"Steve S" said:
I thought there was supposed to be a third lake in the U.P. Are the northern strain going to be continued to be stocked? If not Hudson would be a great home!! 😀 I know you get tired of me with Hudson, but I'm trying. My wife say's I'm very trying!!
The third lake fell through and my guess is it will only be two for the future. Hudson? It may remain as a NMUS broodstock lake, I can't answer that with any certainty though.
"Smada962" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]It's completely up to the district biologists to request fish for waters that were stocked with NMUS or waters where the GLMUS should be stocked to rebuild or supplemental.
Thanks for the info Will. My only question is, in your OPINION, do you think the district bioligsts will switch over the inland lakes such as Murray, Ovid, Bankson, Long, etc? Have there been any talks or rumors about which direction they plan to go?
Yes, I think with the success this year we'll see most lakes change over. I know there are fish requests sitting on the desk of the person that builds the priority list. Problem is he hasn't looked at them so I can't share that information yet.
Two of the three lakes mentioned (Murray and Ovid) need to be changed over since they have fish moving out of the lake with eventual access to Lake Michigan.
The more i think about it the more i think the upper chain wont get/need much stocking in the future. I have seen over the years the amount of winter harvest especially intermediate and hanley, the new regs will, if followed and enforced, let the system reach its potential… maybe a little boost to jump start it i suppose. But those lakes are really close… the lower chain however could certainly hold a lot more fish but at what point is creating spawing habitat more beneficial than continued supplementation? The obvious is that a spearing ban would put these places over the edge [smilie=2thumbsup.gif] either way i am really excited about the opportunity up there.
JP, well said. The more I fish in the chain the more I realize how many fish there really are up here. I think ethically, lakes with natural reproduction should be left to obtain their natural limits, to me reducing harvest is the best way to do that. But like you said, the lower chain can handle so many more fish and with the new regulations it's really encouraging to see just what this system is capable of if it were to receive supplemental fish and reduced harvest.
"Steve S" said:
Will, does Hudson get 50" statis, brude stock lake!!
Not likely. Reasons?:
1. The district biologist never felt it needed to be 50" even as a broodstock lake (refer to #3)
2. Protection of females seemed moot since the number of 50" females, out of hundreds of fish netted each year, can be counted on a couple fingers (refer to #4).
3. The numbers of fish/acre are significantly higher than any other water.
4. With the very slow growth a 50" size limit would essentially be a no kill, for why a no kill doesn't make sense there (refer to #3).
5. Fishing pressure and therefore harvest is very low compared to Thornapple.
6. Technically it's no longer a broodstock lake.
"vano397" said:
The more i think about it the more i think the upper chain wont get/need much stocking in the future. I have seen over the years the amount of winter harvest especially intermediate and hanley, the new regs will, if followed and enforced, let the system reach its potential… maybe a little boost to jump start it i suppose. But those lakes are really close… the lower chain however could certainly hold a lot more fish but at what point is creating spawing habitat more beneficial than continued supplementation? The obvious is that a spearing ban would put these places over the edge [smilie=2thumbsup.gif] either way i am really excited about the opportunity up there.
I don't think the upper chain has ever been considered for supplemental stocking. Lower lakes, for sure. A couple years in addition to normal spawning is all it would take to have enough adults to maintain the fishery.
Probably off topic a little too much and Im not sure if this question can even be answered since there probably isnt any studies on it or evidence to support an answer but Ill ask it anyways. If fish were to be stocked in the lower chain lakes (i.e. Elk, Skeg, Torch), would those fish know where to go to spawn in the spring? I know its natural instinct for a fish to return to spawn at the location they were spawned but since these stocked fish are not spawned in these waters, would they have that natural instinct to know where to go to spawn in the spring like the native fish do?
Sorry for the wierd biology questions, but this stuff really interests me and I love learning anything I can about it…
"MattG_braith" said:
Probably off topic a little too much and Im not sure if this question can even be answered since there probably isnt any studies on it or evidence to support an answer but Ill ask it anyways. If fish were to be stocked in the lower chain lakes (i.e. Elk, Skeg, Torch), would those fish know where to go to spawn in the spring? I know its natural instinct for a fish to return to spawn at the location they were spawned but since these stocked fish are not spawned in these waters, would they have that natural instinct to know where to go to spawn in the spring like the native fish do?Sorry for the wierd biology questions, but this stuff really interests me and I love learning anything I can about it…
Good question. The broodstock fish are spawned from river spawners so they should head for the "right water". However, the perfect scenario would be to have both river spawners and reef spawners creating a "super fish" scenario since both types of spawning should be successful in the lower lakes. This would be true for the other waters of concern as well (inland waterway).
"MattG_braith" said:
Will, I am assuming by reef spawners, you mean fish that are spawning out in the lakes, as opposed to moving into the rivers to spawn. Do you know if there has been any "reef" spawning fish observed in these lower chain lakes?
There area some shoreline spawners but no open water (deep water) spawners that appear in St Clair and a couple MN lakes.
Thanks for the info Will. It'll be interesting to hear some answers from biologists. Knowing what you know, once the "spoken for fish" are placed, what would your strategy be over the next 5 yrs? Assuming we have fish to stock……hypothetical question here. How would you prioritize other fisheries while the brood stocks were being established? I realize it heavily depends on the numbers, but assuming there were suffucient numbers "left over"…… supplement northern waters with existing / low population? start stocking "new" GLS waters where fish will should spawn? start bumping GLS into Northern S. inland lakes…..? One more than the other or slowly do all three?
"Adam Minnick" said:
Thanks for the info Will. It'll be interesting to hear some answers from biologists. Knowing what you know, once the "spoken for fish" are placed, what would your strategy be over the next 5 yrs? Assuming we have fish to stock……hypothetical question here. How would you prioritize other fisheries while the brood stocks were being established? I realize it heavily depends on the numbers, but assuming there were suffucient numbers "left over"…… supplement northern waters with existing / low population? start stocking "new" GLS waters where fish will should spawn? start bumping GLS into Northern S. inland lakes…..? One more than the other or slowly do all three?
Ooohh.. you're giving me the power to put 35-50 thousand muskies around the state each year? IMO it's pretty easy. We have established fisheries that should be maintained around the state, by this I'm talking about the lakes stocked for the last ten years with NMUS unless it is naturalized. Maintenance on these would take no more than 1/2 of the fish. The other fish go to supplemental stocking where needed. Until the broodstock lakes are up and running and the hatchery has had $2 million in improvements there shouldn't be any "new waters" added.
368
17
1 Guest(s)