So by now most if not all of you have heard of the planned GLS restoration program that the DNR has been cooking up. I think that most of us would agree that the native GLS muskies in this state are a treasure to be protected, and enhanced in whatever way possible, but I don't know for sure and I would like to hear your thoughts please. At the least, just some brief answers to the following would be great, but feel free to spill your guts if you have mre to say. thanks!
1) How important is a GLS restoration program to you?
a. THE top priority
b. Very important, right along with continued advancement of the inland northern musky program
c. Not very important, definitely should take a backseat to the northern musky program
d. Forget it, don't waste the time or $
2) If you are in favor of a GLS program in any manner, what do you think should be the highest priority, or rank in order if you like?
a. Augment the existing GLS populations (primarily the lakes of the northern L.P. such as Black, Mullet, Burt, the Elk Chain, etc., and Brevort )
b. Reintroduce GLS muskies into places where they have all but been extirpated (Muskegon, White, Hamlin)
c. Create new GLS fisheries where they perhaps never were well established before (Saginaw Bay, Bays de Noc)
Thanks for your time and your thoughts. The reason I ask is the DNR may already be heading down some of these paths, and my personal opinion is they might be choosing the wrong one(s). But I want to hear what you all think
Duke, 1 B, 2 the order they are in A,B,C. 2C bother's me a bit, will the Walleye fishermen say that they will eat all there Walleye. I know they are going to be raised in Thorn in the lower,a northern lower lake and a lake in the U.P. We have two brood stock lakes in the lower Thorn & Hudson, why don't they raise them in both (yeah I'm being greedy for my only chance to catch a GLM)
1) I think the GLS program should be a top priority as long as the the inland northern program is maintained(even with lower numbers).
2)In my opinion the big rivers should get top priority, particularily the mouths and portions below the first dams. If we want a chance at producing a self sustaining population thats where spawning will take place. (Kid-This would be a small boat fishery)
I also think our northern lakes need some help, but I think we need some regulation changes(later opener, higher size limit, less spearing) to protect the spawners before we put fish in those lakes.
1 B
2 A,B,C
I feel that it is very important to continue to focus and improve the inland northern strain stocking as well. Several quetions come to mind.
What is the GLS stocking programs goal? If it is to create a great lakes fishery, Bay de Noc, saginaw bay, etc.. will this benefit the state, increase in and out of state tourism dollars for a quality GL musky fishery similar to green Bay?
How many in our club would fish the Great lakes for musky? Big boats, big water.
Stocking the upper lower, Black, Mullet, Burt , Elk chain and UP lakes such as Brevoort, Michigamme, would be my first choice.
I would like to see them back in the spots they were historically, but… with the changes in the ecosystem ie invasives I think that concentrating on water that is under fire from rough fish, or the goby and its ilk is the best bet. I would like to see the drowned river mouths have their flagging yet in some places still present populations bolstered. I feel that it would be of benefit when the carp invasion occurs and would help to slow down any other nasties coming our way. GLS are so named for a reason and I dont think they belong in small inland waters UNTIL we have a better understanding of their physiology. As for places like Saginaw Bay I think if the fish could thrive there they would be and that should not be a consideration at all. Lets help the remnants first and then consider expansion.
43 cent worth
Kevin 🙄
"Cyberlunge" said:
I would like to see them back in the spots they were historically, but… with the changes in the ecosystem ie invasives I think that concentrating on water that is under fire from rough fish, or the goby and its ilk is the best bet. I would like to see the drowned river mouths have their flagging yet in some places still present populations bolstered. I feel that it would be of benefit when the carp invasion occurs and would help to slow down any other nasties coming our way. GLS are so named for a reason and I dont think they belong in small inland waters UNTIL we have a better understanding of their physiology. As for places like Saginaw Bay I think if the fish could thrive there they would be and that should not be a consideration at all. Lets help the remnants first and then consider expansion.
43 cent worthKevin 🙄
I agree with Kevin. I think we should bolster the fish in the Chain and the Indian river system. Then move to drowned river mouths where trash fish numbers are rampant. W e should also keep the current northern strain stocking on an every other year plan. Mike and Michelle
I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon here……Support and sustain what we have and treasure GLS wise, keep the current northern lakes up and running, and if there is any money left (which I highly doubt) focus on "controlling" other invasive species (because they exist already and as some mentioned more are an en route) by utilizing this awesome predator and kill two birds with one stone. If the science is there maybe it can be marketed that way to help with more funding, federal monies. I don't know, but it would be cool to see White, Muskegon, Manistee, other river mouths get fish. I would sacrifice some smaller SW lakes getting northerns for this in a flash. Don't know about Sag Bay and I think Wisconsin may fill up Little and Big Bays De Noc somewhat 4 us 🙂 [smilie=2c.gif]
This is MY opinion and not that of the MMA president.
1 – A
Self sustaining populations and not put and take fisheries should be the priority in my opinion which equates to a GLS program as the priority. The inland program has created some decent fisheries but nothing self sustaining in the Lower Peninsula. If the money for the muskie program was gone today all the stocked fisheries would be gone in 10-15 years. Meaning that we went through all this effort for nothing. Nothing to show our kids or grandkids in the future would mean that I wasted a lot of time, money, blood, sweat and tears on Michigan Muskie Alliance.
2 – A and B
Again, self sustaining populations supported with supplemental stocking should be the priority. Establishing new fisheries where they don't or never existed isn't a wise use of the resource.
After reading Will's response I realize my earlier answer did not take into consideration some important logic. I hadn't considered what would happen with a potential end or massive reduction of DNR funding combined with the fact of no offspring to eventually replace the fishery. We've all seen where the self sustaining GLM, even where only low numbers are present, still has continuity and a viable fishery, albeit many hours for a boated fish.
With this in mind, I think it does make sense to look down the road and plan for the future whether it be a smooth road or a very rough road.
Amended response: #1-A; #2-A&B
During the comment period on the DNR muskie program I deliberately covered topics I knew would not be submitted by the general fishing public. I had nearly four pages covering the GLS and the pro/con of the drowned river mouths and more specifically Areas-of-Concern (AOC) Muskegon and White Lakes. I covered history, data, and funding sources that were not available to the rest of the state. Green Bay is also a AOC and I made some comparisons to Michigan's program. I included the ($3.5-32M) proposals to improve the fish habitats of Muskegon Lake and I covered funding sources such as GLFT unique priority to the Muskegon River watershed and other local funding available. I covered lost of historic muskie habitat and potential restoration of specific habitats as well as the change in forage and competition of pike VS muskie. I also waited before submitting my comments to conduct interviews with other area fishers including charter captains. To paraphrase a comment made by one fisherman, “How can they justify spending the millions of dollars to improve Muskegon Lake and then ‘not’ stock the GLS muskies? I even covered some ethics when introducing the GLS. After all that material pro/con I then covered my personal views which included some major future expansion potentials for the state muskie program statewide. In short summary there were more pro points than con for stocking the drowned river mouth lakes, and the Muskegon & White Lakes had some financial advantages to support the GLS program not available to other regions of the state.
Many of you must already know where I stand on this issue. I'll essentially agree with Will's comments. Self sustaining fisheries initiated by stocking are generally an accident up until lately. For instance, I believe the MDNR back in the 60's stated that the chinook would probably never naturally reproduce. Smelt were an accident. The Pink salmon population was an accident. No intentions of ever seeing natural reproduction ever existed with those species. Yet, for many, many years we couldn't get Lake Trout native to the lakes to show reproduction. We can almost forget about the research needed to fully understand the GLS strain since money is so tight, pretty much relying on broke college students to beg for grants. Most importantly to me, as sad as the economic situation looks, is to PROTECT the existing populations we have. Recently, that seems to be going the other way with the extension of the spearing season. A 42" limit for a self-sustaining muskie population within the great lakes area is absurd. A 42 incher has probably only spawned maybe twice (conditions permitting). One of my comments to the MDNR was that they are making decisions about a fishery they know nearly nothing about. I guess that shouldn't suprise me but I still have to point it out. Without sound scientific evidence and a knowledge of the specie based on close and personal interaction, poor decisions get made. It still baffles me how little the powers within this tourist state care about this topic. To side with Hamilton Reef, look at what Wisconsin has done. A muskie hatchery didn't even exist in Canada until Wisconsin paid for it in exchange for guaranteed VHS free fingerlings (Georgian Bay strain) just to diversify the genetics within the Green Bay population. Now, thats what I call initiative. As a side note………The WDNR has noted that the GLS mutt strain they've created doesn't really like to spawn in rivers or river mouths. They just go there because thats where they've been planted. The spotted fish have proven over and over that they prefer to spawn deeper than barred fish or pike, over chara with currents that are usually wind driven.
Good read here…a much needed reprieve from the grind. I guess I'd have to have 2 answers given recent exchanges with some esocid committee folks –
Provided GLS fingerlings (from whatever source…preferrably the Northern LP) are given the ok by the DNR to be stocked into low density, existing GLS waters, then I'd go with…
1) A
2) A, then B, then C
If rumors from the esocid folks are true, namely that LSC fish have been deemed too genetically dissimilar to be stocked into existing GLS inland waters, AND an egg take from Northern LP will never be attempted, then…
1) B
2) A, then B, then C
So, the bottomline for me, right now anyway, is that if we aren't going to bolster inland GLS populations by whatever means (ideally stocking and harvest restrictions), then the whole GLS program may be neat and important, but not nearly to the extent that it could be if we were putting them in places where they are hanging on by a thread, and have been proven to reproduce.
57
51