On 7/27 we had a great meeting with Addie Dutton and Matt Diana from the MI-DNR Fisheries Division. They were kind enough to stay on for two hours but there were still many questions left and not everyone got a chance to share their opinions on these lakes. What I would like to do is compile the opinions of everyone on the SW lakes regarding how they’re fishing now vs the past, what’s changed if anything, thoughts on the GLS muskie stocking.
If you’re not comfortable sharing your opinion here, please feel free to email me: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Here is the list of waters that are in their management unit:
Austin
Bankson
Campau
Eagle
Grand River
Long
Lower Crooked
Macatawa
Mona
Murray
Osterhout
Ovid
Round
Thornapple
Recording of the meeting:
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
_x_zm_rtaid=8Cn_VFwNR0iwwd9GKSX2Rg.1627486731193.a98d65ff08a358cc53a16e241640c0f8&_x_zm_rhtaid=449"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … rhtaid=449">[Permission to view this media is denied]
_x_zm_rtaid=8Cn_VFwNR0iwwd9GKSX2Rg.1627486731193.a98d65ff08a358cc53a16e241640c0f8&_x_zm_rhtaid=449
I've fished Murray the most. Started in 2007. In the first season, knowing little about the lake, caught 22 up to 46". There were several of years of catching 15 per season put had to fish until ice up to get that total. Starting in 2014, results got worse. 2018-19, fish caught. None in 2020. I don't know if numbers are down or I got stupid. Or both. Nothing but a bite off this year. One GLS seen, maybe 30".
Campau: Have never done well there. Maybe a total of four fish over several seasons. Haven't yet fished it in 2021 but will this fall.
Have tried Mona several times since fish planted there. Nothing caught or seen.
One other factor has to be considered. I don't spend nearly as much time on the water as those earlier years. So, I hope this report helps.
I have fished all of these waters except Mona, the Grand River, and Ovid, although most of my fishing was done prior to 2016. I do have some opinions that I'll share.
1- Michigan has done a very good job of muskie stocking in a variety of waters and in many lakes the catch per hour is excellent compared to other states.
2- The move to GLS muskies is looking very good for larger waters, particularly those drowned rivermouth lakes where this strain is looking strong.
3- The move to GLS muskies is hurting the smaller inland waters as a combination of a couple of factors: a) the GLS may not be as fit for these environments as the northern muskie (NMU) strain, but more likely b) the shorter hatchery rearing season of the GLS is resulting in a smaller stocked fingerling for the state than the NMU strain provided. If one looks at fingerling size at stocking, the success stories in the 1997 to 2019 time frame are generally from the fish stocked at 11"-12" rather than the 7"-9" sizes that are more common today. If we could move to GLS egg collection from Thornapple at an earlier date than Lake St. Clair now offers, we might be able to harvest a larger fingerling, or of course a much more expensive option would be yearling culture of fewer, larger fingerlings. In addition, another state like Iowa could possibly provide some larger NMU-type fingerlings for the inland lakes.
4- The removal of some lakes from the "no spearing" list has undoubtedly resulted in poorer muskie fisheries with lower top-end size. I can't speak to the social aspects of this regulation change, only to the result of the regulation changes.
5- It is good to develop all types of muskie waters from trophy waters to numbers lakes, but presently I believe we are out of balance a little and not placing enough emphasis on numbers fisheries. I feel that the small "numbers" lakes are what grows the sport. When we pump many thousands of of muskie fingerlings into large bodies of water on the chance of getting some really large fish, what is the likelihood that a new angler will see a muskie there? Think about your first muskie encounter; it was likely in a "numbers" lake, probably a stocked lake. Did seeing that one fish change your life at all? In many cases, the answer is yes. It often only takes one muskie follow or strike to get a young angler to want to see more or try to attract more of these amazing predators. They are unique. Then think of 3,800 fingerlings going to a large lake with a fully developed and balanced fish population (e.g. Hamlin) versus stocking 380 fingerlings in 10 small lakes with small or absent populations of northern pike. In which situation will a novice angler be more likely to appreciate and learn about the unique behavioral traits of the muskie?
6- Like all fishermen, I have my favorite lakes on the muskie lake list, and I do like fishing every one of them. My own opinion is that we shouldn't stop stocking lakes that have had a track record of bigger fish. Those lakes would include Murray, Campau, Austin, and Long.
It has always blown my mind why the St. Joseph River system is not managed for Musky, ideal habitat, accessible, plenty of food.
My perspective is, it's a much more logical place to be stocking them than most of the lakes on that list, they do exist in the system as it is, but seemingly not a lot. Always thought maybe a bi-annual small plant of Muskies in that river could create quite a cool fishery, Lake Chapin has more 2 pound Carp in it than you can shake a stick at, diverse structure/cover, lots of Spring seeps, weed beds and a river portion up top. I grew up on Lake Chapin so I could be biased, but it sure seems like a missed opportunity, especially if the Muskies could utilize the fish ladders as the Trout/Salmon do.
It's essentially the best of all Worlds, access to huge water, no spearing as it doesn't really freeze, large river and lake/reservoir environments, everything from fast riffles to walking speed deep river full of logs, vast weed flats, rocky bottom "lake" environments, wooded shorelines with deep water, access to cool water even during the hottest times and mile after mile of water, tributaries that add useable environment for them to roam but also contribute a steady supply of food being primo Sucker spawning habitat, etc… While it may not have a traditional drowned river mouth, the Oxbows just upstream from the mouth basically act as one, not to mention the Paw Paw River, etc…
If there was ever a place to have a trophy Musky fishery, would think it would be it, plus you could still fish them in the Winter in open water and release them, did I mention the fact you could never spear them since it doesn't freeze enough to have safe ice?! 😉 I never ice fished until I moved to Northern Michigan, you can fish the bulk of the St. Joe system in a boat all year-round.
I know this is not really answering the original question, but if the true goal is to put money into watersheds that make the most sense, I really think the Joe would be worth a shot and if managed properly, become a fully self-sustaining fishery.
I don’t fish the area but I have an opinion on the stocking program. It’s not coming close to fulfilling the requirements to produce suitable Muskie fisheries across the state. The size of fingerlings being stocked is proving to be the biggest issue and until that is fixed we will continue to see lackluster results when comparing the amount of money/fish dropped into lakes and the amount of adult muskies it produces.
PENOUT, I like your thinking. Unfortunately, like Nick says there’s not a whole lot of reason for hope at the moment. Matt Diana mentioned that Lake Allegan and the lower Kalamazoo are planned for muskies should the hatchery ever start cranking them out, but you should bend his ear with your St Joe ideas anyway though.
Hey Duke,
Good to hear about the Kzoo, that water would seemingly be a good option for Muskies as well I would think, for basically the same reasons I mentioned for the Joe, just a smaller scale and less accessible upstream. The lack of access on the Kzoo on the Lake Allegan section upstream of the reservoir would be my only thoughts as far as a downside to investing the money in it prior to say a river like the Joe. You can certainly run up river in a jet sled from Lake Allegan as I have done it, but at least back when I was living and guiding down there, it lacked an access upstream below the next dam up so if you didn't have a jet drive, be awfully tough to fish anything other than Lake Allegan itself.
I think stocking programs on the lower Joe and Kzoo would be mutually beneficial as the fish would likely stray from one watershed to another.
That is one reason I really like the Lake Chapin section of the Joe for Muskies, I think the fish would stay there year-round versus the lower river where they may out-migrate during certain times of the year.
I really like the ideas of rivers being taken more seriously, especially ones that open up the option to float with less expensive drift boats and/or rafts or smaller boats versus some of the big water that typically requires more sufficient vessels. I think it's the single easiest way you could increase interest in the species and therefore support/funding towards the fisheries state-wide.
While things have possibly changed, I assure you I have had many discussions with Jay Wesley over the years about a Musky fishery on the Joe, it always went along the lines that with all the money that is invested on the watershed annually towards the non-native and non-self sustaining fisheries of Salmon & Steelhead, it would be hard to justify spending money on a Musky fishery that would not only compete with the cold-water fisheries via angler hours, but would literally eat some of the cold-water species stockers enroute to the big pond. Heck some years AEP will slaughter thousands of smolts in a single day by turning the turbines on at Berrien Springs Dam. There is a Gentleman's agreement for them not to run turbines during the month of May for smolt out-migration but they do it anyway at times, seen it with my own eyes many many times… Muskies wouldn't eat that many smolts in a 10 year period…
I don't have all the answers, but it seems to me possibly the best strategy would be to focus on less waters stocked each year, but stock the ones they do more effectively with more and bigger fish. If done properly, I wouldn't think a species like Musky would need annual plants on a watershed, maybe cycle them with plants every 3 years.
Tory post_id=67323 time=1630240967 user_id=527 said:
Maybe I am misreading, but did Muskegon Lake get removed from the stocking program?
You are not misreading, just misinterpreting? Muskegon isnt on the list because it is Mark Tonello's area, and this topic is discussion of the area covered by Addie Dutton and Matt Diana, which ends with Mona. Muskegon, and that whole system, are probably on the opposite trajectory!
Sorry I’ve been negligent, great thread here and I’m posting too late I know. Fun summer of pike and smallmouth, hundreds of them and some darn good ones too. Anyway, time to work harder and take on the musky challenge again.
I’ve fished most of these lakes a fair amount and it’d be a long story to comment on them here. Still love it but getting after them less with lots of other fishing and hunting. But it’s also been tougher fishing that’s been a factor. Larry’s point on small lakes with good numbers inspiring new musky anglers is spot on, and I believe it helps keeps us pretty experienced guys in the game too, especially those that don’t get after them that much and are as thrilled with our 150th smallish to modest musky as we were with our first. It’s the extra challenge that makes a musky, any musky if you ask me, very exciting and satisfying. We need just enough of that reward to keep us going, but not too much or it’d be the same as other fishing. Still very fun but not nearly as hard earned.
52
38