"Will Schultz" said:
Keep in mind that Joe Public isn't going to look at this and make comments, the average person would quit reading after the first page. Comments are going to come from the users of the resource.
Very true. The vast majority of the statewide fisher barflys are too busy or lazy to bother writing anything. By not reading the full plans the small number of uneducated comments will be restricted to the same old muskie vacuum eater comments or that's the way we've always done it, blah. The DNR staff understands this as they review the comments, because they were careful about phrasing some paragraphs while writing the first draft plans. Therefore this should make your writing easier for you by following Will's advice and keep comments simple, based on sound fishery management, and MMA will do fine in the long term.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Kingfisher"]How abut we just net shad from Macatawa? I mean there are gazillions of them in there. How about we just pen the babies up the lakes and feed them shad? Mike
Three letters… V – H – S
Dont they do a thing called marsh pen rearing? I mean take 5000 over to lake mac and stick them in a pen and feed them shad from the lake. Then when they get big enough just let them out [smilie=2thumbsup.gif] No cost except netting shad. The shad up at the upper end are tiny litte things. Mona lake also has back waters where they could be penned up and reared right there and fed Shad. Mike
I have to say i love the idea of the drowned river mouths… fish could grow at great rates in there, and also the southern rivers. I like the speculation on the potential stocking sites, however I am sure funding will get in way.
Im still in for Hardy!!! that would be a rockin fishery [smilie=2thumbsup.gif]
vano395, When talking with the fishery staff over the years, we had this scary vision you may have heard about Muskegon Lake. There are tons of forage in Muskegon Lake from goby, alewife, gizzard shad, suckers, carp, sheepshead and more. The gizzard shad are so temperature sensitive they head for the warmest spot in the lake for the winter, which for Muskegon Lake is the BC Cobb Plant warm water discharge. Imagine tons of forage migrating to the warm water discharge followed by the GLS muskie with nothing to do but eat, burp, and grow all winter. Now that could be scary. Muskegon Lake has so many structures, flats, and channels to fish that there should be a good areas for everyone's favorite lure. There are good boating access sites, and camping available for major events.
"Kingfisher" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"][quote="Kingfisher"]How abut we just net shad from Macatawa? I mean there are gazillions of them in there. How about we just pen the babies up the lakes and feed them shad? Mike
Three letters… V – H – S
Dont they do a thing called marsh pen rearing? I mean take 5000 over to lake mac and stick them in a pen and feed them shad from the lake. Then when they get big enough just let them out [smilie=2thumbsup.gif] No cost except netting shad. The shad up at the upper end are tiny litte things. Mona lake also has back waters where they could be penned up and reared right there and fed Shad. Mike
Marsh rearing is simliar to the earthen ponds they have at the hatchery. It's a drainable marsh that can be stocked with fatheads so it's overloaded with various size food once the muskies arrive.
I know it sounds simple but netting and sorting bait to the correct size would be very time consuming. I don't see how it could be done that wouldn't take 6-8 hours each day to feed 5000 fish.
Will is correct about the challenge of providing forage to muskie culture. I've been looking at property offered to us that has 20 1-acre ponds connected to the freeway for distribution. The idea was to let fishing clubs as partners raise fathead minnows for our hatchery culture. The cost of pond renovations, manpower, equipment, and transportation is not feasible for us to handle. I had to let the DNR know this after I their permission to explore the private property offer. This does not mean, however, that we should give up on exploring forage ideas to help the DNR.
Here are two topic threads for future. 1. How can we help expand Michigan in-state sources of lower cost forage for fish culture. 2. How can we secure long term funding for muskie culture facility expansion to meet stocking needs. The two topics are linked together as the major challenge for the muskie program.
"Hamilton Reef" said:
Here are two topic threads for future. 1. How can we help expand Michigan in-state sources of lower cost forage for fish culture. 2. How can we secure long term funding for muskie culture facility expansion to meet stocking needs. The two topics are linked together as the major challenge for the muskie program.
I honestly think if we can realize some success in the GL muskellunge program for the next couple years it will open a door to GLFT money to build a new coolwater building.
"Will Schultz" said:
I honestly think if we can realize some success in the GL muskellunge program for the next couple years it will open a door to GLFT money to build a new coolwater building.
That is what I was thinking also. We loss a chance earlier for Federal funding toward the new coolwater facility because we did not have the engineering designs done. Therefore while the GLS program is generating support, we should be completing the designs which have to be done anyway. That will then open more opportunities not yet open for future RFPs. The key word is 'leveraging'. We normally need 25% match for the GLFT, but we have used in selected cases the GLFT portion as the 25% match for the Federal dollars. That's the good news. Bad news is our anti-Great Lakes Washington politicians are cutting our GLRI funding from the promised 450M/yr to peanuts, impacting future muskie habitat and culture programs along with all other fishery programs.
326
11
1 Guest(s)