More for my own curiosity, I was pouring over the fish stocking data for some of the muskie lakes in MI that I have an interest in. I crunched some numbers and I found the data interesting and thought some of you might too. These are the stocking rates dating back to the first time the lakes receieved fish and continuing through 2010, using a cut off for 1997 on thornapple lake. A couple of things of note, I didn't include the small fish stocked in 04 because survival from those fish is believed to be poor to non-existant. This omission lowered the numbers for campau and osterhout. I also didn't include the murray lake fry plant of 06 for the same reason. Also keep in mind that fish stocked in the last 2-3 years or so will not be contributing to the fishery right now because they are still small. Using 2007 as a cut off would be a better predictor for fishing in 2011.
Thornapple 2.09/acre/yr
Diane 1.35/acre/yr
Ovid 1.26/acre/yr
Hamlin 1.18/acre/yr
Murray 1.13/acre/yr
Campau 0.94/acre/yr
Osterhout 0.68/acre/yr
Lower Crooked 0.27/acre/yr
Austin 0.15/acre/yr
A couple things really pop out. The first is Holy @#$% Thornapple!!! I realize its the brood stock lake and that a lot of fish escape the lake but dang, there are a lot of fish being pumped into that system. Also if that many fish are leaving the system, where are they going, and is it worth fishing elsewhere in the system? hmmm.
Second, WOW, did we really get a lot of bang for our buck with the 2000 and 2002 plants on Austin and Lower Crooked. Both continue to provide decent fishing despite the small amount of fish planted if you average it out. Getting Austin back on the planting list and back to a spearing ban should definantly be a goal for MMA moving forward.
Diane also pops out at me. It gets very little attention from club members yet should be coming into a window of time where it provides some good numbers fishing as well as a shot at a mid 40s fish. Especially if its not seeing the pressure that some lakes see. I hope to get down there sometime this year or in 2012.
Finally Hamlin is going to be awesome if we can keep the harvest down to an appropriate level. I plan on making trips there this year.
What exactly do these numbers represent? I assume you took the total number of fish and divide that by year – correct? That would lead to some odd numbers due to the irregular stocking and the fact that in low return years the broodstock lakes (Hudson/Thornapple) are going to get fish first even it they take all of the fish.
So… what are you looking to get out of these numbers? If it's a population estimate you'll need to take into account the expected mortality. You have to assume a 30-50% mortality the first year then a 20-25% mortality each year after to get fairly close to adult densities.
All the 7" fish stocked in 2004 did very well.
"Will Schultz" said:
What exactly do these numbers represent? I assume you took the total number of fish and divide that by year – correct? That would lead to some odd numbers due to the irregular stocking and the fact that in low return years the broodstock lakes (Hudson/Thornapple) are going to get fish first even it they take all of the fish.So… what are you looking to get out of these numbers? If it's a population estimate you'll need to take into account the expected mortality. You have to assume a 30-50% mortality the first year then a 20-25% mortality each year after to get fairly close to adult densities.
Yes I used total fish planted/x number of years/surface acreage of the lake
I wasn't really looking to draw any conclusions from them, I realize there are far too many variables for this data to provide anything concrete. Just bored and found it interesting to make certain comparisons. For instance looking at the stocking data one might presume that thornapple is the best chance for one to catch a muskie and Austin might be the worst. However if you surveyed people in the club their fish/hour on those two lakes is probably pretty close to the same. I suppose they could be useful for estimating adult densities but it would be hard to factor in variables such as fish escaping like what happens at thornapple and ovid as well as fishing induced mortality. Throw in predation on young muskies varying from lake to lake and it becomes a crap shoot. I have no agenda, just putting it out there in case anyone wanted to discuss the data.
"Will Schultz" said:
All the 7" fish stocked in 2004 did very well.
I'm very glad to hear this. I was basing my assumption largely on the osterhout fishery survery from I believe 07 where they didn't obtain any specimens from the 04 plant and thus presumed it was a total failure due to the small fish size. Personally I questioned them making that broad an assumption based on the relatively small amount of fish they were able to sample. But that was all I had to go on. I wasn't sure how well the small fish would have survived and couldn't find any literature on survival of stocked fingerlings in relation to size other than the bigger the better when it came to fingerlings in the 10-14 inch range.
"Mayhem" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]What exactly do these numbers represent? I assume you took the total number of fish and divide that by year – correct? That would lead to some odd numbers due to the irregular stocking and the fact that in low return years the broodstock lakes (Hudson/Thornapple) are going to get fish first even it they take all of the fish.So… what are you looking to get out of these numbers? If it's a population estimate you'll need to take into account the expected mortality. You have to assume a 30-50% mortality the first year then a 20-25% mortality each year after to get fairly close to adult densities.
Yes I used total fish planted/x number of years/surface acreage of the lake
I wasn't really looking to draw any conclusions from them, I realize there are far too many variables for this data to provide anything concrete. Just bored and found it interesting to make certain comparisons. For instance looking at the stocking data one might presume that thornapple is the best chance for one to catch a muskie and Austin might be the worst. However if you surveyed people in the club their fish/hour on those two lakes is probably pretty close to the same. I suppose they could be useful for estimating adult densities but it would be hard to factor in variables such as fish escaping like what happens at thornapple and ovid as well as fishing induced mortality. Throw in predation on young muskies varying from lake to lake and it becomes a crap shoot. I have no agenda, just putting it out there in case anyone wanted to discuss the data.
The Thornapple and Austin examples are good ones for angler perception. While Thoranpple has significantly more fish they are simply easier to find/catch in Austin. I would look at it this way… though Austin is just over 1000 acres I'll bet 90% of our catches there have come from 50 acres of water.
You also can't look at downstream movements from Thornapple the same way you look at the losses over the dam at Ovid.
Thanks for this info, very interesting take on the stocking scene. I do agree that Austin and Lower Crooked have produced a lot of fun for the investment. Not trophy lakes, especially Lower Crooked, but well worth it in my view. I also think there are more fish in Thorn than it seems most of the time, who knows for sure but I bet not as many have moved downriver as it may appear. Dark water and endless food, plenty of hideouts for its size, anyway on the very rare times when all is right, it's suprising to witness the population density that seems to be there. Just some ramblings, I'd agree all of it is inconclusive but that's part of why we love this insanity.
326
35
1 Guest(s)