Anyone have information on this fish? Saw it on facebook and supposedly 54" and 35lbs.
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … d22307.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … d22307.jpg">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
Yeah I saw it last night wasn't in the best mood.. Worked 52 hrs this weekend unwillingly And my reply might of went overboard. I just don't think that most people understand that probably wasn't the first time that fish was caught. When I was 17 I wouldn't have let it go. I didn't know any better. I do now so I'll speak my mind. Just not used to debating with such a large amount that disagrees! Releasing the fish has become my favorite part. It's just not complete until the fish kicks off. It's hard to be upset it's totally legal to be kept, but it just doesn't do the justice that the fish deserves.
Tons of fish go thru the dam! The multiple 52-56"ers caught below the dam over the last few years is pretty supportive of such. Wish we could get some kind of barrier system…….until then I think continuing to stock it is a waste, which unfortunately is a common theme in most of our stocked lakes. Hopefully the GLS will be a lot more successful than the last decade has been!
"Brett Ladd" said:
Hopefully the GLS will be a lot more successful than the last decade has been!
My only worry about the GLS stocking is they are mostly being stocked in systems where they can go anywhere they please, and with the way they like to wander it likely will make it very difficult to create any decent fisheries.
"Brett Ladd" said:
Tons of fish go thru the dam! The multiple 52-56"ers caught below the dam over the last few years is pretty supportive of such. Wish we could get some kind of barrier system…….until then I think continuing to stock it is a waste, which unfortunately is a common theme in most of our stocked lakes. Hopefully the GLS will be a lot more successful than the last decade has been!
😯….haha…..the future is bright. This past decade was much better than the one prior IMO. Thanks to some dedicated people within this organization working with the DNR.
"Smada962" said:
My only worry about the GLS stocking is they are mostly being stocked in systems where they can go anywhere they please, and with the way they like to wander it likely will make it very difficult to create any decent fisheries.
Isn't that what we ultimately want though? To restore a native population of fish in the lakes and waterways that they do belong in. I don't consider it a waste at all if the fish put in Muskegon Lake or any other Lake Michigan rivermouth end up somewhere completely different from where they were initially stocked. If they find places to spawn where they have historically spawned in the past than the entire GLS program was a success, regardless of how easy it is to catch fish in those lakes.
Don't forget that the DNR will continue to stock the current stocked inland lakes with GLS fish too to satisfy the angling community. So you will always have your Murrays, Campaus, Austins etc type lakes to fish for muskie in numbers higher than what is natural.
"MattG_braith" said:
[quote="Smada962"]My only worry about the GLS stocking is they are mostly being stocked in systems where they can go anywhere they please, and with the way they like to wander it likely will make it very difficult to create any decent fisheries.
I don't consider it a waste at all if the fish put in Muskegon Lake or any other Lake Michigan rivermouth end up somewhere completely different from where they were initially stocked. If they find places to spawn where they have historically spawned in the past than the entire GLS program was a success, regardless of how easy it is to catch fish in those lakes.
.
First of all I never said that it was a "waste", or that I disagree with the decision to move in that direction. And second, don't act like the main reason we fight for protecting these fish or re-establishing native populations isn't to eventually fish for them. If you're only worried about restoring native populations there are hundreds of other species of plants, fish, and animals you are neglecting.
I meant no disrespect, nor to take anything away from all the hard work that's been done. I'm very appreciative to all! But the fact is, I wouldnt tell anyone to go fish Bankson, Hudson, Ovid, Sanford, Wixom, Hamlin, Margreth, Ross…….etc., not worth the time/effort. I suck at fishing….but not that bad! Got some UP lakes in that category too. As Matt mentioned, the success story for a handful of the SW lakes is a lot better….great for you guys, but too far for most of us. I'm spoiled to be kinda close to the Big Blue, but take that away and I'm 2 hrs from any musky lake, but have 15 to 20 lakes within a 10 minute drive from home. I, and I know many others, would like to see some of the success and effort of the Thorns, Murray's, and Austin's, among others, spread out statewide a little more. I'm hoping the GLS will do that to some extent.
Pretty funny to see Campau, Austin, and Murray listed as success stories. They were at one time but all 3 are shells of their former selves due to lack of stocking. Campau has/is not going to get fish anymore and hasn't in 5 years, Austin got pummeled by spearing, and Murray gets over pressured and didn't get stocked for 5 years and now they are gonna stock 1/3 of what they used to. Now some of the best "numbers" waters in the state are the ones that don't get stocked at all and have all wild fish.
Had to jump in here. I could not disagree more with the opinion that stocking the Titt Chain is a waste. Far from it. The fish grow quick and fat in the Titt Chain and while some get over the dam into the river below Sanford or trickle down from one lake to another, they are in there. I've lived on Sanford for 12 years now and I will admit, mastering paterns on these lakes is next to impossible. My personal success rate is no better or worse than a handfull of very good musky fisherman (the LeBarrons to name two that are WAY better sticks than me) that have fished the lakes over time with regularity and my sucess rate is not good. Having said that, there are two very short windows during the year that I know of where you can patern fish on Sanford and year after year the fish are there, in the same spots and they are nice ones. Moral to the story is the fish are there they are just hard to patern and catch. First, Sanford has a ton of structure. Second, Sanford has a ton of forage. And, finally, the water is filthy (even in the late fall the last several years), so unless the fish follows pinned to the back of your bait you likely will not see them unless you are very dilligent in doing multiple 8's after each cast or are very adept at other boatside maneuvers. So my guess is that Sanford gives up much more action than is readily apparent. To make the assumption that all fish get washed over the dam and that the lakes are not worthy of stocking or fishing for that matter couldn't be further from the truth IMO. Plus, is it really bad that the Titt River and Saginaw Bay benefit from this trickle down stocking? Honestly, I'm happy that Sanford is such a frustrating lake to fish as it keeps the fishing pressure down leaving the jet skiers as my only real frustration outside of getting the muskies to eat.
Ryan and Brett, I didn't mean what I said in any way to be demeaning to your points at all so I hope you didn't take offense to it.
I just wanted to point out that creating easy to fish muskie fisheries with high numbers shouldn't necessarily be the main goal of the stocking program. I listed Murray, Campau and Austin because those lakes have fairly high numbers of fish relatively speaking and are easier than most lakes to contact fish. I don't think the DNR has any plans to completely stop stocking these types of inland lakes, although Campau seems to be over now along with Oster and some others. So I think we will always have those type of lakes on the stocking list to some extent.
I like the DNR's shift in mentality that came with the GLS program. Putting a large portion of the stocking effort into these open waterways where the fish are free to roam will definitely take a lot more time to create higher number fisheries but like I said, creating numbers waters shouldn't be the ultimate goal here. Re-establishing the native population to the point where it may have a chance to self-sustain itself, to me is what the true end goal of the DNR should be. Us catching more fish is just the bonus to it all.
The problem here is most of the lakes being discussed were over stocked at the start and we all got used to seeing 10-15-20 fish a day and probably catching 1 or 2. This isn't real musky fishing lol. It does stink, but going a couple times without catching a fish or not seeing a fish the entire day is kind of normal musky fishing.
"jasonvkop" said:
The problem here is most of the lakes being discussed were over stocked at the start and we all got used to seeing 10-15-20 fish a day and probably catching 1 or 2. This isn't real musky fishing.
It's real in northern Wisconsin, it's real in northern Indiana, it's real on lake st Clair, it's real on the tahq river. Just playing devils advocate 😈
Was stocking 4500 in 8 years on Murray too many fish? Probably, but stocking 350 the next 7 years was an overreaction the other way and I don't think 1.5/acre every 2-3 years is enough fish either. Numbers lakes are important, it's the reason most of us first got hooked on Muskie fishing and we are cutting back or cutting completely our best lakes with spearing bans to spread out a bunch of fish with no winter protection!
Right on Matt, no offense taken here. I agree with all you said. I also like what Steve said in regards to the natural producing lakes being the better…..exactly the thought in my mind when I originally chimed in. I think that says something about the results of the stocking in some of the lakes we mentioned. I don't know anything about science or biology, just results I see in front of me. In response to Scrappy, I also have spent many days on Sanford, even had a Lebaron in my boat once or twice, and have actually seen you many times….the guy with the maroon Ranger, right? Sorry to have never said hello, but hey..I came to fish! To say its a waste to stock is a poor choice of words, cause I've seen and caught some big fish in there. I also agree that there is, only 1 time for me unfortunately, a year when they are as close to a pattern as it gets out there. However the fish/per hour rate is so off the chart, there just can't be any real population in there….at least by Musky standards. I have heard every reason in the world why you don't see follows, but it seems people are afraid to admit there just aren't hardly any fish. While it can get muddy as hell, it gets plenty clear enough to see follows. As proven by the fact that while they're few and far between , I've had one or two there. I agree with most of what you said, I just think that for the number of fish stocked in there over the years, the results of fish caught/seen is unfortunate to say the least. That being said….I'll be there at least 4-6 times this summer, (never said I was smart), and will say hello and introduce myself if I see you.
I'm not looking to create "easy" fisheries, and overall I certainly agree with the direction the GLS program is heading. Heck, pretty much all the local inland lakes around me will continue to be stocked so I have no complaints. I started a little too late to get in on most of the "easy" days I guess, with the exception of some of my earlier days on Austin. I have spent more time on Bankson than any other lake so the 15-20 fish days are something I am pretty unfamiliar with. I was just stating a potential concern I could see arising with some of those systems, but then again I don't know even half as much as most of the people who where involved with those decisions so hopefully I'm wrong.
Brett: Yes, that is my Ranger. Stop and say hi one of these days but I hear you, I'm out there to fish not socialize too. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on the amount of fish in Sanford. I'll be the first one to complain that the stocking rates are not high enough (more like the stockings we get are not consistent enough) on Sanford but it is being managed for roughly 1 fish per acre. So, think about that, there are a lot of acres on Sanford and a ton of structure where that one fish per acre could be. In addition, the forage base (particularly suckers, bull heads and channel cats) are very abundant so that one fish in each acre eats well and you need to run a lure past his/her nose to make her want to go even if you are in the right place at the right time. So, anyway, shouldn't be that much of a surprise that muskies are a needle in a haystack out there. Tough fishing to say the least and honestly, even though I live on the lake, I spend the vast majority of my time fishing other lakes because muskie fishing Sanford pretty much exclusively will lead you to the brink of giving up the sport in short order. I also have another theory about Sanford as well albeit I have no proof yet but am working on getting that through my efforts with the Sanford Lake Association. I suspect there is a dissolved oxygen problem in the shallows on Sanford due to the over treatment (IMO only) of weeds on the lake in recent years. The monitoring results that the dam owner is required to provide to FERC confirmed there is a DO problem on Sanford but their testing protocol is seriously in question so I take that a bit with a grain of salt. Anyway, back to the weed treatments, eveyone seems to want a swimming pool in their back yard so they over treat trying to win a battle they will never win. I think the die off in the weeds and resulting DO deficiency, exacerbated by the recent hot summers, have caused the fish to go deep and use the main creek channels more…locations that not many folks, including me, fish very often or effectively. I plan to spend more time open water fishing Sanford this year and hope it will pay off…stand by on that score.
368
36