Impact Muskies Have On Metro Panfish

[protrapper]

I was just wondering what some of you guys think the impact muskies are having on some of our metro panfish lakes? Mainly Bald Eagle, and White Bear. I know there are big panzies in these lakes cause I catch them consistintly certain times of the year.

I hear alot of guys complain of snake northerns, small crappies and sunnies.
I think that alot to do with this is the
muskies are eating alot on these panfish, and doing whatever they do to northerns. And I agree these lakes get pressure at certain times of the year, I agree that there the easiest times to hammer them, winter and spring. But other times the lakes are overrun with jetskiers etc, and its hard to fish with that going on.

In lakes I fish in Wisconsin the northerns are also small because the muskies compete with them for food. Such as the case of the Mille Lacs eyes eating up the perch.
Now think of the muskies that are caught, there most likely released because of the restrictions. By the way I fish muskies too so I not ripping on muskie fishing one bit. And most guys release them anyway, I do also.

This is just to get some thoughts from some guys on this site. I would like to hear from you guys on this topic. Muskie guys for sure.

Thanks for your insight. Trapper....

Just think of the times you have had a muskie follow or hit you line when you had a panfish on. Happened to me twice on WBL this year. Just a thought..

[This message has been edited by protrapper (edited 05-12-2003).]

[Bobb-o]

i got one of those books you always see aboot the outdoors for christmas a few years back. It was the northern pike and muskie one. according to this book, "Given a choice, both species would choose a soft-finned, cylindrical-bodied forage fish, such as a sucker, over a deep-bodied, spiny-rayed fish, such as a sunfish. But in reality pike and muskie eat sunfish, perch and other spiny-rayed fish, because they are commonly found in Escoid habitat.

What I found most amuzing was a field and stream quote from 1956 that was found at the beginning of this particular section, "I have always believed that a bounty should be paid for big muskies. Their appetites are voracious. Often they kill for the sheer fun of it, and the destruction they can do in an hour is appaling."
~Henry Botsford

------------------
"Score, and they will remember you for 25 years. Miss and
they will remember you forever."

[Pig_sticka]

Muskies have almost no effect what so ever!

i fish a private lake in the metro very often and it has a huge tiger muskie population. we catch n release on average 11" crappies and 9" sunnies.

winnie/cutfoot, lake of the woods, leech, west battle, many wisconsin lakes, that is just a few of the very huge number of lakes that are great fisheries.

muskies are actually a nice help to take out the weaker fish, keep the populations as much in check as they can so the panfish can actually grow faster. i mean how many fish (over average in size) can a muskie eat in a day, at most 5 i would guess at most. how many fish do a fisherman take out and that is seletive harvest of bigger fish 95% of the time. thats 15 crappies a day now at 10.

small northerns have absolutly no effect from muskies. the good muskie lakes actually have monster northerns. take all the ones i listed off for the panfish for just a small example.

i am not saying this to piss anyone off, this is true facts. think about it.

[vern]

I believe muskies can have a positive effect on the size of the panfish. Too many crappies or bluegills in a system just creates stunted fish competing for food & space. Introducing muskies can thin the population allowing the survivors to reach a larger size. I agree with Pig Sticka, fisherman probably have the biggest impact by keeping the larger panfish. "Selective harvest of larger fish." Vern

[This message has been edited by vern (edited 05-13-2003).]

[protrapper]

I brought this topic up because of what an older gentleman told me today. He had fished a few metro lakes before the intense stocking of muskies into some lakes. He also said he thought that they could be having an effect on some of the panfish populations.

Pigsticka, the lakes you bring up have strong perch,& tullibee, except West Battle. And those are huge bodies of water compared to a metro lake. I fish Northwest Wisc. lakes at least three times a week, and the muskies compete out right with the northerns. example Deer Lake, prob. the best muskie lake in western wisc. Lotta muskie zip for pike and walleye for that matter. In fact the guy at the bait store told because of muskies the eyes and northerns suffered.

In fact I havent seen proof of stocking muskies or bass in lakes to control stunted populations work. At least I havent. I also beleive a muskie that is bigger than 30 inches or so eats more than 5 fish a day. Now think of the amount of muskies in Bald Eagle and WBL. I KNOW THEY GET GOOD AMOUNTS OF ANGLER PRESSURE. But what I was asking is if anyone though the muskies where also having an effect.

Also pigsticka I would like to know where you get your facts? And could you please bring up my posts that are misleading? This was just to get some thoughts from fisherman. I also have a hard time beleiving every angler on the lake gets his limit of fish everytime he goes out.

[This message has been edited by protrapper (edited 05-13-2003).]

[Guest]

I belive muskies help the lakes out with over population of small and weaker fish.I also belive the lake size makes a difference,if you have a small lake with lots of little fish in it there is too much compition for food and a few muskies could help the problem.Do these lakes with the small fish problem have many northerns in them?I think the biggest problem people have with muskies is that you don't catch them as easily as their cousin the northern and by the time they are of a legal size to keep they don't make good table fare and it costs an arm and a leg to mount one on the wall.Muskies in moderation I think is the key and maybe if we had longer length limits on the pike we would be talking about them instead.Just a thought!

[Fish On]

from what i know muskie lakes will most of the time have larger panfish because they control the stunted population

[lots of luck]

Sounds like you're talking to someone that is struggling to catch lots of panfish to stuff the freezer. I know on Minnewashta, where its full of northerns and bass(lots of predators), there is excellent panfishing. Sounds like this gentlemen needs to educate himself and work harder for his fish.

[B-bear]

There are many articles on the Internet you can find about research on panfish. On one particular fishing site of a monthly fishing magazine published here in MN, I found an article about bluegills in Illinois and it states that most fisheries managers (all states) think one of these 3 theories is why we have small panfish:

1.That overfishing was occurring.
2.That competition for the available resources was so great that it limited the growth of fish.
3.That too many large males were being removed, causing the smaller fish to mature at a smaller size.

Also stated in the article:
"Scientists thought each of the three theories might contribute to the overall decline in the size of established bluegill populations, but they suspected the third - the removal of too many large males from the population - to be the main reason for stunted populations."

The article also goes on to state that they have placed minimum size regulations on various lakes and also have tried adding more predatory (bass) fish to some others. But in the end they have concluded that the lakes with the greater restrictions is what helped the most.
Now this doesn't say anything about crappies and perch--those might be different. And it also doesn't say anything about adding muskies instead of bass. But for my money it sure does seem to say that the best thing to help improve the panfishing is to stop taking the bigger fish (in this case larger bluegill males) most of the time.
Sorry about the long post.

[AWH]

I would challenge anyone to provide information that shows that introducing muskies to a lake has had a negative impact on a lake. I know there are lots of examples of people claiming this, but to my knowledge, there have never been any true facts to back this up.

Look at the best musky lakes, and you will find the best and most well rounded all around fisheries. Muskies have a huge influence on helping to balance a fishery.

All lakes go in cycles. And when a cycle sees a decline in its crappie fishing, walleyes, or whatever is popular on that lake...if it has muskies, people blame the muskies. The musky makes an easy target for people, even though it likely has nothing to do with the decline in the fishing for this species.

The problem is most likely either the cycle that the lake is in at that time, angler harvest issues, or the fish are simply in different locations. With muskies being the dominant predator that they are, they will often push other species off of prime structure. So when these wallaye fishermen go to their once proven spot and have slow fishing, it's those **** muskies. When all it might be is that the muskies have pushed the walleys off this strucure a bit. So instead of finding them in 15 feet, they might now be out in 25 to 30 feet. But an angler that is unwilling, or maybe unskilled enough to change their presentations will never find this out. Instead they will just say, those **** muskies are eating all my fish.

Like has previously been said too, panfish and walleyes are not the preferred forage of muskies. Sure, they will eat a few. But they don't eat a lot of them. This has been proven in many studies that have taken place. Anglers will put a far bigger dent in these populations than an entire lake population of muskies ever will.

AWH

[protrapper]

Hey lots of luck. I got no problem catching fish! Any for that matter, and neither do my clients I take out. So just keep that comment to yourself.

To the other guys thatnks for your thoughts. I wasnt blaming muskies for small panfish, I know angler pressure has a huge impact. But was wondering if large muskies had some impact..

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Pig_sticka]

protrapper it might seem i dont like ya but i really dont know you, i am just seeing posts that really aren't factually correct and i am trying to correct them so people who might not fish that much can learn about the sport.

almost everyone else is with me on this post.
big muskies in my mind really dont eat alot of huge fish every day.
anyone who really really knows how much a normal size muskie eats in a day?

but yes big muskie lakes have nice panfish.
deer lake your talking about gets alot of pressure for the panfish.
and the metro lakes your talking about is way over harvested, if the metro lakes weren't overharvested, they would have alot better panfish. muskies have almost no effect in these lakes, if the have any effect it would be to help the sizes of panfish.

good fishin

[Lunker]

I'll just say that panfish are not muskies 1st chioce generally, and any predator prey relationship with fish usually increases overall size of the prey fish. Some of the best lakes for size will have big pops of predator fish.

[lots of luck]

You asked for opinions and I gave one.
Sorry if you're offended.
You're looking to make money from your favorite species for your clients. And a predator fish that someone else might enjoy pursuing , not for profit, may be affecting your business. Good luck to you.

[TRZ]

Stunted panfish populations is one of the main problems the DNR is attempting to improove in the metro. that is why muskies have been stocked in so many lakes and channel cats have also been introduced to try and reduce the numbers of stunted fish even more. i find it hard to believe that any educated angler who has any idea at all about what is going on in local lakes would even think muskies could be the problem. most anglers have no idea how long it takes to grow fish to keepable size- if they did they might release more.

[Guest]

First of all, you can't compare huge lakes like Leech w/ WBL, the biotic structure is so differant, tulibees for example. I have seen studies that show that cats eat way more than muskies, and will eat spiny fish more willingly than muskies, thus are used more often to bring panfish populations under control.
Second, you guys are not not listening to protrapper, he is not saying muskies are evil and should be gillnetted.
His contention is that muskies, in WBL, have a much greater impact on panfish populations than angling mortality. This is based on the word of an old-timer.
Now, both protrapper and the old-timer are wrong, but at least see the question he is asking and respond to that.
Nimrod

[protrapper]

Thanks nimrod. Yea, I know that angling pressure is the biggest cause. Just thought muskies werent helping the cause. Hell I fish Muskies all over the metro, and Wisconsin. I'll take a 40in. plus muskie on the end of my line any time.

[jwilli7122]

I wouldn't think muskies would eat many 10 inch crappies. maybe they eat a few 6 inch crappies, but that can only help. Large predators are good for a lake's health. A fair amount of big muskies and big northerns are better than millions of 20 inch snakes. I think the key is to have a good balance of different sized prey species such as perch/tulibees/minnows. When the northerns are fished down so much that there's millions of 2 lbers, I suspect that they tend to hit one segment of prey hard, which is bad. For instance, some lakes that are crammed with little northerns might have their perch populations crash, which in turn hurts the walleyes. I don't know if that example is a realistic one or not, but I do know that it's best to have a balance of lots of different sizes of prey - which creates a lot of different niches for different species and sizes of predators. Muskies and big pike tend to keep the little pike in check some how, which is good. If you want bigger panfish, people need to start keeping their 8 inch crappies and throwing back their 9.5 inchers. I would love to see a slot on crappies on lakes like bald eagle. say, 9-11 protected. There isn't anything wrong with keeping an 8 inch crappie, they taste great.

[Guest]

Muskies have never helped increase the size of panfish....in fact they may contribute to an increase in small sunfish. Why ? Because they eat the fish(bass and smaller northerns) who feed on the stunted panfish.

[protrapper]

Luts a luck,
you still dont get it man. You acuuse me of being unable to fill my freezer, and not able to catch fish. That was your ignorant opion. Yes ignorant. And I also fish muskies, no I hardly take people out for money if I did I would be broke. I think I am a good trout and panfisherman.

Pigsticka, I respect your opion you just came off hard on my thoughts so I got mad at you no hard feelings. The only reason I brought this topic up is because it was brought up to me, and I had no idea if they did effect the populations. I figured they would on northerns. IN NO WAY WAS I TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE. THEY CAN MAKE UP THERE OWN MINDS.

LATER AND GOOD FISHING.

[AWH]

Mr. Lee,

You are very incorrect in your assumption. Again, they eat very few bass and northerns. They are not their preferred forage. Sure, they do eat some. But I would be very willing to bet that northerns will eat far far far more bass and northerns than the musky populations do. Why? Because there are far more northerns than muskies. And likewise, anglers will take many more bass and northerns out of a lake than will muskies.

Although I do agree that muskies may not always help to "increase" the size of panfish (but sometimes they will, depending on available forage in a given lake). But muskies will help to keep in check stunted populations of most species, including panfish and pike. Will introducing muskies cure a stunted population of panfish, pike, or whatever situation an existing lake has? Probably not. But if the DNR puts some regulations in to help the cause, perhaps even do some netting to remove some of the stunted populations, muskies will indeed help the fishery. Again, they aren't a cure all, but they are a help.

AWH

[This message has been edited by AWH (edited 05-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by AWH (edited 05-15-2003).]

[Guest]

AWH,

We are talking about decent sized bass and northerns..not the 12 inchers and under. I know anglers take far more of these than muskies ever will. However to suggest that muskies rarely eat bass and northerns is far fetched...in many lakes this is their # 1 diet. Northerns rarely get big enough to eat 2-3 pound bass in most lakes around here...but the are the perfect size meal for decent muskies.

[AWH]

blgoose,

One more note on muskies and reproduction, as I didn't really answer your question too well. Muskies are very poor spawners. They tend to be very random and don't guard their spawning areas well at all. So they are highly unsuccessful when compared to other species.

AWH

[Guest]

Well I have had more than one musky latch onto a bass that was on the end of my line. Now don't get me wrong...I like muskies...unfortunatly not all bass and walleye guys do.

But to say muskies are good for a lake is a stretch. Maybe good for muskie fisherman,but overall they probably have very little impact on the size of any other fish.

Northerns like to spawn in flooded grass/muddy areas. I saw 3 muskies spawning 2 weekends ago down on Okiboji. I assume it was 2 males and one female. They were spawning in about 1 foot of water right next to shore that was rocky.Not sure if all do it this way or not.

[protrapper]

This is turning into a pretty good discussion. I myself find it hard to believe that northerns and muskies can co-exist in metro waters without the northerns suffering. I would considerate along the lines of wolves and coyotes. Neither of them can co-exist together. One flourishs in numbers while the other exists but in smaller numbers. Just my thought..

[Pig_sticka]

what do you think a muskie would hit more likely
a 4lb bass that would be almost impossible to catch and eat, or a 6 inch stunted sunfish in a school of other sunnies?

really muskies dont prey on bigger northerns and bass, sure once in a while i am sure they get a hold of one but unlikely.
everyone uses smaller baits for muskies and for a good reason, thats what they like. if they only hit big baits we would be using huge baits to catch them. i have had muskies follow my panfish in, but never a big bass or northern. maybe if they were chasing the bait they were eating.
muskies are great for the lakes, they really dont hurt a thing, it is just all of us that hurt the lakes. in 20-30 years we might not have any lake in the state that hold a good population of big panfish because of this.

all i see is new construction all over lakes, very nice lawns though i might add, wait a minute where did the fish go, i guess a golfing green is more important than haveing wildlife.

[AWH]

As far as metro lakes (the topic of this thread) suckers and perch will very likely make up by far the biggest portion of a musky's diet. Even in lakes outside of the metro, this is likely the same scenario in lakes that don't contain ciscos and/or whitefish.

Is it rare that a musky will eat bass and pike? No, but they don't eat a lot of them when comparing it to the rest of their diet, even in the metro.

I would challenge you to find even one lake anywhere (not just the metro) where bass and northerns are at the top of the list of a musky's diet. Personally, I don't believe that there is such a lake. And if there is, it's not in MN.

In lakes that lack the appropriate forage for muskies, you will find a stunted musky population. If you had a lake that had just your normal bass, northern and panfish population, few perch, no suckers, none of the preferred forage...muskies will not grow to large sizes. Why? Because then panfish such as sunfish and crappies become their preferred forage because that's simply what is available to them. Even if the bass and pike population is good, they are not what makes up the biggest portion of their diet. There are a number of lakes in WI that are exactly these kinds of lakes and the muskies are small. Some of these lakes have a 28" minimum on muskies because they very rarely reach the 40" mark. Without the appropriate forage, muskies will and can become stunted as well.

Pretty much all of the metro lakes have good to excellent trophy potential. 50" fish are not uncommon. Why? Because they have a good forage base that allows them to grow to these sizes. Metro lakes are loaded full of suckers and carp. That's why these lakes are excellent musky lakes.

Most of the metro lakes are also very good bass lakes and have plenty of northerns (although mostly small due to angler non-selective harvest). And again, because these metro waters have the appropriate forage, that's why we are seeing large muskies.

AWH

[blgoose]

Great topic, I wondering what a musky spawing habits r. Is there reproduction in stocked lakes high. Say like a walleye or sunfish! I have a cabin on baby lake in northern mn. Which the dnr stocks.Just wondering because person rarely keep these fish will there population explode because the fish r not harvested.baby is about 754 acre lake. what eats musky. Goose

[AWH]

blgoose,

Reproduction all depends on the lake. Some lakes have good natural reproduction, others have little or none. I'm not sure how it is on Baby.

What I do know about Baby is that it's more of a numbers lake, not a lot of huge fish come out of there, but you do hear of some. I think the DNR does a good job of managing the lakes, so I don't see the stocking efforts ever creating a population explosion. The DNR will simply keep this in check by cutting back on how much they stock the lake if it becomes an issue.

What eats a musky? Pretty much anything when they're young. If you're talking bigger fish, muskies are at the top of the food chain. With musky populations being as low as they are, it's good that they don't have anything in their natural environment that preys on them when they reach adult size.

AWH

[AWH]

Mr. Lee,

I fish for muskies almost exclusively once the season opens. But even if I never fished muskies, I would want muskies in the lakes that I fish most, no matter what species I was going after. Muskies do benefit fisheries. They create a much more well balanced fishery.

Protrapper,

It's my belief that in your example of northerns and muskies in the same fishery, that it's the muskies that will suffer far more than the northerns. The reason for this is due to spawning. They usually (but not always) spawn in the same general areas with northerns spawning first. Because of this, the newly hatched pike will be looking for food when muskies spawn. And when the muskies hatch, they're the perfect size for the newly hatched pike that are in the area.

Lakes with abundant pike populations tend to make it more difficult for the muskies to really dominate a lake. They can coexist very well, as many many lakes prove. But muskies will thrive much easier in lakes with fewer pike.

I really don't think that pike populations are effected all that much by a good musky population.

AWH