Some interesting results to the poll so far…not what I would have expected. Perhaps the most intriguing thing that I learned from doing this poll is that you cannot edit your poll questions! So when an 11 month old is smashing at your keys while you are typing and hits "submit" prematurely, words like "surplant" appear in place of "supplant" and your prepositions can be a bit screwed up. Looks like you are getting the gist though…
I chose the first option as my vote, but the most compelling reason to me for raising GLS is that it will enable expansion of the number of lakes that can be stocked. Whether, or how soon, this may happen is subject to many variables, but at least it will be feasable.
I do have concerns that all the eggs will be in one basket (pun intended) this year, with the expectation that GLS muskie-raising will be successful at Wolf Lake, and no unforeseen gotchas with the GLS strain will arise. I think that success is likely, but, you know, $#!+ happens…
"Pete" said:
Some interesting results to the poll so far…not what I would have expected. Perhaps the most intriguing thing that I learned from doing this poll is that you cannot edit your poll questions! So when an 11 month old is smashing at your keys while you are typing and hits "submit" prematurely, words like "surplant" appear in place of "supplant" and your prepositions can be a bit screwed up. Looks like you are getting the gist though…
What were you expecting?
I love the northern strain, plus the fishing opportunites they allow. If it wasn't for the northern strain, I wouldn't have gotten into muskie fishing. I also like the high densities in our stocked waters, even if they are unnatural. My fear is that the GLS will be in such low densities, that even when stocked they will still be a needle in the haystack, and the "numbers" lakes will be non-existent. I love the "action" lakes, and fear they will be a thing of the past. [smilie=2c.gif]
"Bomba" said:
What were you expecting?
For some reason I thought that the second option would be the more popular, and generally that more folks would have thought that there was something special to our current Northern strain. Personally, I like that so many are on board with pushing ahead with the GLS though!
I was torn between a couple of your choices Pete. I fish like 4-5 inland lakes 99% of the time and as long as there are decent numbers and sizes of muskies in those lakes thats really all I care about. GLS or NS doesnt matter to me.
My fear is the GLS program will put most of my favorite lakes either on the "back-burner" with very limited stocking numbers, or eliminate them completly. I hope Im wrong. I hope we all win,.. including the fish.
My take prolly sounds horrible,greedy and ignorant but its honest.
[smilie=2c.gif]
Im with the Kid on this one. I voted second option. I would like to see lots of spotteds go up to the chain and a couple new brood stock lakes. Im not so sure we should stick them in Thornapple though. My choice would be to rebuild the Chain first while establishing two large brood stock lakes. W e also would love to see the Muskegon, White, Mona, Pentwater and on up the coast get some fish. Lets go man!!! Mike and Michelle
I dont think however we should just scrap all those years of brood stock lakes and the entire northern strain program. I would still try for maybe 8 to 10 thousand northern strain per year or go every other year and alternate between the two. Mike
"kid coulson" said:
I was torn between a couple of your choices Duke. I fish like 4-5 inland lakes 99% of the time and as long as there are decent numbers and sizes of muskies in those lakes thats really all I care about. GLS or NS doesnt matter to me.
My fear is the GLS program will put most of my favorite lakes either on the "back-burner" with very limited stocking numbers, or eliminate them completly. I hope Im wrong. I hope we all win,.. including the fish.
My take prolly sounds horrible,greedy and ignorant but its honest.
[smilie=2c.gif]
I feel the same way.
[smilie=applause.gif]
I'm getting worried like Kid, Mike & Lon. Right now there are 112 or 114 muskie lakes. Before the NS (including rivers, St. Clair and others) was there about t50 to 7t5? the original GLS lakes will get stocked first and then others and maybe the ones that have NS in them. So were most of the GLS lakes and rivers in the Upper Lower Penisula and UP? With gas prices at $4 to $t5 a gallon, this is going to make very hard on alot of us.
Keep in mind that many of the lakes with NS will be viable muskie waters for many years to come even if they don't get any stocking.
It's going to be up to the managers to decide if they want to change over their lakes to GL instead of NS. This decision is so recent that I can't answer any of these quesitons with any certainty until the fisheries managers have had a chance to make some decisions.
All I can say with any certainty is that Thornapple and Big Bear will get fish first to establish the broodstock in those lakes. The only open requests for muskellunge stocking right now are the lakes that have been stocked in the last ten years. With most of those lakes it makes sense to change over to GL and/or it really doesn't matter what strain is stocked there.
Don't loose sight of the fact that this opens up many other waters for stocking. Waters like Belleville that were stocked with NS but never should have been will now be considered because the GL can be stocked there. Any water with a major outflow that couldn't be stocked with NS or really shouldn't have been stocked with NS should now get GL.
I'm sure there will be some growing pains along the way but this decision will likely not impact many lakes. The only lake I know of for certain that will be removed from the stocking list is Osterhout. This doesn't have anything to do with this decision but a change in management direction for that water.
So just out of curiosity…. why couldn't they stock some lakes with all different age fish to help with the growing pains? Everyone knows that LSC is not hurting for muskies by any means. Sure would be nice to take a couple hundred of all sizes and put them in each lake to be stocked with GLS. Instant fishery!! [smilie=2thumbsup.gif]
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
So just out of curiosity…. why couldn't they stock some lakes with all different age fish to help with the growing pains? Everyone knows that LSC is not hurting for muskies by any means. Sure would be nice to take a couple hundred of all sizes and put them in each lake to be stocked with GLS. Instant fishery!! [smilie=2thumbsup.gif]
Three letters…
[size=200]VHS[/size]
Okay, but the eggs we are getting might be coming from VHS positive fish. So what's the difference if we take the eggs, or take the whole fish? I'm sure there could be testing done before they would actually be stocked, right? Wouldn't it be MUCH cheaper to do it this way also, and then cross our fingers for natural reproduction?
326
93