Gull Lake Muskies????

[AWH]

Phil states - “My post above STRICTLY dealt with the notion that there is NO evidence showing muskies have had a negetive impact on fisheries. I was not comparing Gull to Butternut.”

Point taken. However , the main opposition to the Gull Lake stocking uses the Butternut study as one of its key points to argue against this proposal. People that read this that aren’t educated on the subject need to be made aware of the irrelevance of the Butternut study as it pertains to Gull. There are many people that see this study, especially as it’s presented by SFRMM, and believe that muskies in Gull Lake would be devastation to the fishery. When the fact is that there really is no correlation between the two.

Phil - “As with any fisheries project, there is a cost. The money it takes to stock muskies and monitor the project comes at an expense. Ussually at the expense of other fishery projects.”

There is money allocated to our musky fisheries. A Gull Lake stocking proposal will not be taking any funds from any fishery projects that are not musky related. The percentage of the fisheries budget dedicated to our musky fisheries will be increasing because of the substantial increase in its popularity since the late 80s to early 90s. Currently, it’s out of balance. The percentage of our resources used by musky fishermen and the percentage of people fishing for muskies is significantly greater than the percentage of funds dedicated to our musky fisheries. The DNR is aware of this and the issue is being addressed.

Phil - “I have contacted Tim on several occasions to discuss various topics. One of which was stocking Gull with muskies. A reoccuring theme with Tim is the lack of funding for the DNR. I had to remind Tim, that stocking muskies in an increasing number of lakes does not help. The money should be realocated and spent on fixing up landings, studying existing fish populations, adding conservation officers, etc.”

I would be curious to know how Tim responded to this. It’s great that you have spoken to him on this. But without knowing his response, I’m not sure what the point is here other than this is what you “think” is happening and what should happen instead. True, DNR funds are lacking. But if we don’t take care of our resources by spending these funds that we DO have available, that can hurt us as well. I agree that fixing landings, studying fish populations, adding conversation officers, etc., are all important. But reallocating the existing funds? You need to be careful on this one. Everyone wants to take away from the funds dedicated to our musky fisheries because musky fishermen are in the minority as compared to walleye fishermen. This is dangerous thinking. Minnesota’s musky fishery is a very valuable resource, one we need to protect. If we continue to short change the musky programs we can say goodbye to the current world class status of our musky fisheries.

Phil - “The DNR should concentrate on improving fisheries in their current state, not conducting fishery experiments with muskies.”

Absolutely to the first part of this statement! However, I don’t think you can fairly call stocking muskies in new waters an experiment. Muskies are not stocked with a “let’s see what happens” approach. The statement that “we should appreciate what we have” strongly implies that we don’t appreciate what we have. I don’t think anything could be further from the truth. The fact that we do appreciate what we have is exactly why there is so much emphasis on the need to expand our musky fishing opportunities in the state. This is the absolute BEST way to protect and improve what we currently have. Other steps are being taken too, such as increased minimum size limits on certain waters. But without the expansion of our current musky fisheries, they will suffer greatly in the coming years no matter what we do to protect the existing waters.

Phil - “With all that has been said and no matter what happens to Gull Lake, I still feel fortunate to live in Brainerd and have Gull Lake in my backyard. Praise the Lord!”

I’m pretty sure we can all agree on that one!

Muskycrazy - “Phil , your claim of fishing pressure is lessened when you state your against it for such a small minority of fisherman . How will such a small amount of fisherman have such a drastic impact?”

Great question.

Jason - “1. If the main idea is to create more opportunity. Aren't there many smaller bodies of water in the area that could offer the same opportunity if stocked with muskies? How about some of these lakes instead of Gull. Edwards, North Long, East Twin, West Twin, Upper Hay, Sibley, Sylvan, Loon, Gladstone, Clark and on and on.”

The DNR has very strict stocking criteria before they would even consider a lake to stock muskies in. Of this list, I believe only North Long meets their criteria. I used to have the criteria that they use but I can’t seem to find it. Maybe someone else has a copy of that which they could post. But yes, there are many lakes in the state and a number of them in the immediate area that would make great candidates as musky waters.

My thought on this one though. Why would you choose any lake in the Brainerd area OVER Gull Lake? In my opinion, Gull Lake has the greatest potential. Because of it’s size and diverse nature, people would notice the effects of something like increased fishing pressure far less on a lake like Gull than most other lakes.

Some people talk about choosing a smaller lake with minimal fishing pressure. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand this logic. Musky fishermen on a lake like Gull that already sees a lot of fishing and recreational traffic will add minimal additional boating traffic to the lake. The increased traffic would not even be noticed during the busy times of the year. The main time that you would notice them would be when the recreational traffic is at a minimum such as the late fall time of year or nasty weather conditions when only fishermen are on the lake anyway.

Now, add musky fishermen to a lake that sees minimal fishing and recreational use. Say it’s a lake that only has a half dozen boats on it most of the time. Very easy to double the pressure on a lake like that with the addition of a quality musky fishery. Does anyone really feel that the boating pressure on Gull would double? So my point, which type of lake could handle something like this better than Gull? Many people say stock somewhere else. But where? And why would it be a better choice than Gull? If those two questions can be answered with logical reasoning, I think those types of responses would be received much better than the “stock them somewhere else” response.

Jason - “2. With the current situation of overcrowding on Gull, especially the lack of boat ramp space or parking. Lets make a compromise. Let Muskies Inc. raise money for a new landing.”

Jason, you said that you’re sure that the DNR would love to work with a project like this. No doubt they would! But is this realistic? How many thousands of anglers and recreational users already come to Gull Lake and complain about the lack of access points? Feasibility says that these users (of which musky anglers are a part of this group) would have a much easier time raising these types of funds if it’s a need. Muskies, Inc. on a NATIONAL level is a group of just 7,500 people. Muskies, Inc. is a very small percentage of the overall number of musky anglers, as can be seen by that 7,500 figure. So to think that Muskies, Inc. could come up with the funds for a new landing is not realistic.

On a side note to that, how much would it cost for a new landing? I have absolutely no idea. But I know it wouldn’t be cheap. And where do we currently have undeveloped shoreline on Gull where such a project could be possible?

One of the arguments against muskies in Gull is the increased pressure. Yet when the topic of a new landing comes up, this type of project would also create more boating pressure. But no one ever seems to think this way.

Jason - “3. From an economic viewpoint I really do not see Muskies bringing much to the table here in the Brainerd area. Now days you can shop year round for musky baits without even leaving your living room.”

You are really underestimating the economic impact that musky fishermen currently have in Minnesota. True, you can buy musky baits from your living room. But this is one of the smallest pieces to the financial impact that musky fishermen have to an area. For a great example of the impact of a musky fishery on a community, look to the Lake Vermilion area. There’s not much in the Tower/Cook area of MN other than Lake Vermilion. Talk to business owners in that area and find out how their business has improved in the last 20 years. Talk to resort owners and see if their vacancy rates have changed in that time.

To Tim Anderson’s comments - great post, very well said!

Phil, “Aaron, I wish you would stick to the facts (which most of the time you do and are very good at) and not try to discredit anyone based on their occupation ie. the lawyer with an opposing view.”

Please tell me where I swayed from the facts. If I did, I apologize, as that is never my intention. The facts are that the driving force behind SFRMM is someone who is a lawyer. This is a fact. When a lawyer is practicing their profession, their job is to convince someone of their point of view by presenting information that expresses THEIR side and THEIR view points. This is a fact. Find me a lawyer that would say this is not their job. As such, they are good at doing this. It’s what they are trained and paid to do. This is a fact. It’s my opinion that people should be aware of this when reading or hearing the thoughts of SFRMM, especially when the data that they provide is clearly deceptive and presented in a way to manipulate public opinion. As a lawyer, Mr. Schnitker does a tremendous job in presenting information that makes it appear that stocking muskies in Gull would be a huge mistake. However, he misrepresents the information that he presents. He takes much of it out of context. He presents the data that supports his agenda and omits the data that would conflict with the argument he’s trying to make. The Lake Miltona data is a great example of this.

If I was someone that broke the law and needed a good lawyer to prove my innocence, I have no doubt that Mr. Schnitker would be a great lawyer for me. He’s good at what he does.

Phil - “Remember, Abe Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents in American history, was a lawyer.”

That’s great. I’m not knocking lawyers. I’m simply stating that as a lawyer, he is able to do a great job at presenting his case, no matter how flawed it might be.

Phil, “As I read the posts, it becomes clearer that those who love to muskie fish, many of whom belong to Muskie Inc, are to passionate and emotionally involed to be persuaded in any other direction than the continued introduction of muskie in as many lakes as possible.”

I have to strongly disagree on this one. I know many Muskies, Inc. members. I know very few that want to introduce muskies into as many lakes as possible. Yes, there are a few that have this mentality. But just like in any group, there are uneducated individuals. Those that think that muskies in as many lakes as possible is a good idea are just as uneducated as those that think muskies “eat all their walleyes” or that they will basically hurt any fishery that they are in.

Phil - “I am going to hit on the big 3 reasons why muskies should not be introduced into Gull. #1 (My primary reason)- COST. There are allot of people who think they are entitled to government handouts and it appears a number of muskie fisherman have jumped in line.”

If we don’t work on sustaining and improving our musky fisheries, it will be far more costly in the long run than any costs associated with stocking new waters. We can’t be short sighted and think of only the up front costs. We have to think of the long term effects as well. This is not only with muskies but all of our fisheries. It’s easier and less costly to sustain and improve than try to correct a fishery that collapses. Will Minnesota’s musky fishery collapse if we don’t expand their range in the state? Some people believe that it will. But that’s a pretty strong stance to take, one that I don’t agree with. But if we don’t take action and take an aggressive approach to our musky program (including expansion) it will suffer greatly and we will lose a lot of what we have worked hard to create over the past 25 years. THAT would be costly, and something that we can’t afford to do.

Phil - “First off, walleyes are native to MOST (NOTE I DID NOT SAY ALL) of the lakes”

Simply not true. Most of the major walleye lakes in the state are native walleye lakes. But to say most of the lakes have native populations? Not by a long shot.

Phil - “In addition, if you have been following politics for the last couple years, you find that the DNR HAS been concerned about underfunding. This is hardly a debatable issue.”

I don’t think anyone debates this. The debate comes on how the funds that ARE available should be allocated. And currently, it is not a balanced allocation of the funds. Everyone that doesn’t musky fish wants to short change the musky programs even though it’s already being short changed and has been for years.

Let’s say that 10% of angling pressure was on muskies and 90% was on walleyes (obviously these are hypothetical numbers as there are more than two species in the state). Would it seem right if 2% of the fisheries funds went to musky programs and 98% to walleye programs. This is essentially what has been happening for many years now.

Phil - “#2 (secondary but still very important) - CONGESTION: The following was taken from Tim Bastrup "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."

When I personally spoke with Tim Bastrup, one of the primary reasons for the introduction of muskies to Gull, was to relieve what Muskie Inc. memebers complained about as overcrowding. Why would you think that in the future, Gull would be any different.”

So are you suggesting that we just deal with the lakes that we have and deal with the pressure? Allow the pressure to not only lessen angler’s enjoyment, but more importantly, to hurt the fisheries? Even though we have the opportunity to have more tremendous musky fisheries such as Gull, we should forget about it. Even though expanding our musky fishery will help to continue to bring tourist dollars to the state that we need to fund our resources (which is an issue acknowledged by everyone, I think), we should forget about it. If this is not the point you are trying to convey, I apologize. But this is really how it comes across. Hopefully you can see why musky anglers would not receive this type of feedback well.

Phil, “#3 (not as big a deal to me) - FISHERY IMPACT: As I have stated before, muskies in Gull would not devistate the fishery. However, there would be an impact. All the studies show that muskies love to eat suckers etc. But they also show that muskies eat walleyes and crappies to a lesser extent. Gull is roughly 9400 acres. If stocked at a 7:1 acre/fish ratio, that would be roughly 1350 muskies. If all those muskies ate, lets say 10 walleyes a year, that would be 13,500 walleyes in which I could not catch. Cost to the fishery would be 13500x$30/walleye equels $405,000. The walleye cost was for an adult walleye and was taken from the DNR. Even if these numbers are skewed, how can you argue with the logic.”

How can you argue with the logic? Now you’re really reaching. This is not logical thinking. Do muskies eat some walleyes? Sure they do. Like any species that swims, they are opportunistic feeders. Do walleyes eat walleyes? You’re dang right they do! But logic tells us that we aren’t going to complain about the walleyes being the cause of having fewer walleyes in the lakes we fish. If a musky eats a walleye, they are saving a number of walleyes that the walleye would have eaten. Obviously, given the small number of walleyes that a musky eats, this “logic” needs to be thrown out the window. Walleye numbers do not suffer due to musky populations. The studies that I have seen actually show a POSITIVE correlation between musky and walleye populations.

Phil, “Several years back, I was fishing Alex at night in the fall for walleyes. I was set up on a small point bobber fishing. Fishing was good and then it all stopped. Five minutes later, I caught a muskie. After I caught the muskie, the walleye fishing never picked up. I would say this had a negetive impact on my fishing. In addition, bass anglers (of which I am one) who have fished the lake for over 25 years will tell you that the bass in Alex have repositioned themselves since muskies were introduced. But I would consider this a negetive impact on the bass fishery and the musky fishermen would consider this a casualty of war.”

Musky fishermen could complain about similar things, but I don’t hear it out of them. What do I mean? Over the years, spots that used to be good musky spots are no longer good spots on some waters that I fish. Why? Many different reasons.

Fishing pressure can drive fish off of spots. (This can include walleye fishing pressure. Walleyes and muskies can and do use the same pieces of structure at the same time.)

Recreational traffic can drive fish off of spots.

Baitfish move, causing the predator fish that we all fish for to move. There’s an example of one lake that I used to fish where walleye populations exploded. This resulted in the perch population greatly decreasing. Muskies HAD been feeding heavily on perch. But with the lack of perch, they were forced to feed on other forage. This caused the muskies to move. An inconvenience I suppose, as I had to discover a new way to find and catch these fish. A negative impact on the musky fishery or my fishing experience? I can’t say it was. It helped me to become a better angler as I had to adapt and I learned a new way to fish. The fish weren’t gone, they just moved. It actually helped me on OTHER lakes that I fish.

Destruction of habitat has also effected musky locations on a few lakes that I fish. THIS can have a negative impact on the musky (or any other species) fishery if it destroys spawning habitat. But if it simply moves the fish to other locations, it only becomes an inconvenience until I’m able to figure out where the fish moved to.

Phil - “To move one, lets also remember that Gull has a number of smaller attached lakes, which as fisheries go, are completely different than the main lake. How would muskies impact those smaller attached fisheries?”

Good question and I can understand this concern. Muskies would undoubtedly navigate to the attached lakes. But with as low as population densities would be in Gull, they would be far less on any of the connecting lakes. Gull Lake has the structure, habitat and forage that muskies thrive on. This is why Gull was chosen for the proposal. As a result, the majority of the muskies in the system would be in Gull Lake. Why would numbers of fish spend their lives in Nisswa Lake when they could live in a habitat like Gull that is much better suited to them. Very similar to walleyes in that they will gravitate to where the habitat is most suitable to them. How’s the walleye population in Nisswa? Sure there’s a few in there. But I don’t know of anyone that goes there to target them. They just aren’t there in those kinds of numbers because the habitat isn’t there for them.

Phil, “Many say, where is the data to support muskies causing a negative impact on MN fisheries. To which I say, show me where muskies have had a positive impact on fisheries. To which you will say, look at results for Lake Alexander. To which I would say, just think how much better the lake would have been without muskies.”

Are you serious??? You should spend a day in the boat with the DNR when they are doing their test nettings in the spring and then tell me that the lake is suffering in the slightest. I have held the opinion for years that the Lake Alexander fishery as a whole has improved greatly over the years. In the spring of 2006, I had the opportunity to help the DNR with their nets on Shamineau. It happened to be the day after someone had voiced their opinion in the Brainerd paper about how Lake Alexander has gotten worse and worse each year ever since muskies were stocked. I brought this up to one of the members of the DNR that was in the boat that day. He happened to be someone that was not a musky fisherman, just for the record. He looked at me when I brought it up and said, “You have to be kidding me”. His comment to me was that Lake Alexander has been one of the ultimate success stories when it comes to musky stocking and the effects on the other species. He commented to me that walleye and northern pike numbers and size are as good as ever in that lake, as evidenced by the extensive surveys they have done there. After he got done going on and on about what tremendous shape Alexander was in he said to me, “This (Shamineau) is another lake that has done nothing but improved since muskies were stocked.” Again, this was coming from someone that was not a musky fisherman, but from someone that was as familiar with those two waters as anyone. Not only someone that works for the DNR and has been involved with the many surveys on the lakes, but also as someone that personally has fished them for years.

Phil - “Aaron, thanks for pointing me to the Musky Troubles website”

A classic example of manipulation of data in order to support one’s personal agenda is what you’ll find at that site.

Phil, “The following was taken from their site. "To illustrate this point, let's review the Lake Miltona Data from the DNR. The first-year stocking of muskies reached maturity of 36 inches in 1989 and 40 inches in 1990. As the muskies matured, the walleye counts diminished. The walleye counts over the years: in 1986, 23.0 per net; in 1989, 28.0 per net; in 1995, 23.3 per net; in 1999, 7.1 per net; in 2000, 12.0 per net; and in 2003, 10.9 per net.”

Note the following: In 18 years in which they could have presented figures, only 6 different years were reported. Granted, there aren't surveys done every year. But Shnitker (the author of this site) does a great job at supporting the facts that support his cause and ignoring the facts that don’t.

One key FACT is left out of the above data. What were perch populations like in those years? I don’t have those numbers in front of me. But I can tell you that walleye populations on Miltona over the years have shown a strong correlation to perch populations. The DNR has pumped tons of walleyes into Miltona. In my opinion, too many fish. But like with many other things, I will defer to the DNR for having better knowledge than me in knowing what’s best for the fishery. However, when walleye populations spiked, perch populations were strong in the years prior to this. However, with the increase in walleye numbers, perch populations than began to crash. Following this crash, walleye numbers also fell. As perch populations increased, walleye numbers began to follow. Interesting how that works, yet those facts are always omitted when Miltona discussions take place.

You also brought up stocking, which is important to factor into the equation as well. You mentioned the huge numbers of walleyes that were stocked into Miltona beginning in ‘95 (Minnesota’s accelerated walleye stocking program). I would argue that this actually had a negative effect on the Miltona walleye population, as supported by the numbers that you quoted as well as the effects on the perch populations that I referenced. There’s a reason that the accelerated walleye stocking program stopped. It didn’t have the desired effect. Other lakes without muskies saw similar happenings as Miltona. So why are we blaming muskies on Miltona when the evidence doesn’t support it?

Phil - “Ironically, I find it funny that many of you go to great lengths to distance data from WI fisheries to that of MN muskie fisheries.”

Did you read the article that I posted earlier in this thread? A WI DNR official himself explained why we SHOULD distance ourselves from their data. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it. But you have to take it for what its worth.

Phil - “I have come to the conclusion that Muskie Inc should look somewhere else to stock muskies.”

Again, I have to ask where? And why would it be a better option than Gull? I am genuinely interested to know where and why from those that feel that way. I am all for being convinced that there are better options, if in fact there are better options.

Ray - “Someone let me know if I am mistaken, but before we put in a dam on the Gull River, muskies were able to get to Gull Lake pretty easily from the Mississippi. That would make them a native fish”

True. And muskies have been caught out of Gull in recent years. No one knows for sure how they got there. There are many theories. But the fact is that there are already a small number in there and they likely swam those waters before the dam was put in place.

Ray - “Bottom line is there are more muskie fisherman than ever and the sport is growing faster in Minnesota than any other fish species.”

I saw a recent study that showed the popularity of fishing has been decreasing nationally. However, musky fishing was one of I believe just two types of fishing that were increasing in popularity. This was a national survey. So we know that this is much more profound in MN, with the current status of our fisheries and tourists flocking to the state in pursuit of muskies.

Aaron

[Sportland_Bait]

In Response to Aaron #2- Buying up land and creating a public access would be a spendy task. But if it means that will increase the chances of getting a Muskie program started maybe it is worth the efforts. The idea is to spread out the amount of rigs parked at the landings. With more space everyone would benefit. This could be the public support that the Muskie advocates need. I'm not saying the burden should be placed solely on Muskies Inc. But I see them as the vocal leaders of the proposed issue, plus they are one of the best fundraisers of any fishing club in existence.

In response to Aaron idea #3- I would love to speak to many of the area's fishing resorts and see how their business has changed over the years. The problem is that most of them do not exist anymore. The face of the Brainerd area has changed to a recreational user. They are the customer that spends the most money in the area. We have had a direct experience in this business for over 30 years, we have seen all the changes take place. And we understand who spends the money. The Lake Vermillion area is a totally different landscape than we are dealing with here. Maybe we should talk to realtors and see how many sales they have lost when the buyer found out that Gull Lake did not have Muskies. Or maybe Grand View Lodge and Maddens, see how many customers they feel about the status of muskies in Gull. The Tower/Cook area of Minnesota is a different world compared to here.

Jason Erlandson

[AWH]

Jason,

If memory serves me correctly, the local Muskies, Inc. Chapter has inquired with the DNR about other public landing options on Gull. This is not to say that they have offered to be the financial backbone of such an endeavor. I just know the topic has come up. I don’t recall much more than that. If Muskies, Inc. could be a vocal leader in getting a new landing on Gull, I agree, this could go a long way. Others woud have to speak on the feasibility of such a project.

But one thing the local chapter has done is offered financial assistance to any new musky programs in the area. Meaning, any equipment that is needed such as nets for their assessments, etc. the Brainerd Chapter wants to do their part to relieve this financial burden from the DNR, thus allowing their funds to be spent elsewhere. So for the concerns that are brought up on the COST of such a project, this is yet another example of why it shouldn’t even come up as a concern. To me, this says a lot about musky folks. The Muskies, Inc. Chapters in the state are constantly offering to help out the DNR with their expenses, volunteering their time for access clean ups, netting assessments, and many other things. Not that other groups don’t do some of this as well. But given the percentage of walleye anglers (for example), I don’t think you will ever see nearly the amount given back to the resource by these groups. This isn’t a knock on walleye anglers. I am one myself! Just pointing out how much musky folks contribute back to the resources.

I agree completely that the Vermilion area is a completely different landscape. But what it offers is a litmus test of what an established musky fishery can add to an area without having to factor in a wide variety of other influences such as we have in the Brainerd area. The effects on the economy in the Vermilion area are much easier to measure than they would be to the Gull Lake area. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it would have a positive impact, economically.

As far as recreational users on Gull Lake…how does that change after Labor Day? I don’t think resorts or other establishments in the area are hurting for business this time of year. But there is definitely room for growth from Labor Day to the end of November. This is where the biggest impact would be felt, simply because it would be the easiest to measure. Would it be like the Vermilion area? Absolutely not. There are other musky fisheries in this region of the state that draw musky traffic. Obviously, Mille Lacs is the big one. If you’re in the northeast part of the state in pursuit of muskies you don’t have many options within any kind of close proximity. That’s why the impact will always be greater in that area. But the point remains the same, a quality musky fishery DOES positively impact the local economy.

Aaron

[rcatcherman]

I don't know what you mean by meaningful responses. It just seems like a bunch of whining to me! The DNR is going to do whatever it wants to do. So if you think you are going to stop the muskies in Gull get a life. Look what they did to Miltona in Alexandria........

[Muskycrazy]

I'm not surprised you don't get it . It's sharing ideas , opinions ,information , etc. It's called communicating not whining .

[fish500]

You stated, "But one thing the local chapter has done is offered financial assistance to any new musky programs in the area. Meaning, any equipment that is needed such as nets for their assessments, etc. the Brainerd Chapter wants to do their part to relieve this financial burden from the DNR, thus allowing their funds to be spent elsewhere."

Tim Brastrup cites the importance of Muskies Inc.'s concerns and at the same time Muskies Inc. is providing the DNR with "financial assistance".....it's all starting to make sense. I wish I had more time and resources to help out the DNR so I could accomplish some of my own personal goals. You tried to discredit the lawyer based on his profession. Where does paying off the people who make the decisions fall in to the equation.

I think you stated that Muskies Inc. has about 7500 members nation wide. That's a lot of influence for such a small group. Although, I do have to say I know where you're coming from. I've had muskie fever too. I just think we need to keep it from getting in the way of logical reasoning.

[MuskyChad]

I believe the cost has been one of the major issues brought for not stocking Gull. If the Brainerd chapter helps with those costs is that not logical reasoning? Also I use to be one of those people that wanted muskies in many lakes but the more EDUCATED I became on the subject I realized that only certian lakes were suitable for muskies to thrive in. And yes Gull is one of them. They were in there before they put the dam(Contact Us Please) up lets put them back where they belong.

Chad

[Crappie Kid]

If the muskies were in gull lake before then why are they not in there now? Why are there none in the gull river between sylvan-dam and gull-dam? Wouldn't the next place to put muskies(in line of progression) be between sylvan-dam and gull-dam? Oh wait it might not be suitable for them. But they were there before...hmmm

[MuskyChad]

There are a few in there now I believe. A few were actually caught last season.

Chad

[Crappie Kid]

I heard about that. What are the theories on that. Was it from the dnr accidentally getting a few muskie fry mixed in with walleye's when they stock or is it someone doing their own stocking or were they natual fish?

[AWH]

CrappieKid,

No one knows for sure where these muskies came from. It’s believed that as you stated, a few were accidentally stocked with some walleye fry at some point. Seems like a reasonable theory. But who knows, they could be native fish as well.

If muskies were once native and swimming in Gull in higher numbers, why are they not there? Muskies, by nature, do not reproduce well. Many reasons for this. Time of year that they spawn is one. They don’t guard their eggs, rather they just drop their eggs and wherever they are…good luck! Also, suitable spawning habitat isn’t everywhere. Leech Lake, as an example, has just 5 to 7 known musky spawning areas over 112,000 acres of water. What this means for many native musky waters is that without occasional supplemental stocking, muskies will greatly decrease in numbers and sometimes cease to exist in that water. This is another reason why the fear of a musky population taking off, basically out of control, in Gull Lake is simply not possible. If populations would become higher than they wanted, simply stop stocking or reduce stocking and populations will adjust. Muskies are actually a very easy fish to control in terms of population numbers, unlike some species such as northern pike, bass and panfish.

Fish500 - Financial assistance was offered AFTER the proposal was put forward and passed on stocking muskies in Rice Lake. Let’s not take things out of context. Perhaps that was my fault for not explaining in enough detail. Being that Crow Wing County had no lakes managed for muskies, nets large enough for musky assessments were not available. After the proposal was passed to stock Rice Lake with muskies, the Brainerd Lakes Chapter went to the DNR and asked, “What can we do to help?” The expense of purchasing nets in order to effectively conduct follow up assessments on these waters was talked about and the Brainerd Chapter offered to assist in this area. When the time comes to doing their test nettings, you can bet that members of the Brainerd Chapter will also be there to volunteer their time to help out. These nets used for Rice Lake will be able to be utilized on Gull Lake as well if the proposal goes through.

As mentioned previously, musky fisheries have a budget, just like our walleye fisheries. All of the funds available for fisheries are not just thrown into a hat and whichever area gets the lucky draw gets the funds. They actually have them allocated to each area. So what does financial assistance offered by the Brainerd Chapter really do? I’m not positive. But my understanding is that it would simply allow their funds for their musky programs to be spread to a wider area. In other words, fewer projects slated for a given year will not be pushed back to following years. Or perhaps it simply allows them to save some funds in a given year and helps relieve some of the DNR’s financial shortfalls in an even bigger picture. It might even allow them to stock more walleyes somewhere.

My opinion is that if we are sportsmen that care about our resources and we are able to assist the DNR whether it be financially, volunteering our time, etc., why would we not do it? I’m not talking about musky anglers, but any interest in the outdoors that you might have. If we don’t, we are taking our resources for granted and just asking the DNR to give, give, give. Let’s give back and let our resources continue to flourish. There’s not one person reading this that can’t give back to our resources in some way, no matter how small. Wouldn’t that be something if every angler that bought a fishing license in MN chipped in just $1 a year that would be dedicated to our fisheries? Unfortunately, we can’t always know where our assistance such as that will go. What better way to KNOW where your assistance is going than the way the Brainerd Chapter did? I think efforts such as that are to be commended!

Aaron

[jyoung]

fish500,

I've been on the Brainerd Lakes Chapter of MI board since it was reborn in 2003 and the only financial contributions we have assisted the DNR is updating the regulations book identifications page to color so people can recognized the differences between pike and muskie. The other assistance we provided was to assist in producing a muskie education DVD, Managing Minnesotas Trophies, that is used for educational purposes for all MI chapters, DNR, Lake Associations, etc around the country. Do we offer assistance to the DNR? Yes but by no means are we "buying" off the DNR. We simply meet with the DNR every year and ask what they would like us to help them with and we then see if we can. Do they need nets, survey equipment, labor, or what? We know the restrictions the DNR feels from budget issues and we feel it is the only right thing to do as a club to help out. Every chapter or club regardless if it is dedicated to muskie, pike, bass, trout or whatever should be having these meetings to assist the DNR in helping improve all fisheries in the area. We've offered help for 4 years and we've been contacted twice to help with an educational project where they needed financial assistance. We have however helped out every year in labor setting and pulling survey nets. We created the Adopt a Landing program in the area which we clean up certain landings which in turn the DNR acknowledged it by making the signs for us to put up at the landings. So as you can see that we do have a relationship with the local DNR but we have never "bought" or "paid" the DNR off. We leave all of that stuff to the anti this and anti that groups that pay tons of money for lawyers and lobbyists to pull strings at the state level.

[tbags]

Just to add to the comments about muskies being found naturally in Gull years back, I believe Smallies are in that same group. From reading past posts the brownies used to be plentifull in there as well. Just because they are not there now does not mean that they never were. I assume there have never been 5 million walleyes "put" into the lake until the DNR started stocking the water. I see no complaints from people regarding that issue. Maybe we should cut back the harvest of walleye and not stock as heavily. I would be willing to bet the guides in the area that keep every little eye they catch for the fish starved clients of theirs would have an opinion in that? Just a short rant, and probably not even a good one. I am glad that their are so many people like Aaron out there who do have some valuable words, regardless of which side of the issue.

[jtm]

put them in and make the lake actually worth fishing. Maybe the eyes will get bigger than 12 inches

[rcatcherman]

I believe the Walleye Allience years ago were raising money to help stock walleyes in Gull. I wonder if going to Pelican was a thought because of all the contraversey of putting Muskies in Gull? After all the tournament they put on was a fun one for the weekend angler and the local guides to get together with the local community. I'm not sure if this happened ,but the thought did cross my mind...

[ccarlson]

Switching to pelican for the annual Brainerd Walleye Alliance fall classic had nothing to do with a muskie in gull proposal. It had to do with fishing a variety of waters and then it came down to the fact that permits were getting impossible to get on gull with all the other tournaments using the lake in September. Pelican is mostly open for tournament permits which simply makes it an easier choice in addition to the fact that the fishing is pretty good every year out there at that time.

ccarlson

[JP Z]

honestly, the best option in the area I see is the Whitefish Chain. AS it has a great population of ciscos and whitefish to sustain a muskie population. and the shear amount of water would be able to sustatin a decent number. But that is a whole new can of worms, as the chain is as bad as Gull on weekends.............and not from Anglers.

[B420]

jpz,

The whitefish chain is not the best option in the area according the DNR due the huge population of stunted pike. The muskie stocks would get eaten by the pike before they ever got a chance to get established.

[JP Z]

Ahhh, Thanks!!! Just when on the water and viewing the structure, etc. I just thought that would be great! But yeah.....tons of 12-14" pike.

[dippydawg]

My vote is to stock gull lake with muskies and make gull lake a catch an release only lake!!!right off the bat.

Just out of curiosity,how many different lakes are connected to the gull lake chain by river,creek, man made channel etc..??? Round and Northlong are for sure!!

I guess my point is that by stocking gull lake you are potentially stocking several lakes with muskies!! Lakes that should be more then capable of producing trophy muskie fishing.

[jerk bait]

That would be great if there was muskies in all those lakes and more. I couldn't think of a better scenario.