"Will Schultz" said:
we'll see an actual density of 1 adult per acre eventually.

I like the sounds of that. It will just be some delayed gratification, right? We won't start to reap the benefits for another 8-10 years?

"kid coulson" said:
Jim,
Im no bioligist but if you look at the stocking numbers
in the lakes I see you fish around here and you figure
8-10% make it to adulthood, I bet they are already around
1 adult per surface acre. Murray is closer to 1.3. Yet for
most people your lucky to catch a fish or two here and there.
Reduce that stocking rate to reflect a .3 fish per acre goal
and well,….. good luck. Unless Im missing something
(which is VERY likely) a lake like Murray that has say 350
adults now, would be skinnied down to like 100 adults.
(Will,.. or anyone that wants to chime in)– Am I like
way off base here???? .3 adults per surface acre sounds
about a 1/2 step above a needle in a hay stack to me.

Yes, you are way off base. Murray is like a trout pond compared to what muskie water should be like. I'm hearing more and more anti-muskie sentiment coming from bass guys about that lake, which is a concern. Thornapple would be the best example of management for .3 adults per acre. I could be wrong but I believe that if Murray was managed for .3 adults per acre most people would catch the same number of fish and only notice a reduction in the number of follows. However, .3 per acre is the guideline and you have to remember that includes the natural (not stocked) waters which are a far cry from .3 per acre, more like .3 per 10-20 acres. Lakes with excessive forage like the Titt chain or a lake that gets 10x the fishing pressure like Murray could get increased numbers and be managed for 1 fish per acre. Again, remember this is a statewide management plan that leaves room for specific management decisions on a lake to lake basis.

As a case in point MN lakes are managed for .5 adults per acre in most instances and I don't think anyone can argue with their success. In general you aren't going to get truly big fish with high density like Murray. Indiana lakes are the best example of this, 50" fish shouldn't be a rarity in Indiana but they are. IMO this is due, in part, to the very agressive stocking program.

What anti-muskie stuff about murray have you been hearing will? Just bass guys wanting the musky out of the lake or people trying to kill off every one they catch?

I didn't think anyone wanted to kill muskies at Bankson, either, in spite of what Will told us some months ago. But a couple weeks ago I met a guy who, after looking at my license plate (MSKYNUT) said "I fish for perch and gills at Bankson and hate muskies. When I get a muskie to the boat I just reach down and rip open its belly with my knife."

So sad. I told him "You clearly don't understand the value of muskies and if I see you out there fishing I'll be lurking nearby with my camera." He was pissed off but I was a repeat customer in his tire shop. Not anymore, though.

My wife's cousin lives on Austin Lake and fishes casual evenings with the dog on a pontoon for bass and bluegills. He told me he in July a muskie hit his bluegill as he was reeling it in. He gets 3-4 muskie a year and is always careful to release the muskie unharmed. He sees no problem having muskie in his lake. He agrees with me that the muskie help improve the health of his fishery.