Lake Tetonka Fishing Reports

[Svinekotelett]

What, tetonka like an hour a way, i consider that very close

[Legend23]

As a member of the Darkhouse Association I've listened to the debate over this subject several times. When I first heard about the potential stocking of Muskies in Tetonka I was a little bit excited. It seems like it would be fun to fish for and catch Muskies in the lake that I live on. After thinking about it, a few questions have come to mind.

1. If the DNR starts stocking Muskies, will they stop stocking Walleyes and Pike?

2. If they start stocking Muskies in Tetonka, all the other lakes in the chain from Gorman to Cannon would have Muskies. Will they stock enough to feed all of those lakes? I don' think so.

3. If we make Tetonka a Muskie lake and advertise as such, will the public accesses which are already over crowed on weekends and holidays be able to handle the extra traffic?

4. Will the influx of a predator fish like the muskie affect the population of pan fish and other game fish?

I'm not really for or against this project until I can better understand how introducing more muskies into Tetonka would affect the already awesome fishery that already has Muskies.

[dcmusky]

Legend23 if you e-mail me I could answer your question and send you DNR studys. Also I'll give you my phone# so I could discuss it better as I am a terrible typer.

[Shawn Kellett]

Hey Legend,

I hope I can answer some of your questions (as well as others).

1. If the DNR starts stocking Muskies, will they stop stocking Walleyes and Pike?

-The answer is no. The DNR's muskie stocking program is separate from their other stocking programs.

2. If they start stocking Muskies in Tetonka, all the other lakes in the chain from Gorman to Cannon would have Muskies. Will they stock enough to feed all of those lakes? I don' think so.

-There may be some migration, but in most all the bodies of water that have outlets the fishable population stays in the stocked body of water. We've even found this in Minnetonka where the highest densities of fish stay in the basins in which they're stocked.

3. If we make Tetonka a Muskie lake and advertise as such, will the public accesses which are already over crowed on weekends and holidays be able to handle the extra traffic?

-If you look at most muskie lakes, the muskie rigs are gone by noon most often. At that point (on the weekends and holidays especially so) the recreational crowd makes fishing unpleasant and fish fishing usually isn't as productive either. This is especially true during high season (summer). The only time that you'll probably notice the influx of people would be in the fall-ice up. This is rarely an issue with people because when the water gets to 60 degrees most rec traffic is long gone by then.

4. Will the influx of a predator fish like the muskie affect the population of pan fish and other game fish?

-The DNR has done before and after studies on the lakes they've introduced muskies into. The only measurable change in any of the lakes for any reason was of ciscos and that was very minor to the down side (Tetonka doesn't have ciscos btw). But the DNR isn't completely sold that this slight decrease is because of muskies because of all the warm weather/die-offs we'd received during that same stretch. Unlike other states like WI, OH, MI, MN stocks at a very low rate (1/2-1/5th of those states). At these low densities it's almost impossible to have much impact at all. Also, in a lake like Tetonka successful natural reproduction on any meaningful level would be unlikely historically speaking.

You can read more about this topic and the research/reasoning on the Esocid Long Range Plan:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/muskie_pike/muskiepike_2020.pdf

[Cfollow]

Legend,

There absolutely will be migration to other lakes in the chain and those lakes will certainly have a fishable population of muskies. A couple of examples are Mina which is not stocked but connected to Lobster another would be Virginia which is connected to Minnetonka. There are many other examples and these waters may be of lower density but they certainly will be fishable and it is my experience that those fish will get big fast and be dumb.

[Willy]

The traffic on the lake would be unreal, guaranteed. Look at French. I am 100% against this. Not because I don't want Muskies in there, because I don't want everyone from an hour or two away coming down to fish and beating up the weedbeds all year long, full landings, tons of boat traffic. Yuck. Take your skies and the traffic that goes with it somewhere else.

[kg2]

Will this stop northern spearing then?

[50inchpig]

DNR has made it clear that no new spearing bans will placed on lakes that get stocked with muskies.

[blue_healer_guy]

Stay away and I will be at the meetings opposing this. The lake and access are full already. I shouldn't be so harsh.

[Scott M]

1. If the DNR starts stocking Muskies, will they stop stocking Walleyes and Pike?

2. If they start stocking Muskies in Tetonka, all the other lakes in the chain from Gorman to Cannon would have Muskies. Will they stock enough to feed all of those lakes? I don' think so.

3. If we make Tetonka a Muskie lake and advertise as such, will the public accesses which are already over crowed on weekends and holidays be able to handle the extra traffic?

4. Will the influx of a predator fish like the muskie affect the population of pan fish and other game fish?

[JRedig]

You guys who oppose this know that there are already muskies in the lake from the hatchery, right?

Also, considering I spend about 99% of my time fishing in the metro for muskies, I can't believe you're worried about pressure down there. We don't get the problems you're talking about in the twin cities where the angler density is much higher. As already stated, on the weekends during mid day when the lake is the busiest with pleasure boaters, the muskie anglers won't be out, so your so called competition for the lake will be the same.

[riverrat56]

I am not a muskie guy and I do fish Tetonka quite often in both the summer and winter. It is one of the most underfished lakes in the region during the summer and until the past few winters it was pretty empty as well, even now the pressure is no where near what Madison or Washington recieves.

When I first heard the proposal I was mostly against it, but after reading the information that has been provided the only negetive I see is that there will be a slight increase in pressure during the summer. Sure muskie opener will be busy and a few weeks after that and then maybe again in the fall, but for the most part I don't see it as much of a problem.

Hopefully this can get approved to provide another sporting opportunity for area fishermen.

[blue_healer_guy]

sure is easy for some to say lets put em in there. now, lets say its in your town, second thoughts?

[Shawn Kellett]

What's the down side of muskies mjg?

Using your argument I think we should stop stocking walleyes in there too. In fact I think we should stop walleye stocking EVERYWHERE! That way the lake will be nice and quiet without those pesky anglers to ruin the lake.

Gotta love the NIMBY's (Not In MY Back Yard)

[DTro]

Heck it will probably be 10 years before these stocked fish get to be the size in which people will want to target them. A LOT can happen in 10 years.

I guess I would ask if those opposed to this would also be opposed to the DNR dumping in millions of walleye fry? Or maybe chock it full of 12” crappies. Would you also be opposed to that? Because if you want to talk about pressure, fill that baby full of walleye or crappies, and then tell me about pressure.

It seems like the “pressure” argument is the new opposition since scientific data has proven the “all my walleyes will be eaten” theory false.

[Scott M]

Another reason I say the pressure argument is bunk is the fact the lake used to be the site of the Minnesota record largemouth bass, from circa 1985 until 2005. Did you see people overusing the lake on account of trophy potential? The lake offers quality and trophy sized largemouth and smallmouth bass, it hosts tournaments, if you see boats mid-summer its often bass guys prefishing or out for fun, and yet there isn’t this stigma that the bass fisherman are ruining the lake.

Robert Fulghum wrote this neat little book called “All I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten.” His first two lessons in the book apply directly to this lake:

1) Share

2) Play Fair

[Willy]

Still don't want em. Sorry. I guess to me it seems French gets plenty of pressure from the Muskie crowd. Tetonka has better landings and IMO would grow the Muskies like no other lake in our area could.

Riveratt, you say it is underfished, but it has been a good lake with not much pressure well before you even knew it was any good. And it has been hammered on hard the last few winters, there is no denying that.

What is wrong with keeping it underpressured? Guess I don't mind having a decent fishing lake that doesn't fill plump full of boats every day like Washington does.

Dump it full of walleye fry? They have been doing that on every single walleye lake in our area for years, pick a lake there are tons to fish.

Dump it full of Muskies? How many lakes in S MN have them? Not many.

[muskydeceiver]

Which is why it seems to make sense to stock it if you ask me. You just said they are dumping Walleye fry in every lake in the area. Pick one to fish.

Muskie guys on the other hand don't have that opportunity. If you have so many lakes to fish from, why is it a big deal if muskies end up in one of them?

I just moved from the middle of Iowa (the land of 2 lakes) to the middle of MN (the land of....well you get the idea) and I still have to drive the same amount of time to hit decent muskie water. Does that make any sense?

[brmuskie]

I can respect mjgrose' opposition. He simply doesn't want anything to change in the lake he has been fishing for years. That is an honest opinion and should be respected. Not everyone needs to agree here.

I will support any new musky lakes in MN, if they are in my back yard or not. Just an opinion - not a debate.

[blue_healer_guy]

Do a cost analysis of what it is going to cost. The lastest I heard from a informed source was 1 musky costs the same to raise as 1 gallon of walleye fry. I beleive he said 1 gallon of walleye fry is around 1 million fry. Now tell the walleye guys all across the state that their favorite walleye lake will not be stocked because of no money. If you have a passion for musky's have at it. You might say you don't have enough lakes to fish, probably true. But factor in the lakes you can, Vermilion, Cass, Mille lacs, Bemidji, Winnie, Leech, LOW, Rainy do I need more, you have thousands upon thousands of acres to fish them.

I could use the same arguement of having to travel. I want to shoot an elk, I go to Colorado, Mule deer to Montana and on and on. The notion of not migrating to other lakes on the chain is interesting. Again a realiable source saw upwards of 300 northern go over the dam 3 falls ago when we had alot of fall rain. It will happen and now you guys will have more lakes for your passion.

[DHanson]

Winnie and Rainy? Not sure if 1 muskie for every 5,000 acres of water constitutes as a muskie lake?

Mille Lacs is on a huge downward swing. Not many muskie guys choose to go there any more. Not enough stocking to support that huge of a lake.

I feel Leech could use some stocking as well. A lot of guys avoid Leech for the same reasons as Mille Lacs.

LOW has good muskie fishing on the canadian side, terrible on MN side. So you can't really count that.

Vermilion is bombarded with people.

[dudeness]

Hey, Did you guys hear what a great underpressured fishery Tetonka lake is?

I have already planned a couple bass trips and a few walleye trips down there next year. Oh, and I told a few buddy's about the great bite down there. You know, those that aren't on this forum and didn't already hear about what a great, underpressured lake Tetonka is.

See ya guys next summer.

[brmuskie]

I guess I was too quick to give credit to mjgrose - here come the silly arguments.

I wish for once, people would just say that they don't want muskies in their lake just because they like things the way they are. Everytime someone tries to make an argument out of it, the arguments are based on half-truths or lies.

mjgrose - if you are worried about the walleye stocking program not having enough money you better get all of your friends to buy the walleye stamp and support stocking. Muskies Inc. members are paying the bill for a lot of muskies to be stocked in MN and they don't even keep the fish. I hope the walleye guys start paying their fair share for the walleyes.

[scsavre]

A few good points here. I suppose no body wants more people on "their lake", when one of you buys a lake, let me know.

If the lake indeed gets stocked, it will be fun to see some of you change your tune after you accidentally net your first musky. Then comes a bigger rod, a few baits, bigger net and bam, your a muskie fisherman.

So many areas have had this initial response by a few people. Alex,DL, etc. I think most skeptics have come around.

Remember these muskies are not just stocked for City folk to come down and fish. Locals are doing it now and more will start to. Youd be surprised at how many people dont need to or want to leave the metro to fish.

I am not sure how the funding works, but i wouldnt doubt if there was some $$ coming from Twin City muskies Inc. Shawn would know better about the $$$ though.

[Willy]

You are funny dudeness. I am pretty sure by your response you wouldn't catch anything there anyway.

[sheephead2]

I support Muskie stocking in lake Tetonka

[brad coin]

somebody suggested boosting leech we dont want to stock muskies into leech,,,leech has a natural reproduction it is the garden of eden for leech lake strain,,,puting stocked fish in even if they are leech lake strain could dilute the gene pool and lose the natural repo,,,also when you bring fish from a rearing pond theres always that outside chance you might be releasing a germ,virus,disease,,Im all for stocking muskies but not in the garden of eden,,The DNR feels that way too thats why they have not warmed up to the idea of boosting Winnibigosh with stocking that too has natural repo

[blue_healer_guy]

Great debates, see you at the meetings if it gets that far. You better bring alot of people cuz your gonna need them.

[honker23]

Why do muskie fisherman blur out backrounds, take pictures with the open water to their back and not the shore, and why don't they post gps coords to their best spots?? They like to catch fish, and they don't want 20 other people to be there when they go out!! Seems hypocritical to give someone a hard time because they want the same thing with different species.

The "local" tetonka fisherman enjoy catching fish on the lake they have learned and fished for years. It's easy to see why they want to keep it that way.

I noted a little sarcasm in a previous post about pressure on this lake. Especially during hard water, the pressure has grown by ~300% in the last 5-10 years and it's been frustrating for some people out there to see. So, that's why the idea of adding more boats to a lake worries some people.

Just my 2 cents.

[Scott M]

There's plenty of water around LeSueur, Rice, and the surrounding counties. I'm not too worried about overcrowding for any one species, muskies included.

************************************

There won't be a shortage of walleye stocking on account of money, the funding sources are different. There's a pot of money for walleye rearing (some of which comes from the voluntary stamp that barely sold) and a pot of money for muskies (which quite a bit comes from Muskies Inc). I don't think anyone should be required to pay for what they want to fish, but if you wanted to make the argument the msuky guys are definitely paying their way. A walleye fry is about a penny a piece, a musky fingerling come early fall about $15, a fall walleye fingerling is about $1.25. It all depends on the amount of care required and life stage as far as the cost.

There are quite a few places in the northern part of the state to fish muskies, but the point is there is nothing in southern Minnesota. I've heard the arguments (Go to Colorado for elk, Montana for mule deer, up north for black bear) but this is about creating an opportunity....and fair is fair. The fact is, without walleye stocking, very few lakes in southern Minnesota would have walleyes. Without trout stocking, St. Peter wouldn't have any browns in 7 mile or rainbows in the trout ponds for the trout stamp buyers. And without a small northern pike stocking effort in south central Minnesota, there would be a noticeable decrease in the pike population due to the nearly entirely destroyed wetland complexes that pike require for spawning habitat. So for people to claim that the DNR shouldn't try and create this opportunity has hues of hypocrisy.

Nobody is saying that muskies won't move around in the Cannon system; they've already been documented in Cannon, Sabre, and Sakatah before. I said their preferred location will be Tetonka. That is the case with the fish now and would be the case if they got stocked. Its not unprecedented for these fish to move or to be in river systems; one of the other proposed systems is the Sauk River Chain by Richmond. Muskies have moved into Roberds from French in high water years and muskies have moved around in the Glenwood area through lake connectivity.

If someone really wanted to make the case, you might even speculate that the fish could have made their way into the systems presettlement. Muskies are native to the Mississippi river, which ultimately connects to the Cannon. Look at Madison lake; a large paddlefish was found in the lake in the 1960s that some believe was an old specimen from the turn of the century that swam up the Minnesota, the LeSueur, and into the lake.