Here are a couple things presented to the NRC and DNR concerning muskie management in Michigan.
NRC Meeting Topics
MDAA Draft Management Plan for Muskellunge
1. Again the MDAA looks forward to working with the MDNR and others as Stakeholders in muskellunge management. However, please be aware that we feel muskellunge are no nobler than northern pike.
2. The MDAA feels it is a mistake to manage muskellunge on a statewide basis with uniform management objectives. We do not understand how a statewide regulation could achieve Goal V, which hopes to – “Provide a variety of fishing opportunities for muskellunge in Michigan”. We feel a 42-inch size limit is a trophy regulation, and this management draft points out several reasons why trophy management does not have a place for all muskellunge waters in Michigan. Specially, this document states:
a. “Males seldom reach and old age and large size (page 6), and at best annual survival is 80.3%, page 13, (about one out of every five muskellunge die each year). Considering only these two factors, it is clear that a very small percentage of our muskellunge population could ever reaches a length of 42 inches. Plainly, with this regulation only an extremely rare fish could ever reach the legal size, and the MDAA feels this regulation should only be considered for a small portion of our musky waters.
b. The definition of “trophy” can be subjective and varies between anglers and angler groups (page19). The average angler in Michigan will seldom catch a 30-inch freshwater game fish, and therefore to this angler a 30-inch muskellunge is a trophy;
c. Table 1, page 25, shows mean muskellunge length at age for various Michigan waters. Lake Hudson, and we suspect other Michigan water, has apparently never produced a fish approaching the statewide minimum size limit. Also, the Cisco Chain of Lakes could not produce a 42-inch fish until age 12..
3. Managing selected waters for trophy muskellunge could be welcomed by the MDAA if other waters are considered for other management options like maximum sustained harvest – with no prejudices towards an angling group.
4. Change Musky Season Dates.
A. Current opening/closing season dates favor open water, hook and line anglers. Specifically, special interest groups like Michigan Musky Alliance, musky guides and musky tournament groups. Standard opening/closing dates for northern pike and walleye should be used. The different closing dates discriminate against winter hook and line anglers and Darkhouse anglers. These groups are stakeholders and have a right to have the opportunity to harvest muskies during winter ice fishing.
5. MDAA feels a 42” size limit on Musky, is a trophy regulation that does not fit the needs of all stakeholders. MDAA would support allowing DNR Fisheries and musky angling stakeholders, to pick 3 – 5 lakes in Michigan to be, managed for trophy muskies. They would determine the waters and regulations. Public input would need to be obtained prior to categorizing the lake as a trophy fishery. For the rest of the state, we propose a size limit, which would allow the harvest of muskies after the average female has reproduced twice (the second year of maturity). In Michigan, that would be 32”. This would allow for maximum sustained harvest and would never cause a recruitment issue. On waters with over-populated and stunted muskies, such as Lake St. Clair, a lower size limit would be welcomed and supported by perch, walleye and spearing stakeholders.
6. Brood stock musky lakes should have a “no kill” regulation and musky tournaments should not be allowed.
MICHIGAN MUSKY STOCKING PROPOSAL CRITERIA
1. Forage Base – What is the existing forage base and how will it be impacted by stocking musky?
2. Game Fish – What is the existing population of gamefish and panfish and will the
proposed stocking impact the same.
3. Northern Pike – Since northern pike are largely predatory fish like muskies, how might their populations be impacted by stocking? Will there be positive or negative interactions?
4. Interconnection of Other Bodies of Waters – Is the body of water connected to other bodies of water and will migration be possible outside the stocked lake? Is this desirable and planned and if so is its impact being considered as well if it occurs?
5. Proximity to Other Musky Waters – How far are other musky waters and what size are they? Are the nearby musky waters an adequate resource for the given area?
6. Stability of the Lake – Does the proposed body of water have any history that should be considered in the proposal, such as winterkill or high temperature mortality? Are there any particular ecosystem sensitivities that should be considered? What are the water quality trends for the lake and should a negative trend be considered.
7. Roads and Boat Ramp Access – Are the existing roads sufficient and are ramps sufficient in number?
8. Existing Fishing and Boating Pressure – what level of fishing and boating pressure does the body of water experience at this time? Is it possible a stocking would add unwarranted pressure?
9. Social Considerations – A survey should be done to assess public support or lack thereof. What questions have been asked and where was the public asked for input? What support is there locally versus from non-local people?
10. Economic Factors – Do resorts, baitshops, private lake frontage owners and guides support the proposal? Who was asked?
11. Darkhouse Spearers – Does support exist among Darkhouse users? Is it possible that a stocking will have a detrimental effect on fish targeted by spearers?
12. Lake Characteristics – How large is the body of water? If relatively large would it be more prudent to stock smaller bodies of water nearby?
13. Proposal Stocking Numbers – What size fish, how many and for how many years is the stocking proposed? How was the number determined? What strain of musky is proposed and why that strain?
14. Follow-up – What follow-up monitoring should be conducted post-stocking after fish have grown and/or matured.
15. Supplemental Stocking of Other Species – Is there a possible or planned need to supplement the existing fish species including forage base? Is there a plan to increase walleye stocking as the stocked muskies mature?
16. Public Meetings – When/have public meetings taken place? What support was there for the plantings, if any? What were the survey results from the meetings for local versus non-local attendees?
17. Statewide Considerations – Given limited financial resources and musky fishing resources, would it be more prudent to make a proposal in a different area of the state?
18. Private Monies – How much private money, e.g. State Musky Organizations, Musky Clubs, have/will be used to pay for planting muskies? Is it prudent to plant musky in lakes just because “special interest” monies becomes available? Is the lake being planted with musky due to “special interest” money?
19. Introduced Exotic – Has consideration been given why non-native, introduced exotic fish species, such as muskies, are being introduced into lakes which have no inlets/outlets. Northern Pike are native to most waters as the predator species. Should the lake be compromised for the sake of a “trophy species” vs native predator?
20. With musky fishermen
"Will Schultz" said:
Lake Hudson, and we suspect other Michigan water, has apparently never produced a fish approaching the statewide minimum size limit. Also, the Cisco Chain of Lakes could not produce a 42-inch fish until age 12..On waters with over-populated and stunted muskies,
such as Lake St. Clair, a lower size limit would be welcomed and supported by perch, walleye and spearing stakeholders.
Last time I checked Hudson has produced a lot of fish "approaching the statewide minimum size limit", and since when does Lake St. Clair have stunted muskies?? I also find it funny how they call us a 'special interest group' but aren't they the exact same thing?
Two things I find very telling:
- He seems to feel that fishing the way he wants is a
right, he being a "stakeholder", and one for which feels he has to do nothing more for than just to exist, instead of the way I see it: as a privilege.He seems to criticize MMA for contributing financially to the husbanding of the resource we want to foster, as if that is cheating, or a subversion of the system.
I sum, he appears to me to be more than a little selfish and self-centered, with an arrogant sense of entitlement.
A little review of similar states and their spearing regulations:
Wisconsin- for rough fish only with the exception of Lake Winnebago sturgeon.
Minnesota- for rough fish, catfish, whitefish, and northern pike only. Fees: angling license $17, shelter license $12.50, spearing license $18, all required to spear the above species only.
New York- for rough fish only, mostly from creeks in open water
Indiana- for rough fish only
For a darkhouse group to request further access to a resource totally denied to other winter anglers of adjoining states, seems out of place.
Muskie are of course "special" as they are only native to Great Lakes region…..vs Northern Pike which are prevalent throughout the world..and indeed nothing "special" in that respect (and likewise for many other non-native fish we have in Michigan..)
Clearly if they don't know muskie are different than NP….they shouldn't be spearing them– KTD !!
Can flip their argument around..how many hook-line anglers in state vs spearers?? and pro-rate lake numbers that will allow spearing..
(1 or 2 lakes out of 120 muskie lakes then..or zero maybe ??)
…and other nonsense: fish cant reach trophy size (hmmm ….average being caught on LSC is probably 44 inches…and good fraction
are in trophy range…46+ ). Certainly few will reach trophy size if speared above 32 inches as they want !!..
Can't they just play Poker or Euchre in the winter like we did ?? (or race ice boats or something..but then again all these take skill..)
Anyway hope they can be fended off..
..but they may have tactics like the Chicago barge operator crowd tho at recent hearings held in Michigan on Asian carp/closing locks, ..they may come to DNR
meeting with a large crowd and try to dominate the public hearing part (the Chicago people came up to Ann Arbor in two chartered buses
and quickly all went to the public discussion line, blocking out others…ie were in line well ahead of the others like me..
and then since they used up allocated public time..as planned likely..many of the rest of us were cut off by mentor running public part
..and put at back at end of meeting session after many had left…so the "public"part wasn't in fact representative of public..)
"hemichemi" said:
Two things I find very telling:
- He seems to feel that fishing the way he wants is a
right, he being a "stakeholder", and one for which feels he has to do nothing more for than just to exist, instead of the way I see it: as a privilege.He seems to criticize MMA for contributing financially to the husbanding of the resource we want to foster, as if that is cheating, or a subversion of the system.
I sum, he appears to me to be more than a little selfish and self-centered, with an arrogant sense of entitlement.
I agree completely. This guy is just to protect his way of fishing(I use that term loosely) and doesn't care about the fishery at all.
I personally liked numbers 7&8… apparently muskie fishing is a popular thing, and it draws attention to the state resource, why else would we worry about boat launches and pressure being a limiting factor…
So if im getting this right, people wanting to fish is a bad thing…oh and later on about the baitshops being OK with it…i don't think anyone would mind being able to sell $20 lures to people who think thats normal!
Definitely a rather narrow minded fellow!
What is truly amazing about the MDAA Draft Management Plan for Muskellunge is how little research must have actually gone into the proposal. Was this draft plan sent via pony express because anyone with a computer would have been able to access the information needed in order to draft an intelligent proposal for their cause. It seems to me that most of what was entered was based on personal feelings, albeit very self centered ones. A simple google search or review of the MDNRE management plan would have yielded the answers to nearly 75% of the questions/issues raised. I would have been embarrassed to present this to the NRC or DNR. Hopefully sound minds and science prevail and changes are made to the existing regulations to protect and preserve what we have and increase muskellunge fishing opportunities where appropriate.
Simply ridiculous! None of it makes logical sense and you don't have to be Musky Hook and Line Angler to see that. It seems very poorly written and rushed?? My question is : what are the chances of this proposal making it??? It just doesn't make sense at all and I don't know how people feel they have the entitlement to keep taking and taking!! He needs to be put down, for good!!
Wow, simply wow. I'd be worried if there weren't so many blatant mistruths in it. Stunted muskies in St. Clair?, 42 inch fish being "rare"?, Females spawning twice by 32"?, and hudson not producing big fish. What a joke!!! This proposal spends more time taking pot shots at MMA and catch and release fishermen than it does building a case for changing the regulations. Does anyone actually take this guy seriously? If I were a MDAA member I'd be screaming for a new leader, this guy makes the whole organization look uneducated, ignorant of scientific fact, and unwilling to compromise or sacrifice anything to better the fishery.
I would hope those in charge of what gets passed and what doesnt see how narrow minded and in most cases obsurd some of these comments and proposals are…you dont have to be against this proposal at all to see how flawwed it is
The guy who wrote this sounds uneducated and bitter and has some kind of false sense of entitlement believing that his "sport" deserves special treatment for him and his "club"s benefit when he is completely blinded to what damage it actually causes to some of these rare and unique fisheries we are lucky to have
So if spearers dont consider muskie "special"..then certainly they should be happy just spearing N Pike..since apparently (so they say..but we know otherwise) they consider them equivalent.. ..
(or best spear only rough fish..like other states allow and ban muskie spearing of course..)
[MInc lunge log can supply any needed data on average size muskie caught in various Michigan waters..and fraction that would be trophy size under new rules eg LSC/Elk/Skeg/Black Lake where native populations exist….easily justify 46 or 48 inch size limit of course ]
Response concerning MDAA’s draft management plan.
From: Will Schultz
MDAA Draft Management Plan for Muskellunge
1. Again the MDAA looks forward to working with the MDNR and others as Stakeholders in muskellunge management. However, please be aware that we feel muskellunge are no nobler than northern pike.
Schultz: Muskellunge management isn’t one of nobility. However, muskellunge management needs to take into account the dramatic difference between northern pike and muskellunge. Muskellunge occur in 111 waters in the state compared to the northern pike that occurs in all watersheds and thousands of waters. Muskellunge are not prolific spawners like the northern pike, they require specific conditions to have successful reproduction. Due to this fact, reproduction in natural or naturalized lakes is limited and the density of muskellunge in these lakes is very low.
2. The MDAA feels it is a mistake to manage muskellunge on a statewide basis with uniform management objectives. We do not understand how a statewide regulation could achieve Goal V, which hopes to – “Provide a variety of fishing opportunities for muskellunge in Michigan”. We feel a 42-inch size limit is a trophy regulation, and this management draft points out several reasons why trophy management does not have a place for all muskellunge waters in Michigan. Specially, this document states:
a. “Males seldom reach and old age and large size (page 6), and at best annual survival is 80.3%, page 13, (about one out of every five muskellunge die each year). Considering only these two factors, it is clear that a very small percentage of our muskellunge population could ever reaches a length of 42 inches. Plainly, with this regulation only an extremely rare fish could ever reach the legal size, and the MDAA feels this regulation should only be considered for a small portion of our musky waters.
Schultz: A rare muskellunge in Michigan is, in fact, a fish that exceeds 55” not 42”. This is supported by DNRE collection data, angler catches and the current state record. Furthermore, since 1994 there have been 1295 muskellunge registered with the state master angler program of 42” or longer. This is nearly double the number of largemouth bass registered in the master angler program (766). What this illustrates is that a person is substantially more likely to catch a 42” muskellunge than they are to catch a 20” largemouth bass. (keep in mind that largemouth bass occur in 100 times the number of waters than the muskellunge in the state of Michigan)
The current MSL of 42” is intended to protect spawning female muskellunge but in most cases fails to achieve this goal. The 42” MSL is not a “trophy” MSL. The average age of a mature female muskellunge is 6-8 years, in many waters across the state the 42” MSL allows harvest of these fish before they are able to spawn. The DNRE recommendation is to allow 4-5 years for these fish to spawn which on some waters would equate to a 48 to 52” size limit.
b. The definition of “trophy” can be subjective and varies between anglers and angler groups (page19). The average angler in Michigan will seldom catch a 30-inch freshwater game fish, and therefore to this angler a 30-inch muskellunge is a trophy;
Schultz: While “trophy” may be subjective if we look at a survey conducted in Wisconsin it is noted that 44% of general anglers considered a trophy muskellunge as measuring 50 inches or longer and only 11% considered a trophy 40” or smaller (Wisconsin DNR Angler Survey Information). While this is a study in another state angler perception from one state to another is generally similar.
c. Table 1, page 25, shows mean muskellunge length at age for various Michigan waters. Lake Hudson, and we suspect other Michigan water, has apparently never produced a fish approaching the statewide minimum size limit. Also, the Cisco Chain of Lakes could not produce a 42-inch fish until age 12.
Schultz: This table is misleading because it only takes into account the average length at age for all fish captured. Male muskellunge are more frequent in this data reducing the length average at age. If this table consisted of only female muskellunge we would see a drastic difference in length at age.
3. Managing selected waters for trophy muskellunge could be welcomed by the MDAA if other waters are considered for other management options like maximum sustained harvest – with no prejudices towards an angling group.
Schultz: Again, trophy waters is not the intent of current regulations and it is not the intent of regulations proposed by Michigan Muskie Alliance. Regulations are and should be intended to protect the species from harvest before they reach maturity. No angling group should place their agenda above what is best for the fishery.
4. Change Musky Season Dates.
A. Current opening/closing season dates favor open water, hook and line anglers. Specifically, special interest groups like Michigan Musky Alliance, musky guides and musky tournament groups. Standard opening/closing dates for northern pike and walleye should be used. The different closing dates discriminate against winter hook and line anglers and Darkhouse anglers. These groups are stakeholders and have a right to have the opportunity to harvest muskies during winter ice fishing.
Schultz: It is a simple fact that the top muskellunge waters in the state don’t allow winter harvest. It is no coincidence that the lowest density waters in the state, that see no economic benefit from muskellunge anglers, all allow winter harvest. Winter harvest, at current allowed levels, is a direct detriment to these fisheries and a direct detriment to the economy of these areas and the state of Michigan.
5. MDAA feels a 42” size limit on Musky, is a trophy regulation that does not fit the needs of all stakeholders. MDAA would support allowing DNR Fisheries and musky angling stakeholders, to pick 3 – 5 lakes in Michigan to be, managed for trophy muskies. They would determine the waters and regulations. Public input would need to be obtained prior to categorizing the lake as a trophy fishery. For the rest of the state, we propose a size limit, which would allow the harvest of muskies after the average female has reproduced twice (the second year of maturity). In Michigan, that would be 32”. This would allow for maximum sustained harvest and would never cause a recruitment issue. On waters with over-populated and stunted muskies, such as Lake St. Clair, a lower size limit would be welcomed and supported by perch, walleye and spearing stakeholders.
Schultz: Once again it is stated that the MDAA “feels”. Feelings and speculation should not be involved in regulations for muskellunge or any other species. Sound management and regulations based on the biology of the species should be the only concern and not the special interest of a group whose only intent appears to be the extirpation of the muskellunge from the waters of Michigan. A 32" size limit on muskellunge would result in just that, the elimination of muskelllunge from Michigan. A 32" limit woud not allow female muskellunge to reach maturity and in most cases they would be 4-5 years too young to spawn. This 32" limit if adopted would likely eliminate the muskellunge from all natural and naturalized waters in Michigan.
6. Brood stock musky lakes should have a “no kill” regulation and musky tournaments should not be allowed.
Schultz: Brood lakes should carry the size limit established by the DNRE. Currently Thornapple Lake carries a 50” size limit and Lake Hudson carries a 42” size limit. Both of these size limits allow for the lakes to maintain the density needed to harvest gametes each spring. There are no tournaments being conducted on these waters that are not 100% CIR. There is no transport, weighing or holding of the fish for judging, nor has there ever been in any tournament on these waters.
326
92