"Will Schultz" said:
So… Where we've come back to is that because spearing is harvest without the potential to release undersized fish there shouldn't be spearing for muskellunge. Citing poor fishing on waters that allow spearing and dramatically reduced populations on waters where spearing has been opened. Despite substantial stocking, these waters have not achieved the fish/acre goal of the management plan. Conversely, waters with similar stocking numbers that have spearing bans in place have reached and/or exceeded the fish per acre goals.

Therefore stocking waters open to spearing should be reconsidered or spearing muskellunge should be eliminated.

Does that about sum it up?

Not sure if I am in the minority on this one, but as much as stocking on stocked waters annoys the crap out of me, (because they are expensive to stock and the management plan is to build a trophy fishery, harvest with no chance of release is insanely contradictory) its not really my biggest beef with spearing. I think a much more appropriate attack would be the science behind waters with legalized spearing that are far lower in population density than nationwide averages where there is not spearing/or where there is stocking and spearing is allowed. These numbers are also despite actually having a more sufficient and diverse forage base, therefor making harvest with no chance of release directly, and irreversibly negligent to the management plan. IN the quoted scenario there is only two groups of fished being considered, and there really should be three. This would add the options of either stocking select waters to help keep up, or eliminating spearing on those selected waters.

JP – Yes, sorry I didn't specify natural waters in that statement because spearing on natural waters is unbelievably backward. We know, the DNR knows and the spearing community knows, but fails to accept, that harvest by any method on some natural waters should be eliminated until a time that populations rebound to levels proposed in the management plan.

"treeman" said:
[quote="Jim tenHaaf"]

So, I'll say, "yes, spearing muskellunge on stocked2w (or at least newly stocked waters) should be eliminated."

My concern is that it will make it harder to get new waters stocked and old waters restocked… From a management standpoint it would be an easy solution for a biologist to avoid the controversy by simply not stocking on lakes were there is heated contention between "pokers" and CPR-ers.

Don't get me wrong, this is an extremely hardline stance and one that I'm not certain MMA should be willing to make for the reason you note and a host of others. Since I'm no longer president, I feel I can voice my opinion regardless of how polarizing it might be. When I am in meetings representing MMA, my opinions are significantly more mainstream.

WRT establishing new waters or reintroducing muskellunge, I would be of the opinion that since there was never spearing on those waters for muskellunge that it shouldn't be allowed. No heritage argument, no tradition argument because there was no heritage/tradition of spearing muskellunge in the first place. Based on what can be cited with stocked/speared waters and the poor results I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

The best solution is just to close the season on Dec 15, although that wouldn't help the misidentification problems with spearing.

Its seems to me at some point in the near future we need to take a long hard look at what were trying to accomplish on some of the stocked lakes and wether or not it is working. If we can't change the regulations to keep the winter harvest manageable at what point do we call a spade a spade and plant those fish somewhere else? It is difficult to look at the Hamlin stocking report for example and see it as anything but a huge waste in resource at this point.

We got hosed on Otsego lake too, that lake had a spearing ban left over from the tiger muskie days and AFTER they started stocking pure muskies in it they removed the spearing ban! WTF! [smilie=brickwall.gif]. We can't get one nice northern Michigan lake where we don't have to cross our fingers in the winter and hope or the best.

"Mayhem" said:
It is difficult to look at the Hamlin stocking report for example and see it as anything but a huge waste in resource at this point.

We need to be careful in our deductions in difficulty to fish and sound science too. I know I love Hamlin, and you hate it. I have seen a few, but haven't caught any, I have also seen some winter harvest. But, the simple fact remains that Hamlin is still a few years from reaching potential, and even with the potential for winter harvest, most fish are still undersized and that effect won't come to full fruition for a while yet. Hamlin is a bear to fish, and figure out, It is also susceptible to winter harvest because of the amount of shallow water, but that does not in my mind mean there shouldn't be muskies in there. The forage base, and amount of cover in that lake are both enormous, two of the very integral parts of making muskies that are also enormous. it also has great potential for natural reproduction. it truly can be a lake that gets stocked very infrequently after the population is established. we need more of these kinds of lakes. Basically, I still think its healthy for the lake, and has the potential to be extremely rewarding for an angler. It doesnt change the fact that encouraging harvest is completely backward logic.

I know you love it there too, its an amazing lake with so much potential for so many different fish. I really think that as sportsman we should be looking at success as a sustaining population, that doesn't need that much human help. Ideally this would allow for some harvest, but obviously for now I think the real solution and fastest way to reach this goal is to minimize harvest as much as possible.

What would seem obvious is a management directive that "new waters" have no-kill for the first 12 years. Let the fish get established, let them spawn a few times and then evaluate spawning success. By allowing harvest before the population can be established it seems like we're setting all these waters up to fail.

I like that Will. I was just talking to Mitch Johnson in Montague today. I am going to be stocking lures in his store a couple years from now and he is trying to educate anglers who are not real happy to hear Muskies being put in White. We talked about the excess Shad and Drum in White and he agrees that Muskies will help bring down trash fish numbers. I educated three guys while I was there. It would be great to see a no kill on new waters for 12 years. The problem of fish ID for spearing is an issue and Mitch brought that up. His exact words, how are the spearing guys going to Know its a Musky and not just a large Pike. There is much work to be done in this area. I have an Idea which might lead to solving both undersized and identification. It would involve spear users being required to use a 42 inch circle white or chartreuse under the shack either suspended or on the bottom . This would give the spear user a measuring device under water that the fish would pass over. weighted and attached to several lines and lowered into the hole . could just be thin plastic sheet. thoughts?

"Mayhem" said:
general status of the fishery style surveys aren't always the greatest when it comes to muskies either…

If the DNR can't do a targeted muskie specific spring netting survey due to funding/manpower is that something MMA could/should assist with? I know I'd be interested in making that happen.

You and me both! [smilie=biggrin.gif]
The DNR would have to be willing/able to give up some of their equipment/manpower, and then come up with a cost what it would be to do the netting. MMA board would then have to vote on said amount to make a decision.

"Kingfisher" said:
His exact words, how are the spearing guys going to Know its a Musky and not just a large Pike. There is much work to be done in this area. I have an Idea which might lead to solving both undersized and identification. It would involve spear users being required to use a 42 inch circle white or chartreuse under the shack either suspended or on the bottom . This would give the spear user a measuring device under water that the fish would pass over. weighted and attached to several lines and lowered into the hole . could just be thin plastic sheet. thoughts?

From every video I've seen it's pretty easy to tell the difference, most people won't take the time to educate themselves.

Funny you mention the sizing gauge, I've often thought a 42" hula hoop would give a decent measuring tool. Problem is a fish only 1-2' above it will look bigger than the hoop. <url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … B004EG6OEC">[Permission to view this media is denied]

"MattG_braith" said:
I may be in the minority here but am I the only one that doesn't care near as much about spearing on our stocked waters as I do on our native waters? Sure it sucks to hear about the big girls in Austin or Margrethe getting stabbed but next year it will get another couple thousand fish stocked into it replenishing what was lost and more. Losing those big females on these waters is not hurting the reproducing population in these lakes because there is no reproducing population in these lakes.

What would be your best guess on the number of fish spawned in the Torch River each year that will make it to maturity? With the DNR's estimate of the population sizes in the lower chain I cant imagine this number is very high or anywhere near the number of fish/acre stocked in some of our other waters or anywhere near the number biologists will agree is a healthy population. How many sexually mature females are there total in Elk and Skeg? If I guessed I would say 30 to maybe 50 fish total. Now that is a complete guess and I am sure it is probably actually a generous guess but my point is every big female taken out of these waters reduces the reproducing population of fish by quite a large percentage which drastically reduces the amount of fish being spawned. If there is one goal we should have, I think it should revolve around removing harvest from these native, unstocked waters. Is their only reason for keeping spearing on these waters because of the "tradition" or "heritage" argument?

You can't lump all stocked water together, Margrethe and Austin wouldn't be in the same category. Moreover, with the new direction using GLMUS we don't know what we don't know. These fish may be more successful spawning in waters where NMUS used to be stocked and in many of the new waters natural reproduction is expected.

Yes, when talking natural waters entirely maintained by natural reproduction that's a different story. As you noted, any harvest probably isn't good and 4 or 5 fish makes a huge impact. BUT we need to be careful only pointing the finger at spearing as if they're the only source of harvest. What about the kid on the Torch river that killed two giants last spring? What about the ones killed by anglers on the Black river in the spring? The "angle" against spearing can't be that they are harvesting more fish than anglers, we don't have that data and if we start digging we may find that anglers are taking just as many.

The only argument we have is that spearing is 100% mortality, if they can't ID the fish and if they can't release undersize fish then the method of harvest shouldn't be allowed.