"Will Schultz" said:
We also discussed the current success at the hatchery with the number of eggs reduced and how this opens space in the muskie building for the GLS program. We discussed that the money is the only limiting factor and that the money needs to be allocated (or MMA needs to fund the $4000 or so that it will take each year).
So we understand correctly, the $4000 is for the GLS program above what MMA funds for current program? That must be just for the egg incubation and fry culture.
A full grow out for GLS will require construction of more liner ponds and double forage minnow source, unless, we are dividing our present four ponds for both muskie programs. The MMA may be facing hard choices for the temporary future until greater long-term stable funding is secured.
I talked to a person this morning about a fishing association with ample income and endowment fund to pay the whole long range program….and more. The problem may be the quid pro quo mentality that the GLS be stocked in their lake plus the instant gratification psychology factor of GLS stocked now. We understand the GLS future is a painful slow step process, but getting the public to accept that is always a challenge. I can probably set up a meeting with pres&treas of the association, but this may be a case where you and a DNR fishery staff should present the program with direct ability to answer questions. These are successful professional businessmen and fishermen that understand straight open dialog, VHS, hatchery culture, and long term financing. You can let me know your thoughts.
326
95