DNR contiplating stocking Musky's in Sauk River Chain.

[BrdHunter01]

This was printed by St. Cloud times last week.....

Another view

The state proposed stocking muskies in Gull Lake near Brainerd in 2007. After much public discussion and strong opposition from local residents, the proposal was eliminated.

Since discussions involving stocking muskies in the Horseshoe Chain began in 2006, Diedrich says there’s been support from some groups to do so and opposition from others, which was expected.

Those against the proposal fear that adding muskies will have a negative impact on other species in the system. Even though spearing for northern pike will not be banned if muskies are introduced, avid spearers also remain skeptical any time muskies are stocked in a lake.

In addition, DNR officials know there’s a level of mistrust among anglers that frequently fish the Chain surrounding the explosion of channel catfish now in the system.

Catfish were first stocked in Horseshoe and Cedar Island in 1976. The last stocking took place in 1988 and they were plentiful by 1990 throughout the entire Horseshoe Chain.

By the mid-1990s DNR officials began hearing complaints that catfish were too abundant.

Those concerns persist today, and some anglers fear that the same process will be played out with muskies and that the DNR cannot be trusted with muskie management in the Horseshoe Chain.

“I know there are concerns. I expect some negativity and I certainly don’t expect it to be smooth sailing,” Diedrich said. “But the data says that muskies don’t eat game fish and in the 40 or so lakes we’ve stocked that hasn’t been an issue.”

While Diedrich expects muskies to distribute throughout the Horseshoe Chain, he doesn’t think natural reproduction will be very good. If there were signs of natural reproduction in future years, he said the DNR would stop stocking efforts.

The Sauk River Chain of Lakes Association (SRCL) has been included in discussions surrounding muskie stocking in the system since 2006. As recently as July 27, 2009, a forum took place with the SRCL and several members of the St. Cloud Chapter of Muskies Inc.

In August, the SRCL Board took a straw poll and voted 5-2 against muskie management in the Horseshoe Chain. Diedrich feels the vote against was not based on biological or social factors, but a perception that DNR Fisheries would not have the resources to carry out the stocking and management process Jim Egan, president of the SRCL, says that is only partially true. As a group they have been disappointed in recent years that the DNR has not put more of an effort into assessing walleye populations throughout the entire Horseshoe Chain.

The DNR stocks walleyes only in Horseshoe and Cedar Island. Since 1998, the SRCL has been raising and spending its own money stocking other lakes in the system with walleyes on an every-other-year basis.

Egan and the SRCL has asked for the DNR to help assess those other lakes through electrofishing to see if the walleye-stocking efforts are working. Each time, they’ve been told that the DNR doesn’t have the resources to do so.

“Every time we’ve asked we’re told they don’t have the resources, so how are they going to have the resources to start a muskie program?” Egan said. “There’s a lot of negative feelings and a lot of opinions and until we see resources available for what we’re already doing, it’s tough to support it.”

Egan also made it very clear that he understands the attraction for catching big fish. But he points to the current catfish situation in the Horseshoe Chain as an example of what can happen when an already healthy fishery is tampered with.

He feels that why the DNR won’t acknowledge that stocking catfish in the Chain was a mistake, he also believes they probably wouldn’t do it again now knowing how abundant they’ve become.

Furthermore, Egan isn’t completely convinced that muskies won’t eat their share of walleyes and other game fish. Since they’re at the top of the food chain, he believes they’ll eat more than rough fish such as suckers and redhorse.

“They tell us they don’t eat walleyes, but when you have a top predator, they eat what they want,” he said. “There’s too many mixed messages — it’s just not adding up for me at this point.”

[DHanson]

Most of what you have in bold is opinionated. The writer of the article had a few personal comments in there based on his opinion. He has also been known to write a few anti-muskie articles in the past. I don't see any real strong arguments though. Lots of opinions in there that's for sure.

Bottom line is you already have your mind made up no matter what the reality of the issue is.

Are you sure the DNR didn't mean they don't have the resources to electrofish? That's not that big of a deal. They can manage a fishery without the use of electrofishing.

[AWH]

I have to agree with DHanson's assessment there. To the first opinion that you have bold faced, the DNR put that exact opinion in their own proposal. They are well aware that some of the public feels that way based on their perception of things. Perception does not equal reality.

Again, because I'm not personally familiar with the chain, help me out on some of those comments. You bold faced, "points to the current catfish situation in the Horseshoe Chain as an example of what can happen when an already healthy fishery is tampered with."

So what exactly has happened? I've been reading up on the chain and I've been reading many comments here on fishing MN about the chain. From most reports from people that fish the chain, it sounds like the fishery is still very healthy. (DNR surveys that I've looked at back this up as well) It sounds like the catfish population took off better than expected. But I don't read of any problems this created. It sounds like the bullheads were pretty much wiped out and displaced by the cats. But is this a bad thing? I just haven't come across any examples to be afraid of...as this one person puts it..."when an already healthy fishery is tampered with."

Using a quote like that is a great way to try to scare people. But without supporting it with what has actually "negatively" happened, you can't take anything from it.

The last paragraph of that article tells me a lot. It tells me that the statements are coming from someone that is uneducated on the matter and someone that already has his mind made up. He points to "too many mixed messages". And actually, I agree on this. It's unfortunate that there is so much bad information out there that people will spread...ofen times intentionally, even knowing that it's bad information. This does create the mixed messages. But a little research that looks to facts and not opinions will help clear up those mixed messages.

Again though, help me out as I'm getting some of those same "mixed messages" in your posts against the proposed stocking. You use this article as an example of someone implying that stocking catfish had a negative effect on the health of the fishery. But earlier in this thread you stated that "Yes the chain is in great shape.... So why mess with it?"

So are we saying that the catfish already screwed up the chain and we can use that as an example of what happens when you stock a new species? Or are we saying that the chain is in great shape so we don't want to risk losing that? I'm confused on how both of these points can be used in conjunction with each other and be considered valid arguments.

Aaron

[DTro]

But he points to the current catfish situation in the Horseshoe Chain as an example of what can happen when an already healthy fishery is tampered with.

What's that?

You get a big group of people driving from hours away every weekend to spend money in your town to catch these abundant cats?

I don't understand the perception of Muskies being negative on a fishery. There is so much data out there from previous lakes to show that these fish have not negatively impacted the almighty Walleye. Why don't people just admit that it's always about the Walleyes. It's not about the abundance of Cats, or the mismanagment of Muskies, its about the fear of losing some Walleyes. Plain and simple.

But to use a saying throw around by the Musky guys to the spearers, "you already have plenty of lakes to go to".

Well maybe the same can be said back to the Musky guys in this situation.

[BrdHunter01]

I'm also confused now?.... So is the SRCL stocking walleyes every other year and opinion or fact? Is it opinion or fact that the DNR won't conduct electrofishing do to resources?

I also disagree with some of what he said in this article. I still do think the chain has plenty of fish in it. I don't go to the chain to catch catfish. If I wanted to catch cats I would go to the river (much closer to home).... I see this article as an example of the DNR not always making the right decisions. When I go fish the chain, as I do often, I target walleyes and crappies most of the time. It doesn't seem to matter what I'm fishing for I almost always end up with a couple cats on the end of my line. Like I said before they have simply become a nuisance to most people who are not targeting them.

I think everyone knows that the DNR does NOT always make the right decisions. If the DNR doesn't have the resources to stock more lakes in the chain with walleyes and track their natural reproduction how are they going to come up with the resources to do it for muskies? And like I said before... Most people around here would like to see the chain managed better for the fish that are already in it then to throw more species in their and "HOPE" the DNR will manage them.

[DHanson]

If they ever do stock muskies in the chain, they will stock them as a low density fish. Muskies have very little natural reproduction, if any. The fear you have is that the muskies will naturally reproduce and take over the lake, which has a 0 percent chance.

[muskydeceiver]

I just deleted an entire post because I feel like I am dipping to a new low.

The research is there that says the introduction of muskies does not negatively affect the current fishery. The problem is, some don't want to read it, or just choose to ignore it. I guess there are people that are out there like that. In fact, the last round table I was at, the Spearing Group kept trying to get the DNR to say they were using the introduction of muskies into The Sauk Chain to control the catfish populations. They tried at least 3 times, in different ways, to get them to say it. They are not. They don't use the introduction of muskies to control anything. It is for sport fishing and the enjoyment of the community. What kept getting reiterated by the DNR is that the population of muskies they would stock would not affect the populations of any fish present in any system they were considering. (see what I did there) The research has been done and they would not even consider putting muskies into a system that couldn't handle it.

It is unfortunate that the personal agendas of a few can get in the way of so much. Very frustrating.

dtro - Not sure what you are getting at with the statement "you already have plenty of lakes to go to"? The new lakes WON'T effect spearing. No bans and no slot limits put on pike because of muskies. What exactly were you getting at? I hope you were being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell with typed words. The Sauk Chain would cut down my drive time to a muskie fishery considerably. One of the goals of the long range plan is to put fisheries near population centers that don't have one close. The Sauk Chain would do this for St Cloud as well as Wilmar. No one wants them in THEIR lake. Well it would be nice if they could go somewhere.

They're eatin er fiiiish!!!!!

[mrklean]

i always find it funny when ever someone doesnt want to have skies put in the lakes it alwasy seems its because they think they are going ot eat all the walleyes in the lake. You dont hear all the panfish guys crying out walleye stocking in there lakes, guess what the walleye eats small panfish. Fish coexist with eachother they have for a long time

[BrdHunter01]

If they ever do stock muskies in the chain, they will stock them as a low density fish. Muskies have very little natural reproduction, if any. The fear you have is that the muskies will naturally reproduce and take over the lake, which has a 0 percent chance.

Now your putting words in my mouth....

[BrdHunter01]

i always find it funny when ever someone doesnt want to have skies put in the lakes it alwasy seems its because they think they are going ot eat all the walleyes in the lake. You dont hear all the panfish guys crying out walleye stocking in there lakes, guess what the walleye eats small panfish. Fish coexist with eachother they have for a long time

Really? NO WAY!

[muskydeceiver]

BrdHunter01 - what is a nuisance to some is good for others. Catching a couple extra fish while out is a bad thing? Just because you are closer to a river doesn't mean everyone is.

Like AWH said, I haven't fished it so please inform us, has the fishing gotten worse? Are you not catching the numbers of other species you had been catching in the past? It must be decent fishing if you still frequent the lake for the same species you have always gone there for....

Like I said in my previous post, the DNR isn't going to take a truckload of muskie fingerlings and start dumping them willy nilly into "everyone else's lakes."

[DHanson]

By the way, I do think having the catfish in the chain is pretty neat. I have only fished for them maybe a dozen times on horseshoe in the last 10 years, but it is a blast to catch numbers of nice sized fish through the ice. I have caught any where from 1-6 walleyes out there too on every trip and I wasn't even fishing for them. When you start catching walleyes on waxworms while fishing for crappies, there must be quite a few walleyes out there. The crappies are very healthy out there as well. A very unique fishery that has people traveling all over the state to fish it.

[pushbutton]

Fish coexist with each other they have for a long time

fishermen seem to have a harder time. every muskie post seems to degenerate into 1 or 2 people that are obviously not going to listen to reason, so it really doesnt make any sense to try to reason back. it just encourages more frustration on both sides.

[BrdHunter01]

Ok.... I think everyone is twisting my words and getting the wrong message. I never said the catfish have hampered the fishery, I simply stated they have become a nuisance to me and many others who are NOT targeting them.

What I've been trying to say from the very beginning is that the DNR does not have the resources to stock more lakes on the chain with walleyes. And the private stocking that takes place has not been backed by the DNR to see if natural reproduction has been taking place. If they don't have the resources to test and stock more lakes with walleyes, how do they have the resources to stock and manage muskies? Its a simple question that many people would like answers to..... The generousity of people and organizations donating their time and money to stock walleyes, you would think the least the DNR could do is see if their is natural reproduction taking place....

All I'm saying is if the DNR does not have the resources to help surrounding lakes and organizations that put a ton of effort in to provide quality fishing opportunities, how does the DNR now have the resources to stock and manage these muskies? Can they be counted on to manage these muskies? To me there are more questions than answers when it come to the DNR managing the chain of lakes....

[AWH]

Is the DNR not electrofishing the chain to evaluate populations? What it sounds like is that they simply aren't electrofishing where on the chain the Lake Association wants. If they have the resources to do this (and they have been doing it), don't you think they're going to do it where they see most fit to effectively evaluate the population? Again, this is an outsider's view that is only going off of what I am reading from both sides.

Aaron

[nater]

Maybe the reason they don't want to spend the resources on stocking or closely monitoring more lakes in the chain with walleyes is because they are already abundant (horseshoe and cedar) and residents have access to fish there.

If muskies do get stocked in the chain, there is virtually no chance they would reproduce and over populate the chain. That should not be a concern.

[DTro]

One man’s nuisance is another man’s......

Scroll back 5 years in this forum and check out which 2 or 3 threads are the most popular in terms of number of views and discussion.

I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about walleyes, northern, crappies, or bass

[AWH]

I would love to have a nuisance fish like that on the lakes I fish! I always get a kick out of people that are fishing and find catching fish is a nuisance. I've had this discussion with a few walleye guys in regards to muskies. And when I ask them if they would rather go out and not catch a single fish, or go out and catch an accidental muskie, they tell me that they would rather catch nothing. I've never understood this logic, but I know it's out there. No matter what I'm fishing for, it's always fun to catch some bonus fish of other species mixed in.

Aaron

[krats]

I have been following this an other forums on the subject and I am a multi species angler myself.

We are all paying taxes and buying fishing licenses that fund the stocking programs in the state. Some of us even belong to sportsmen's groups that fund raise and contribute to the stocking programs also.

I just cannot understand the reasoning why some sportsmen feel that the coveted walleye is always at risk when the muskie stocking proposal is presented to us all as another angling oppurtunity.

There are no proposals to end the stocking of walleyes in these lakes that I have read about in this post.

The biggest predator of the walleye population is us, the anglers, and I can only assume that there are plans to continue stocking them to sustain a fishable population for us.

The number of muskies that will be stocked, and the ones that live to grow will not make a dent in the walleye population in the lake compared to the anglers that frequent it.

[JBMasterAngler]

I too find it funny when walleye guys catch something else and call it a nuisance Are you kidding me?!?! Catfish fight WAAAAY harder than any walleye ever will! And even if your not targeting them, how can a fun battle like that be a nuisance?

I was fishing smallies on lake pepin last summer and caught a 5 pound cat, was so fun to catch on light tackle, was the highlight of the day by far! Sitting in the middle of the lake or slow trolling for 'eyes just seems so boring, I'd consider it a blessing to have a handful of other fish to catch to pass the time. Plus, even if you don't target 'skies, having one follow your bait (or fish) to the boat is a very exciting experience.

[whitetail_freak]

muskies eat alot of rough fish as well.. not just walleyes and sunnies, if im not mistaken a muskies favorite food is suckers or whitefish not? i think the chain would fine with less suckers..

[wareagle]

I work for the Montrose DNR office and would like to address a statement about the DNR not having the resources to manage the existing fishery on the Horseshoe Chain.

Unfortunately, there are many lake associations in our area that privately stock walleye. If we were to evaluate private stocking on the SRCL, this would set a precedent for other lake associations to ask us to evaluate their stockings. We have had enough success stocking walleye fry on Horseshoe and Cedar Is lakes that we feel this success is probably seen in these other basins as well. Walleye fry evaluations take place in the fall, at night, and at a time when we are also harvesting walleye ponds. That spreads a crew of four pretty thin.

Muskie assessments take place on five year rotations and occur in the spring of the year at a time when we are not stretched nearly as thin. We only have one other muskie fishery in our area. So, we are confident that we will have the resources to do the assessments if muskie are to be stocked in the SRCL.

Cheers!!!

War Eagle!!!

[AWH]

It's always good to get the facts. Thanks for clearing things up, War Eagle!

Aaron

[Buckhunt]

After reading this topic for a while and growing up within spitting distance of the chain i wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

First off, my opinion.....I hope they don't intoduce the musky to the chain, not for political (influence the economy) or statistacal (I promise it won't hurt walleye fishing) but for personal - for anyone who has fished this lake on opener or a busy holiday weekend they know what I mean, I just don't want more boats on the water and trucks at the access to deal with. I still make the treck up to fish the chain regularly with my dad but almost primarily for panfish - we have tried the opener with some other friends for walleyes and got sick of either boats running through the fishing holes wide open or tangleling lines with other fisherman or guys dropping anchor within ten feet of our boat - basically for us, opener and other holiday weekends we avoid the chain. I think adding another highly sought after game fish will only increase the number of fisherman of which I have to compete with.

I'm sure people can call me ingnorant, narrow minded, or even stubborn for having an "opinion" but I am guessing it is the same with most, opinions come from experiences. I have had numerous fishing outings in my not-so-young life tarnished by what I call arrogant fisherman. And in these personal experiences, "WALLEYE AND MUSKY" fisherman are the worst. I wish I could count the times on Vermillion alone that I have been fishing a rock pile for smallmouth or a weed bed for crappies and had a huge 250 horse boat come flying in with 2 plugs flying by my head. Don't get me wrong, I get it, musky guys target specific structure and so on, but I think we had this same thing happen 8 times at one spot in one afternoon. Now before anyone gets defensive, I am not specifically calling out musky fisherman as bad people or arrogant fisherman, I am not one to judge a group by a few bad apples, all I am saying is I would personally speak out against it as my opinion - even if you think it is a selfish one. Do I think intorducing muskies to the chain would be biologically bad - no, do I think all musky fisherman I would encounter would be rude or disrespectful - most definately no. I guess the point I am trying to make is my not wanting the musky and the following musky fisherman may be selfish, but isn't wanting muskies in the chain selfish on musky fisherman side?

As my last point, this topic does seem to remind me of the Darkhouse Spearing v. Muskie Fisherman circa HSO Forum for however long I have been reading on here, the parties involved are passionate and well informed. I wouldn't consider myself an avid spearer but I do enjoy the sport and other's passionate discussions on this forum have directly led me to become much more acitve with my opinion and involvement. I have been registered and reading on this site for a while but only actively posting for a short time and I sincerely wish I could have been more active with that discussion. If I remember right I even think one of the guys involved on this topic may have went on a spearing trip to see what it was all about - awesome, I sincerely hope everyone can be as open minded as that. As I continue to ramble here I guess my point is I think we all need to search for the balance of "what is right for me" v. "what is right for everyone" v. "what is right for the fishery" We could all play devils advocate and find studies that show this or involve our personal opnions that say that but what we all should do is keep an open mind, become or stay active in your circles (dnr, associations, forums, groups, etc.) and stay respectful of others opinions even if they differ from your own.

Go to the meetings, become involved, and your opinions will be heard or maybe even change....

[mrklean]

nice post buckhunt, i can see why some wouldnt want to have them stocked for that reason its gonna put more people on the busy lake then before

[AWH]

Buckhunt,

I think your opinion is one we can all respect, no matter if we agree or disagree. What gets frustrating on these kinds of debates is when information gets tossed around that isn't accurate. If everyone could voice their opinion in as civil a manner as you did, and without tossing around bad information, it would be a lot easier to come to common ground.

As far as your reasoning for not wanting muskies stocked, again, this is something I can respect. On the lakes that I fish, the last thing that I want to see is more pressure (no matter what I'm fishing for). I'd much rather go out and have the entire lake to myself. Anyone that fishes with me knows that I don't like to deal with other boats on the water. And sure, it's selfish, as it's a public resource for all of us. But I will go out of my way to fish where others aren't if I'm able to. That being said, there's usually heavier fishing pressure for a reason....good fishing. When I look at it that way and think of what the alternative is, I'm able to welcome the pressure.

Aaron

[kingfisherpat]

well i think its a great idea for muskies put in the suak river chain of lakes case it huge i wouldnt mind it i love fishing for muskies and northerns and other fish that are in there

[kingfisherpat]

well i think its a great idea for muskies put in the suak river chain of lakes case it huge i wouldnt mind it i love fishing for muskies and northerns and other fish that are in there

[FishHawk11]

Would the stocking of muskies in the Chain have an impact on the other muskie destinations in the state. Sure it would be great for our area, but that means it's not good for another area. Just something I was thinking about as I was reading this forum. It's a very interseting topic.

[AWH]

Not good for another area in what way? It wouldn't change how any waters are managed elsewhere.

Aaron