The logic is it is first and foremost a broodstock lake for GLMUS
So what study is telling them the Thorn GLMUS are having issues? I hear some females are already at 40". Snatching out big NMUS?? One might ask where will it end? Big Pike? Really big Bass? Big Cats? Big Gar? Heck might as well take them all out. Oh,.. and Dogfish they eat a lot to. Guys, I am not trying to be d*ck but this plan makes no sense and would cost a lot of money. "Fresh Start"? Then start over with a better suited lake. Although I am no biologist I am pretty sure Thorn could produce enough GLMUS to fill the states quota of eggs when the time comes. If not, go to MAC or Muskegon. The DNR's plan do to lack of, or competition for food on the big lake is to reduce stocking why would they not implore the same strategy at Thorn?
Guys/Will, I am not trying to come off like a red-azz, heck I only seem to muskie fish like once a season any more, but it just makes me sit back and say Huh?
"kid coulson" said:
The logic is it is first and foremost a broodstock lake for GLMUS
So what study is telling them the Thorn GLMUS are having issues? I hear some females are already at 40". Snatching out big NMUS?? One might ask where will it end? Big Pike? Really big Bass? Big Cats? Big Gar? Heck might as well take them all out. Oh,.. and Dogfish they eat a lot to. Guys, I am not trying to be d*ck but this plan makes no sense and would cost a lot of money. "Fresh Start"? Then start over with a better suited lake. Although I am no biologist I am pretty sure Thorn could produce enough GLMUS to fill the states quota of eggs when the time comes. If not, go to MAC or Muskegon. The DNR's plan do to lack of, or competition for food on the big lake is to reduce stocking why would they not implore the same strategy at Thorn?
Guys/Will, I am not trying to come off like a red-azz, heck I only seem to muskie fish like once a season any more, but it just makes me sit back and say Huh?
I think all of us are sitting back and saying Huh!
Couple things if you haven't kept up, that haven't been mentioned:
Big Bear (otsego county) was going to be a brood lake, and the fingerlings didn't make it, so they switched to Diane.
Unfortunately for this situation they still thought they might want NMUS out of Hudson for some lakes that don't drain to the great lakes, or western UP… who knows. They now trade GLS fish to Wisconsin in exchange for all the NMUS they would need…
Getting eggs from LSC makes them nervous because the timing varies too much, and even though we haven't had a catastrophe, it could happen, so getting the brood lakes going is really important.
Last determining factor (to me at least), is that the PIT tagged fingerlings weren't having a great survival rate, so they are pulling out the stops to get dependent on the brood lakes, and not LSC.
Lakes are chosen on ability to grow fish, and recapture fish… not sure who picked Diane, especially when they say, "It will be too hard to net fish in Diane" [smilie=bangtard.gif]
You are right on Thorn there is ZERO reason for them to take out the NMUS. They are keeping the brood lake fingerlings in a pond at the hatchery over the winter this year, and tagging them in the spring when they are bigger and can handle being tagged better. That in of itself should be enough to reverse any setbacks they have had. I don't know anything about Hudson, as I haven't been there, and haven't talked to anyone about it. I do wish they would have made the right decision regarding which brood lake they would switch to last year… And, I am not trying to make excuses for bad decisions either, just trying to elaborate on the timeline a little.
Basically to answer your main concern, I don't think a reduction in stocking is an option. We need lots of fish to mature in these lakes as fast as possible… Unfortunately they don't realize how big the biomass is in either of their chosen lakes!
"kid coulson" said:
The logic is it is first and foremost a broodstock lake for GLMUS
So what study is telling them the Thorn GLMUS are having issues? I hear some females are already at 40". Snatching out big NMUS?? One might ask where will it end? Big Pike? Really big Bass? Big Cats? Big Gar? Heck might as well take them all out. Oh,.. and Dogfish they eat a lot to. Guys, I am not trying to be d*ck but this plan makes no sense and would cost a lot of money. "Fresh Start"? Then start over with a better suited lake. Although I am no biologist I am pretty sure Thorn could produce enough GLMUS to fill the states quota of eggs when the time comes. If not, go to MAC or Muskegon. The DNR's plan do to lack of, or competition for food on the big lake is to reduce stocking why would they not implore the same strategy at Thorn?
Guys/Will, I am not trying to come off like a red-azz, heck I only seem to muskie fish like once a season any more, but it just makes me sit back and say Huh?
Spring survey results made them concerned, the number of GLMUS captured were not what they hoped. You can't compare this situation to the situation in Lake Michigan, there's a forage collapse in Lake Michigan that should result in ZERO stocking of Chinooks, that's not the concern in this situation. The concern with the broodstock lakes is competition for food not a complete collapse of the forage base, competition for space, NMUS predation on GLMUS, etc. The bottom line is Thornapple is a broodstock lake, it needs to be developed and maintained and the steps should be taken to make it the best it can be in the shortest possible time frame.
"MattG_braith" said:
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.
First, they want to keep them in the same basin. Second, if those are self sustaining populations we shouldn't be diluting genetics capable of natural reproduction.
"kid coulson" said:
Spring survey results made them concerned
Last determining factor (to me at least), is that the PIT tagged fingerlings weren't having a great survival rate
I must ask,.. what survey? Was it when they were netting around muskie spawning time?
Yes, the spring survey where they ran nets and also ran an electrofishing boat one day.
This does suck!!! It will instantly ruin a rare fishery that somehow puts incredible opportunity into a small package. If some amount of the adults are sporadically repositioned; it is simply going to create marginal opportunities for small numbers of trophy fish on new waters. Terrible. Really. Everyone will get a temporary boner to try to find them in their new local until the lack of action will make most lose interest; wasted resource. If they were added to an existing fishery, that might be a marginal decision, but anything new would be dumb unless actual breeding opportunities exist. Also, as much effort has been put into getting this fish latrge could be wasted on unintentional mortality during the transportation process. Dumb.
Tory,
I agree but I think Will's idea is a good one if this action HAS to happen. If the DNR is willing to compromise, Keeping fish 43" and over in Thorn would bridge the gap until the spotties get big. Thorn would remain a Trophy class lake, the fisherman would still come, local economy would still benefit. There is the cost of this operation but if they do it in combination with spring netting I guess it would be kept to a minimum?
I would however like to point out a couple of other things that makes me want to tell the DNR to relax a bit and see how things shake out for a couple more seasons. The spotties are not that old yet, how many were even sexually mature? There really is no reason for most of them to be in the shallow spawning areas. There are bigger, aggressive NMUS in those areas at that time and they are in the "rut" so to speak. Makes since to go the other way if you are quite a bit smaller and immature. Also, lets keep in mind they went in that first year at a very small average size. That would lead to more predation by many fish other than just bigger muskies.
I talked to Jay a couple weeks ago and he said nothing is written in stone yet. The esox committee(somebody help me out on the official name) had to have some meetings and lay it all out on the table because these are desperate times for the GLMUS program. Jay said getting eggs from LCS is highly in-efficient thus very costly, and the youngsters will be smaller than they want unless they keep them over the winter and who knows what the mortality rate is going to be. I told Jay my opinions and thoughts and also said if they do end up removing fish from Thorn I support Will's idea. I then told him how much I appreciate all the work those people do, and offered my support. Jay must get hammered by about everybody,…Muskie guys, King salmon guys,..walleye guys,..lake association people,…you name it. I don't like the cutbacks on the big lake, I don't want to see fish removed from Thorn, but I also do not want to be the A-hole that Bitczhes about everything either. I was respectful to Jay and he was the same to me, as always. It was good to catch-up with him again.
Let me be clear, I don't want muskies removed from Thorn, and I have NO IDEA what they might come up with, but I have always said even back to when I was on the MMA board "#1= Protect home base(the hatchery),..#2= stay in good, and support the MIDNR best we/MMA can".
PS- I as well would like to hear of anymore updates/info on the Muskie program. Anyone?
"kid coulson" said:
Jay did not say anything about cut-backs in funding. But he did say they had to send crews to LSC 4 times trying to get eggs. Quite costly.
It must cost a ton for them to go to LSC, or at least put them WAY behind elsewhere. I feel pretty good about the hatchery side of it from talking to the guys there, and frankly the spottys are doing well elsewhere. Hopefully overwintering fish before tagging them at the hatchery will be successful enough to get their panties out of a bunch!
Also preliminary numbers from the lined ponds showed that our investment into minnows has saved the year again at the hatchery. Tho it sounds like they were a little small. I'll let anyone who has all that info post it somewhere else tho.
368
25