Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
Forum Login
Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
letter to the editor about gun lake muskies
Avatar
122 Posts
(Offline)
1
November 18, 2013 - 10:23 am
ToolsPrintQuote

I came across a very well written letter about the restocking of gun lake while reading the penasee globe (small local news paper). It wasn't bashing anyone or negative in any way, just pointed out some facts and led people to do their own research and form their own opinions. Its nice to see such level headed people on the side of the muskies. This helps our cause and doesn't turn people away like the negativity of the musky bashers.
I would like to applaud you Duke LeBaron for your part in helping out in such a positive and professional way! [smilie=applause.gif] [smilie=2thumbsup.gif]

Avatar
2924 Posts
(Offline)
2
November 18, 2013 - 11:20 am
ToolsPrintQuote

Link???

Avatar
7492 Posts
(Offline)
3
November 18, 2013 - 11:40 am
ToolsPrintQuote

Probably not going to find a link to a letter to the editor for that paper. Here's the letter:

My family has owned property on Gun Lake since 1981, and I remember the so- called “musky wars” of those early years that sadly, and wrongly, pitted angler vs. angler (vs. DNR). As an avid angler I am extremely disappointed to see something similar bubbling up again.
What should overwhelmingly be a scientific issue – the management of Gun Lake fishery for the betterment of the resource and to the benefit of all those who use it – is once again falling victim to misinformation. Unfortunately, some misinformation was recently delivered to the Gun Lake property owners in a newsletter which also included a survey asking for the preference to stock, or not, muskies in Gun Lake again to rehabilitate the native musky population. Under the veil of providing background information to aid in analysis of the issue, several snippets were provided that at best were taken out of context, and at worst were wrong and apparently intentionally misleading. Some pro-musky points were also provided, but it was clear the intent was to sway opinion not in favor of a rehabilitated musky population. But what is not clear is what is the factual, scientific basis for these feelings?
The fact of the matter is there is none. Muskies are native or have been introduced to thousands of lakes and rivers across the U.S. and Canada. It is proven that native and properly managed populations of muskies do not have detrimental effects on other gamefish or panfish populations. In fact, muskies often have a positive impact on other desirable fish species by keeping the more numerous and less desirable fish species in check.
But it is also true that muskies suffer from myth and misunderstanding, so don’t take my word for it. Look up the information and check the research yourself, consider the source of any information you find, and then decide. Good luck and good fishing!

Avatar
2712 Posts
(Offline)
4
November 18, 2013 - 12:13 pm
ToolsPrintQuote

Well done Duke!! [smilie=applause.gif]

Avatar
496 Posts
(Offline)
5
November 18, 2013 - 12:59 pm
ToolsPrintQuote

Thanks Duke!

Avatar
590 Posts
(Offline)
6
November 18, 2013 - 4:44 pm
ToolsPrintQuote

[smilie=applause.gif] Greatjob! Awesome to have this kind of representation..

Avatar
1269 Posts
(Offline)
7
November 18, 2013 - 9:37 pm
ToolsPrintQuote

Thanks fellas- I just hope some of the right people see it and that the message sinks in. Now that would really be something!

Forum Timezone: America/Detroit
All RSSShow Stats
Top Posters:
Steve S: 2712
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 111
Topics: 9245
Posts: 57511

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 16575
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2

Most Users Ever Online
368
Currently Online
Guest(s)
40