This couldn't be put in place until 2012.

There's still a long process for this to go through that looks something like this:
1 – DNRE review
2 – DNRE Coolwater Regulations Steering Committee review/recommendation
3 – NRC review/recommendation
4 – To the legislature to become law

It could get hung up at any of the above and then who knows how long the process will take.

Try this Steve…

Muskellunge Regulations Proposal
Michigan Muskie Alliance

Submitted to The State of Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Introduction & Background

The present objective of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) regarding muskellunge management is to provide anglers with the opportunity to catch large fish while promoting ecologically sustainable and balanced fish populations supported by natural reproduction or judicious supplemental stocking (Thomas et al.). Confounding this objective is that muskellunge management is unlike any other species in Michigan. With the exception of Lake Sturgeon, no other species requires such conservative regulations to protect and maintain the fishery.

Although the DNRE has worked to create and maintain muskellunge fishing opportunities where none existed before, many of these lakes have not shown any documentable natural reproduction and must be supported by supplemental stockings. Due to the variability of fingerling production and other costs associated with stocking, and the limited number of self-sustaining waters, changes should be made to the existing muskellunge regulations in order to protect and enhance existing muskellunge fisheries.

This proposal will address the current statewide minimum size limit (MSL) of 42” and the current daily possession limit of one muskellunge per day. The DNRE recently drafted a muskellunge management plan which emphasizes two factors when considering regulation changes: 1) to sustain natural fisheries it is recommended that adults are allowed 4-5 years of spawning before they reach the MSL and, 2) to sustain populations it is recommended that exploitation not exceed 5% by state-licensed anglers. This proposal addresses the current MSL and possession limit and suggests that it does not adequately support the management direction proposed by the DNRE.

Biology and Current Regulations

Muskellunge inhabit lakes at low densities and are much less distributed than Michigan’s other esocid, northern pike. In lakes where both esocid species exist it is understood that northern pike outcompete muskellunge yet many stakeholders continue to believe that muskellunge should be managed and harvested like northern pike. Natural populations of muskellunge may be impacted dramatically by over exploitation. There are only 77 waters where natural reproduction successfully occurs with Muskellunge in the state of Michigan. Conversely, northern pike are one of the most common game fishes throughout the state of Michigan, are present within virtually all watersheds within the state (Thomas et al.) and they spawn successfully in the majority of waters where they occur. Muskellunge are native to only 21 waters in Michigan with each of these waters sustained by natural reproduction only. Harvest by any method, in any amount, on these waters has a direct impact on these populations.

Similarly, lake sturgeon have a limited distribution and only occur in 30 known water bodies in Michigan (K. Smith. DNRE, personal communication). However lake sturgeon harvest is very restricted, unlike muskellunge with a similar distribution. Habitat degradation and historical over harvest has hampered lake sturgeon spawning success reducing populations to endangered levels. Sturgeon harvest in Michigan is limited to Lake St Clair, St Clair River, Otsego Lake and the Michigan/Wisconsin boundary waters where the harvest is limited to one per season. Sturgeon harvest is also allowed on Black Lake by spearing with a quota of 5 fish per season (2010 Michigan Fishing Guide). On all other waters, angling for sturgeon is Catch and Immediate Release (CIR). Much like the sturgeon, muskellunge typically benefit from modest spawning success and are highly vulnerable to overexploitation and habitat deterioration. (M. Thomas et al.). Large portions of habitat adequate for successful spawning have been lost due to environmental degradation. Human development of shoreline areas is a major limitation to muskellunge survival. These are a few of the main reasons our current muskellunge fisheries should be further protected with a change to the existing regulations.

Muskellunge is the top predator in waters where they exist and are often wrongly accused for reductions in game fish numbers and with this enigma often comes extensive harvest and even cases of wanton waste. However, studies have shown muskellunge will utilize the most numerous elongated fishes as their primary forage. Species such as walleye, bass and various panfish are not preferred nor utilized enough to have an impact on populations. A Wisconsin lake study showed that the diet of Muskellunge is dominated by suckers and yellow perch (Bozek et al. 1999). Other studies also suggest that when healthy populations of muskies are present in a fishery, the overall population and size of native species improves (trap-netting surveys conducted in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). Despite these studies, some anglers and lake associations continue to view muskellunge as a problem to other fisheries. Ongoing education is important to show the benefits provided by properly managed muskellunge populations and the MMA will continue to look for ways to educate the general angling public and lake association members on these benefits.

Muskellunge mature at older ages compared to other freshwater fishes. Females typically do not reproduce until they are six to eight years old. The DNRE has stated that, based on our current regulations most of our staff suggested that our recommendations are for 4-5 years of spawning (K. Smith. DNRE, personal communication). The DNRE recommendation coupled with the average age at maturation indicates that female muskellunge should not be harvested until they reach at least 10 years old. In Thornapple Lake the annual broodstock collection has shown that the average age of 42” female muskellunge is 7.75 years. Ten year old female muskellunge in Thornapple Lake average 45” in length. Similarly 66% of Lake St Clair female muskellunge are 42” at 6-7 years of age and the average length at 10-12 years was 47.8”. On one of our natural waters in northern Michigan, the Antrim Chain, female muskellunge have an average length at 6 years old of 42” and an average length at 10-12 years of 52.5”. This is illustrates that the current MSL is not protective enough to meet the DNRE recommendations. The current MSL of 42” allows a female muskellunge to reach maturity for approximately one attempt to reproduce. The MMA requests a DNRE review of the 42” MSL and suggests altering the MSL to a minimum of 46”.

The DNRE believes that exploitation is an important tool for managing muskellunge and we recommend that state-licensed anglers not exceed 5% exploitation (number harvested/total population). This level of exploitation is necessary to ensure that populations increase with such a low density species. (Thomas et al.). During recent tagging and tracking studies in Michigan it has been confirmed muskellunge exploitation is significantly higher than the DNRE recommended 5%. Exploitation estimates for muskellunge fisheries in Michigan are limited; however, recent tagging studies have indicated that exploitation rates to be extremely high. In an ongoing study on the Antrim Chain of lakes the exploitation rate of tagged fish exceeds 37% (Patrick Hanchin, DNRE Charlevoix, personal communication). The current Antrim Chain study illustrates the vulnerability of muskellunge to harvest, which is of particular concern where populations are entirely maintained by natural reproduction.

Since 1995, the State of Michigan has maintained a MSL 42 inches and a 1 fish daily bag limit for state-licensed anglers. Additionally, the Michigan/Wisconsin boundary waters and several inland waters have a 50-inch minimum size limit. One of the DNRE goals is to decrease fishing mortality and increase survival and potential recruitment, thus promoting optimum densities of large muskellunge (Thomas et al.). Although the definition of a “trophy” muskellunge is subjective, a survey conducted in Wisconsin showed Muskellunge anglers felt that a trophy needed to be at least 40 inches long (98%) and preferably 50 inches or longer (62%). General anglers felt a trophy could be less than 40 inches (11%), while 44% considered a trophy muskellunge as measuring 50 inches or longer. (Wisconsin DNR Angler Survey Information).

Additional Discussion

Fisheries within Michigan can provide ideal habitats to grow trophy muskellunge as evidenced by the recent catch of the new Michigan Muskellunge State Record. These regulation change recommendations help to better protect the current muskellunge fisheries for the future while establishing a more stable population without reducing access or the right for someone to harvest a fish.

While Michigan is blessed with fantastic fisheries and a wide variety of species that are appropriate for consumption, the muskellunge is not one of those species. The current possession limit, one muskellunge per day, is not in line with the current statewide advisory consumption guidelines for muskellunge. A family couldn’t possibly safely eat that many fish while keeping within the consumption guidelines. The State of Michigan advises that based on elevated levels of mercury, women of child-bearing age and children eat no more than one meal of muskellunge per month, while the rest of the human population should restrict consumption to one meal per week. In 2008, an additional advisory recommending no consumption of muskellunge, due to mercury contamination, continued for Lake St. Clair. (MDCH 2008).

Besides the scientific benefits that support an adjustment to muskellunge regulations, there is also an economic consideration. Unlike the lake sturgeon the muskellunge is, in many states, a significant source of tourism dollars. Improvements to muskellunge fisheries would attract anglers from neighboring states just as Minnesota and Indiana have experienced with the improvement in their muskelluge fisheries in the last 20 years. The use of the resource is not the only impact, since it has been shown that muskellunge anglers bring more money into the economy versus non-muskie anglers. For example, in Minnesota a 2005 study showed that non-muskie anglers averaged 21 days on the water compared to the 45 days for muskie anglers. The report also says 33 percent of Muskie Inc. members spend $2,000 to $4,999 on fishing related expenses every year compared with only 8.6 percent of non-muskie anglers spending that amount of money. (Schroeder and Fulton 2005). Many Muskies Inc. and MMA members within the state of Michigan travel outside the state to pursue better muskie fishing in Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Canada. In fact, on many of the major muskellunge fishing Internet forums, Michigan is rarely mentioned as a muskellunge fishing destination. While there was much excitement initially when word began to spread of Michigan’s new state record muskie, the enthusiasm to make a trip to Michigan was diminished when anglers learned that there were not many quality muskie lakes within the state. The lakes that have a history of producing trophy muskies have densities so low that it does not justify planning and spending money on a trip. Aside from Lake St. Clair, there is not another muskellunge fishery within the state that adds any significant economic benefit to Michigan or the communities where they are located. Minnesota has recognized this economic impact over the last 20 years and has recently established a statewide 48” minimum size limit for muskellunge.

Michigan Muskie Alliance is committed to promoting the responsible use of our fishery resources. This proposal takes into consideration the rights of anglers to harvest a muskellunge during the season by any means, while bringing regulations in line with DNRE recommended exploitation rates and the development of a MSL that sufficiently protects spawning in order to maintain muskellunge populations.

Recommendation

Michigan’s draft Muskellunge Management Plan proposes that muskellunge should be managed on a statewide basis with uniform management objectives that optimize the abundance of large fish, while ensuring the sustainability and ecological integrity of the rest of the fish community. (Thomas et al.)

The MMA recommends that Michigan adopt one of the three options presented below as the statewide muskellunge regulation. These regulation options are not intended to supersede special regulations on Lake St Clair, the St Clair River, the Detroit River, or those contained in Fisheries Orders 220 and 206. The proposed muskellunge regulation options increase the MSL from 42 to 46 inches and change the daily bag limit to seasonal bag limit of one or two fish. These regulation recommendations are supported by the most recent scientific data and help to provide DNRE fisheries biologists the framework needed to manage current muskellunge fisheries. This will create a platform to build upon for the Great Lakes Muskellunge program. These changes will provide better natural reproduction, greater fishing opportunities while addressing the interests of various stakeholder groups. MMA looks forward to continuing to work with the DNRE, providing funding and volunteer work for preservation, restoration and education projects relating to muskellunge fisheries.

Proposal #1
Statewide bag limit 1 fish per license period

Lower Peninsula South of M-55:
46" Size limit
No Closed Season

Lower Peninsula North of M-55 and the UP:
46" Size limit
Season May 15 – March 15

Proposal #2
Statewide bag limit one per season w/ tag. A harvest tag prints with each license purchased. If the tag is used an angler can continue to CIR without tag in possession.

Lower Peninsula South of M-55:
46" Size limit
No Closed Season

Lower Peninsula North of M-55 and the UP:
46" Size limit
Season May 15 – March 15

Proposal #3
Statewide bag limit two per season w/ tags. A harvest tag prints with each license purchased. If the tag is used an angler can purchase an additional tag. A harvest tag must be in possession for the angler to fish for muskellunge.

Lower Peninsula South of M-55:
46" Size limit
No Closed Season

Lower Peninsula North of M-55 and the UP:
46" Size limit
Season May 15 – March 15

Literature Cited

Schroeder, S. A., and D. C. Fulton. 2005. Fishing in Minnesota: a study of angler participation and activities. St Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology.

Bozek, M.A., T.M. Burri, and R.V. Frie. 1999. Diets of muskellunge in northern Wisconsin lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:258-270.

Michael Thomas, James S. Diana, and Kregg Smith, Editors-Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division Special Report. 2009. Management Plan for Muskellunge in Michigan.

Social Aspects of Muskellunge Management in Wisconsin. Margenau and Petchenick. 2004

Population Dynamics of Self-Sustaining Muskellunge in Northern Wisconsin Lakes. 2008 Thesis. Eslinger, Lawrence.

What Do Muskies Eat Anyway? MN DNR Fisheries Report. Williams, Duane.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Status of the Fishery Resource Report-Lake Margrethe. May 7-10, 2007. Tonello, Mark.

MDCH. 2008. Michigan family fish consumption guide. Michigan Department of Community Health, Lansing. Available on-line:
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 7354_7.pdf">[Permission to view this media is denied]