"alumacraft07" said:
This is hard for club members that don't live in the Grand Rapids and Battle Creek area. I live in between Diane and Hudson. Hudson a already hard fishery will be on the back burner for a few years if they take every northern strain out. Diane is also a hard lake to fish. The lake association kills the weeds on Diane 2-3 times per year which does not help the fishing out at all. This may have been some of the reason that Diane was scrapped. It would be nice if the muskies they take out of Hudson stay local to the southern area to give us guys down here another option. But we will see. Looks like I'm traveling more to Indiana or west Michigan to fish next year.
The primary reason they changed from Diane was because of the history of easy capture during egg takes on Hudson. The fish moved from Hudson will be relocated in a lake that is in the Erie basin so they will stay local, or at least in that region.
I agree with Hemi. I'm in the Lansing area & don't have anything decent without driving over an hour. What is the plan for the Thornapple fish? I like the idea of new opportunities but what about taking the mature fish out of Thornapple & putting them in Eagle since it already has the northern strain being stocked?
"ERJake" said:
I agree with Hemi. I'm in the Lansing area & don't have anything decent without driving over an hour. What is the plan for the Thornapple fish? I like the idea of new opportunities but what about taking the mature fish out of Thornapple & putting them in Eagle since it already has the northern strain being stocked?
As noted, the lakes haven't been identified. The intention was to move adults to somewhere new that hasn't been stocked before. Eagle has been stocked consistently since 2010 and an influx of adults probably isn't the best idea in such a small water. Though not a "new" water Ovid is probably the logical choice for these reasons:
– hasn't been stocked consistently
– has a spearing ban
– is within a state park so there isn't a lake association to deal with
People that are complaining about an hr drive to musky fish shouldn't..
I've had to drive minimum 50 min to am hour for the past 8 years. Some of the great lake waterways will fix that but still will be a bit before they will be really good lakes.
And I live in West Michigan..
People in Lansing aren't the only ones that have to drive a while to get to good fisheries
"alumacraft07" said:
At the banquet didn't the biologist talk about not wanting northern strain mixing with Great Lakes especially in the lsc and Detroit river basins? If I heard him right. If so why would they want the northern strain in a Lake Erie basis location and not a lake that doesn't have a discharge?
They will be looking at lakes that don't have outlets so the fish can't reach any spawning GLMUS. Calling it the Lake Erie Basin is only geographical, Hudson and Diane are in the Lake Erie Basin for management purposes.
First, Thanks Will for being the Shell answer man! [smilie=applause.gif] I've calmed down and am now excited as to what's going to happen.
Some things not thought about.
1. Hudson was a broodstock lake for the U.P., so what happens to them? Is this lake where they are going to take these fish to be a broodstock lake for the U.P.?
2. Have they thought about the cat's as big time predators?
3. Do you have a ballpark guess on how many will be put in? 50" size limit?
4. Can we help DNR with this stuff?
5. Who will be the speaker at the banquet? The guy from last year.
Hudson to me is like being up north, no houses, no wake, tons of wildlife. You don't have to deal with a lake association.
6. Will they think about moving some of the GLS fish from Diane to Hudson?
7. Scott I saw your post and they probably don't want northern strain in the Huron.
"Steve S" said:
First, Thanks Will for being the Shell answer man! [smilie=applause.gif] I've calmed down and am now excited as to what's going to happen.Some things not thought about.
1. Hudson was a broodstock lake for the U.P., so what happens to them? Is this lake where they are going to take these fish to be a broodstock lake for the U.P.?2. Have they thought about the cat's as big time predators?
3. Do you have a ballpark guess on how many will be put in? 50" size limit?
4. Can we help DNR with this stuff?
5. Who will be the speaker at the banquet? The guy from last year.
Hudson to me is like being up north, no houses, no wake, tons of wildlife. You don't have to deal with a lake association.
6. Will they think about moving some of the GLS fish from Diane to Hudson?
7. Scott I saw your post and they probably don't want northern strain in the Huron.
1. All NMUS will come from Wisconsin as they have for the last few years.
2. Yes but it's not about predators as much as it is about competition for food.
3. Yearlings are planned to be stocked at one fish per acre.
4. Contact the Erie basin office and volunteer.
5. Ellen Spooner is scheduled to be our speaker. She just completed a diet study on Lake St Clair.
6. Doubtful. Adding an additional trap and transport doesn't make sense fiscally. Then again, neither does the planned adult transfer.
7. Answered above.
Hello all,
Yes,it has been a while but I am still around. I felt the need to express my opinion(as I will with Jay) and I urge you all who think this is crap to do the same. Set back a true trophy class muskie lake for what 6-8 years because of competition for food????? How about this: Loosen up the pike regs, and cut back a bit on the GLS stocking. How bad are they doing if some females are at 40" already? How much is this removal of big NSM going to cost? I bet it's more than one might think. If MIDNR is worried about food shortages for the GLSM who's decision was it to put them in there in the first place. By their proposed actions it must have been a bad decision. Any disciplinary action to take place? Lets not over think it, just cut back on stocking a bit. That is their philosophy on lake MI right?? Somebody please help me see the MIDNR's logic on this because I just do not get it.
Kid & Will you are both right. For me this goes back to the banquet when they put GLM in Thorn. 3 or 4 guys were there from the DNR don't remember who. So I asked this question, are you going to put GLM in Hudson since it's a back up to Thorn. There answer was "we don't want to mix them up". I didn't get to ask a follow up question, which would have been You already did that at Thorn plus there's pike in there to. I asked Will a long time ago how many muskies per acre were in Hudson, he said about 3. Webster somebody said has like 7 per acre. Isn't like only 10% make it? As far as taking the fish out I think it is a mistake, looks like the GLM have made it in Thorn. I'm going to send a email to Jay and give him my 2 cents.
Yes Webster is like 6-7 fish per acre they have had a issue but I've heard it came from the bag limit in Indiana. They are also stocking bigger fish but are not holding back on numbers.
Ohio on matter of fact stocks thier lakes heavily west branch is on par with lsc for fish per day. I seen where their local club had a tournament on westbranch and the winner caught 9 fish! 9 fish that's more than my catch rate all year and it's not because of lack of fishing. I've missed quite a few fish casting this year and I messed up on a few follows. Michigan dnr is more worried about an a non native trout species than worrying about fish that's native to Michigan. Hudson back in the day was a multi fish lake from what I've read in forum pages and Muskie inc lunge log. What ever happened to Hudson is sad because in 2 years of fishing it 1 follow is all I've had. And Steve can also agree the fish are few and far between.
"kid coulson" said:
Hello all,
Yes,it has been a while but I am still around. I felt the need to express my opinion(as I will with Jay) and I urge you all who think this is crap to do the same. Set back a true trophy class muskie lake for what 6-8 years because of competition for food????? How about this: Loosen up the pike regs, and cut back a bit on the GLS stocking. How bad are they doing if some females are at 40" already? How much is this removal of big NSM going to cost? I bet it's more than one might think. If MIDNR is worried about food shortages for the GLSM who's decision was it to put them in there in the first place. By their proposed actions it must have been a bad decision. Any disciplinary action to take place? Lets not over think it, just cut back on stocking a bit. That is their philosophy on lake MI right?? Somebody please help me see the MIDNR's logic on this because I just do not get it.
The logic is it is first and foremost a broodstock lake for GLMUS and secondarily a sport fishery. While fishing this weekend I think I came up with a compromise and I'll be working on it this week.
"Steve S" said:
Kid & Will you are both right. For me this goes back to the banquet when they put GLM in Thorn. 3 or 4 guys were there from the DNR don't remember who. So I asked this question, are you going to put GLM in Hudson since it's a back up to Thorn. There answer was "we don't want to mix them up". I didn't get to ask a follow up question, which would have been You already did that at Thorn plus there's pike in there to. I asked Will a long time ago how many muskies per acre were in Hudson, he said about 3. Webster somebody said has like 7 per acre. Isn't like only 10% make it? As far as taking the fish out I think it is a mistake, looks like the GLM have made it in Thorn. I'm going to send a email to Jay and give him my 2 cents.
Steve, at the time of that banquet Hudson was being maintained as the northern strain broodstock. I think the last estimate for Hudson was 2.3/acre. Webster at one time was 6/acre but isn't any longer. Not sure what you mean by 10% make it???
Lastly, don't email Jay unless you are commenting about Thornapple Lake. If you want to comment about Hudson you need to contact Sara Thomas ** you do not have permission to see this link **
"alumacraft07" said:
Yes Webster is like 6-7 fish per acre they have had a issue but I've heard it came from the bag limit in Indiana. They are also stocking bigger fish but are not holding back on numbers.
Ohio on matter of fact stocks thier lakes heavily west branch is on par with lsc for fish per day. I seen where their local club had a tournament on westbranch and the winner caught 9 fish! 9 fish that's more than my catch rate all year and it's not because of lack of fishing. I've missed quite a few fish casting this year and I messed up on a few follows. Michigan dnr is more worried about an a non native trout species than worrying about fish that's native to Michigan. Hudson back in the day was a multi fish lake from what I've read in forum pages and Muskie inc lunge log. What ever happened to Hudson is sad because in 2 years of fishing it 1 follow is all I've had. And Steve can also agree the fish are few and far between.
Can't compare our lakes to those south of us, shad are plentiful and our only lake with shad is Diane. Hudson has never given up many fish to anglers but has always had a very dense population.
Not sure if people would support this or not since it would be moving a resource away from everyone but if transplanting adult NMUS is going to happen what about transplanting them to western UP lakes where they already exist and can successfully spawn? That way you're not only improving a fishery with added fish but those adult fish will continue to improve those fisheries every spring when they spawn.
368
25
1 Guest(s)