I thought this was going to disappear once I had talked with a few people but it appears that isn’t the case since I’ve heard it a couple times this month. The rumor is that Kyle Anderson had knowledge of the location of the muskie he caught from the DNR and/or John Molenhouse which allowed him to target the fish in Torch. Some of the rumors even go as far as saying Kyle had up to the day/hour information from the tracking study.
This rumor is without question completely false on all fronts. In fact, it would have been impossible for him to have recent information for two reasons:
– John hadn’t passed on any tracking information to anyone since the end of June (Kyle caught the fish on 9/27)
– John hadn’t been able to locate the fish in three weeks
– Datapoints that had been given to the DNR before the end of June didn’t specify specific fish (there was no way to tell where the big fish was)
The truth is that Kyle does have a friend that is a friend of someone in the DNR @ the Charlevoix office. Which doesn’t matter if you note the facts above.
I’ve also heard that John was too willing to share information with people about fish locations. I’m quite familiar with how John gives out information and he is happy to give general information, just like he and Patrick gave at the 2009 banquet. However, he’s not going to give someone gps coordinates on a specific fish or a group of fish. Telling someone that they would be wise to check the SW end of Elk lake in the summer at 25-45’ isn’t giving too much information in my opinion because that only narrows down the location to 1500 acres of water. Also that information could be obtained by simply driving around the lake since the S end of Elk has always attracted lots of baitfish, there was never a question that some of the fish in the tracking study would frequent that area. I could have told you that before a single transmitter was implanted.
So… what I’m asking is that if you hear these rumors please try to convey the truth and that this is nothing but something cooked up at a bar or in a sewing circle (I think I actually heard barber shop too). There is absolutely no truth to these rumors, there is no magic bullet in Antrim County being dropped from a black helicopter.
If someone won't believe you they can contact me, or John or anyone else they would like to hear the TRUTH from.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
I haven't heard any of thes rumors, but I'll be sure to set them straight if I do. Will, do you have contact with Kyle? If so, does he have any interest in joining our group? He sounds pretty die-hard. He'll fit in nicely here!
He's aware of MMA and we've waved to each other on the water but that's about it.
I was thinking that same thing- we should have Kyle come to the banquet as the 'guest of honor'- could MMA even pick up his dinner or a membership or something, just cuz its cool? Maybe he'd even like to recount the story, I'd love to hear it! He could ride down with with his informant buddies, right? Just kidding… although, are you seriously saying that during the tracking, nobody in the DNR was keeping track of specific fish, or even casually asking about a certain fish that was known to be the largest fish ever implanted with a radio transmitter in the history of the world???? If true, THAT is sad!
Though I heard no rumor in my sewing club, I'll be honest that those dots were connected by a fishing buddy of mine- his own original thought even before hearing Kyle had a friend. Even if he were to have had insider information, in all honesty it wouldn't discredit the catch at all to me though. He still caught it, and knowing the general area it liked to hang out is not an unethical advantage in my opinion. To me, its moot
In my opinion rumors are like camp fires, if you just go to bed the fire will smolder for awhile but eventually burnout. But if someone stirs up the smoldering coals a small flame will emerge and people will start looking for sticks again! KTP
Seems the topic has come up regarding information/data pertaining to the tracking study, I must admit that I personally was not overly impressed with some of the relatively specific information that was released publically on F&S before the conclusion of the study. Was last fall the end of the study, or will it continue into next year?
"Mike Stinson" said:
In my opinion rumors are like camp fires, if you just go to bed the fire will smolder for awhile but eventually burnout. But if someone stirs up the smoldering coals a small flame will emerge and people will start looking for sticks again! KTPSeems the topic has come up regarding information/data pertaining to the tracking study, I must admit that I personally was not overly impressed with some of the relatively specific information that was released publically on F&S before the conclusion of the study. Was last fall the end of the study, or will it continue into next year?
Do you mean this:
The fish was tagged in Clam lake near the DNR access ramp. What we've seen with the muskies so far is that they winter and stage for spawning in the shallower lakes where there is more food (Clam, Skegemog), and after they spawn they typically move out into the deeper lakes where they suspend under lakers, cisco, and whitefish. As far as spawning is concerned, fish from the Torch river down spawn in the river, while fish from Torch lake/Clam spawn in Clam lake itself. As far as where she was caught, I believe she was in the SE end of the lake near Alden (which is where she has been since June 21 of this year).
John didn't state anything that wasn't already available info and/or simply common sense. I guess I see this as one of those "my fish" things… it's OK if people that we approve of know about the specifics but when it gets too public it isn't OK. I'm not saying I don't get it. Trust me, when the idea of this study was first discussed I was concerned about the specific information that would be made very public. However the data gathered in this study and even some minor things that might not be so good in the short term will benefit the fishery in the long term.
What concerns me is the perception that MMA and its members will somehow be tied to these rumors. I don't want anyone feeling they shouldn't come to our banquet or that they might not be considered a friend of MMA because of rumors or perceived ill will toward this study or the MI-DNRE.
"Will Schultz" said:
What concerns me is the perception that MMA and its members will somehow be tied to these rumors. I don't want anyone feeling they shouldn't come to our banquet or that they might not be considered a friend of MMA because of rumors or perceived ill will toward this study or the MI-DNRE.
You lost me there man… Sorry what exactly is the concern with this rumor? Cuz like I say, to me its no biggie one way or another really. The people who would really be bothered if Kyle actually had recent inside info to catch that pig just jealous losers as far as I'm concerned.
"Duke" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]What concerns me is the perception that MMA and its members will somehow be tied to these rumors. I don't want anyone feeling they shouldn't come to our banquet or that they might not be considered a friend of MMA because of rumors or perceived ill will toward this study or the MI-DNRE.
You lost me there man… Sorry what exactly is the concern with this rumor? Cuz like I say, to me its no biggie one way or another really. The people who would really be bothered if Kyle actually had recent inside info to catch that pig just jealous losers as far as I'm concerned.
I don't want John or anyone in the DNRE to feel that MMA members think there was any wrongdoing and that we don't appreciate the work being done that will benefit the fishery. I really don't want to get another e-mail from someone involved in this study questioning if they should come to the MMA banquet because of these rumors.
"Mike Stinson" said:
In my opinion rumors are like camp fires, if you just go to bed the fire will smolder for awhile but eventually burnout. But if someone stirs up the smoldering coals a small flame will emerge and people will start looking for sticks again! KTPSeems the topic has come up regarding information/data pertaining to the tracking study, I must admit that I personally was not overly impressed with some of the relatively specific information that was released publically on F&S before the conclusion of the study. Was last fall the end of the study, or will it continue into next year?
I guess that's the difference between some people. I prefer to make sure that fire is completely extinguished before going to bed. It prevents forest fires…
The study will continue through this year at least. There are more transmitters that could be installed this spring but the money might not be there to continue the study past 2010.
If, by chance, anyone in the fishing world hasn't heard ALL the details yet about the new Michigan record GL Muskie they might catch up by checking out the new In-Fisherman mag for March. There's a reasonably detailed map of the Lower Chain with visual hi-lights in tandem with a well written full page article describing muskie movements from Spring Spawning locations, through the Summer and Fall locations culminating with Winter residence. The submission of the information was from Patrick Hanchin, Nick Popoff, and John Molenhouse. Nice job fellas!
The last time I remember reading in I. F. this detailed an article about species muskie in a specific lake or system was in 1981 or 1982. At that time, the identity of a true lake "X" was revealed along with locational information leading to a decimation of a very old, very large, yet relatively small in number (of course) population. The amount of pressure and ensuing mortality sent the muskie fishery to such a low point that the D of M had to step in and set forth a new and conservative management policy to save the muskie fishery. The wisdom of that policy paid big dividends but it took 20 years of stringent regulation to bring back what we see today.
On the other hand, the Lower Chain here managed to withstand a peak of pressure in the 70's and early 80's when huge, harvested, trophies (by locals) started making the Detroit news papers and other media outlets in Michigan. Even then some skilled anglers from Ohio, Indiana, and Chicago came here but many were conservation oriented. MMA doesn't even formally fish the lower chain during our early season outing up there anymore so as not to disrupt spawning and potentially accidently kill vulnerable fish at that time of year which is a good idea. All our care and attempts to do what is best in the long run for this fishery might conceivably be jeopardized, ironically, by some close to the project (non MMA members) who may have other ideas or standards relating to the muskie fishery in the Elk-Torch Chain? I wonder how much money was paid out to those individuals contributing information and pictures to Musky Hunter Magazine and the newer In-Fisherman piece regarding
"Queen" as I.F calls her? Whatever fee collected should be re-invested back into the tracking project or some other muskie development program, in my opinion. But that's probably too idealistic?
"Chuck S." said:
All our care and attempts to do what is best in the long run for this fishery might conceivably be jeopardized, ironically, by some close to the project (non MMA members) who may have other ideas or standards relating to the muskie fishery in the Elk-Torch Chain? I wonder how much money was paid out to those individuals contributing information and pictures to Musky Hunter Magazine and the newer In-Fisherman piece regarding
"Queen" as I.F calls her? Whatever fee collected should be re-invested back into the tracking project or some other muskie development program, in my opinion. But that's probably too idealistic?
Can you clarify what you mean here. Are you saying that those involved in this article somehow don't have the best interest of the fishery in mind?
I'm saying the three who submitted the information to I.F. may have personal profit motivation in the forefront of their purpose for doing the interview/article in the first place. The article appears in a regular column in the magazine and it is generally educational so nothing is odd about that or why I.F might want to put it in there. However, I made the analogy that such details about a specifically named body of water with a "fragile" population of muskies should not be showcased as it was in another very famous instance most of us may remember. Do the three contributors believe the story is important for the legitimacy of the tracking project or do they see it as some "progress" in the completion of the program? Do they casually see the article as meaning nothing one way or another? My belief is no one with any historical knowledge of that chain of lakes or about muskie fishing in particular would go to these lengths to tell this specific story to a national or at least regional audience without knowing the potential harm that could come from it. If your intent is study and determine how you can preserve a garden sitting in the wild you are not going to invite all the dear in to partake of the fruit.
My conclusion is they are becoming better known to a growing audience of people all the time and marketing ones self telling a good story can be very rewarding. I'm NOT saying they believed this article would have a positive or negative effect on the fishery. I'm saying they didn't think period about the potential of this publicity. Since the fish was caught I have had no part in any public discussion or conjecture of how / why it occured. There has not been a reason to. However, as time goes on, inspite of your mentioning of rumors circulating, getting out of hand, doing your best to set everyone straight there continues to be an increase of information and
from people involved with the project….very freely or should I say for a price it appears. Is that a good thing?
OK, so here are some things come to mind…
– If that publicity somehow helps get additional funding to continue the study well, that would be GREAT!
– Knowing all people involved (which you initially congratulate on the article) and knowing how they feel personally about this fishery they thought about the impact of said article.
– Does this fishery need attention? YES! The more attention we can focus on the fishery the better the opportunity we have to point out the current regulations and the negative impact they have on the fishery.
Lastly, everything related to this study will eventually be public, that was known from the start.
Also… what "famous instance" and related problems do you continue to refer to? Im confused…
I had to satisfy my curiosity… so I ran over to Meijer and got a copy of InFish. I think it was a great article w/ great info about the study and even props for MMA. As far as giving up any information to the masses I don't think anything said there hasn't been said before. I also doubt any money changed hands for that article.
Also… John nicknamed her Queen last spring, not InFish.
My congratulations to the three article contributors was completely tongue in cheek.
My apology, I thought there was surely enough said (clues) in the earlier post for you to know the NAME OF THE LAKE the Dept of Ministry
(D of M) was forced to take control over and assess, determine what solution was needed, then take strict action to regulate with a mandatory C & R which lasts to this day. Greg Marino, Linda Rice, and their clients are the recipients of some fine fishing on Lac Seul for the past few years because of that management policy initiated back in the early-mid 80's. That's one reason they average 45 or 46 inches on the LL. In Fisherman magazine has been criticized over the years for being "irresponsible" as some said for detailing the specifics on musky location in vast Lac Seul. As I recall, the relatively small area at the NW corner, near Chamberlain Narrows, was the spot where massive harvest occured back in the early 80's after the information was revealed in I.F magazine. It was said most fish probably had not ever seen a lure back then, it was so remote. The Canadians were not the ones who did the damage. It was US fishermen who flocked up there to catch, without much trouble—45 and 50 lbers until little remained. The same thing happened at Wabigoon Lake (not far from Eagle Lake). That also has made a comeback, thankfully. So, the parallel I referred to was the kind of publicity The Lower Chain is getting now and that could spell trouble because the level of information and scope is way beyond what was revealed in the media back there in the 70's and early 80's. If lakes the size of Lac Seul and The 'Goon can be brought to the brink of devastation….then surely you see the opportunity for that to occur on the Lower Chain? Another potential problem with that is I DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THE MICHIGAN D & R WOULD REACT IN A FASHION AS THE D OF M DID AT THAT TIME…. in my opinion.
You stated the results of the study would be eventually released anyway (after consideration of what the results meant). So, again, unless the project is over there's no advantage or validity to reveal "conclusively" what the data is so far. I have been impressed by your motivation and ability to help get this project going. If I may speculate further, I feel that even you may be less than 100% satisfied how certain aspects have been been conducted by those directly involved with the actual work and management. If this was a private sector project some of the principals would be gone.
Ok… first off, there is no correlation between this and Lac Suel. That is what I thought you meant BUT couldn't imagine there being any possible relationship so I had to ask. Lac Suel was known in muskie circles, for many years before it really got publicity, as the place to go if you wanted a shot at a 40 or even 50 lber AND they were easy. Jack (RIP) and others were fishing there and catching giants at will, the word spread fast! The dam broke and you coulnd't book a houseboat fast enough. Why? Big fish and they were easy! The Antrim chain is no where near easy and big fish aren't going to jump in the boat as they did at Lac Suel. We can argue for days about the real damage done to Lac Suel during those days but it continued to pump out tons of big fish. Could the same happen to the chain? Plain and simple… NO. The chain is already lower density than Lac Suel at its worst. People aren't going to come from far and wide to catch a 50 lber and if they do a little research they'll find that catching one fish a week there is an accomplishment. There aren't 40lbers on every weedbed like there were/are in Lac Suel and a 50lber comes along once in a lifetime. Could it someday be a great fishery? Yes but its in our hands to make it great, if it doesn't improve we can't point fingers except in the mirror.
Back to Michigan…
I fail to see any problems with this article and can only see positive impacts that it can have now and in the future. There was nothing "conclusively" stated in the article, only observations made to this point concerning movement.
Now my personal feelings which you speculate on…
I have been and will continue to be completely satisfied with how this study has been conducted, especially considering the minimal funding it has been run with. Those involved in the study have given nothing but 100% effort to obtaining good results from the research.
Not only do I think the following statement is 100% false but I belive it is completely out of line considering our partnership with the DNRE and UofM "If this was a private sector project some of the principals would be gone." I'm not sure how you arrive at, or even consider that statement.
OK Will, you are consistent in what you have been saying. If you believe the project has been managed well ON AND OFF THE WATER then that's good enough for me. I realize there is not any startling revelations in that In-Fish article to those familiar with the Lower Chain and for those who would respect the resource I have no concerns. However, additional and strategic heavy pressure exerted by those who would attempt to get any muskie without regard to legal or otherwise, spearing or open water, does concern me. The I.F article does a good job, as I said, discussing fish movement and it demonstrates how well scientific study can confirm or shed new light on what is going on there. That information and whatever else we don't know "is what it is" regardless of our intervention. I wish the study would consider THE NUMBER of fish in there which we know is a small, but up to this point, self sustaining population. I hope it can at least remain in that status. I agree, anyone wanting to shorten the time per legal fish is going to go to LSC or other waters over the Lower Chain. That is only logical. The non logical, non conservation oriented, trophy at any cost group of people can make a difference.
I'm glad you further discussed what happened at Lac Suel. What I said is generally thought to be the case. That is, the small, skillfull group of anglers with the household names who we all know were discreet about the virgin like waters in the area of the lake holding the concentrated muskie population. AFTER the In-Fisherman article released the information about Lac Seul the "flood gates" were open and all hell broke loose. I still recall the exact quote at the end of the article, "May a pox be on you if you go there to kill a 50"! Dittos for The Chain, I say. Thanks for your thoughts, Will
"Chuck S." said:
I wish the study would consider THE NUMBER of fish in there which we know is a small, but up to this point, self sustaining population. I hope it can at least remain in that status.
Population dynamics is a significant part of the overall study. Determining how many adults are allowing this population to "hold on" is important to determining any future change in regulations. A couple things already discovered that could impact regulations:
– the current season opening (last Saturday in April) doesn't protect spawning muskellunge
– the current size limit allows for females to be harvested before they reach maturity
There has also been discussion of another way to gather specific population data but funding may put that on the back burner.
144
10
1 Guest(s)