Muskie stocking in Gull Lake!?

[Crappie Kid]

ssaamm I agree with you. I also still fish for food.(well for fun too)and I believe that alot of us do. Last thing I want to do is eat a large Muskie.( I will if forced though)That was not a threat it was a joke. I mean what is all the hype about these fish. I have caught a few Muskie in the last couple of years and one was even a 48"er but with my huge rod and reel I tamed it pretty quick. Not near the tenacity of a smallie. If they stock anything it should be Smallmouth bass. I now believe that Muskies are overrated(and the tackle is expensive). You see were not just talking about expanding muskie fishing were also talking about expansion of the Muskie tackle industries market. So there will be alot of lobbying with this issue. Anyone want to buy a couple Musky rods and reels, Muskie net and tackle? What the Walleye guys need to know is that when you want to go out and pull crankbaits down the weedlines your going to constantly run into Muskie fisherpeople that will not move. If you get too close they may just throw one of those huge lures at you.J/K lol...No seriously though I think the lake is already too overcrowded. This will just add to the chaos.

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

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

---

That is actually a reasonable idea considering stocking Tigers versus pure strain muskies, unfortunately, you do not get a gauge of what pure strains would be like in the lake. As you probably know, Tigers are a cross between a musky and a pike. They take some traits from each specie and depending how you look at them, some are not as desirable.

Pike are MUCH more voracious predators than muskies. Tigers have feeding traits more similar to that of pike than pure strain muskies. If there was ANY worry about forage, introducing Tigers would not be an intelligent choice. From a beauty, fight, and concern over impact to fishery and a "backout plan" tigers would be an odd's-on favorite.

[drizzle]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

AWH

You failed to mention the nuisance muskies have become for many fisherman in Maine. I know they were not intentionally stocked there but they did end up getting into the lakes there from Quebec, where they were stocked. I only point this out because not all stocking attempts have been a success.

[Ray Mysterio]

Nuisance to who? I have not heard of this. Is it just walleye fisherman that are calling the muskies a nuisance? If so, that's the same thing here. It's just someone stating their opinion not based on factual data.

[Ray Mysterio]

If the muskies that were stocked in Quebec are getting into other lakes, I would call that successful stocking. That would mean the species are growing in numbers. Same thing as if walleyes were stocked in a lake and migrated to other lakes. Most fisherman would call that successful stocking. Right?

[AWH]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

AWH

You failed to mention the nuisance muskies have become for many fisherman in Maine. I know they were not intentionally stocked there but they did end up getting into the lakes there from Quebec, where they were stocked. I only point this out because not all stocking attempts have been a success.

---

I am aware of the "nuisance" muskies in Maine. From everything I have learned from the Maine musky resource, it is a huge case of people not being educated. The fact that they have musky tournaments in that state where the muskies are kept and eaten...sharing their favorite musky recipes...this says a lot about how many light years behind the rest of the country Maine is compared to most of the rest of the country.

That being said, they are making strides in Maine. They are starting to understand the good thing that they actually have with the musky fishery there. Yes, they still have these tournaments. But it's not to the extent that it was. The head of these tournaments has said that they still keep them during these tournaments only because they believe it's not enough to negatively impact the musky fishery. And they are starting to promote catch and release much more than in the past because they are beginning to understand the value that these fish bring to their fisheries.

Aaron

[mtreno]

Quote:

---

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...

---

you were kidding right? if anything that will keep lots of the musky guys away. and one thing you can count on is the serious musky fisherman will not be on Gull when its at its summers peak. early morning/night and late fall - got to avoid the super cruzers/tubbers/jetski's ect..... those are the guys who cannot back in a trailer.....

[Deitz Dittrich]

First of all, I have found this to be a very fun thread to read, a ton of information, and a respectfull discussion. I am a bit surprised however, that the only 2 spicies that have been talked about is Muskie(obviously) and Walleye. As a multi species angler who seems to spend the majority of his time fishing Bass, I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned what Muskies would do to the Bass, Crappie, Sunfish populations.

I do realize that Bass and Muskies can co-habitate... However, I do feel that Muskies do not help a bass fishery. Just my opinion, I have no facts to back it up.

[BrianF]

Deitz

Consider the three best musky fisheries in the state.

Minnetonka is loaded with muskies. Is there a problem with the LMB fishery there?

Mille Lacs is loaded with muskies. Is there a problem with the SMB fishery there?

Vermilion is loaded with muskies. Is there a problem with the SMB/LMB fishery there?

etc., etc., etc.

Of course, muskies will eat a bass on occassion (and loons and seagulls and muskrats and Canadian Geese), but studies show they prefer and target elongated, soft-rayed (non-game) fish like suckers and ciscos. They also like yellow perch quite a bit. These three species were the vast majority of the fish found in a musky's diet according to the stomach-content studies I've seen. You can read the published reports yourself. Bass were only infrequently eaten.

I just haven't see any evidence - either scientifically or antecdotally - that bass fishing, or walleye fishing for that matter, will suffer as a result of musky stocking.

Brian

[mtreno]

that is interesting you dont here as much about the bass as you do the walleyes. i have read that the bucket mouths do love to feed on musky fry. and i would assuem a big ski may eat a bass or two - but i think that would be about the extent of it. i think the bass guys just complain less then the walleye guys.......j/k

i know the french lake association was very upset about the musky stocking in french cause "they will eat all the crappies" but french lake is even a better crappie fishing lake then it was before the muskies were stocked.

[gorrilla]

Dietz, why would you think that?

Where's this coming from?

I just don't get it. From your "expert" status on this site I thought you'd have some basis of your opinion. I think people just feel threatened their favorite fish or fishing spot is going to get ruined. Its more to do with human nature than facts or scientific studies of the real effects.

[Deitz Dittrich]

Quote:

---

Dietz, why would you think that?

---

I know in my head, that muskies should not play a large roll in bass fishing. And I have never seen muskies affect smallmouth fishing much. Because as stated, lakes like Mille Lacs, Vermillion ect... The smallies seem to thrive. But I would call neither of those 2 lakes great largemouth bass fisheries. Yes they have bass and can be caught.

I am really afraid of puttingmy foot in my mouth on this issue, again, because I am clueless on this.. and was just bringing it up to see if anyone had any data on it. This subject really intrests me.

I do fish quite a few laremouth bass lakes in WI, and a few in MN, where I have felt that the size of largemouth has been affected by muskies. Forest Lake for instance, as its become a better muskie fishery, I have felt that the bass fishing has declined. Weather or not its a direct relation to the muskies, I dont know. Hence why I asked the question.

Sorry if I offended.

maybe it was irresponsible of me to state an opinion without fact. If I could i would rephrase my statement in more the form of a question...

So, here goes..

I have felt at times that muskies has hurt largemouth bass fishing in a certain few lakes, I'm not 100% sure it has anything to do with the muskies, has anybody else noticed this at all?

[gorrilla]

I believe from my interpretations of studies and currently stocked and naturally occurring lakes that I have experience with, that muskies have no dramatic impact on the largemouth bass and I'll go one step farther and list a few of my current and former favorite lakes in MN for both:

Minnetonka, Waconia, Alexander, Miltona, Vermillion(large and smallmouth), Mille Lacs(smallies), LEECH(awesome LM and Muskies), Sugar, Cass, Big, Rainy, LOTW, the whole Little Boy/Wabedo Chain, ETC...

Even though I'm sure I'm missing a few if someone doesn't think these lakes are great healthy bass lakes I'd be hard pressed not to call them a liar or ignorant.

My strong opinion is similar to most of, or all fisheries biologists in that lakes with stunted hammerhandle northerns are cursed with an overabundance of predators and extreme competition and depletion of the forage base, not to mention the snakes are known to put too much pressure on young and newly stocked fish. These situations need to be corrected for the sake of bass, walleye, panfish, musky and northern fishermen. If people would quit picking on the stocking of muskies and start focusing on a real problem, we'd all be better off!

[Deitz Dittrich]

gorrila- thank you for your point of view, I will have to educate myself on this subject better. Its quite possible that my opinion will change, you do name quite a few very good bass lakes that are also very good muskie lakes.

Thanks again!

[ChuckN]

Deitz, you fished a fantastic muskie and bass lake...it has an abundance of all species....in fact, you brought in some nice bass and hooked a dandy muskie that particular day (which was a horribly slow bite at the time).

Personally, I feel humans do the most damage to any fishery...and I don't blame the muskies. I think muskies will feed on ciscoes, tullibee, suckers, etc.. before bass, walleye, etc.. Heck, one big muskie died from eating a bullhead this summer...got stuck in it's throat.

[ccarlson]

Amen to gorrilla's post about the problem with hammerhandle northern pike. This should be one of our primary concerns as anglers (along with habitat and shoreline degridation, invasive species etc.) much more than knee jerk negative reactions by many anglers that oppose musky just to oppose it. (I'm not referring to the posters who are taking the time to give opinions and partake in an informative discussion on this site but rather the people who just disagree and don't know anything about the topic.)

I do have to comment on one post back a ways that blamed walleye rearing ponds on the decline of the duck habitat health in MN. Please do your homework and see how few ponds are actually used in MN for walleye rearing ponds compared to the virtually uncontrolled number of ponds that have been taken over by private bait harvesters and filled with minnows! That along with the farming practices that drain the fields into the ponds which make them deeper and less prone to winter kill of the minnows. Drainage ditches have made ponds connected so fatheads spread and the problem is so vast and complex that I can't even believe that someone with any knowledge on the subject would blame the few walleye rearing ponds as the culprit of the duck habitat and food source problem in MN.

While I'm at it. I can't beleive how selfish the comments are I've heard in the local media lately by some of the Nisswa guide's. They worry that if musky are introduced it will make the lakes more crowded. Wake up people, the area is growing more than any of us wants it to and congestion on the lakes is something that goes along with that. If it's not musky fishermen, it will be jet skii's, tubers, and whatever else. Gull lake is crowded by anglers lately because the fishing is good. What the heck are they complaining about? Sorry, I usually don't get that negative, especially about guides but that comment has me irked.

To me, (as an avid walleye angler) this topic boils down to two sides, one that has done their homework, has obtained the professional opinions of fisheries biologists and has factual reasons as to why the introduction of musky will not do any harm, but will increase angling opportunity. The other side has pretty much limited their arguments to speculation that it "might" hurt the lake and their stance comes from a much more emotional standpoint versus a factual, scientific standpoint.

ccarlson

[Ray Mysterio]

ccarlson,

I was posting on the bluebill population (not the duck habitat) and I think there are quite a few more rearing ponds in this state then you might think. I have 4 rearing ponds within 10 miles of my house. And also, those minnow ponds are used for raising mostly fathead minnows. What do people use fathead minnows for? Walleye fishing? Among other species. It seems to stem back to the good ol walleye. Whats best for the walleye and walleye fisherman. I used to manage a bait store for 4 years and I know of how many ponds are used for minnow trapping. I understand it is an economical issue.

I do agree that other things have affected the duck habitat but I was talking about the bluebill population decline that has been linked to a few things and one of them was the decrease in freshwater shrimp availability.

[Deitz Dittrich]

Ok.. I can eat crow and admit when I was wrong...

[jmd]

I agree with fish 500. The DNR will sale the musky stocking program even if most fisherman don't want it (as Jason Erlandson has stated in his reporting). Reading the DNR invitation and anyone can see it has pro stocking slant to it. The real voice here is the Gull Lake Association. They are the ones who can sway the DNR for or against stock due to their political might. If they don't want it it will not happen. If they want it it will happen. Why does Gull get ~3,000,000 walleye stocked every year?

[Tyler D]

how about we make everyone happy, maybe the dnr could either stock both muskies and walleyes in gull lake, or they could stock neither then we could see how the walleyes fare in this "natural" walleye lake. There is room for all species gull it is a big lake with a huge forage base. there is no way everyone will be happy so I hope the dnr does do what ever they want to

[gorrilla]

I hope the dnr does do whatever they want to...

Why not?

We(taxpayers and license purchasers) are paying good money so the dnr hires the most experienced, best educated people they can find to make wise and fair management decisions for our lakes.

Why is it people always think that the lake associations always know better??? Just because groups have money or political clout why would that make them better at deciding what's best for a resource?

My money's on the people who have dedicated their lives, education/careers, and time towards maintaining and improving our lakes and fish population. The common land owner is basing his opinions on guesses and unfounded emotions which often are jaded towards the dnr. I have lots of friends who are guides and bait dealers and I like them a lot, but I hope they don't think muskies will hurt their business, because from and overall monitary point of view, it should do nothing but draw more people to their local services...

[Sportland_Bait]

I will accept what the DNR has decided is best, but I still believe there are questions without clear answers. What I've read is that muskies do not prefer to eat forage with spine structure. At what size does a walleye fry become unedible? I've read that in studies examining stomach contents, walleyes were rarely found, but what if the forage base of a given lake is depleted? Which can happen from time to time. What will the muskies eat at that point?

I can give you a first hand account of the ecomomic impact. Gull lake is a billion dollar resource that has been built on walleye fishing. We have been running the store for 31 years, since 1976. Our main customer has always been the avid walleye angler. We cater to them and they spend a lot of money in the area over a season. Walleye anglers have always favored the small stores such as ours because most of the time they prefer the best live bait they can find, that is why they come through our doors. Muskie anglers shop at Reeds, Gander Mountain, and Fleet Farm. They have always shopped there and always will. That is great for those stores but it does nothing for us. A muskie angler spends money on rods, reels, and lures for the most part. Even if I sold 200 muskie lures over the season and a couple of rods and reels, the net profit still only amounts to around $1000. That doesn't impress me much considering a single avid walleye angler will spend that on live bait alone during the season. It is hard for me to allocate more space to muskies when that isn't where the best income is.

I cannot speak for every business in the community but I know for a fact that a thriving walleye fishery is better for us at our store.

We'll see what the final decision from the DNR is, I'm sure they will do what is best for everyone and for the lake.

Jason Erlandson

[gorrilla]

Jason, this isn't to continually debate your opinion, but as an avid fisherman(walleye and muskie!) I can tell you that since I've been in the FISHING business (going on 35 years) I've always enjoyed something pulling on the end of my line... Usually like all of us, the bigger the better. Often times though, I'm not willing to fish for days on end to catch just one fish. I like most of us like to catch and release lots of fish, but occasionally eat a good meal of walleyes.

When I started musky fishing in the 90's, I had my year or two where I was nuts about them and focused on mainly muskies alone, but once that stabilized and the newness wore off, I got back to walleyes as well. Let me tell you, that since that point I'd have to say I spend just as much on BAIT as ever(if not more). *** An important thing to consider too is that I often plan my biggest, longest, and most expensive trips around waters that hold both great walleye populations as well as MUSKIES...

So I'm still not seeing a reason to worry. Nobody has convinced me that muskies will "ruin the walleyes."

THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN MY EYES.

[Crappie Kid]

I'm with you on this Jason. I hope that the Gull lake association agrees. I don't have to be an expert to know that the Muskies will compete for most of the same food as the Walleye. I as a matter of fact personally have seen two large dead Walleyes floating on two different lakes. One about 7 lbs with a huge bite mark in the middle of its body on Wabedo lake. Another huge 32" Walleye with it's gill plate ripped off the side of it's face with large teeth marks all over it's head on Cedar lake near Aitkin. This is no lie. I don't think they were trying to eat them. I think it may be a territorial thing. No way of knowing for sure.

[Sportland_Bait]

Gorrilla, your point is well stated. The problem with the issue as a whole is the lack of long term factual evidence. All studies done have been short term and most information is hypothetical and theory for both sides of the argument. As you have yet to be convinced that the muskies do something to impede the progress of the walleye program, I am on the other side of the coin. I have yet to be convinced that muskie stocking will not have an affect on the walleye program ongoing in Gull Lake. Like I have always said there are many questions that nobody seems to have an answer to.

Jason Erlandson

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Gorrilla, your point is well stated. The problem with the issue as a whole is the lack of long term factual evidence. All studies done have been short term and most information is hypothetical and theory for both sides of the argument. As you have yet to be convinced that the muskies do something to impede the progress of the walleye program, I am on the other side of the coin. I have yet to be convinced that muskie stocking will not have an affect on the walleye program ongoing in Gull Lake. Like I have always said there are many questions that nobody seems to have an answer to.

Jason Erlandson

---

I guess I am struggling to see what additional long term factual evidence is required when there are many lakes that have had muskies, walleyes, and pike, each in strong numbers for years. Mille Lacs has had muskies in it since the 60's, not the numbers there are now, but they were there.

How do the walleyes fair on Winni? LOW? Lakes in WI?

I don't know how much more data can be produced.

For one thing, IF Gull gets stocked with muskies, you can be sure the focus will remain to manage the fishery for walleyes. That does not change. They will ensure the goals are attained for walleye numbers and adjust stocking efforts to maintain those goals. Muskies would be introduced to add another trophy opportunity to anglers.

[gorrilla]

My fingers are running out of breath,

What part of scientific study is "hypothetical" or "theory"?

These terms are used to prognosticate future moves when studying the facts, but the studies conducted were the acquisition of FACTS, not opinions or thoughts. When a scientist, whether it be masters student, ichthyology biologist, or professor conducts a research study they are trained to take only factual data and observations to best represent what they are trying to study. These studies are to be conducted without bias or prejudice. Hence the term - SCIENTIFIC... Without basing our opinions and management moves on these studies, all people tend to do is waste money and basically throw darts at a lake and hope to hit the "bullseye" based on unsubstantiated opinion, long held wives tales, and overall bar room biology. I guess I still plan on buying minnows from Sportland, and I think the addition on the green submarines will do nothing to hurt business, and most likely with elevate Gull to an even higher level...

[tbags]

I don't get what the worry is all about. Not to point fingers, but, Jason you are way off the mark here. What are we talking about here 2,800 Muskies? How many millions of walleye can they eat, even if that is all they ate? How many fish have guides taken from the lake over the years? I bet that number would be way higher. If you want a better walleye fishery, only let your guides take C&R trips. That would help the walleyes, but I don't see you advocating that. And is Gull the only decent Walleye lake in the area? Would stocking Gull with muskie ruin the other lakes too? If muskie's do in fact ruin a walleye fishery what are all those people doing chasing eyes on Mille Lacs for? Must still be some left in there I guess. I laugh every time I read where someone is complaining about how the "muskies chase all the bass and walleye into deep water." Well if you know that is where they are, let more line out and you can catch them in deep water. The reasons I am reading about for not wanting these fish introduced are obviosly selfish in nature. Why would anyone want to stand in the way of providing more opertunities for people in the area? I don't even fish for anything but walleyes and I think it is a good idea. Seems like all the people that are for the stocking in here, are basing their opinions on research and fact, and the people opposed are basing their opinions on business.

[Sportland_Bait]

Gorrilla, what I was referring to as a hypothetical and what has remained unanswered is the forage issue. What happens in years with a low food base? What will muskies eat? My guess is that 4 years of stocking will not be the last of the muskie stocking.

I do not believe that Muskies are the death of the lake. There are other factors that are much more detrimental. C and R guide trips would be a phenomenal idea. I'm sure that guides would love it if they didn't need to clean fish after the trip is complete. If I were a guide I'd sure go for it.

Jason Erlandson

[Fortyniner]

Everyone posts the same study done in Wisconsin of Musky stomach contents.

Why cant the DNR post stomach contents of Musky, in successful musky stocked lakes?

Examine the stomach contents of Muskies, in lakes in which they have been stocked successfully---

Are they afraid of the results?

?