Here is what the map looks like with the waters on the stocking list for this fall. In a perfect world this is what it will look like every year, even distribution around the state. Let's hope there are 42,000 fish in the ponds and these all get stocked this year!!
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … ocking.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … ocking.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
WARNING: THIS MAY SOUND COMPLETELY SILLY
One of the most important things in Musky Fishing in Michigan to me is to develop a nice musky fishery in the UP.
The secluded natural environment is something that I really enjoy, and it's hard to get that environment anywhere in the LP.
Then I (maybe others too?) would no longer take or long to take trips into Northern Minnesota/Canada.
The environment is the only reason why I want to take a trip to LOW, or Eagle, because if it were fish quality alone I could save 9 hours of driving each way and go to LSC.
Ummmm… There was a very important county that's missing a star. Kent!! [smilie=biggrin.gif]
Only kidding. I know, the biologist are just doing what they think will be best for the state. It looks as though they are being very evenly distributed this year. Hope there's enough fish to make it everywhere!
"ricky sox wrangler" said:
Thanks Vano, but I was asking about the LP.
HAHA sorry! thats what I get for reading and typing and trying to build airplanes with a 5 yr old at the same time 
I see why your asking, I imagine its meant to be big bear or otsego, even though they are about straight east west… there aren't any others up there on the list.
"LonLB" said:
WARNING: THIS MAY SOUND COMPLETELY SILLYOne of the most important things in Musky Fishing in Michigan
to me is to develop a nice musky fishery in the UP.
The secluded natural environment is something that I really enjoy, and it's hard to get that environment anywhere in the LP.Then I (maybe others too?) would no longer take or long to take trips into Northern Minnesota/Canada.
The environment is the only reason why I want to take a trip to LOW, or Eagle, because if it were fish quality alone I could save 9 hours of driving each way and go to LSC.
Cooke Pond has the potential to meet all your criteria and be much closer to home for southerners. This could be AWESOME. As for the UP, some of what you are after already exists, but this year's destinations do not.
"Duke" said:
[quote="LonLB"]WARNING: THIS MAY SOUND COMPLETELY SILLYOne of the most important things in Musky Fishing in Michigan
to me is to develop a nice musky fishery in the UP.
The secluded natural environment is something that I really enjoy, and it's hard to get that environment anywhere in the LP.Then I (maybe others too?) would no longer take or long to take trips into Northern Minnesota/Canada.
The environment is the only reason why I want to take a trip to LOW, or Eagle, because if it were fish quality alone I could save 9 hours of driving each way and go to LSC.
Cooke Pond has the potential to meet all your criteria and be much closer to home for southerners. This could be AWESOME. As for the UP, some of what you are after already exists, but this year's destinations do not.
I've heard this area is beautiful, can't wait to enjoy it. Great choice IMO [smilie=2c.gif]
Did anyone ask the biologists why the Elk Chain didnt get a supplemental boost? Or "if" and "when"? I thought the stocking locations were really good, but still scrathin my head a bit on this one. With the state records, media attention, history of harvesting big fish(soft and hard water), low numbers, tracking study, trying to understand it…..
"Adam Minnick" said:
Did anyone ask the biologists why the Elk Chain didnt get a supplemental boost? Or "if" and "when"? I thought the stocking locations were really good, but still scrathin my head a bit on this one. With the state records, media attention, history of harvesting big fish(soft and hard water), low numbers, tracking study, trying to understand it…..
It's all about the future and the vision for those waters… The next major goal for the chain and other similar waters in the N. LP is to get higher size limits on them 48 or 50. One of the two reasons for placing higher size limits on them is because we do not have "a suitable genetic match" for stocking at this time. This combined with the fact that females are reaching the statewide minimum before they are mature makes the case for higher size limits. If these waters were being stocked right now it would make it difficult to provide additional protection, particularly since we just pulled off something as huge as 1 fish/year.
368
18
1 Guest(s)