"kid coulson" said:
NOTHING IS OVER!,… Ya just dont turn it off. It wasnt my
war. You asked me I didnt ask you.ONLY 48" in 12 years. Not state average? I need a survey
to believe that.
Many other lakes produce fish 50 or better in 12 years.
"kid coulson" said:
20 or 30 muskie anglers around Grand Rapids?? Judas,…
I must see all them at Murray on a Sat. evening.
(Maybe 20-30 from the MMA) but we are a fraction
of total muskie anglers.
Yes, MMA members are a fraction… a really BIG fraction like 3/4 or maybe 7/8. You would be surprised how few muskie anglers there really are in all of Michigan.
"kid coulson" said:
Reef,… thats kinda my point "location"
Dude I fish Campau like 6 times a year.
Its not like my "HOME" lake even though
it is the closest to me (.35 min.)
GR/Muskegon/Holland,.. these areas
need more muskie waters not a reduction.
Again… it is still going to be there, it's not like they are draining the water. Be patient and we'll probably see more waters in West Michigan.
"kid coulson" said:
Campau= steady muskie producer for 25 years.
Been stocked for 30. A brief survey is done
over a limited time period and BANG! thats ,that.
Yes, good science = good management decisions. Why continue wasting fish on a water like Campau when they could be used elsewhere? The survey was only part of the equation. I'm sure another significant part was the president of MMA asking for reduced stocking or an elimination of Campau (among other lakes) for the last eight years.
"Steve S" said:
Will, what about SE MI.? I can think of two lakes in Washtenaw Co., Mill Lake and 4Mile!
I've been talking with the supervisor down there for a couple years about other lakes in the SE. It is a tough sell when you have LSC and the Detroit river within an hour of everyone from Ann Arbor east.
Will,
You gots to name me a lake that grows
a 50 in MI in 12 years.
Im not suprised at how few muskie anglers
there are in MI. But I think you'd be
suprised at how many are not in the MMA.
I talk to muskie people almost everytime
im at a lake and more often than not
when I ask if they are members of the MMA
the say no or what is MMA??(unless Im at Murray)
Im not POed or anything. Like I said I really
dont fish Campau that much. Its kinda a principal
thing I guess. 30 years of muskies,
30 YEARS !!! Its been fine for 30
yes 30 YEARS and now all the sudden
the forage base is inadaquit. I know of
at LEAST 3 48" that came from there in
the last 2 seasons. 2 were good and chubby
and Im sure yours was no slouch. The lake
is doing something right. Muskies arn't going
on a hunger strike because small bluegill
dominate the day. Hell they will eat em
like popcorn.
The short(spieces survey) was just that a "survey"
Here is another survey:
Ovid 4450 stocked fish since 1999= 311 reported catches
Austin 2750 stocked fish since 2000= 262 reported catches
Campau 2154 stocked fish since since 1997=162 reported catches
Osterhout 2120 stocked fish since 1998=150 reported catches
Round 2408 stocked fish since 1998= 79 reported catches
Budd 7545 stocked fish since 1985= 67 reported catches
Long 2526 stocked fish since 1999= 11 reported catches
Ya just cant go by a dude who spends a couple days here
and there asking ya a few questions about how the fishing
is going to be a real good indicator(creel survey).
Once again the proof is in the pudding. Campau is
right in line.
Name some? OK… How about a few from around the state?
LSC, Sanford, Black, Burt, Elk Chain, Thornapple… want one close to home? Murray.
No, we aren't talking creel survey here. This was a survey of the fish population, the creel survey has nothing to do with this management decision. Yes, IMO it was a 30 year mistake. Yes, it is the correct decision based on the fish population.
Not sure how many other ways I can say it.
Does it suck loosing a stocked lake? Sure. Is it great to gain 400-800 fall fingerlings every other year that can be stocked in better water? Heck yes!
Losing Campau is a bummer, but if can help things in the long run for both that lake and the muskie program in Michigan, I am all for it. If evidence backs it, and we are making sound educated decisions I feel the program is moving in the right direction.
I've had some good memories on Campau, and I'll have a few more before it's all said and done. The DNR does have my support if the evidence supports this decision.
Scott
My hat's off to the men and women of the DNR. These decisions arent made without discussion backed by reliable data and debate. They are making it happen with more on their plates in the middle of shrinking budget dollars. I say they are doing a great job.
Eagle Lake has some very desirable fishing lake traits: public access/state park, overwhelming forage, weed type/cover, contour and No Wake. Kind of reminds me of Ovid in a sense but with different water color and clarity.
Just my two cents.
Any documentation on a 12 year old 50" Michigan
muskie? More specifically a "stocked" muskie. I
dont know much about the GLS.
As written, the "creel" survey did play into it.
Yes, I know there was a seperate survey(population).
Proof? Look at the muskie being caught there. They
are dang good. Numbers are not bad compared
to other lakes in SW MI.
Im not trying to protect Campau based on
personal feelings. I dont even fish it that much.
But a couple of BRIEF surveys shouldnt doom the
lake. Its an established muskie lake and has been
for years. Its worth trying to Preserve.
Nice launch, lots of parking,nice out house, a few lake residents
that like to fish for muskie, close to a large populus city.
If forage is the supposed problem then why not dump
some cisco or suckers in there and slightly reduce the
muskie stocking for a few years.
"kid coulson" said:
Any documentation on a 12 year old 50" Michigan
muskie? More specifically a "stocked" muskie. I
dont know much about the GLS.
Yes… lots of 50" fish in Thorn have been aged at or around 12. If you really need proof I can get the data.
"kid coulson" said:
As written, the "creel" survey did play into it.
The DNR has more catch data than the creel survey. MMA also submitted log books to them and they get lots of e-mails and phone calls about muskie catches. The biologists are “in touch” with what goes on with the muskies.
"kid coulson" said:
Yes, I know there was a seperate survey(population).
Proof? Look at the muskie being caught there. They
are dang good. Numbers are not bad compared
to other lakes in SW MI.
I don’t have the survey but I can get it if you really want to see it. Your points are all based on feelings and not the well being of the lake. I’ve said before, if the muskies in any of our stocked waters start causing problems with native species or the well being of the lake then the stocking needs to be stopped.
A fish can still look good and grow slow. A fish can still look good and be feeding on bass and smaller muskies. How they “LOOK” shouldn’t have anything to do with a management decision – that’s feelings not science. The length of time a fish has been stocked in a water shouldn’t have anything to do with a management decision for a water – that’s feelings not science.
"kid coulson" said:
Im not trying to protect Campau based on
personal feelings.
Really? That’s all this has been so far is personal feelings.
"kid coulson" said:
I dont even fish it that much.
But a couple of BRIEF surveys shouldnt doom the
lake. Its an established muskie lake and has been
for years. Its worth trying to Preserve.
Nice launch, lots of parking,nice out house, a few lake residents
that like to fish for muskie, close to a large populus city.
If forage is the supposed problem then why not dump
some cisco or suckers in there and slightly reduce the
muskie stocking for a few years.
You make this sound like this decision was made with little thought, when in reality it has been years in the making. The Campau muskies are just reaching a size where larger forage is important or they will start eating bass and other muskies as their primary forage. Stock forage? Honestly… if the muskies have offset the balance of the lake then the answer is to stop the stocking of a non-native fish (muskies) NOT bring in forage for them.
The whole point of stocking these fish in lakes where they don’t belong is to create a better fishery, a more balanced fishery and not to create an imbalanced fishery. The secondary part of stocking these fish where they don’t belong is to create a sport fishery. In no way should the creation or preservation of the sport fishery overshadow the best interest of the lake.
"mskyprey" said:
… No Wake. Kind of reminds me of Ovid in a sense but with different water color and clarity.Just my two cents.
I like the sounds of that!
"kid coulson" said:
…nice out house…
[smilie=eek7.gif] Your senses working ok, Kid?
I'm a little upset about losing a muskie lake in Kent county. I can see where Kid is coming from seeing how GR is a big city. But if there are better lakes to house the muskies, I'm all for it. I'm sure I'll make more good memories at Campau in the next few years. When that lakes winds down, some of the other new lakes will be taking off nicely.
Kid? Love ya man but I have to agree with the D.N.R. on this one. Remember though for the next 15 years there will be big fish in Campau. Sure numbers will go down but miss piggy will be there. Now the new lake they are proposing is mu better and we should applaud that decision. I am surprised Osterhout is continuing and Round for that matter. I have lakes over here in Muskegon and Oceana county better suited for Muskies then either of those two lakes. Like Tom Hamilton has stated here in Muskegon we have zero lakes. HAMLIN WAS THE FIRST GREAT NEW LAKE TO BE STOCKED IN OUR AREA AND IT IS NEAR AN HOUR FROM MY HOUSE. There are many lakes north of Grand Rapids better suited for Muskies then Campau. Dont worry Kid, soon you will have another new lake to explore and Campau to fall bck on when you seek a big fish. And who knows maybe they hatch a few naturally. Mike
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="Kingfisher"]And who knows maybe they hatch a few naturally. Mike
I'm pretty certain of that. I caught one last year around the 18" mark. Really small guy. Way too small to be 2.5 yrs old from the last stocking.
Actually if it was 9" when planted, and considering the slower than normal growth rate in Campeau, 18" would be just about right.
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
Funny. Of course, those 9 fish netted in the survey growing slowly had nothing to do with the fact that they were competing with 1143 other muskies planted in that 125 acre lake in a 4 year period… nah, couldn't be. And, if they are all so hungry then the "scientifically sound" fishery assessment practice of a creel survey should surely reflect that in high catch rates, right? Hmm, no, 200 hours to catch a musky.
I would like for someone to explain to me where they think all those muskies went then? Did pike eat them all? Hmm, nope, scarcely a pike to be found. I'd like to know. Everyone in this organization's catch rates are better than that, did the DNR consider any of our catch-effort in this decision?
Whether it was a good choice to start stocking 43 years ago, that is highly debatable. But once you have an established musky fishery in a lake, where muskies have gained a certain level of acceptance with the riparians, with special regulations in place, that does not have a pike population to compete with, and is close to a major population center, the logical answer to me is clear day: YOU KEEP IT.
BUT– for crying out loud, don't even think about putting 400-800 planters in there every other year!!! Or any where near it. Let go of the idea that a day of musky fishing has to be seeing 10-30 fish. That is not a musky fishery in the way nature intended it, not on small inland lakes. The amount of fish that it would take to maintain a viable fishery in Campau is no where near that, and would be only a drop in the bucket of what the DNR should be rearing annually. And the forage would be there to support them. Without the right types of forage, you cannot grow muskies to their maximum size potential, which is exactly what a 48" muskie is, on average, in any lake of that size.
"Duke" said:
I would like for someone to explain to me where they think all those muskies went then? Did pike eat them all? Hmm, nope, scarcely a pike to be found. I'd like to know.
Hmm… I think I know. If I was a hungry October muskie and then one day a bunch of easy sliding 9-12" baby muskies show up I think I wouldn't be hungry any more.
"Duke" said:
Everyone in this organization's catch rates are better than that, did the DNR consider any of our catch-effort in this decision?
Good question… Funny thing about muskie guys is they don't want to tell anyone about what and where they caught fish until it's too late. How many of the people interviewed by the creel clerk actually said they didn't catch fish when they really did? My guess is that it is similar to when we handed out more than 100 angler logs a few years ago. I'm pretty sure only 12 were returned but since not all were sent to me that number might be high.
However, despite our failure to communicate as a group. I have asked for years that a DNR/public committee concerning esocid management is formed to discuss decisions like this.
This is also one of the primary reasons I ask that everyone that wants to communicate something to the DNR concerning muskies to do it through me. Whether it's a lake in the UP, LP or one of the Great Lakes we ALWAYS have a stronger voice when we speak as a group than one person sending an e-mail or making a phone call.
57
8