Muskie stocking in Gull Lake!?

[AWH]

Jason,

As far as the forage base is concerned, what has happened on other lakes with muskies where the forage base has been depleted? I can only come up with one example of such a scenario to bring up. But before we go there....

What is going to cause the forage base to be reduced? It's not the muskies. Yes, they eat plenty of food. They have to in order to survive. But their numbers are so low that the amount of forage that they eat is very minimal. If muskies are stocked in Gull, a high population of muskies would be about 2000 adult fish in the lake. Think about how much water is out there and how much forage is in the lake. Can 2000 fish really do damage to the forage base? How many walleye, bass and pike are in the lake? I couldn't even guess at a number. In the millions? And yet the forage base in the lake rarely seems to suffer. Sure, there are years when the amount of bait fish in the lake is lower and the fish seem easier to catch. Then there's years when there are bait fish everywhere and fishing seems to be impossible. Lakes are always cycling, no matter if you're talking game fish or bait fish. Honestly, with the habitat and characteristics that Gull Lake possesses, I don't believe the forage base is a concern now or ever will be.

The hypothetical what if? The lake will cycle and rebound...fisheries like Gull Lake always do. What will the muskies eat? They will eat what's available to them, just as the walleyes will. Again, musky populations are so low in any given lake that the amount of fish that they eat is minor compared to what all the other fish in the lake are eating.

Now as far as the example that I alluded to earlier in this post...Mille Lacs Lake, 2002. Does everyone remember the year that the walleyes went wild? Yes, it happened this year too. But the walleyes in 2002 went nuts as well. The difference in 2002 is that these fish were skinny. There was "no food" for them to eat, or so this is what everyone was saying. And it's true, the numbers of perch and other bait in the lake early in the year of 2002 was suffering. And as a result, walleye fishing was phenomenal but the fish were skinny. Not only were perch populations low, but I heard that the cisco populations were very low. How were the muskies doing? For many anglers out there, musky fishing was very tough and the fish were anything but skinny. So the muskies were finding food to eat somewhere. The end result? By late July to early August the lake was loaded full of young of the year perch. Prior to that there were many concerns that the lake was about to collapse with the lack of bait in the lake. A few months later and this concern was completely gone.

As I just alluded to, the cisco population was also very low in 2002. I don't know when it rebounded, but I know that in 2005, cisco popultions were thriving. Many musky anglers reported snagging cisco after cisco while fishing the rocks last fall.

So what will happen if the forage is depleted in Gull Lake? Much like Mille Lacs, the lake will rebound and fishing will remain strong for all species.

The state of WI has hundreds of musky lakes. Many of these lakes are only a few hundred acres in size and have healthy walleye, bass, panfish, pike and musky populations. If lakes like these continue to retain healthy fisheries and the forage base is never a concern, Gull Lake is one of the last lakes that you would have to worry about in that regard.

Aaron

[mtreno]

not affraid of the results there affraid of killing the fish. not very easy to remove stomach content from a fish without stressing it out really bad.

[Fortyniner]

Sacrificing a few muskys seems like a fair trade for info on what they are eating, and whether or not to stock them in a lake.

my 02 cents.

[Sportland_Bait]

Hi Aaron, You seem to be fairly schooled on the issue. At what size does a walleye fry become a food source unedible for a muskie? Walleyes from 1-3 inches are fairly soft structurally. It seems very hard for me to compare Mille Lacs and Gull Lake due to the nature of Mille Lacs being a self sustaining system. Also after the plans of stocking 2800 muskies per year for 4 years, will there be more stocked? I think we should consider where this program is leading. My guess is that Muskies Inc. will be pushing for continued stocking. So the numbers of muskies in the system we are talking about will be more than the original 11,000. We surely will not know if any harm has taken place in these first 4 years.

My main point is when forage levels dwindle during the season both species will compete for the same forage. But only as long as the walleye numbers continue to be at an all time high. I just think it might be counter productive to administer both a walleye stocking program and a muskie stocking program at the same time. With the way these walleyes are eating the muskies might be the ones we need to worry about.

Jason Erlandson

[AWH]

Jason,

Is their plan to stock more fish after the first four years? Absolutely. The reason it is stated in the proposal that they will stock 2800 fish for the first four years is that after the first four years they will then assess the population. They won’t be able to determine anything about natural reproduction because all of the fish will be too young to have spawned. Yes, the proposal is for 2800 fish per year. But the survival rate on those stocked fish is probably around 10%? I’ve heard their estimates on survival rates before, but I can’t remember exactly what it is. I believe 10% is close. So roughly 280 fish from each stocking will actually make it.

The MN DNR attempts to have musky populations of 1 adult fish for every 4 to 5 acres of water on most lakes. From all information I have gathered on the Gull Lake proposal, I wouldn’t be surprised if their goals for Gull are more in the 1 adult for every 6 acres of water. Why fewer fish? Because they look at Gull Lake as a lake with phenomenal trophy potential and they typically manage lakes like that more for size than numbers. But either way, they will have their long term management plan, just as they do for walleyes and they will adjust their stocking accordingly based on their population assessments. As far as your thoughts of more than 11,000 muskies in Gull? You need to greatly reduce this number to what reality will be. Hopefully this will help make more sense as to why muskies really are not a concern on this issue.

So after 4 years what will they do? My guess is that they will likely take at least one year off from stocking, do their population assessment, and then reevaluate what they need to do in terms of stocking in order to reach and maintain their long term management plan. Maybe it’s less fish stocked. Maybe it’s an every other or an every third year stocking program. Those are things they will have to determine at that time.

“At what size does a walleye fry become a food source unedible for a muskie? Walleyes from 1-3 inches are fairly soft structurally. It seems very hard for me to compare Mille Lacs and Gull Lake due to the nature of Mille Lacs being a self sustaining system.”

I’m not sure at what size a walleye becomes more of a spiny food source over their fairly soft structure as a young fish. But when asking this question, here’s what you have to understand. Muskies eat larger forage than walleyes of the size you‘re talking about. Where walleyes will go around eating perch after perch in the 1 to 3 inch range (as well as their own kind in that size range!), a musky is rarely going to waste its energy chasing down a food source this small. That’s why lakes like Gull Lake that have large populations of suckers and ciscoes that offer a bigger meal than a perch are able to support a musky fishery with true trophy potential.

Not wanting to compare Gull to Mille Lacs because of Mille Lacs being self sustaining and Gull relying so heavily on stocked walleyes is understandable. Look no further than Lake Alexander as a great comparison. Alex is much like Gull in that it relies heavily on stocking. In talking to a member of the DNR this spring, they have experimented on Alexander between stocking fry and fingerling walleyes. They now rely entirely on fry stocking only for its walleye population. As you know, Alex has a healthy musky population. The fry stocking for walleyes on Alex is one of the most successful in the entire state. I was told that when the DNR does their nettings in the fall the numbers of walleyes in the nets from their stockings are flat out amazing. I see this as a great example of why there should be no worry over the muskies eating young walleyes. It’s simply not the food source they’re going after.

Now on the other hand….a “young” musky might choose to eat some walleye fry (they have to eat what‘s smaller than them!). BUT walleye fry have a chance to grow before muskies spawn. So by the time you have musky fry, the young of the year walleye and pike are the main predators on the muskies.

As far as administering a walleye and musky stocking program at the same time? Again, look no further than Lake Alexander as a major success story. Go to the DNR’s website and pull up the stocking data on any of the newly stocked musky waters in the last 30 years. Most are managed and stocked with both species, and very successfully.

Aaron

[Sportland_Bait]

Thanks Aaron.

Jason Erlandson

[walleyedan]

Hi Jason,

I really don't think the walleye population on Gull is going to be effected by a musky population. You will still find as many if not quite a few more walleye anglers in this area in the years to come buying your bait. Pick up some of the hottest musky baits, put them up at the front counter and sell one to each of the walleye fishermen. Even avid walleye fishermen will become closet musky fishermen if they know there are giants out there. Why wouldn't you fire a few big baits once you have had your fill of walleye fishing. I think this musky topic will get national attention before it's over.

Walleyedan

p.s. Walleye fishing is still good on Gull, just got off the water.

[fish500]

I am afraid that people are oversimplifying this debate.

I'll give you a quick example of how stocking predatory fish such as walleyes can affect an ecosystem. Believe it or not, but our natural walleye fisheries would be better off at least in the long term, and probably in the short term without stocking.

The stocked walleyes eat smaller fish that feed on zooplankton. This creates an increase in zooplankton. The increased zooplankton eat an increased amount of phytoplankton. There are many different kinds of phytoplankton (algae). Basically there are algae that contain fats, and algae that contain starches. For those who are interested, a good example would be diatoms (fat) and blue green algae (starches). The zooplankton like to eat the ones that have fats because they are more nutritious (They feed selectively).

This results in a major change to the food web. Once the algae community is altered it is very difficult to change it back. This has great long term, negative impacts on lakes, and it is a reality.

Muskies are not stocked or present in even close to the numbers of walleyes, but don't forget that science and nature has many examples of animals that have large effects on ecosystems in relation to their biomasses.

I think the example I provided shows that it is very difficult to predict the effects of stocking upon a fishery. The example should be fairly well known in the scientific community, and it is large importance in this debate. I would be interested as to how many people were aware of this phenomenon. If you were not aware of this phenomenon, I would encourage you to rethink where all of our current levels of knowlege are at, and whether any of us are truly qualified to say stocking muskies is worth the risk.

A report titled "economic growth and fish conservation" in the American Fisheries Society publication lists stocking of sport fish as being one of the prominent threats to fish coservation. It refers to them as invasive species, and links the problem to economic growth. This was in volume 31 no 8, August 2006, Pg. 405.

It is important to consider that lakes have turned into what they are over thousands of years of natural selection. This should have resulted in well adapted fish that should be able to withstand harvest and predation, and provide good stable fisheries. Placing a new species into the system is more than simply increasing predation upon a few different species.

I think that Jason is on the right track in that there are many effects to consider. There are also many we can not forsee. We do not have sufficient studies or experience to take this risk.

[AWH]

Fish500,

Do you have a link to the report that you referenced? Perhaps I’m looking at a different one. The one I’m looking at is titled “Economic Growth as a Threat to Fish Conservation in Canada”. I’m sure that it’s based on the same principles. But because I’m not seeing everything that you’ve referenced, maybe I’m looking at a different report.

At any rate, this report lists the threats faced by freshwater fishes as the following: habitat loss or degradation, pollution, exotic species, dams and barriers, water management, urban development, over-exploitation, climate change, and aquaculture. It lists the most common threats as habitat loss or degradation, pollution, and exotic species. This study makes it very clear that habitat loss and degradation is by far the biggest threat, followed by pollution. I don’t think this would come as a surprise to most. When it mentions exotic species it labels them as alien invasive species and mentions zebra mussels as an example. I don’t see any mention of stocking sport fish as an introduction of invasive species.

This report is centered around threats to fish in terms of species endangerment. When it comes to Gull Lake, I hope we are all in agreement that there is no threat of species endangerment on this lake.

Fish500, you clearly have some biological knowledge of our waters. However, when you bring up all the risks that this proposal is taking on, you fail to bring up actual examples of lakes where these “risks” have been a reality. If these are such threats to our fisheries, there must be at least a few real life examples that we can look to, are there not?

You are right in that it is very difficult to predict the effects that stocking will have upon a fishery. I would argue that it’s impossible to predict, as each fishery has its own unique characteristics. However, we can make very educated assumptions on the effects based on scientific facts and real life examples. I have yet to see a study that even implies that stocking of muskies is a threat to a fishery.

You stated that it’s important to consider that lakes have turned into what they are over thousands of years of natural selection.

Absolutely. And lakes everywhere have changed significantly over the years for many reasons. The cause of these changes is humans and how we live as well as various environmental factors. As stated in the above study: habitat loss, degradation and pollution have huge effects on our waters. Due to population growth, this is something that we will continue to see, unfortunately.

For those that believe that muskies in Gull Lake is a risk not worth taking, all I ask is one thing. What fisheries in MN that the DNR has stocked with muskies has proven to be a mistake in terms of its effects on the fishery? Go outside of MN if you have to in order to come up with a lake. I’d just like to see an actual example of this happening.

Fish500, the more I read into your argument, the more I believe that you are not against stocking muskies in Gull, but stocking of fish in general. So if we are not going to stock muskies in Gull based on this reasoning, we should stop stocking fish (of all species) in all of our lakes, as this would be better for our fisheries. And you know, scientifically, maybe this has some truth as you look at the effects on our waters over thousands and thousands of years. But is there anyone that would like us to go in that direction?

Aaron

[tbags]

AWH.....every time I read your stuff I agree with you...Keep up the good work...and keep writing!!!

[gorrilla]

AWH you get into way more detail than I have time for, but I've agreed with your last couple posts. Let's see the proof, studies, or legitimate scientific reasoning. I don't buy the stocking always potentially screws up lakes, or our studies don't date back far enough.

Some of the musky haters/doubters need to sit down with a fisheries biologist and pick their brain and hear some ACTUAL EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN THE FIELD speak. Most of us anglers, business men, and former students in biology, don't have nearly enough time under our belts stocking fish and pulling test nets or surveys to spout off about our theories with any credibility.

Why does everybody doubt the trained biologist so much???

They like our lakes to be full of lots of healthy fish just like us. Give them some credit!!

[fish500]

I tried to post this once so hopefully it doesn't appear twice.

It is a different article that I referred to, and I did paraphrase it correctly. Stocking of sportfish in the United States poses a significant threat to our fisheries according to the article in the American Fisheries Society publication.

I am basing my opinions on my knowlege and experience, and that of others. These people include a Phd in aquaculture, a Phd in phycology, a Phd in fish genetics, and many others with lifetimes of experience in aquaculture.

This is not merely the opinion of a former biology student, which I admit doesn't carry that much weight by itself. I do believe that individuals like those I have mentioned, and material such as the American Fisheries Society publication should carry a lot of weight.

I am not against the stocking of all fish (although it really has no bearing in this conversation). I think that if you carefully read what I have written you will see that I am talking about stocking into fisheries that are already succesful. I think lakes restored from pollution, mine pits, and other situations where good fisheries did not already exist are great oppurtunities for stocking. Gull Lake and the chain of lakes connected to it certainly do not fall into a category like that (in other words there is a lot to lose). Furthermore, I can offer some suggestions that I feel would improve our fisheries. This could include developing new fisheries where ones do not exist and there is little or no risk to existing (succesful) fisheries. We need to put lots of effort into maintaining and improving the habitats for existing fisheries. Stocking sportfish into existing fisheries changes and depletes their habitats. Granted this is not as big of a factor as completely destroying the habitats through pollution, but it is the issue at hand.

Also, I hope people read and understand what I wrote about the algae. I used some scientific terms, but it shouldn't be hard to research them and understand what I wrote. This is a real threat as a result of walleye stocking.

[ccarlson]

fish500,

You sound as if you are a fisheries biologist. Are you? If so, where are you employed at? Are you willing to openly challenge the opinion of the experienced fisheries biologist assigned to Gull Lake? Have you contacted him with your insight rather than just anonymously posting your opinion?

We have a top notch fisheries biologist in charge of the Brainerd Lakes area fisheries by the name of Tim Brastrup. He knows the lake and this specific situation. With his knowledge and reputation, I can solidly say that he would not be recommending the stocking of Musky or walleye if it had any chance of damaging the lake. As one of the founders of the Brainerd Walleye Alliance, I have had the chance to sit down with Tim many times concerning various lakes including Gull. He does not cave into the special interests but he will entertain their ideas. If they make sense, he will support them. If not, he won't and will educate us as to why.

I'll keep my money on Tim and his support that stocking musky will not damage Gull lake.

ccarlson

[barnyard]

Very interesting thread.

For those that want/need to see long term studies regarding stocked fishes' affects on a given lake, go to school and get a degree in fisheries biology. While you are studying, you will undoubtedly, see all the evidence you need. There are at least 4 studies that I have seen abstracts for, 1 in Canada, 1 in New York state and 2 in Wisconsin.

I could post them here, but they are hellishly boring to read and most of us probably wouldn't understand what we were reading anyway. Scientific studies are not written for layman reading, they are written for other scientists.

I am going to trust the judgement of the biologists that have already gone to school, successfully received their degrees and used their degrees to get jobs with our DNR. They have then done their job well enough to be promoted to Area Fisheries Biologist.

Anyone that believes that a fisheries biologist would suggest stocking a fish into a lake with no regards to future effects has their heads too far up their keesters. A ruined Gull Lake would probably cost Tim Brastrup his job.

As it is, I would bet that the act of proposing Gull Lake for stocking has probably cost him and his staff hundreds of hours of time wasted trying to educate barroom biologists.

I have met most of the Mn Area Fisheries Biologists. I have also been fortunate enough to be invited to attend 2 of their production meetings. As a group, I found them all to be interested in only the best for "their" lakes. They all had a passion for not just good fishing, but great fishing. And they all seemed to want to that job as inexpensively as possible.

It is important to understand the background work that goes into proposing a lake for inclusion into the muskie stocking program.

Gull was probably (I am guessing about all this, as I was not at these meetings, I am basing this on the experiences I had at other meetings I attended) 1st proposed 2-3 years ago. Tim B probably proposed and made a case for it's inclusion, he would have included creel survey results and fish population models for the forage base.

His supervisor and other Area Fisheries Biologists, then suggested areas that would need further study. Tim then did that and came back with the results. The results were sufficient to suggest that Gull would support muskies.

There was probably also significant discussion about whether the local population, including the lake association would object and whether those objections could be overcome. That question is still in the air, but I am guessing that Tim felt that he could educate the masses enough to overcome those objections. I would bet that he asked the Mn Muskies, Inc. chapter for help. I would also bet that he told MI that without the support of the lake association and local anglers that the proposal would probably die.

I also believe that it is absurd to suggest eliminating walleye stocking on Gull. The amount of tourist $$ that walleyes attract make stocking way too valuable. Stocking walleyes has become a fact of life in Mn.

The flip side of that coin is recognizing that in years where forage populations are damaged or down, the DNR could lower stocking levels of walleyes.

Gull has been an intensely managed lake for many years. Adding muskies will not change that.

I also think that it is grossly hypocritical for any walleye fisher to object to muskie stocking because the lake might not be able to support them. There are way too many walleye lakes that exist only because they are stocked (100's of them). Many of the lakes are crappy walleye lakes, but the stocking continues because the lake association and locals "demand" it.

One other note... I used to fish for muskies and was very involved in MI. I have not fished for muskies in 2 years or so, but am still interested in seeing the DNR increase the number of lakes available to muskie fishers, but, only when it is biologically feasible.

Tom B

[barnyard]

2 other things to add to my rambling post.....

A muskie fisherie has some advantages over a "walleye only" fisherie. The biggie is that muskie anglers, for the most part, are already schooled to the advantages of catch and release. Muskies are generally caught several times over their lifetime, as opposed to a walleye, which are frequently regarded as a food fish (going by other threads on this page.)

My concern is over the whole public comment process. Many times, I have seen folks that do not even own a fishing license attend and have their concern logged. Even though it is probably not their concern.

I believe that only folks that have a valid fishing license should be allowed to comment.

Tom B

[fish500]

I do not work as a fisheries bioligist. I am anonymously posting my opinion on this forum. While doing so I am obviously challenging anyone in support of stocking muskies, and that includes the DNR. The things I have said in previous posts are true. I think that many people who have read the posts will be able understand my points, and that they are valid.

If it is at the point where people are challenging me to provide personal information, then they are spending more energy to trying to discredit me than they are to understanding what I have written.

To many biological scientists, and people publishing in American Fisheries Society, the things I have said are well accepted.

[gorrilla]

fish500, I've only got a bachelor's in Biology(fish management), but I've read a few studies in my day. Although your terms and vocabulary were understandable, the thought that:

"Stocking of sportfish in the United States poses a significant threat to our fisheries" doesn't make sense.

That just seems so illogical that I have to wonder if you fish yourself and realize who much pressure and harvest occurs in the more popular lake in the state(like Gull). I think you need to get real if you suggesting that well researched and monitored stocking programs are "harming" our lakes. I'd have to say the number of success stories FAR outnumber the failures.

Without modern fish management and stocking, good luck trying to support a lake like Gull.

One of the things that people need to realize no matter what side of the debate you are on, is that studies aren't always Gospel and the end all answer. Rather through analyzing/conducting enough of them we can better speculate and compare similar situations.

I'm still waiting for a logical and rational reason not to stock muskies in Gull.

[mtreno]

i have looked everywhere for this report you speak of. please post it or a link to where it can be found.

i have to be honist and tell you at this point i think you are making things up. the things you stated in your "study" just dont make sense. i do not claim to know everything/nor am i anywhere near a bioligist. i cannot say i have read every report and no all the different studies that have been done. (but i did stay in a holiday in express last night(ok i know that was super corney)) it seems a bit off to me - i would be real interested in reading and learning about what was talked about and in what context. just want to see where your coming from - or if your just trying to stir the pot...........

[fish500]

"Stocking of sportfish in the United States poses a significant threat to our fisheries".

This statement does make sense. I clearly provided the source for that statement.

Economic Growth and Fish Conservation. American Fisheries Society. August 2006, volume 31, no 8, pg. 405.

These are the views and opinions of the people who produced the article. They list 13 representatives of the AFS involved with the article. I don't have time to list them, but their credentials are absolutely as good as they get.

I will directly quote: "It is also worth noting the connection of economic growth to three other prominent threats to fish conservation: invasive species, urbanization, and global warming. Invasive species travel the globe as a function of commerce, often via ballast waters, the aquarium trade, and deliberate stocking of sport and forage fish."

They are not specific, but they list sportfish because they pose a threat to our fisheries.

[fish500]

mtreno. I'm not sure which report you are looking for. I take your comment about making things up lightheartedly, but yes I am trying to stir the pot. I am not just making anything up, and this is is a very serious discussion. People who want to hear what I'm saying will, and those who don't will not.

Also, I am very interested to hear which things don't make sense.

[barnyard]

What m500 says does make sense in the right context.

Lake Michigan is a prime example. About 18ish months ago, the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal wrote a multi piece article about the collapse of Lake Michigan and the effects of stocked fish. The Wi DNR at one time, was talking about stocking forage fish to support the stocked non native populations of salmon and trout.

Another example would be lakes stocked with walleyes where they were never present. Those lakes would be much better off managed for their native fish populations, but the fishing public does not seem to tolerate that.

Many of the southern Mn lakes that are stocked with walleyes are actually sunfish/catfish lakes. Minnesotans scream bloody murder if you try to manage a lake for catfish, even if it were the biologically correct thing to do.

So, while I do believe that m500 is trolling, alot of what he says is true. However, just because it is true, does not mean that stocking will stop.

Tom B

[The Crumpler]

Quote:

---

"Stocking of sportfish in the United States poses a significant threat to our fisheries".

This statement does make sense. I clearly provided the source for that statement.

Economic Growth and Fish Conservation. American Fisheries Society. August 2006, volume 31, no 8, pg. 405.

These are the views and opinions of the people who produced the article. They list 13 representatives of the AFS involved with the article. I don't have time to list them, but their credentials are absolutely as good as they get.

I will directly quote: "It is also worth noting the connection of economic growth to three other prominent threats to fish conservation: invasive species, urbanization, and global warming. Invasive species travel the globe as a function of commerce, often via ballast waters, the aquarium trade, and deliberate stocking of sport and forage fish."

They are not specific, but they list sportfish because they pose a threat to our fisheries.

---

Sorry Fish500 but your referenced article, http://www.fisheries.org/html/F3108p404-409Bigford.pdf

refers to the threat of possible INVASIVE SPECIES due to stocking of sport and forage fish. It does NOT state the sport fish themselves are a threat. In fact, the conclusion and point of the entire report clearly states that economic growth was incompatible with fish conservation. The committee in an earlier article cited ten other threats to freshwater fish:

http://www.fisheries.org/html/F3008p36-38Rose.pdf

1 Habitat Loss/Degradation

2 Pollution

3 Alien Invasive Species

4 Barriers/Dams

5 Water Management

6 Urban Development

7 Over Exploitations

8 Natural Habitat Change

9 Climate Change

10 Aquaculture

Stocking of gamefish is notably absent.

It is one thing to cite literature, but taking a miniscule point out of context and passing it off as a conclusion is both academically irresponsible and morally questionable.

[fish500]

Crumpler.. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I did misunderstand what I read in the article, and I believe your interpretation is correct. This article does not lend support to my argument, but I do stand by that stocking of fish poses a threat to our fisheries.

The reason I provided the source was so other people could read it, and this proves it was an honest mistake. I do not believe that making mistakes is immoral.

I assure you that I am not intending to troll. I am very open to criticisms of my ideas and am trying to present another side of the argument. I really do want people to correct me where I am wrong.

[CaptainMusky]

Thank You Crumpler!

I knew this was just a witch hunt. Cite an article, but then misinterpret what the entire article was about.

For someone who has undoubtedly been talking down to every person in support of muskie stocking, they should read more clearly.

[fish500]

Witch hunt is an interesting phrase. Don't witch hunts usually single out people who are different in some way. I think if your looking for someone participating in a witch hunt you should look in the mirror. This thread is clearly dominated by people in favor of muskie stocking. I have heard some legitimate responses to my arguments in favor of them and against them. On the other hand, many of the responses to me have amounted to personal attacks and nonsensical arguments. I have been accused of making things up, trolling, and participating in a witch hunt. I am human, and I do make mistakes. That's why we have discussion. I just came here to share my opinion on an issue that is important to me. By disagreeing, I was not trying to be unfriendly, but that is largely the response I am recieving. It's too bad because this forum has such great potential as a resource for discussion.

[mtreno]

you talked down to everyone like you new so much...... when you act like that your going to get called to show something to back up your statements, which you did not do. then when your report is posted what you were stating simply was not true. hey - everyone makes a mistake every now and then - but your going to catch at least a little amount of grief for it.

[tbags]

I would not take it to personally Fish. You are getting crap because you messed up. Nobody is calling you a terrible person, just saying that youscrewed up. It happens. We will all keep fishing regardless. It is nice to see another side of this other than just might be bad for your own business. Thanks Fish and everyone else for hte input. It is all a good read.

[Gator Slayer]

I'm sorry I don't understand this. I've been a voyeur on this thread for a while. Jason(spotland bait) is interested in protecting his business/livelihood. He is pretty straightforward about that. I like Jason, I buy bait from him every weekend I'm up there. He's a great guy but has an understandable bias. What I don't understand is fish500's statement about accepting that he misinterpreted the study but then stands buy his misinterpretation. If you think stocking lakes is a bad thing then quit stocking walleyes in Gull.

[FarByondDrivn]

Hey guys! Really interesting discussion. I was wondering if anybody knew when they were going to hold the public meetings about muskies in Gull. I would be interested to hear Mr. Braastrup's (area fisheries manager) insight on this topic. He really knows his stuff. Will he be at these meetings? Thanks

[fish500]

I'm not standing by the statement in regards to the meaning of the study. Maybe I can clarify what I mean though.

When stocking fish there is a risk of maintaining populations that are higher than what the forage base can sustain without doing damage to the food web of the lake. In an earlier post I gave an example of how the phytoplankton community could be changed. When predators deplete prey populations, usually the predator populations drop and this allows the prey to regain their populations. This cycle is disrupted when predator populations are maintained at artificially high levels.

Another concern with stocking walleyes (especially in Gull because it had a very good population to begin with) is introgressive hybridization. Walleyes hatched in a hatchery and raised in rearing ponds have not been exposed to the same selective forces that wild ones would have been. Because of this, their gene pool could be weak or flawed. This becomes a problem only if the stocked walleyes are breeding with the native ones.

These are a couple reasons why I think stocking of sport fish is a threat to our fisheries.

If one could determine that the stocked walleyes were not interbreeding with native walleyes, and that the forage base was not being badly affected then there would be less reason to not stock them. Otherwise you could be hurting the lake in the long run without knowing it.

Most people like walleye stocking because it is highly tangible. You put fish in, they grow, and you take them out. It's very possible that we would be better off using the time, energy, and money spent on walleye rearing and stocking to maintain the fisheries we already have. The problem is that many people are less apt to commit to long term goals where there is less of an immediate payout.