This came up in the past and I'm finally getting around to processing all the data. Here's a spreadsheet that shows the number of Michigan muskies (Iowa excluded) stocked from 2003-2008 and in the last two columns how it would have looked if the fish were stocked at one per acre every other year. Note the number per acre columns and how it works out best for all waters if we actually stocked one per acre. Given a decent year (20,000 fish) instead of virtually zero stocking in 2007 all of the 2's in the last column would be 3's.
"><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] … areuq6.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … areuq6.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
The following is from the Minnesota Muskellunge Management Plan
Stocking Rate, Frequency, and Size
Rate:
Various stocking rates have been attempted and examined over a number of introduced populations. Stocking rates have ranged from 0.3-3.7 fingerlings/littoral acre, with 75% between 0.5 to 2.0 fingerlings/littoral acre. The most common stocking rate of one fish per littoral acre has provided good recruitment in a wide variety of waters and is the recommended rate at this time. There is some indication (from population estimates) that waters stocked at higher densities may be experiencing compensatory mortality resulting in similar recruitment rates to lower density stockings. Additional population/mortality estimates on some of the higher density waters will be useful in further defining optimal rates. Deviations from the recommendation may occur with justification identified in the Fisheries Management Plan for that specific water.
Examples:
Very large basins may prohibit stocking at one fish per littoral acre due to production demands. Lower rates may be considered where management goals call for lower density populations or the presence of natural reproduction has been documented. Higher rates are an option when establishing a new muskellunge lake, with planned reductions after a number of years or when certain population goals are met.
Frequency:
Most plans have stocking rotations ranging from annual to one-of-three years, with the majority on alternate years. Alternate year stocking has provided steady recruitment on many maintained waters and is the recommended frequency at this time. In addition, the stocking gaps provide an opportunity to better assess natural reproduction. Deviations from the recommended frequency may also occur with justification identified in the FMP.
Examples:
In instances of new introductions, annual stocking frequency may help establish a fishery more quickly, if that is desirable, with a reduction to alternate year frequency once the population begins to mature. There may also be opportunity to consider more one-of three rotations where populations have been established and there are indications of some limited contribution from natural reproduction.
Please feel free to post any questions, feedback or concerns.
If Michigan stocked one fish per acre every other year would you be OK with it? The idea is that instead of having a few lakes with lots of fish (like an Ovid) we would have good lakes across the state. I don't want to assume that I know how everyone would feel but I believe we would all want to see consistent stocking with real possibilities for expansion.
The reason I'm posting and asking this? Because I'll need your support and help if the Esocid Committee doesn't have this in the new management plan when it is released for public review.
"jasonvkop" said:
I think this would be a good idea. How close would this be to what minnesota does for its stocking? Even though I love that murray has a ton of fish lol I think it would be good to have lots of lakes with pretty good fishing. It seems right now that the lakes are crazy good or extremely tough.
Minnesota would be the model.
I am totally all for this. I don't care if they stocked the lakes at even a little less than 1/per acre, as long as they are able to expand the fishery. As it stands, I have to drive over an hour to any muskie lake. If this is what it takes to expand the fishery over to the eastern side of the state, I am for it.
I would much rather have more lakes with muskies, than fewer with large numbers. It happens all too often that lakes like Murray are teaming with muskie hunters. I can see it happening where a lake like Murray's fishing quality will go down in the upcoming years just because of pressure on the fish. I know I don't have it that bad for driving time, but I know some guys here have to drive at least 45min. to get to the CLOSEST muskie lake.
"Abomb" said:
I am totally all for this. I don't care if they stocked the lakes at even a little less than 1/per acre, as long as they are able to expand the fishery. As it stands, I have to drive over an hour to any muskie lake. If this is what it takes to expand the fishery over to the eastern side of the state, I am for it.
Sorry, that wasn't very clear… I didn't mean expansion for the lakes but rather expansion for GLS production in the hatchery. Which in turn will expand the fishery and is probably what it will take to see the number of waters expanded.
That said…
I've talked with the the Lake Erie Management Unit Supervisor and he was going to look into some possibilities. Finding waters with no outflow is going to be tough over there because most lakes are really reservoirs. It may be until the GLS program takes off before anything in the Flint to Ann Arbor area gets stocked.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Abomb"]I am totally all for this. I don't care if they stocked the lakes at even a little less than 1/per acre, as long as they are able to expand the fishery. As it stands, I have to drive over an hour to any muskie lake. If this is what it takes to expand the fishery over to the eastern side of the state, I am for it.
Sorry, that wasn't very clear… I didn't mean expansion for the lakes but rather expansion for GLS production in the hatchery. Which in turn will expand the fishery and is probably what it will take to see the number of waters expanded.
That said…
I've talked with the the Lake Erie Management Unit Supervisor and he was going to look into some possibilities. Finding waters with no outflow is going to be tough over there because most lakes are really reservoirs. It may be until the GLS program takes off before anything in the Flint to Ann Arbor area gets stocked.
So what you're saying is that instead of having some lakes with 8 FPA, and some with 3, all lakes that are currently stocked will have the same quality of fishery (more or less).
"Sgt. Schultz" said:
Finding waters with no outflow is going to be tough over there because most lakes are really reservoirs.
Can you expand the thinking on this? Isn't Thornapple a lake with a BIG outflow, and yet they use it as a broodstock lake? Are they just worried about lakes with close/easy access to bigger waters like Lakes MI and Erie/St Clair? If so, then how is Hamlin justified? I'm confused…
I'm all for lowering the stocking rate per lake and increasing the number of lakes stocked. But what is the thinking of the Esocid Committee? (I assume you know, but I don't know for sure…) One might presume their strategy is to overstock for a few years when initially planting muskies in a new lake, then dialing back to a much lower rate for maintenance in subsequent years. Is that not what they do?
It is hard to argue with the success that Minnesota has had with their muskie program. I recently watched a few videos on muskiefirst.com which discussed the Green Bay/Fox River GLS efforts and it was very informative for those of you that haven't already seen it. The presenter even mentions a tagged fish being caught in Manistee Lake that found its way over here. I'm sure most or all of the drowned river mouth lakes of W. MI have had a GLS in the lake and a few have confirmed catches. It would be great to see something get started over here in Muskegon/White Lake and I know that this is something in the works. Obviously it would add to my fishing opportunities since I live in Spring Lake, but it would be great to see happen. One only needs to read about the huge GLS muskies swimming around Green Bay to get fired up. I'm all for 1 fish per acre and more opportunities statewide.
"hemichemi" said:
[quote="Sgt. Schultz"]Finding waters with no outflow is going to be tough over there because most lakes are really reservoirs.
Can you expand the thinking on this? Isn't Thornapple a lake with a BIG outflow, and yet they use it as a broodstock lake? Are they just worried about lakes with close/easy access to bigger waters like Lakes MI and Erie/St Clair? If so, then how is Hamlin justified? I'm confused…
Part of the new management plan, I assume, will be to determine what lakes are OK to get Northern Strain and what lakes should get GLS based on any outflow. My guess is that some lakes that have been started w/ N. strain will end up getting GLS even some that have been longtime N. strain could be switched to GLS. The concern isn't keeping fish in the lake but potentially mixing strains that spawn downstream. With lakes like Hamlin, Thornapple and Sanford this isn't a concern because there isn't the potential to mix downstream. Belleville is the example that always comes up, with N. strain and GLS found together two dams below where the N. strain were stocked.
"hemichemi" said:
I'm all for lowering the stocking rate per lake and increasing the number of lakes stocked. But what is the thinking of the Esocid Committee? (I assume you know, but I don't know for sure…) One might presume their strategy is to overstock for a few years when initially planting muskies in a new lake, then dialing back to a much lower rate for maintenance in subsequent years. Is that not what they do?
Sort of… (can I leave it at that?)
No?
Current management dictates that a new lake will be stocked three straight years then go into an every other year rotation. This makes sense if you are trying to establish a fishery quickly or if you are trying to establish a spawning population. However, three straight years at four per acre is completely overkill. Three straight at one per acre would still provide a jump start but with much less stress on current production.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
So what you're saying is that instead of having some lakes with 8 FPA, and some with 3, all lakes that are currently stocked will have the same quality of fishery (more or less).
Exactly!
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
One more thing…. what does ol' Granholm think about this?? $$$$$
Doesn't matter.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
I would much rather have more lakes with muskies, than fewer with large numbers. It happens all too often that lakes like Murray are teaming with muskie hunters. I can see it happening where a lake like Murray's fishing quality will go down in the upcoming years just because of pressure on the fish.
More anglers = more fish caught = higher mortality.
What size are the fish being stocked? If the fish are large, healthy, and going into a productive forage with potential spawning habitat then one fish per acre has a better chance to achieve management goal. If the fish are small going into marginal habitats should there be a trigger flags to an alternate plan for that production year and location?
Example: The management for Lake Michigan chinook salmon has flags covering factors such as condition of forage base or the health of adult chinook. There are several flag criteria. The stocking rate of chinook salmon varies to the number of flags of concerns.
One goal for the GLS may be reintroduction of native specie, but there may be flags of concerns such as open/closed system, pollution remediation progress, spawning habitat availability or restoration progress, and more. One fish/acre may work fine with ideal conditions, but two lakes side by side may not have the same quality potential to reach a desired goal. Then there is the fudge factor to cover the desire of the biologists. How strong is the feeling of consensus to really have Lake X get over the hump to provide a fishery. Does the Minnesota model have a strict one fish per acre or are the rules bent for their favorites?
"Hamilton Reef" said:
What size are the fish being stocked? If the fish are large, healthy, and going into a productive forage with potential spawning habitat then one fish per acre has a better chance to achieve management goal. If the fish are small going into marginal habitats should there be a trigger flags to an alternate plan for that production year and location?Example: The management for Lake Michigan chinook salmon has flags covering factors such as condition of forage base or the health of adult chinook. There are several flag criteria. The stocking rate of chinook salmon varies to the number of flags of concerns.
One goal for the GLS may be reintroduction of native specie, but there may be flags of concerns such as open/closed system, pollution remediation progress, spawning habitat availability or restoration progress, and more. One fish/acre may work fine with ideal conditions, but two lakes side by side may not have the same quality potential to reach a desired goal. Then there is the fudge factor to cover the desire of the biologists. How strong is the feeling of consensus to really have Lake X get over the hump to provide a fishery. Does the Minnesota model have a strict one fish per acre or are the rules bent for their favorites?
MN basically says one fish per acre for fall fingerlings. If they are overwinter spring fingerlings reduce the number and over summer fall fingerlings (1.5 year olds) reduce the number further.
Rules are bent but… believe it or not the rules are usually bent to less than one fish per acre to accomodate large waters (unfortunately we don't have that problem). There are levels that the lakes fall into in MN based on what they need and looks something like this:
– if there is natural reproduction the number is lower usually .5 per acre
– broodstock lakes get 2/acre
– experimental lakes and new lakes can be stocked in back to back years or at higher densities
I'm open to change and flexibility with Minnesota model as long as it is based on good fishery science and peer review. I took flack on behalf of our local biologist when we went to alternate year stocking of walleye and that worked out fine. We had better year class survival and more lakes could be stocked with restricted budgets. I'll support our state biologist even if I'm disappointed with specific lake management plans. The drowned river mouth lakes may be a different management plan than the inland lakes for many obvious reasons of forage, structure, current, and lake size.
For one debate I do differ with some biologist. Some biologist say the muskie cannot compete with high northern pike populations. That competition is during the natural reproduction period within limited spawning habitats as first come first served and pike predation on smaller muskie fry. Thus, don't bother with some lakes. I say why not? A natural pike in the fall may only be half the size of a force fed 12" muskie we stock, thus the stocked muskie should out compete the Age 0 pike and be on even terms with Age 1 pike same size as the muskie. Let those lakes be stocked and let the fish fight it out five years later during spawning. You may be surprised how well the muskie may compete. Even if Muskegon Lake (4100+ acres) and White Lake (2600+ acres) ended up being a put/take fishery due to limited spawning habitat, the huge muskie gorging on shad and sheepshead would create a economic boom for tourism. The BC Cobb warm water discharge potential of muskie feeding all winter on trapped shad should provide trophy fishery.
Sorry to get into this late but just wanted to comment on an issue raised by Hemi which basically was shouldn't we stick to giving new lakes three straight years of stocking to get it going. My answer is no beause that is exactly the problem we have now. Will, correct me if I'm wrong here because I'm not trying to talk out of turn nor do I want to mislead anyone (this is too important an issue to MMA and muskies in Michigan in general). The new lakes get priority status for 3 straight years (under the curent plan that is 3 straight years at 4 fpa not 1 fpa). If Wolf Lake is producing all the muskies we need and more, that might be fine, but that's not the case. What happens is Wolf Lake can't consistenlty produce enough fall fingerlings so a good chunck of the available fish go into these "new" lakes for 3 years straight and there are not enough fish to stock the other "old" lakes that are up for their every other year routine stocking. This is exactly what Sanford was faced with recently when Hamlin's alloction was a big number of fish, it had priority since it was still in its every year for 3 years phase, and Wolf Lake didn't produce enough fish to go around. I'm not trying to make this about Sanford now, in fact, last year Will was able to convince the DNR that Sanford needed the fish more than Hamlin and the biologist for Hamlin agreed and took a pass on "his" fish to go into Sanford. My point is that this has happened to a number of the larger, older lakes as of late. To the extent there was not enough fish to go around in a given year the smaller lakes on the same priority as the larger lakes tended (my observation–again Will, correct me if I'm wrong) to get stocked since mathematically they needed less fish so the larger lakes would go unstocked or understocked. I think going to a system where all lakes are put on a 1 fpa every other year program would go a long way to making the system work more efficiently and give some stability to each and every lake's stocking. Of course you will not have as many Ovids and Murrays being developed over the years but you will have REALISTIC/fishable populations of muskies in more lakes throughout the State ultimately.
My two cents for what it is worth. I urge everyone to monitor the Forum and when the time comes to provide the DNR with feedback on this issue you can be sure MMA will advise you of same and will be counting on all of its members to actively make their voices heard. The future of Michigan muskies depends on your voice being heard and MMA's leadership as an organization.
"Scrappy" said:
Will, correct me if I'm wrong here because I'm not trying to talk out of turn nor do I want to mislead anyone (this is too important an issue to MMA and muskies in Michigan in general). The new lakes get priority status for 3 straight years (under the curent plan that is 3 straight years at 4 fpa not 1 fpa).
Not exactly but you've got the basics. New lakes are on for three straight years at a level (#/acre) based on available fish in a given year. They are given higher priority though.
"Scrappy" said:
I'm not trying to make this about Sanford now, in fact, last year Will was able to convince the DNR that Sanford needed the fish more than Hamlin and the biologist for Hamlin agreed and took a pass on "his" fish to go into Sanford.
Those fish came from Margrethe actually.
Here's another table showing how a system based on 1/acre works better for all lakes. This is the list of lakes that should have been stocked based on the estimated number of fish at Wolf Lake. Note that 6 lakes didn't get any fish this year. If all lakes had been stocked using the 1/acre template those six lakes plus Margrethe would have recieved fish and there would be 2200 leftover fish that could be allocated to another "needy" water.
Based on angler observation and the research in MN consistent stocking at lower density produces a better fishery.
"><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] … sonwk8.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … sonwk8.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
57
28
1 Guest(s)