What is the theory on Thorn? The term competition was used I believe, but what is meant by that a) for food? (seems weird with the magnitude of bait in that lake, along with the fact that other predators seem to be doing fine e.g pike, gar, etc), b) competition for comfortable holding locales? c) or are they being eaten? (again, the other predators seem to be doing alright, based on the number of pike I catch that are squirts). I recall at one time there were some theories that this strain was more inclined to chase current; is there a chance they are just leaving for whatever reason? Seems hard to know how to address the issue scientifically without a defined root cause to the problem. If they are going to do it, I guess the compromise of taking just the bigs makes the most sense, but if the lack of captured GLS has nothing to do with interaction of those fish; taking them out won't accomplish anything. Maybe this is just an experiment due to lack of data? Too bad the river couldn't be sampled to determine If the fish have just moved (probably too expansive a search). Lastly, why would the GLS be more susceptible to competition with larger fish when our stocked lakes have shown rearing success of juveniles into adults regardless of a good population of adults?
Going down river chasing current has worried me, too. If they transfer all the large NS muskies out and replace them with more GLS, who's to say they won't go downriver, too? Then we'll have a another lake with very few (expensively-stocked) muskies because they're leaking out. Do they have any evidence as to why the GLS aren't doing as well as expected, beyond supposition?
"Tory" said:
What is the theory on Thorn? The term competition was used I believe, but what is meant by that a) for food? (seems weird with the magnitude of bait in that lake, along with the fact that other predators seem to be doing fine e.g pike, gar, etc), b) competition for comfortable holding locales? c) or are they being eaten? (again, the other predators seem to be doing alright, based on the number of pike I catch that are squirts). I recall at one time there were some theories that this strain was more inclined to chase current; is there a chance they are just leaving for whatever reason?
I don't think one strain or another is any more or less prone to travel, it's just what muskies do. They've always left the lake, there have been fish in the lower Thornapple and beyond for as long as they've been stocked. Other predators, specifically pike, will be addressed as well and possibly removed/relocated. We, anglers, would probably be well served to keep any legal pike for the table. The GLMUS are certainly being consumed by any of the larger fish in the lake as well as birds, will the transfer of adult NMUS help? Absolutely! It's just hard to swallow for anglers. Bottom line, it's a GLMUS brood lake and the goal should be to make it the best it can be for that purpose. The GLMUS would be best served to have zero predators other than the GLMUS.
"hemichemi" said:
Going down river chasing current has worried me, too. If they transfer all the large NS muskies out and replace them with more GLS, who's to saythey won't go downriver, too? Then we'll have a another lake with very few (expensively-stocked) muskies because they're leaking out. Do they have any evidence as to why the GLS aren't doing as well as expected, beyond supposition?
They will leave, as noted above they've always done it and will continue to do it.
I don't think they have a handle on the number yet because they were trying to trap juvenile fish in spawning locations. I've seen a couple 41" females this fall that appeared to be developing eggs and the numbers should improve next spring but it won't be until spring 2020 before we've got a good handle on the numbers in the lake. By that time we'll have a three years of yearlings stocked which will reduce predation significantly.
"Steve S" said:
I know there are tons of gar pike in there, I take it there a big problem to. Should we invest in some Kevlar suits!!
Gar may be competing for minnows in the first year but aren't going to be eating muskies or the same forage after the first year. The number of gar has declined dramatically over the last 15 years.
I can totally understand the disappointment of these short term decisions on moving adult muskies. But if we look long term, there is much to be thankful for. Yes, there will be adjustments but more opportunities created. Personally, I'm excited for Muskegon Lake. I think it has the opportunity to be a trophy lake within the next few years. I'll be spending more time there in '17.
Wow, Lower Crooked!!!???? That lake cant support the fish in there now. They are skinny and stunted. Have been for years. Big fish will probably struggle mightily with the heat. I know quite a few of us used to fish that lake and like Tory said temporary hard-ons will be plentiful, but my guess,… those adult transfers will lose weight and not grow much, if any longer. What a waste.
PS-Let me re-phrase, there probably isn't a lot of skis left in there now, but even in their prime years they were small. I don't know of a single LC fish caught that made 43 inches(not that I claim to know of every muskie caught there).
"kid coulson" said:
Wow, Lower Crooked!!!???? That lake cant support the fish in there now. They are skinny and stunted. Have been for years. Big fish will probably struggle mightily with the heat. I know quite a few of us used to fish that lake and like Tory said temporary hard-ons will be plentiful, but my guess,… those adult transfers will lose weight and not grow much, if any longer. What a waste.
PS-Let me re-phrase, there probably isn't a lot of skis left in there now, but even in their prime years they were small. I don't know of a single LC fish caught that made 43 inches(not that I claim to know of every muskie caught there).
It seems the incredibly low water issues that decimated the Lower Crooked fishery have not been an issue the past 6-8 years. That said, upper crooked would be so much better.
How high is the average FOW now? Even if up 2 full feet 90% of that lake is 7 feet or less. Heat soak from top to bottom. No place to go to help regulate body temp= Stress. Metabolism goes into high gear, not enough quality food= Stress,….Disease,Doom,Despair!! Alright I am getting a little carried away, but hasn't LC already shown us it is not a good muskie lake. It is a really neat lake and I probably will be out there with a stiffy as well, but I still don't like the idea.
** Upper Crooked would be a sweet muskie lake but I am sure there are a lot of hoops to jump through in regards to the lake association. I do believe there are a few LC escapee's in there however.
** Didn't they also redo the pipe/culvert thing connecting the 2 lakes some years ago? Seems to me UC was bleeding off to much water to LC and do to the lower water levels in Upper, they made a change.
"kid coulson" said:
How high is the average FOW now? Even if up 2 full feet 90% of that lake is 7 feet or less. Heat soak from top to bottom. No place to go to help regulate body temp= Stress. Metabolism goes into high gear, not enough quality food= Stress,….Disease,Doom,Despair!! Alright I am getting a little carried away, but hasn't LC already shown us it is not a good muskie lake. It is a really neat lake and I probably will be out there with a stiffy as well, but I still don't like the idea.
** Upper Crooked would be a sweet muskie lake but I am sure there are a lot of hoops to jump through in regards to the lake association. I do believe there are a few LC escapee's in there however.
** Didn't they also redo the pipe/culvert thing connecting the 2 lakes some years ago? Seems to me UC was bleeding off to much water to LC and do to the lower water levels in Upper, they made a change.
I would argue Lower Crooked isn't any different from Thornapple. There is no oxygen below 10' in Thornapple during summer. Hot water is only stressful to fish that get stressed (caught). Extremely hot water actually will force fish that don't tolerate hot water to go into something similar to a hibernation state which slows their metabolism.
That said, when did it show it wasnt a good muskie lake? I don't think a judgement can be made on two plants with 1.5 or fewer fish per acre. The reason stocking was stopped has been resolved.
Will, thank you for being our voice. You are extremely knowledgeable and articulate on so many facts regarding the world of muskies, and fishing in general. I continue to be amazed at all the information you have. Unfortunately in your position, it also puts you as a target of criticism for decisions others make. I hope we can all agree that Will is a treasure we shouldn't take for granted. We ALL owe him a big THANK YOU!!
Charlie
There is no oxygen below 10' in Thornapple during summer
Seems I read that somewhere as well. But I have marked plenty of fish below 10' in Thorn during summer. If there is no oxygen, how do they survive?<- not trying to be a di*k, that is a serious question.
I don't think a judgement can be made on two plants with 1.5 or fewer fish per acre
Well I would say a lot less water per acre when the lake is only 5-7 feet. They went in a very healthy size and if I recall some were the Iowa "super fish" but yet very few caught even reached the 38-40" mark. I believe the longest recorded on lunge log is only 41 inches. Does that not throw up a red flag??
Don't get me wrong, I hope all goes extremely well with this operation, but,…. I have my opinions and questions and obviously some concerns. It's not a "criticism" of Will. If that is how I am coming off, my apologies.
368
26