the DNR to stock according to their management plans. The Hamlin Lake Association has some money and would probably donate to help assure their full 12,500 scheduled 2007 stocking. However, the DNR cannot allow the lakes statewide to get into bidding wars. Thus, I'd be reluctant to ask for their money. This is the same situation for future Muskegon Lake program where there is sizable local money, but we can't promise the fish to 'their' lake. This can be frustrating.

Hamilton Reef · Post by **Hamilton Reef** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:30 am

Will, can you check with DNR on this idea?
At some point the final DNR budget (+ MMA) will be $ and stock X fish. That's it for year 2007. At that point could a pre-approved lake for 2007 stocking then step in and contribute the $ difference to complete their full 2007 stocking. Note that the later $ donation could be viewed as bonus above general program, a win-win for both partners.

Scrappy · Post by **Scrappy** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:12 am

Ok, I can't help but chime in that I love the fact that the Hamlin folks are trying to make up for a short '06 stocking and are hopeful for a full 12,500 for '07. First, to quote Will, making up for fish allegedly isn't a sound management idea...I disagree but who cares, right? My point, imagin how we Sanford folks feel about being short changed on fish over and over and over again and we've been on the stocking rotation way longer than Hamlin. And, to be honest, Sanford has apretty good head start on being an establish fishery where Hamlin will take a very long time to get anywhere near a fishable population. I continue to believe that expanding the musky stocking list of lakes, especially one as large as Hamlin that draws so many fish from the limited stockings available, was a monumental mistake. I said we shouldn't expand the list until we meet the full stocking requirements of the lakes already on the list, especially if it comes to turn out that '05's stocking production at Wolf Lake was a fluke. Well, what happend...there weren't enough fish to go around in '06. To make things worse Sanford got passed over b/c we were supposed to get Iowa fish in '07, you all know what happened there.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:34 pm

Oh my... here we go - WINTERNET.

Scrappy wrote:Ok, I can't help but chime in that I love the fact that the Hamlin folks are trying to make up for a short '06 stocking and are hopeful for a full 12,500 for '07. First, to quote Will, making up for fish allegedly isn't a sound management idea...I disagree but who cares, right?

Scrappy... take it in context. Hamilton was saying they might be willing to help with forage to make sure they get their full prescription in 07, not make up for fish. He was NOT saying that they should stock more fish in 07 because they got shorted fish in 06. The story I've heard from "other waters" is why not stock double the prescription this year to make up for two years ago. That isn't good management.

A lake association putting money up to help get muskies stocked would be a step of near biblical proportions since lake associations generally "don't get it". However, take note, Hamilton was specific that even if a lake association helped it doesn't mean they're getting the fish.

Scrappy · Post by **Scrappy** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:04 am

I've been gone for a while but the point I was trying to make Will is I thought you said Hamilton was not going to get 3 straight stocking years and then go on the rotation like normal. Rather, Hamilton was supposed to get fish the first year and then go directly on the 3 year rotation. Looks like that isn't the case at all and now we have Hamilton draining 15,000 fish for three straight years before going on the rotation. Those 15,000 fish would go a long way to getting Sanford (and most of the other Titt Chain lakes) its full stocking compliment at least for a year for a change. You might have noticed Sanford has not received it's full compliment of fish in what, like forever? I disagree with you about make up stocking not being a sound management strategy (Sanford can take the exta fish and do very well---a la Webster).

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:56 am

Scrappy wrote:I've been gone for a while but the point I was trying to make Will is I thought you said Hamilton was not going to get 3 straight stocking years and then go on the rotation like normal. Rather, Hamilton was supposed to get fish the first year and then go directly on the 3 year rotation. Looks like that isn't the case at all and now we have Hamilton draining 15,000 fish for three straight years before going on the rotation. Those 15,000 fish would go a long way to getting Sanford (and most of the other Titt Chain lakes) its full stocking compliment at least for a year for a change. You might have noticed Sanford has not received it's full compliment of fish in what, like forever? I disagree with you about make up stocking not being a sound management strategy (Sanford can take the exta fish and do very well---a la Webster).

Hamilton isn't getting any fish... I assume you mean Hamlin (the lake).

When Hamlin was first added I talked to the district biologist about making some changes in the prescription. At the time there wasn't an Esocid Committee in place to get support from and though we talked in depth about Hamlin the decision to change or keep the request was of course his.

The goals for our lakes, I believe, should be to make them as close to natural as possible. IMO this would mean stocking far less fish and stocking on an annual basis. Of course my opinion is just that but I also feel that by creating fisheries such as Ovid and others that we have set expectations of these fisheries that shouldn't be.

gmochty · Post by **gmochty** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:16 pm

Scott your right! I've been waiting for tit to get stocked like the other lakes for 2 years oops 4 years now! maybe next year or the next year or the year after that!!!!!!!

Scrappy · Post by **Scrappy** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:33 pm

That was kind of a Freaudian slip...Hamilton Reef started the chain, hence the mind fart. I hear you on the expectations part. Wish to God they had not killed the Iowa program or Sanford would, in my humble opinion, been on the right road for a recovery. Oh, well, there's always that other mud puddle you and I were e-mail about this morning. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jackass but enough is enough, Sanford needs fish.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:42 pm

gmochty wrote:Scott your right! I've been waiting for tit to get stocked like the other lakes for 2 years oops 4 years now! maybe next year or the next year or the year after that!!!!!!!

Are you sure you really want to go there, with nothing more than bitter feelings to back your argument? Here are some facts for you. Maybe you can incorporate this into your argument...

Um... guys in other parts of the state, particularly those in parts of the state with native populations that are being ignored please don't be offended by the following information.

The Titt chain has been stocked with nearly 23,000 fall fingerling muskies in the past four years. So what? In all other lower peninsula lakes there have been just over 46,000 fall fingerlings stocked during that same time.

Are you honestly going to bitch about a chain of impondments that have received over 1/3 of all fall fingerlings stocked during the last four years?

Really?

gmochty · Post by **gmochty** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:40 pm

Sorry Will. Your right, I didn't mean to upset anyone. I don't want to be in the $hit house agin. gm

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:33 pm

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Sanford has had a fair shake. Part of the problem is that there are too many big waters in a small area and some messed up prescriptions. The reason the SW MI waters get consistent stocking is you can stock 3 or 4 for everytime Sanford or Wixom gets fish.

Solutions?
For a while I've thought that we should open discussions about getting Ross and Secord completely removed from the stocking list. This would give the the premier waters, Wixom and Sanford a better chance to get the fish they need. I've been on the working end of similar discussions concerning the SW Michigan waters. I know we've discussed this in the past but the reason we're jealous of the Hoosier fisheries (other than Shad) is because they picked a small number of lakes and made them great.

Direction of the muskie program?
Right now we've got a huge number of lakes some have good potential and others aren't so great. The waters that have been added recently, Margrethe, Winyah and Hamlin along with Wixom and Sanford should be getting the top priority after the broodstock lakes. The first three have good/great potential for natural reproduction, while Wixom and Sanford have the potential to provide fisheries that can handle lots of pressure but still grow BIG fish.

We can sit around and bitch about this stuff or we can do something about it. We're lucky to be one of the few organizations that doesn't get blown off by the DNR. We've always worked to make things happen and the proof is in the results of the program in the last five years. Our efforts are a long term deal and not an overnight fix. When we want to make things happen, we need to come to the table with solutions and not just a list of complaints.

When MMA was nothing more than a dream between three guys, I never would have guessed that we would have made the progress we have in such a short time. In reality though we've only screatched the surface and the real work is still ahead.

Hamilton Reef · Post by **Hamilton Reef** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:59 pm

"When MMA was nothing more than a dream between three guys, I never would have guessed that we would have made the progress we have in such a short time. In reality though we've only scratched the surface and the real work is still ahead."

What a profound statement.
What ever you do guys, don't stop dreaming. That includes the Sanford chain. It was your dreams of great muskie fishing, hard work, and eventual success that became the inspiration for the rest of us. It is only natural for all the other regions of the state to want to duplicate the winners.

I'm not afraid to brainstorm and think outside the box, but there is never intention to harm any other fishery. I understand well the limitations of the DNR and the need to follow their fishery management plans. That includes total surprises when the DNR is sometimes caught off guard (diseases or shortfall production). If the DNR says 100% of the fish need to go to Sanford or any lake, then so be it. I know from past experience that the hardest thing the DNR has to face is how to say 'no' when in their hearts they want so bad to help everyone. The MMA and DNR will make it through this lean period. The DNR has dreams too.

Michigan Muskie Alliance

Cost of muskie production.

Cost of muskie production.

muskie cost$

stocking

Re: stocking

stocking