Muskie stocking in Gull Lake!?

[therancher]

This is why I love fishing. Because it is not religion(to most people anyway) and it is not politics. We can have a decent discusion with anybody trying to out-offend the next guy, not to mention you get to learn a thing or two. Thanks for the excellent post Aaron. I cannot wait to be out on Gull in 12-15 years chasing the mighty Essox and hearing the JAWS theme in my head as I make cast after cast.....it is gonna be a long wait.

[cjac]

Aaron's (AWH) post does a great job of outlining this. Many muskie anglers like to fish for walleyes too, so there is an underlying respect for the lake behind decisions being made. I beleive in 8 to 10 years there will be an added bonus in the Gull Lake fishery.

As a counter point, I'd be inclined to say that the continued shoreline development, cabin "glorification", and 36 foot twin 454 power Baja boats are more detrimental to the lake than the introduction of the muskies.

Gull is an incredible fishery, and will be for years to come.

[gorrilla]

Jason, I'll have to take you out for a friendly beverage some night and challenge you to show me one single Minnesota Lake that has muskies in it and doesn't have a very healthy walleye population. By healthy I don't mean always full of tons of 14"ers, but nice representative year classes of various ages.

I hate to always reference my summer on creel survey at Alex, but I (the study) proved the angler pressure was fairly even between musky and walleye guys.

I'll let you guess who spent more time on the water as a whole, traveled farther, and bought more equipment related to their hobby too.

I think it'll be a good thing for business in the long run, and the lake.

Maybe specialty musky baits on a side wall would be a good addition...

Put me down for at least 5 a year. At $10 a pop or more, thats a lot of minnows.

[Ray Mysterio]

Thanks for the help Aaron. Great post. I think that muskies on Gull would spread out the fishing pressure on other area lakes as well.

Can't wait!

Ray

[Ray Mysterio]

Jason,

Might be some business for muskie guideing in the future for you. Just think of it. If the walleye fishing is real slow, you have another option for your customers.

Just a thought.

Ray

[walleyedan]

AWH,

All I was trying to state was the fact that Gull is already a busy lake, and it will be a lot busier in 10 years. I wasn't alluding that musky anglers are rude or will be the cause of water rage. How about a bass tournament, a musky tournament, a couple of club tournaments, a full slate of guides doing their trips, pleasure boaters/jet skiers, a sailing regata on a beautiful day? It will be busy I guess no matter whether there are muskies or not, it's the sign of the times. I like muskies. Is there a way of doing a spelling check before sending a post, other than the dictionary approach??

Walleyedan

[cjac]

I found this picture, hopefully this will put some people more at ease with the introduction of muskies to Gull. Muskies are really friendly fish!!!

[BeerMe]

This is just more special intrest B.S.. Why can't we just leave things alone...There are those that constantly want to change,change,change. Because they can...Why not leave it the way mother nature intended? I have fished Muskie some(so I may seem like a hippocrit here) but I don't want them in every lake. Where do we stop? It isn't a question of impact or financial gain but a question of ethics.

[gorrilla]

Hey BeerME, I suppose dumping tons of walleyes in all our lakes to compensate for fishing pressure or decreasing water quality is how nature intended it huh? But the minute a few choice lakes get picked for muskies you become the bar room biologist right? Think about it, these guys in the DNR know there stuff. Everybody always second guesses them, except for when they have walleye counts through the roof. Maybe you could tell me why a musky is going to screw it up?

[CaptainMusky]

Yeah, more keyboard jockies who know more than fisheries biologists. Yep, everyone should be worried about muskies in EVERY lake. The DNR had a good start, they are now in 88 lakes here in the great state of MN. Only 9,912 to go.

What about the nuisance walleyes that they keep putting in lakes that nature never intended? Lakes that are prone for winterkill, yet they continually put them back in there only to be killed off in a few winters again.

There are always panels of experts out there. The DNR will never do something or even propose it if they didn't strongly believe the lake could handle it.

[brittman]

If you want Muskies drive 30 minutes east and fish ML

[CaptainMusky]

If you want walleyes go to Morey's.

[AWH]

Walleyedan,

Yeah, I knew what you meant. I just didn’t want others to read it and think that the musky guys are these hot heads that would be the cause of “water rage”.

BeerMe…..

“I have fished Muskie some(so I may seem like a hippocrit here) but I don't want them in every lake.”

Every lake? Don’t worry, you’ll never see them in every lake. You’ll never even see them in 10% of our lakes. We have less than 100 musky lakes in the state that has how many lakes? 11,000+? The state of Wisconsin hasn’t had the successful musky management program that the state of MN has. But there are over 700 musky lakes in WI. I believe the number is actually closer to 800. Now although a lot of these lakes are pretty poor musky lakes because of several factors: poor management and simply lakes that aren’t well suited for muskies being two main reasons. The other fish in these lakes all seem to do just fine. Lakes that don’t even come close to being able to support a musky fishery like a Gull Lake can. So why are we afraid what a few muskies in a lake will do?

“Where do we stop? It isn't a question of impact or financial gain but a question of ethics.”

You lost me here. Impact? Yes, there is a huge impact that expanding the range of muskies can have. POSITIVE impact. Financial gain? There is a huge opportunity for financial gain. For musky fishermen seen as being in the minority, their financial impact to the local economy is far greater per fisherman than a walleye, bass, pike, pan fisherman, etc. Ethics? How is this about ethics? Seriously, I don’t have a clue where you’re trying to go with that. Please explain, maybe I’m missing something.

“Why can't we just leave things alone...There are those that constantly want to change,change,change. Because they can.”

Imagine if we left everything as is. Not just in fishing, but in life. No change, just leave everything as is. What a disaster. Life is about change. If you want to improve, you don’t keep things as is. Change is a necessity of life. People naturally resist change. But the most successful people in life are those that are willing to change. When it comes to the subject at hand, being proactive is a must in order to not lose what we currently have in this state, and that’s a world class musky fishery. Without change, the MN musky fishery would be very average. But a few people that wanted to make a difference and were willing to change did just that back in the 1980s. This change created the phenomenal musky fishery that we have today. Let’s not waste the accomplishments of those people and be happy with where we are today. Where we are today is great. But how would it be if it got even better? The only way to make that happen (or even maintain what we currently have) is to be proactive and make change a way of life. If we want things to deteriorate, we can sit back and do nothing and that’s exactly what we’ll see.

It’s great that the people that have been hired by the DNR want to make a difference and are proactive thinkers. They want to keep our fisheries strong and have the ability to do just that if we let them. So let’s support them and watch the positive impact on our fisheries unfold.

Aaron

[B420]

Aaron,

Another excellent, factual post!

[mtreno]

cjac -

whats the story with that pic? neat! some sort of secret musky call Jonesi been teachin you?

[fish500]

My opinion.

When considering introducing a new species into a body of water that is already a successful fishery, the potential for what might be lost is more important than what might be gained.

If the muskies take and develop a self sustaining population (this is the case in other stocked muskie lakes), there will be no way to remove them from the lake. If we decided it was a bad decision sometime in the future (10, 50, or a 100 years from now), there would be nothing we could do about it.

For example we are now dealing with fish that were stocked over a hundred years ago by federal hatcheries. These include fish such as carp and rockbass, which to some people were highly valuable fish during those times. We can't undo what they did, and we will never understand the full effects. But it is safe to say that we would rather have only natural populations of fish in lakes that had good fisheries to begin with.

Can we assume that centuries from now people will place the same value on muskies that I and others do now? Is it fair for us to contradict nature and make that decision for future generations? Especially when we are dealing with something so valuable as the fisheries of Gull and the many other connected lakes?

If we stock muskies in Gull we will never know the full effects. There is no scientific study that can account for all of the effects, or predict what they will be. What we do know is that there are several biological principles that play a large role in determining what fish species are present in the lake. In other words most of the fish living in the lake are there because nature allowed for it. Most of the current fish populations have been there a very long time and are adapted to a set of conditions. When those conditions change, it has at least some negative impact on the preexisting populations.

One way or another I have been involved with fisheries my entire life. I have seen what happens when new species are introduced into systems. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology, and meet the educational requirements necessary to be certified with the American Fisheries Society as a Fisheries Specialist. I have also spoken with highly qualified and highly experienced people regarding this subject, and they share my opinion. Stocking muskies in Gull is a poor fisheries management tool.

[AWH]

Quote:

---

When considering introducing a new species into a body of water that is already a successful fishery, the potential for what might be lost is more important than what might be gained.

---

This is a valid question. So what might be lost? What evidence is there on other lakes that have had muskies introduced where there has been some kind of negative impact? Where was it? What was the impact? How was it dealt with?

Quote:

---

If the muskies take and develop a self sustaining population (this is the case in other stocked muskie lakes), there will be no way to remove them from the lake. If we decided it was a bad decision sometime in the future (10, 50, or a 100 years from now), there would be nothing we could do about it.

---

Self sustaining populations are the goal. But it's also realized that there are very few lakes that will be able to rely on a completely self sustaining population. It's realized that most new musky fisheries will need at least some type of supplemental stocking to sustain the population goals. Hopefully a lake like Gull Lake will have enough natural reprodution where stocking can be reduced and funds can be used elsewhere. The idea that Gull Lake would ever be able to have a completely self sustaining musky population, I believe, is an extremely unlikely possibility. Muskies will only spawn in certain select areas. Leech Lake (as an example), which is over 112,000 acres has less than 10 documented musky spawning areas on the entire lake. I believe the actual number is 5 or 6. Shoreline development has taken away many spawning areas on lakes around the state. Development is and will continue to be the biggest problem when it comes to natural reproduction of muskies. Gull Lake, obviously, has seen huge amounts of shoreline development....impacts of which, are numerous, and not just on potential spawning habitat.

Nothing can be done IF (and that's a huge if) it was decided that it was a bad decision? Not true, there are many things that could be done. Would it mean that muskies could be totally eliminated from the system? Probably not. But guess what? There are muskies in Gull Lake right now. This is a documented fact. So muskies do already exist there and the entire fishery is very healthy. The health of this diverse fishery would remain strong with the addition of a musky stocking program.

Quote:

---

For example we are now dealing with fish that were stocked over a hundred years ago by federal hatcheries. These include fish such as carp and rockbass, which to some people were highly valuable fish during those times. We can't undo what they did, and we will never understand the full effects. But it is safe to say that we would rather have only natural populations of fish in lakes that had good fisheries to begin with.

---

People talk about apples to oranges comparisons. This is an apples to steak comparison. To compare carp and rockbass populations to muskies is about as opposite on the spectrum as you could get. Carp can overtake certain lakes and can cause a lot of problems...very well documented problems. One of these is the destruction of spawning habitat. When have musky populations ever overtaken a lake?

Quote:

---

Can we assume that centuries from now people will place the same value on muskies that I and others do now? Is it fair for us to contradict nature and make that decision for future generations? Especially when we are dealing with something so valuable as the fisheries of Gull and the many other connected lakes?

---

We can make educated decisions based on factual data. These decisions will allow us to do what's best for the future of our fisheries. The popularity of musky fishing continues to grow at a steady rate. This has been happening since the early 70s. Each and every year it's becoming more popular. Education on the fish itself as well as people's personal experiences with the fish are the cause. There's no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. So to answer the question, "Can we assume that centuries from now people will place the same value on muskies that I and others do now?" Although nothing in the world can be assumed with absolute certainty, I believe this would be a very safe assumption to make. Education on muskies and the sport of musky fishing indicates that the sport of musky fishing will only continue to grow.

Quote:

---

If we stock muskies in Gull we will never know the full effects. There is no scientific study that can account for all of the effects, or predict what they will be.

---

True. No scientific study can ever predict all of the effects that these types of proposals will have on any idividual body of water. Each lake has its own unique characteristics that will make it different from any previous study. But again, show me evidence of muskies having a negative impact on a fishery? There are lakes and rivers all across the country with musky populations. I would have to believe if there's a valid fear of what muskies can do to a fishery, that someone would be able to come up with a number of examples of this happening. Why don't we ever hear of these?

Quote:

---

What we do know is that there are several biological principles that play a large role in determining what fish species are present in the lake. In other words most of the fish living in the lake are there because nature allowed for it. Most of the current fish populations have been there a very long time and are adapted to a set of conditions. When those conditions change, it has at least some negative impact on the preexisting populations.

---

There's one word that stands out to me in this statement. "Most." Whether we are talking about muskies or any other species, the DNR will change fish populations. This can be by the removal of rough fish or the addition of new species by stocking. When the DNR has chosen to add new walleye lakes with stocking programs, why do we not hear the uproar that we do when there is talk of muskies being stocked? A walleye population will have a far greater impact on a fishery than a musky population due to the sheer numbers of fish. So IF the above statement is true that "When those conditions change, it has at least some negative impact on the preexisting populations" why do people not get upset over walleye stocking in lakes that are not natural walleye lakes? Is it education? Obviously much more is known about walleyes by the general population. On the same note, the reason that most people are opposed to stocking muskies is a lack of education on the species.

Getting back to the statement, "When those conditions change, it has at least some negative impact on the preexisting populations." Impact...yes. Negative impact? Please explain. Whether we are talking muskies, walleyes, bass, panfish...please explain the negative impacts. This statement implies that there are always "negative" impact by the introduction of a new species.

Quote:

---

One way or another I have been involved with fisheries my entire life. I have seen what happens when new species are introduced into systems.

---

That's great. It's good to have someone with your background to speak on this subject. Please give some real life examples of what you have seen when new species are introduced into a system. Blanket statements that introducing new species into a fishery is a bad thing doesn't offer a lot to the credibility of the statement. Real life examples with factual data would be great. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm simply looking for more information so that I can be better educated. Because as I keep saying, I have never seen a lake that is capable of having a healthy musky population have any sort of negative impact upon their introduction. And I've looked for this kind of information. I've researched the topic everywhere that muskies swim, whether that's in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, Kentucky, Colorado, New York, the list goes on. Everything I ever find points to muskies being a valuable addition to fisheries that have the right type of habitat. And Gull Lake is a fishery that meets this criteria head and shoulders above most lakes.

Quote:

---

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology, and meet the educational requirements necessary to be certified with the American Fisheries Society as a Fisheries Specialist. I have also spoken with highly qualified and highly experienced people regarding this subject, and they share my opinion. Stocking muskies in Gull is a poor fisheries management tool.

---

This is quite a statement. I don't have the fisheries background that you do. But I have spoken to many people that are very educated on this subject. Yet I have yet to have any of them tell me that "Stocking muskies in Gull is a poor fisheries management tool". What positions do these people hold? What are there reasons for such statements?

One such person that I have spoken to regarding this issue is Tim Brastrup with the Brainerd Fisheries Department, who is also the one that introduced this proposal. Tim is extremely educated on this topic and has many people that he works closely with that are able to provide necessary feedback. This proposal would not even be going to a public meeting if it wasn't approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In other words, a proposal such as this is more than just a Tim Brastrup and Brainerd Fisheries proposal. It has to be approved by levels much higher up than that. If this was such a bad idea or if there was evidence that it "might" be a bad idea, do you think it would have even gone to the table as a proposal? The DNR knows what they have in Gull Lake. They would never put the health of that fishery at risk if they thought there was a threat. The people in charge of our fisheries clearly have the education, the background, and the experience necessary to do the job. Minnesota is seen through the entire country as the state to go to when it comes to fishing destinations. That wouldn't be the case if not for the educated DNR that we have. My hat goes off to them for everything they have done to make our fisheries what they are today. I just hope we continue to let them do their job the best that they can.

Aaron

[CaptainMusky]

A major flaw in your comparison between carp and muskies is that carp are known to be an invasive species. As AWH has mentioned, they are extremely destructive to spawning habitat and water quality. They are extremely successful in reproduction, so they can establish a population in pretty much any lake and overrun it quite easily.

Muskies on the other hand are not very successful in natural reproduction. First off, they spawn later than northerns and walleyes so if they are in a lake that has established populations of pike or walleyes the YOY feed directly on the fledgling muskies.

I think a better way to determine what will happen to the lake if muskies are introduced is to look at lakes that have adequate populations of pike, walleyes and muskies. Winnibigosh, Cass, Leech, Bemidji all come to mind. Each one is a native musky lake and each has strong populations of walleyes, pike and muskies.

I wonder why those people concerned about bringing in a non-native species (muskies) into the lake, are not concerned about the 1,000s of lakes that were not native to species such as walleyes yet the DNR stocks them on a regular basis? Nature didn't intend for those lakes to have walleyes, why should we alter them? Seems hypocritical to me, to support walleyes and not muskies if that is the argument.

[fish500]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Unfortunately, I have very little time to respond, and I will discuss it in more detail in the future.

I realized that some of my statements were vague, and I will provide support for them in the future. The main thing I was concerned about at the moment was that people were aware that there are differing opinions in the scientific community regarding this. It is not a "slam dunk" so to speak. One of the people I am referring to is the fish geneticist for the DNR, and a president for the American Fisheries Society. I simply stated the argument to him that I stated to you. I asked him to pick apart the argument and he said that I was essentially right. I asked him a scientific question, and I recieved a scientific answer. He is a true scientist. Unfortunately, the DNR bases much of its decision making on social influence. Thus the public input meeting.

Also, with my experience working for the DNR I learned that if your opinion is different from your superiors it is to your advantage to not share it in many cases. The higher up people have lots of control over the people below them, therefore, differing opinions often go unspoken. This is the case in most workplaces. It is usually not an open forum for discussion or debate. In the end, the higher up people influence the rest of the people in the DNR; the DNR infuences public opinion; the DNR then cites public opinion as a driving force behind decision making. I am not saying this is how it is 100% of the time but I believe there is a strong trend towards it.

I also have input from individuals who have worked in aquaculture for a very long time. There opinions are not based on scientific work, but rather on large amounts of experience that can be equated to science.

If it is necessary, we can discuss the true nature of science, but it will have to be when I have more time.

Also, I am very glad that you caught the implications about walleyes. I will be sure to discuss this in the future also.

[CaptainMusky]

fish500, I am disturbed by your comments eluding to the DNR being corrupt, in that they force their opinions upon the public and "win out".

IMO, if that were the case, why would they even bother with the public hearing meetings? Seems like a waste of time and effort if you ask me.

I don't believe stocking muskies in Gull Lake is a slam dunk by any means. I think it is an uphill battle. It will be tougher to get muskies in Gull than some other lakes, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post (or was that on another site?).

There are always differing opinions when it comes to things like this, of course I want to see muskies stocked in Gull because I have an interest in muskies. Others, who don't fish for them would probably rather not see them stocked for concern of what it would do to walleyes etc. This is where the public forum comes in to ask questions and share opinions, etc.

I aplaud the DNR for taking the time to do this and hear the voice of the people. They have done an excellent job with the lakes in MN (IMO) and musky fishing here in MN is World Class. I also believe that Gull, if stocked, would be in the same class for muskies in 15 years.

The hearing is Oct 6th. I think anyone who is interested in this topic on either side, owes it to themself to attend.

[mtreno]

being a new to the brainerd area myself i would really like to attend the meeting Oct. 6th. if nothing else to meet a few people and here all the issues at hand - also to get an idea on where this may go.

where will the meeting be held at? may have been said earlier but i skimmed everything and did not come accoss it and donot feel like rereading everything.

[CaptainMusky]

Here is some information regarding the Oct 6th meeting:

"Gull Lake Meeting Oct 6th!!!"

A proposal to stock muskellunge in Gull Lake near Brainerd will be the subject of a public input meeting in October. The Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) is considering a proposal to stock 2,800

muskellunge fingerlings per year for four consecutive years starting

in 2007. The proposal aims to create a muskellunge fishery in the

immediate Brainerd area, a popular angling destination in central

Minnesota.

“The Brainerd Area Fisheries Office developed this proposal because

muskie angler numbers continue to increase, those in the Brainerd area are seeking additional opportunities, and Gull Lake – due to its large size, forage base and habitat types – qualifies as lake where muskie

management is an option,” said Tim Goeman, northeast regional

fisheries manager.

The public input meetings will be Oct. 6 from 7 to 9 p.m. in the

Central Lakes College cafeteria, 501 West College Drive in Brainerd

and from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the DNR’s headquarters, 500 Lafayette

Road in St. Paul.

Minnesota has become one of the nation’s premier muskellunge fishing destinations. Originally, the muskellunge existed in 44 lakes and six rivers in Minnesota. Today, 85 lakes and six rivers contain

muskellunge as a result of DNR stocking efforts. There has been no

significant expansion of muskellunge waters during the last five to 10 years. This is due, in part, to the mystique of the fish, which can grow to more than 50 inches in length and is a top predator in the fisheries food chain.

“The muskie has a reputation that is both deserved and underserved,” said Ron Payer, DNR chief of fishieries management. “It is a great fighter and impressive to behold. Still, it is not the nemesis to game fish that many believe it to be. As an adult, its preference is to eatperch and those species that have soft spines within their fins such as suckers, cisco and redhorse. There is no research evidence that suggests introducing the muskellunge into a lake has caused a

corresponding decrease in the walleye fishery.”

Payer noted that many of Minnesota’s best-known large walleye lakes such as Winnibigoshish, Leech and Lake of the Woods - have always contained both muskellunge and walleye. Both fish can thrive, said Payer, because muskellunge numbers never become as dense as fish

species of a smaller size.

-MORE-

Tim Brastrup, DNR Brainerd area fisheries supervisor, developed the muskellunge stocking plan as a result of input from the local Muskies,Inc. chapter, whose members have reported increased crowding on lakes within 25 to 45 miles of Brainerd such as Mille Lacs, Cedar,

Shamineau, Alexander and Woman lakes. “Twenty-five to 45 miles isn’t

an unreasonable distance to drive for a muskie fishing opportunity,”

said Brastrup. “But the issue has become one of crowding. An

increasing number of anglers are converging on the same spots and

quality of the angling experience is declining.”

“Our stocking proposal recognizes the fact that northern pike

spearing has a long tradition in this area and this proposal does not

ban pike spearing in Gull Lake,” Brastrup said.

A 10-day public comment period will follow the open house and end

Oct. 16. Comments may be mailed directly to DNR Area Fisheries

Headquarters, 1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN 56401; DNR Fish and

Wildlife Division, Box 12, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155; or

e-mailed to [email protected]

[fish500]

I hope people can correctly interpret what I wrote about the DNR. I did not go as far as saying they were corrupt. The things I said are true though. The DNR does have an influence on public opinion. People usually look to them as the primary authority with issues such as these.

I think most people who have a boss can understand that you have to be careful when communicating with them. They have a large influence over your career, and thus your life. This is why the stated opinion of the DNR does not even necessarily reflect the majority of opnions of the people in the DNR (including the biologists).

Public input meetings are proof that society influences the DNR.

Based on my experience and education, and the experience and education of others, I disagree with the DNR on this one (assuming the DNR is totally in favor of it). I made the statements about the DNR so people could understand that they are not a perfect organization. They were not meant to be disturbing, and I think that I logically stated my point.

I used the phrase "slam dunk" because it was being suggested that all authorities on the subject were in agreement, and that is not the case.

For the record, I am an avid musky fisherman, and I am not an avid walleye fisherman. I am interested in the overall health of the fishery. It is very tempting to be able to fish muskies in Gull, but it would be irresponsible to stock them.

[AWH]

fish500,

You make some valid points. However, you need to expand on this thought.

Quote:

---

It is very tempting to be able to fish muskies in Gull, but it would be irresponsible to stock them.

---

How and why is it irresponsible to stock them? What evidence is there that points to this being a poor decision? In all honesty, I have yet to find a single piece of factual data that would support the side that says this would be bad for the fishery.

Aaron

[Ray Mysterio]

Not to get off the muskie stocking subject, but if you ask me, walleye stocking has done much more harm to the ecosystem in Minnesota than muskies will ever do. Not so much in the lakes that they are stocked in but in the rearing ponds that they are raised in. The bluebill population has declined at a dangerous rate because fry walleye eat freshwater shrimp. Freshwater shrimp are a main fall diet of the bluebill. That makes it look like we as a state are putting a value on each species of wildlife.

Walleye has always been the most prized Minnesota fish and now that it is getting competition, walleye fisherman are crying foul.

Remember everyone, all fish were created equal and should have equal opportunity. Right?

Let's keep this discussion going, it's a good one.

Mysterio

[mtreno]

ya i am with Aaron - i would really like to see something/anything that points to that being irresponsible.

CaptainMusky - thanks for the info - now that i see it again i did read that somewhere - in my datebook now

[LakeTahoe]

I like Muskies, and I LOVE walleye. Whether stocking Muskies would hurt Gull or not, I pray they don't stock it at all for Muskie. I think the lake is crowded enough the way it is... BIGGER lines at the landings, MORE people who can't back a trailer in... no thanks. But like everything else money rules the day. "Good for the economy" ... Sure?!...

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

walleye stocking has done much more harm to the ecosystem in Minnesota than muskies will ever do.

---

Exactly! I think it is very hypocritical for people to be against musky stocking if they are for walleye stocking or use the argument "leave it the way nature intended".

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

fish500,

You make some valid points. However, you need to expand on this thought.

Yes, please support that comment. Why is it irresponsible?

Quote:

---

It is very tempting to be able to fish muskies in Gull, but it would be irresponsible to stock them.

---

How and why is it irresponsible to stock them? What evidence is there that points to this being a poor decision? In all honesty, I have yet to find a single piece of factual data that would support the side that says this would be bad for the fishery.

Aaron

---

[ssaamm]

I don't know all the in's and out's of this debate. I just like to fish. Where does the tiger musky fall in this picture. From my understanding (and it may be wrong), this fish is sterile. Could you throw in a few of these and see how it goes? If it works, great. Then, put in pure strains of muskies. If it doesn't work, then they'll bite the bullet in few years without reproducing. If they do stock muskies, how about throwing in a bunch of smallies, too. I may be way off base here. Don't hesitate to set me straight. Thanks