"hemichemi" said:
However, I've been involved in this organization for a just about a year now, and perceive that some think things are moving way too slowly for the muskie fishery in MI.
I would like to hear more about this considering…
– MMA was responsible for about 50,000 Iowa fingerlings being stocked while Michigan got the hatchery on track.
– The average yeild from the hatchery in the years before MMA was usually just enough to get Hudson and Thornapple stocked. Constant pressure to improve hatchery production from MMA helped push the program.
– Stocking GLS was nothing more than a pipe dream and it is now going to happen.
– Just a few years ago the muskie program was going to be killed and the ONLY reason it was saved was the partnership MMA had created with the DNR.
"hemichemi" said:
I don't know how long it took for WI and MN to get where they are now, but I'm certain it didn't happen overnight, and confident not even in one decade.
Minnesota was a 20+ year building process.
Wisconsin is a different story, it didn't take much building at all. Wisconsin has nearly 1000 muskie lakes many of which are natural. Consider that there are a couple hundred muskie lakes in Vilas County alone (most are natural).
MMA has come a long way and been the motivation needed for the DNR to help the statewide muskie program. The cooperation between the MMA and DNR has been a good role model for other fishing organizations to follow. The muskie program has thus grown over the last few years rather than remaining stagnant in spite of severe budget restrictions.
"Will Schultz" said:
I would like to hear more about this…
One doesn't have to look too hard on this forum to find complaints about how this region or that region get more or less "attention" muskie-wise, and that nothing ever goes the way it should. Mostly they're complaints about the MI-DNR's Esocid policy, not about MMA, although there is a little of that, too.
It seems to me that we're just turning a BIG corner toward much better times right now. With newly aerated ponds and soon-to-be solar-heated rearing tubs (owing in no small part to MMA's help), the Wolf Lake hatchery seems well-equipped next year and for the foreseeable future to far outdo this year's bumper crop of fingerlings, allowing more and more lakes to be stocked as time goes on. I'm sure everyone doesn't see it as I do, but I think that's a realistic view, and not overly optimistic.
What's most important now is for us to continue striving to find a way for MMA/MInc to have more input/feedback into which lakes get stocked and to what degree. But I don't see this happening if people see the DNR as an adversary; we should instead strive to foster a cooperative and productive alliance with the DNR. I'm sure they'd rather have us helping than perceiving us as a complaining group of perennial malcontents. This may take years, but it will never happen if we don't keep trying.
"hemichemi" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]
I would like to hear more about this…
One doesn't have to look too hard on this forum to find complaints about how this region or that region get more or less "attention" muskie-wise, and that nothing ever goes the way it should.
Most don't know how things have changed in the last 20 years, especially in the lower peninsula. In the late 80's and early 90's there wasn't much to offer in Michigan for muskie lakes. The one bright spot was Gun lake but that was ruined by missinformed people. The only decent lakes were Bankson, Hudson and Thornapple because those were the three broodstock lakes which at the time had a 45" size limit – the rest of the state had a 30" size limit. Fortunately some biologists asked for more muskies and a number of new lakes were created from old tiger lakes. Some of these were complete mistakes while others were good choices, some thrive while others are OK and others are off the stocking list completely.
We can't dwell on the past. We can only plan for the future and hope that we are on the same page with the DNR when it comes to managing muskies.
"hemichemi" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]We can't dwell on the past. We can only plan for the future and hope that we are on the same page with the DNR when it comes to managing muskies.
Agree. It would be nice if we knew/understood the thinking/planning of the DNR Esocid Committee. Is this info available anywhere?
There is a management plan in the works, which will address some of these questions. Lake consideration has been very good with the newest lakes. Lakes like Winyah, Hamlin, Margrethe, Otsego, etc. are excellent choices with potential for natural reproduction. There is still some question about a number of the lakes created in the late 80's and early 90's due to forage, other large predators, major outlets or a combination of factors.
"hemichemi" said:
complaints about how this region or that region get more or less "attention" muskie-wise, and that nothing ever goes the way it should.
I'm guilty of complaining about this a little. All in good fun, though. Murray sees a lot of pressure, and I would love to see more lakes stocked like that spread around the state to take some of that pressure off. We know positive things are always happening. That's what keeps me in a positive attitude. I know (truly hope)that in 10-15 yrs, the fishery will be on the same level as MN. And I want to be a part of it during the whole ride! 😀
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="hemichemi"]complaints about how this region or that region get more or less "attention" muskie-wise, and that nothing ever goes the way it should.
I'm guilty of complaining about this a little. All in good fun, though. Murray sees a lot of pressure, and I would love to see more lakes stocked like that spread around the state to take some of that pressure off. We know positive things are always happening. That's what keeps me in a positive attitude. I know (truly hope)that in 10-15 yrs, the fishery will be on the same level as MN. And I want to be a part of it during the whole ride! 😀
A fishery makes it's own pressure, if it is easy people are going to hear about it and start fishing it. When you start getting sick of the pressure on Murray go fish Webster in May or June, I promise that you'll come home with a new attitude. Personally, I don't want to see any more lakes stocked like that. I would rather see more good fisheries all over the state than a few more Murray and Ovids.
We'll never be on the same level of MN, we simply don't have the water except St Clair. We will have some good fisheries in 10-15 years but all our inland water combined isn't the size of Mille Lacs. Add to that Detroit Lakes, Bemidji, Cass, Plantaganet, Vermillion and the tens of thousands of acres they have around Minneapolis (Tonka alone is over 10K) and we simply can't be on their level.
However, we can learn a lot from MN with regard to management and how to build fisheries. Then we will build a good and unique fishery that will draw attention from other states.
Is it naïve to hope that Lakes MI, Huron, Erie and Superior will someday be full of fishable muskies? Already, Green Bay is becoming a muskie destination. How about Saginaw Bay, Grand Traverse Bay, the Grand River mouth's bayous, Thunder Bay, Whitefish Bay, yada, yada, yada? Access to 4/5 of the Great Lakes is MI's biggest asset. We could kick muskie-fishing butt if that could happen.
"hemichemi" said:
Is it naïve to hope that Lakes MI, Huron, Erie and Superior will someday be full of fishable muskies? Already, Green Bay is becoming a muskie destination. How about Saginaw Bay, Grand Traverse Bay, the Grand River mouth's bayous, Thunder Bay, Whitefish Bay, yada, yada, yada? Access to 4/5 of the Great Lakes is MI's biggest asset.
No and yes. The drowned rivermouth lakes are just begging for muskies. Saginaw Bay would probably get some travelling fish BUT if they really liked Saginaw Bay they would already be there, the St Clair river isn't too far away and on the other side of Huron there's a place called Georgian Bay that has a couple muskies. The same is true for Erie, the east side has plenty of fish but they don't like the west side.
East and West Bay already has a muskie population, it just needs a little help. Many of the drowned rivermouth lakes have muskies right now but they are barely hanging on.
I could go on… and on… and on…
Today no one should feel bad about promoting their local lake considering economics and gas prices. For muskie fishers this is the opposite of the NYMBY syndrome while the fishery is developing statewide. We learned our lesson the hard way with Muskegon County Mona Lake and Big Blue Lake with the former tiger muskie program. Only a very few quiet fishers got to play and that gave the DNR the wrong signal.
"Will Schultz" said:
I could go on… and on… and on…
Please, DO!
I'll settle for drowned rivermouth lakes and Grand Traverse Bay as starters. What about the Grand R. bayous? That area looks promising, to me.
I feebly imagine that in an underpopulated water, the fish would stay predominately only in the VERY BEST areas. But if there were many more muskies, wouldn't many remain in Sag Bay, the west side of L. Erie, etc., presuming adequate forage?
"hemichemi said:
But if there were many more muskies, wouldn't many remain in Sag Bay, the west side of L. Erie, etc., presuming adequate forage?
Not likely! Like Will said, if muskies really liked these areas they would already be there en force, just like St. Clair. Forage is definitely not the limiting factor there. A heavy stocking program might yield a fishery in Saginaw Bay, not sure. Would be an interesting experiment with a half million extra GLS fall fingerlings I guess. But, even if it worked you would only be creating a duplicate St. Clair open water sand flat trolling fishery, not real exciting, at least to me. Similar story in Erie's western basin.
Jim, Each area of the Great Lakes has its own story of decline of GLS muskie due to a number of factors, thus they also have their own potentials for the restoration of muskie habitats and reintroduction of the GLS. Here is one example.
Muskegon Lake – BUI Loss of fish and wildlife habitat:
My uncle and father told me of catching occasional muskie through the 1920s to 1940s in Muskegon Lake. They never targeted muskie, just incidental catches while fishing for northern pike and walleye. The biggest downside to the local muskie fishery was and still is lost of fishery habitat. Note that Muskegon Lake is now near 4200-acres and had lost 25% of its over 5000-acre size with shoreline development first by logging followed by heavy industry, paper mill, and recent marina/condo developments. The littoral zone of the whole south side of the lake was especially hit hard by landfills. Pollution was rampant until we established the Muskegon Wastewater System in 1970. The badly flawed design of the US-31 freeway followed by flood of 1986 sand migration severely impacted the spawning marshes. All of these historical abuses are now being addressed by multi-million dollar programs to help the GLS muskie reintroduction on our management plans. Look for major projects coming. Ironically we may now have more muskie size forage than we did in the past do in part to the disruption caused by exotics on the food chain.
The Great Lakes themselves generally do not have proper spawning habitat, they need the rivers and wetlands that as Tom said have been severely degraded or eliminated. Dam construction as well has cut off access to spawning habitat.
Here's another example pulled from a google search, for instance:
Muskies historically were a great fish in Erie.
"In the late 1800s they were the most importantly commercially caught fish," the biologist said. "There were so many there literally was a beach seine-fishery off Sand Road on the Catawba Island peninsula. Muskies historically also were known in the Maumee River and Maumee Bay."
But loss of critical nursery habitat with the draining and conversion of shoreline marshes and wetlands, plus overfishing and pollution, put muskies in decline in the Erie basin. Today muskies are a rare occurrence in the western basin.
128
128