DNR contiplating stocking Musky's in Sauk River Chain.

[Scott M]

No one wants them in THEIR lake. Well it would be nice if they could go somewhere.

They're eatin er fiiiish!!!!!

In my opinion, the conflict on every one of the proposed lakes doesn't come down to fish biology and ecology, economic impact or lack thereof, fishing pressure and access capacity, or concern over potential regulations/restrictions, as has been raised in nearly every proposed lake. Those are all concerns that have been fleshed out; just proposing the lakes had to address most of those factors. What it comes down to is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Minnesotans are blessed with a multitude of PUBLIC waters, yet some people treat so many of these public waters as their own personal property. And no offense to BrdHunter01, I think its fair to say that some lake associations treats their lake as private property, particularly when it comes to attempted strong-arming of the DNR (Lots of examples of this out there).

I have some personal history on the chain. My grandparents had a cabin at Cozy Corners. I grew up fishing that lake on summer weekends. I caught my first bass and pike on Long Lake, and we caught panfish that provided the meat for many a fish fry. The docks of the campground is where I became an angler. Since my days of youth, the cabin was sold. I have returned, because it is still an excellent panfish lake, site of an occasional tournament, but also because the catfish angling is so good.

The fish community data is out there. I see the money spent (some of it was mine!) so I have to think its a positive bringing more people to the area. If the fishing pressure is a problem, more parking can be added to the public launches. But if people were really concerned about the # of people, wouldn't they talk with the resorts first? Finally, we know there won't be pike slots or spearing bans.

Thanks for the info and explanation wareagle. Sounds like in a tough economy the DNR is saving money where it can without abandoning walleye stocking and low level cost effective monitoring.

It's nice to have the fishing opportunities we have in Minnesota, and adding a muskie opportunity to population centers in Willmar and St. Cloud could provide something unique to many.

[HorseshoeChain]

I'm glad WarEagle chimed in, and I would like to add to what he said.

This whole thing about the DNR not having the time/money to manage the walleyes in the Chain keeps coming up. WarEagle addressed part of it.

The other part is this. They DON'T NEED to spend more time or money on stocking or sampling walleyes here. Lakes are studied and then stocked with a certain number of walleyes that the lake has scientifically shown it can sustain, while maintaining proper growth rates. The DNR then, at set timeframes, checks the lake to see if those efforts have given the desired success. The number of walleyes stocked in The Chain, and the frequency at which they are monitored, have shown the DNR that there IS the proper level of walleyes, and that the population is stable at this stocking rate.

People have this idea that more stocking always means better fishing. That's just not true. There is a "point of diminishing returns" where putting in more fish is no better than flushing your money down the toilet. It can even hurt the fishery by reducing the walleyes growth rates, or even causing the walleyes to harm other fish populations.-all those teeth in a walleyes mouth are there for a reason!! Here's a little info-proven by studies- Walleyes eat more walleyes than muskies do. Muskies eat more muskies than they do walleyes. And, walleyes even eat muskies.

Do muskies AVOID eating walleyes? Not likely, BUT walleyes are much better at avoiding being eaten than suckers and other rough fish.

The DNR manages walleyes in The Chain at a level that science supports-it's just some people who think there should be more walleyes that bring this argument into play.

I've lived and fished on The Chain for 30 years, and can say the walleyes are abundant and the fishing is great. I've never missed an opener on The Chain! A lot of people who don't do well, catching walleyes, simply don't think about a walleye being a living thing that reacts to it's environment and to your fishing presentation. Many of us locals literally catch DOZENS of walleyes every day on the Chain, while surrounded by people NOT catching any. People refuse to adapt to the fish, insisting they should be able the catch them when and where they want and HOW ever they want! It doesn't work that way!! First, you have to be in the right place at the right time, then you have to show them what THEY want. A slip bobber and a leech(or whatever your favorite is) doesn't always work!

In fact, the section of the Chain that the lake association claims doesn't have enough walleyes is actually probably THE MOST PRODUCTIVE part of the Chain for BIG walleyes if you know WHEN to be there! The fish make daily and seasonal movements to find the conditions they prefer. Just cuz you don't catch fish off your dock, or your fav. spot, doesn't mean there's not enough there!

Money spent on muskie stocking will have NO effect on the walleye program, and the walleye program doesn't need more than it's getting currently. The walleye fishing on the Chain rocks and adding muskies won't change a thing!

[goblueM]

great post horseshoe chain!

i've never been on the lakes other than to put in at Richmond to do some snag "relocation" on the Sauk upstream of the chain - would love to fish it sometime

[HorseshoeChain]

Muskies are NATIVE to the Mississippi River, and everything connected to it. Including the Sauk River. The Chain really wasn't a bunch of "lakes" until it was dammed. The river was there, along with some sloughs and water holes. Muskies ARE in the Sauk River and used to be able to move all the way up. Now, the dam stops them. Any that might have been above the dam when it was built died out long ago. Because it's basically flooded farm land, the Chain lacks suitable muskie spawning habitat- that's why there aren't any muskies there now. FACT-It's also why the walleyes are stocked.

As for a couple other subjects brought up here:

Ask a fisheries biologist-Having a large predator fish in a lake is a GOOD thing. It brings a healthy balance, and often actually results in an improved size structure in other fish populations.

All of the catfish hate on the Chain is Un-founded. They haven't hurt ANYTHING! Just go fishing OR look at the DNR netting results. The walleyes haven't been affected and neither have the panfish! In fact, average size is improving for the sunfish.

How does catching a cat ruin your day?! It's just one more fish to catch! It DOES NOT make you catch fewer walleyes or sunnies or anything else.

I grew up near one of the public boat landings. When is the Chain crowded? -Opening week of walleye season, sunny summer days, and the weekend of the fishing contest. Most days, pleasure boats are most of the traffic.

Muskie guys fish mainly early morning and late evening during summer. They fish a LOT during the fall. At those times, there's LOTS of room out there. They also avoid pleasure boats like skiers,jet skis, etc. cuz it's impossible to fish around them.

You don't want more people out there? Should we stop teaching kids to fish?! Think of all the pressure they'll bring when they grow up! Maybe nobody should've taken YOU fishing!

Should we stop stocking walleyes, so all the walleye fishermen go away?

Should those of us fortunate enough to own property on The Chain lobby to get the public accesses closed?! It would sure be nice and quiet out here then! Where does all this [PoorWordUsage] end?

If you don't fish muskies, putting them in The Chain won't affect you AT ALL.

[riverwalker]

I am not a walleye, bass, northern, musky, nor panfish fisherman. I feel I am one of the lucky ones who isn't upset with what I catch. To me fishing is about getting out, relaxing, and enjoying time with family or friends. Yet I can't imagine how someone can be so against having a certain species of fish in our lakes. You should be lucky enough that you have these lakes in the area that are good quality fishing lakes to begin with. And frankly for the "walleye" fisherman who think that musky are going to hurt "your" lakes or "your" fish are probably never going to see one, let alone catch one if they get introduced. I have been lucky enough to see these giant fish, and watch one stalk a school of suckers on the Mississippi in shallow water. I have yet to catch one, but have had the thrill of one chase down a top water lure. If most of the people who are against it spent a little more time researching them rather than complaining about something they "think" they know about, you just might learn something. And just like all predators, one will always go for an easy meal rather than trying to take down "your" large walleye that could hurt it in the process. Why do lions go after the small buffalo calf rather than the big bull with the horns and weight behind it? It's much safer...You do realize that there are very large northern too... yet nobody seems to be against them??? hmmmm...

[BrdHunter01]

All of the catfish hate on the Chain is Un-founded. They haven't hurt ANYTHING! Just go fishing OR look at the DNR netting results. The walleyes haven't been affected and neither have the panfish!

DNR Website Quotes:

Horseshoe: "Black crappie catch rates have declined in each survey since 1980"

Cedar Island: "The black crappie catch rate in 2003 was lower than catch rates from the 1980's and 1990's"

Long: "Black crappie numbers appeared to be down in 2003"

Becker: "The catch rate of black crappie was low in 2003"

So... I'm looking at the DNR "netting" results and their seems to be common theme here.... Not sure if you can see it? Are you reading the same reports I am? Where do you get your info?.....

Those are the most popular fishing destinations for those heading to the chain, and you say quote: "The walleyes haven't been affected and neither have the panfish!" HUH?

More Important DNR Website Quotes:

Horseshoe: "Channel catfish were introduced to Horseshoe Lake in the 1980's"

Cedar Island: "Channel catfish were introduced to Horseshoe Lake in the 1980's, and first sampled in Cedar Island in the 1985 survey"

Long: "Channel catfish were first sampled in the 1990 survey of Long Lake. Catfish were introduced to Horseshoe Lake in the 1980's, and have become well-established in the Sauk River chain"

Hmmmmmmmmmm? Now thats a head scratcher!

[HorseshoeChain]

So, somehow the catfish managed to knock down the crappie population already in the first year they were stocked. Yeah, that IS a head scratcher.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the changing structure and bottom content in The Chain, due to it being a highly fertile, river fed, flooded farmland water body.- Or the resulting continually reducing amount of suitable crappie spawning habitat.

It also has nothing to do with the hordes of anglers targeting those shrinking spawning areas, harvesting the spawning fish.

I'm sure it also has nothing to do with the guys-many of them locals-who fish them year round, taking limits day after day, to the point of seeking out anybody they can think of to give them all to, so they can keep on keeping them without getting caught. There are a LOT of guys out here that are literally supplying limits of fish to dozens of other families. Hang around town a little while-it won't take long to realize this is true.

The only reason I even brought this up is that people running out of excuses to be against muskies keep trying to bring the catfish into the picture. It's really got nothing to do with it. Catfish and muskies are nothing alike. Even in lakes with all the right habitat(which the Chain doesn't have), muskies DO NOT proliferate the way catfish do.

It IS true that the DNR didn't fully understand what would happen with the catfish -that was, after all, 30 years ago.

BUT, they have extensively studied muskies and the lakes they are in, for a long, long time. They DO understand what will happen with muskies, and none of it is bad.

[goblueM]

muskies aside, saying that channel catfish has knocked down the crappie population is just ignorant

angling pressure and changing habitat do far more to most ANY fish species than an increasing number of another fish

i've never heard of catfish being crappie killers... has anybody else?

onto my other point... i think its laughable that some people are complaining about catfish. "Oh no!!!! We have an overabundance of easy to catch, tasty, hard fighting fish!!! Save us!!!"

hah

[BrdHunter01]

I was simply stating the facts that you told me to look up on the DNR website. Thanks for the info!

So if you "know" that locals are taking limits of crappies day after day, why don't you turn them in? Can you share the facts/tickets that have been written by the DNR? Again you share no facts, just assumptions and theories.....

Its always the anglers fault right? Never the DNR's, Even though the numbers show exactly what has happenened.

O wait, its the anglers that just started taking limits of crappies right after they stocked the catfish.... No one had ever caught a limit before that.... What a coincidence!

[goblueM]

fact: lake ecosystems are extremely complicated

fact: crappie abundance has gone down since the 80s (how much? we dont know, it doesnt say... might not be statistically significant, or it might be)

fact: you've cherry picked one item, and chosen a single variable to explain the whole thing, without nearly enough pertinent information

show me a study saying the channel cats eat crappies and are detrimental to their numbers. it goes both ways dude. you haven't introduced ANY information that even remotely points the finger at catfish for declining crappie numbers

[HorseshoeChain]

As far as me turning in poachers -Count on it.

But, no, I'm not going to start bashing people and naming them on the internet.

The problem is they are intentionally breaking the law and doing it in ways that keep them from getting caught. One guy even brags how he doesn't have his limit in HIS freezer so he can keep bringing limits to the 12 other families he's supplying. That way, if the CO's check him, they don't have any proof.

I'm still a little confused how the small number of cats that were originally stocked into the two main basins had an IMMEDIATE negative impact on the crappie population throughout the whole system. That's what your "math" is trying to say.

The downward crappie trend started before the cats were big enough or numerous enough to affect ANYTHING.

Look at how drastically the habitat has changed in the past 30 years. Think that might mean anything?

And yeah, you're right, people were probably keeping lots of limits back then too. But, there are A LOT more people in the world these days, and those people have a LOT better equipment and ability to impact the fishery.

That's the whole point of conservation. The resources can't stand up to the increasing human population, unless we change our ways.

By the way, despite the reduction in crappies from what it was 30 years ago, there are still plenty there. They're not hard to find.

[huntfish44]

Its great to see everybody so passionate about the Horseshoe Chain Fishery! I think its time for action! Get those ski in that lake pronto...time to improve Horseshoe as a all around species lake!

[nater]

The fact that the panfish population dropped over 30 years could be explained by other reasons besides catfish or fishing pressure. The sauk river flows right through miles and miles of farmland. There will undoubtedly be a large quantities of added silt and chemicals not to mention the rise and fall of water levels that could detriment the spawning success. I know that lake associations have worked hard to clean up runoff into lakes but that hasn't been in affect for 20+ years. Either way there is no way muskies will reproduce at all in the chain.

Back to the walleye success, check out this recent publication on the relationship of walleyes and muskies in Lake Miltona.

http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/event/article/id/72163/publisher_ID/2/

[BrdHunter01]

Ummmm... Have you fished Miltona lately? Its very hard to even get a walleye big enough to keep. Years ago was great, now it sucks.... Go see for yourself. Tons of 12 inchers and smaller but if you get a 15 incher your one lucky bass! Stop reading the articles and actuall FISH the lake and see what YOU find! No idea if that has anything at all to do with skies or fishing pressure but maybe you should fish the lake your going to use as an example?..... Get back to me on that one....

As for "MY" math? Again thats not my math.... Thats math straight from the DNR website that YOU told me to checkout! And those are quotes straight from the DNR website that YOU told me to checkout! I already knew the numbers, I had checked them many times before, but thanks for proving my point.... The numbers don't lie.... And that NOT "my" math!

Just a side note: Don't crappies thrive in dirty/stained water?

MORE DNR QUOTES:

"Black crappie can tolerate the turbid waters found in (lake X) and they are prolific." Yet another quote straight from the DNR website.

Funny thing is this lake isn't on the chain, the water has lots of run-off and nutrients yet the crappies are quote "prolific" HUH? Yet another Head Scratcher!

Anymore excuses?....

[goblueM]

So what you're saying is that its ok to take the DNR survey data about crappies in the Horseshoe Chain

but you're willing to contradict the walleye survey data from Miltona?

"On average, based on the past 10 years of netting data, 50 percent of the walleye population in Miltona measures between 15 and 20 inches in length and the percentage of fish between 20 and 25 inches has tripled."

sounds like you're the one that needs to come up with an excuse for your poor fishing skills

[HorseshoeChain]

I fished Miltona 25+ times in 2009. Each time there were plenty of walleye fishermen, and most were pretty happy with their catches. And yeah, I'm a "walleye guy" too.

The DNR reports YOU posted show that the downward crappie trend started BEFORE the catfish had time to grow, spread and populate. Like I said, how did the first stocked cats, which were put only into the two main basins, IMMEDIATELY decimate the crappie population throughout the entire sysytem?! They couldn't! At that time, there were more crappies in any one section than the total number of catfish that were stocked.

It's only YOUR perception that is showing ANY link between the crappies and the catfish.

Crappies can and do live in dirty water, but just because lake "X" is dirty doesn't make it the same as the Chain. Aquatic vegetation and spawning habitat have been severely degraded in the last 30 years in the Chain. Lake X can be fertile and dirty and NOT have the same habitats and spawning conditions as the Chain.

Also, like I already said, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with muskies, and comparing catfish to muskies is like comparing walleyes to pumpkinseeds. THERE IS NO COMPARISON!

[AWH]

Ummmm... Have you fished Miltona lately? Its very hard to even get a walleye big enough to keep. Years ago was great, now it sucks

Wow, quite a statement there! So the DNR surveys are a lie, is this what we are to believe? I have never fished walleyes out there, but I have talked to plenty that have. They don't agree with your assessment at all. I did talk to one angler out there that was having similiar success to what you say here, in terms of the big ones, not the "it sucks" part. He said he was going out and catching 40 to 50 walleyes a day, but he wasn't finding any big enough to keep. Do you know what he also said? That he couldn't figure out where the bigger ones went because he was getting into a lot of them 2 weeks before that. Wait a second. Fish can swim and move to other areas? Who would of thunk it!?

Aaron

[BrdHunter01]

When were those surveys taken? O yea, over 2 years ago. I don't fish Miltona often (only in the winter in fact). But I have heard summer guys with the same story. Tons of little ones with NO keepers. Catching 40-50 12in walleyes does SUCK! I would rather fish all day and catch 1 25 incher than 40-50 12in eyes I can barely feel on the other end of my line. This is why I choose to go East to Mille Lacs over West to Miltona.... Miltona really has nothing to do with this anyway....

Horseshoe didn't you state the nutrients and run-off have degraded spawning habitat? Why are other lakes with the same situation thriving? I agree there must be something else going on their but to say the nutrients and run-off are degrading the spawning habitat, yet with proof that the same situations have not affected crappies or habitat in other lakes kinda contradicts itself. Right?

Look at the numbers read the quotes from the DNR itself.... Compare to other lakes..... Its not hard to put 2 and 2 together....

In the end all I am trying to say is MAYBE just maybe the DNR should work on bettering the fishery by concentrating on fish speicies that already exist within the system FIRST!

[HorseshoeChain]

ALL lakes have nutrients and run off, that does NOT mean it effects them all the same. Just because two lakes appear to be similarly dirty or fertile doesn't mean they have the same bottom content, the same habitat, or the same rate of uetrophication. Just because your lake X is murky and holds lots of crappies doesn't mean the Chain can or should sustain the same level of fish.

In your own words, you go to the Chain to target walleyes and crappies. They must not be doing too bad if you, me, and hundreds of other people CHOOSE to target those fish here, when we could go somewhere else.

I spend countless hours on the Chain fishing most of the species in it, and have yet to see the need to change the management of any of those species.

And has been said a hundred times, stocking muskies will have NO impact on other species OR how those species are managed.

[nater]

BH

Yes I have fished Miltona a lot last year and there are a lot of people fishing walleyes and I do see people catching walleyes bigger then 12".

In the end all I am trying to say is MAYBE just maybe the DNR should work on bettering the fishery by concentrating on fish speicies that already exist within the system FIRST!

So what exactly do they have to work on that will better an already good fishery? Impose a limit of crappies and maintain the walleye stocking? If that's all then we can agree the DNR should have plenty of resources to stock muskies. Maybe you will enjoy catching one 40" muskie instead of catching 50 10" walleyes

[AWH]

BrdHunter, just out of curiosity, what's your theory on why the walleye fishing on Miltona "sucks"? What caused this?

Aaron

[slurpie]

I guess if i was to go out and catch 50 12" eyes i would not be mad get glad . In a couple years fishing will be great.

[muskydeceiver]

BrdHunter, You need to fish Miltona more. Some biiiiig Walters in there and plenty of them. I visit with quite a few guys that Walleye fish out there and they seem to do quite well. There are a lot of the 12" fish in there (good thing for the fishery if you ask me, lot more good years to come from the Walleyes out there). They seem to school together. If that is all you are catching... move. Seriously, you will need to leave these fish to find the ones you are after.

[BrdHunter01]

BrdHunter, just out of curiosity, what's your theory on why the walleye fishing on Miltona "sucks"? What caused this?

Aaron

I shouldn't use the word "sucks" but its not as good as it should be. I believe fishing pressure and slot limits (or lack their of) have to do with the "sub-par" walleye fishing out their at times. I believe it can be good at times I just don't fish it enough to know for sure. I know many people who fish it year around with similar results.

Nater:

"So what exactly do they have to work on that will better an already good fishery?"

Ans: If an already good fishery indicates declining fish numbers such as crappies, an overabundance of cats (which may be wanted for some or a nuisance to others, and may or maynot be a result of low crappie numbers), and as horseshoe said a degrading spawning habitat.... then your right, it is in GREAT shape!

[HorseshoeChain]

Here's a quote from the DNR, despite this supposed drastic crappie decline- "The crappie fishery remains very popular. By weight, black crappie accounted for more of the fish harvested on the Chain in 1999 than any other species."

Still want to blame the DNR and the catfish?

While the numbers have gone down incrementally in the last 30 years, they haven't gone down much. For the basins of Horseshoe, Cedar Island, and Long lakes, the catch rates in trap nets and gill nets are still FAR ABOVE the normal range for lakes of the same type and area. In many cases, the catch rates are MULTIPLE times HIGHER than normal

Example: For Horseshoe

normal gill net for this lake class is .5 - 2.7 crappies, but the catch rate on Horseshoe is 8.2

normal trap net for this lake class is .7 - 3.2 crappies, but catch rate on Horseshoe is 4.0

So, despite the catfish, despite the overharvest, and despite the reduced quality habitat, the crappies in the Chain are thriving.

As evidenced by the fact that you, me, and 100's of other people CHOOSE to fish crappies here, the fishery IS in GREAT shape.

Also, there IS much being done to improve water quality. The SRCL lake assc. does shore clean-ups on Hwy. 22. The St.Cloud chapter of Muskies Inc. does extensive shoreline clean-ups from boats. Outdated septic systems are being identified and improved. Much is being done throughout the entire watershed to reduce run-off. It's being worked on from many different angles.

But, unless you have some magical way to remove the silt and black dirt that makes up MOST of the Chain's bottom content, AND have a way to make the wild rice, reeds, and cabbage that once was here grow again, then there's not much that can be done to directly improve spawning conditions. We'll have to hope improving the water quality will do that for us.

Also, since the catfish breed so prolifically, they ARE being netted by the DNR to keep them from dominating the fishery.

ALL signs point to a healthy, well managed fishery. Work is being done to improve it even more. Anything that needs to be done will be done. Stocking muskies won't stop any of that. It won't in any way hamper efforts to improve any other part of this fishery.

It will simply give us the opportunity to catch an exciting trophy fish.

[Buckhunt]

Ah yes, the debate kicks back up so I will add some more....

I think the debaters here need to step back and look more at the bigger picture and as I mentioned in my earlier post, find a balance in the "what is good for me vs. what is good for the fishery vs. what is good for everyone else" idea.

HorshoeChain guy I am going to take this qoute as a direct callout to my "opinion" of not wanting to see muskies stocked..

"I grew up near one of the public boat landings. When is the Chain crowded? -Opening week of walleye season, sunny summer days, and the weekend of the fishing contest. Most days, pleasure boats are most of the traffic.

Muskie guys fish mainly early morning and late evening during summer. They fish a LOT during the fall. At those times, there's LOTS of room out there. They also avoid pleasure boats like skiers,jet skis, etc. cuz it's impossible to fish around them.

You don't want more people out there? Should we stop teaching kids to fish?! Think of all the pressure they'll bring when they grow up! Maybe nobody should've taken YOU fishing!"

I hope this was not meant to be a personal attack at my opinion but it sure came off that way. You are making alot of personal attacks at people keeping overlimits of fish but I often find it is easy to "assume" things about other people- I could come up to my own opinions of your fishing ethics with posts such as:

"Many of us locals literally catch DOZENS of walleyes every day on the Chain"

and

"I fished Miltona 25+ times in 2009"

but I choose not to make assumptions or accusations about other people from hearsay or "what gets said at the bait store" - the walleyes and crappies are biting on Keronis and Rice and the cats are biting on the chain right.... Maybe it is my downfall as a person but I chose to try and look at the good side of everyone and "wade" through what I consider [PoorWordUsage].

I leave my opinion on the table for anyone to attack and I have nothing to hide - It is my "personal opinion" and it the duty of the DNR to take my opinion in its bets interest afterall I, just like all of you are paying for it. Does that mean I am saying we should close all of the public accesses to keep all of the fishing to myself - of course not. But do think that if the chain becomes abundant with giant muskies it will affect the number of boats on the water, absolutely. I don't need to see a DNR study or a study paid for by a Musky organization showing me how angling hours by musky fisherman do not affect the fishery biologically - it is my opinion and the I am afforded the right to voice my opinion.

I agree 100% with the post from DaChise and it is the Not in my Backyard theory and thats ok. Finding the balance of all of the interested parties is the exact job of the DNR. I could give all of you 100 studies on how wind energy is more efficient and more green and could even be better for muskies but a big wind farm just got shot down in the Chain of Lakes area because the people didn't want the windmills in their backyard. Just because a small group of people "want" something doesn't mean it should happen. The exact can be said for me - if I am in the small group that does not want muskies in the chain the populus and dnr think it is the best interest I will still fish there, I will not lose any sleep, and if I become unhappy I will fish somewhere else. There are lots of things in this state I wish were different but I guess we have to pick our battles right.

For you guys to say that the stocking of muskies in the chain will have "No affect at all" on the fishery or the people using it how can you honestly say that. If one boat sporting 2 musky fisherman comes to close to guy taking his kids fishing it had an affect. I don't know statistics and I haven't read all of the studies on Muskies but what if 1 musky in the chain ate the same amount of panfish the guy HorseshoeChain called out giving his limit everyday to his relatives, is that an affect? Do I think it would destroy the fishery, no but everything has an affect.

I admit I am not a Musky fisherman, this may not be the place to ask but it directly responsible for my position about this topic. Why does the musky have to viewed as a tropy fish. What would be your position if the DNR said OK we will stock 10,000 muskies into the chain but it will be a strain of fish genetically altered to only get 24". Would the support back off, I'm sure it would. It makes it hard for me to empathize with position when it comes of to me as "All about a trophy." What if I viewed the asain carp as a trophy fish and began lobying to have it stocked into the chain. Could you argue with me if I showed you a study or dnr website statistics that there is no proof they will eat walleyes.

My last point is what I fear most about the outdoors as whole, where will the line be found between special interest and the whole. I am extemely passionate about several of my "pastimes" but try not to loose sight of "what would others think or how would what I want affect others." I hope others can keep that in mind while debating topics such as this.

[AWH]

I admit I am not a Musky fisherman, this may not be the place to ask but it directly responsible for my position about this topic. Why does the musky have to viewed as a tropy fish. What would be your position if the DNR said OK we will stock 10,000 muskies into the chain but it will be a strain of fish genetically altered to only get 24". Would the support back off, I'm sure it would.

It would not economically make sense to manage muskies as a fish for the table. On shear numbers of fish alone, it wouldn't make sense. Muskies are a very low density population fish. Start making them a fish that we are taking out of the system to eat and numbers would continue to drop from an already low number, soon making them so few that no one would go there to fish for them. Then it would become a matter of why are we stocking them if no one is utilizing the resource?

Stocking them in high numbers like you suggest would be a way for the anti crowd to really get worked up about them, because then you would see them effecting other fish in the lakes. Luckily, MN manages all muskie waters as a low density population fish. The anti crowd already uses studies from waters in other states where they have been stocked in high numbers as to why we don't want them there. Yet these studies are completely irrelevant to what happens in MN due to completely different management strategies.

To address your last question of "would the support drop off". As you said, I'm sure it would, and I would add, I sure hope all support would be gone. Because then you are essentially saying that you would be introducing a fish that will be playing the role of a stunted northern pike population, something that is proven to be bad for the health of any fishery.

Aaron

[HorseshoeChain]

Buckhunt:

Living in an area for 30+ years obviously allows someone to get to know a lot of the people in that area personally, especially in a small town setting. Do I know everyone or everything? Absolutely not. But, I'm not just flying off the handle making wild "assumptions" with the statements I've made about overharvest on the Chain. Many of the examples I gave, I have witnessed repeatedly first hand. And, when you are a part of a community, many people -even the ones breaking the law- will flat out tell you exactly what they are up to when it comes to harvesting AND over-harvesting fish and game. It's happening-that's a fact. Hopefully those people are in the minority, but bad ethics in the minority can negatively affect us all.

I really don't see how saying I've CAUGHT dozens of walleyes in a day would bring my ethics up for question. I didn't say I kept them. I'd gladly invite a CO to check my freezer, and no, I didn't give'em all away. I love eating fish, but I aim to take only enough for a few meals, often catching "my limit" but NOT keeping a limit. I've followed self-imposed slot limits long before the state made it mandatory.

And fishing a lake a bunch times in a year brings my ethics up? So I like to fish...what's the problem?

I did not intend my statements to come as a personal attack on you. Many of us here are pretty passionate and it sometimes comes off pretty harshly. In fact, to me, you seem to have a pretty reasonable understanding of the whole deal.

But, when a walleye angler opposes muskie stocking because he doesn't want more people on the lake, I have to take exception to that. Our walleyes are stocked. If it wasn't for walleye stocking, there's a lot of people that wouldn't be out here. Should those of us fortunate enough to live, or own property on, the Chain fight to stop stocking walleyes so the crowds would go away? Of course not! The first walleye I ever caught was on the Chain, and a lot of the passion I have for the outdoors was gained while fishing the Chain with my family and friends. I think it's wonderful that others have that same opportunity. Muskies would just expand on those opportunities. Sure, it would bring more people out there, but also, a lot of people that would be fishing them would be the same people that are out there now.

Muskies are FUN to catch. Overall, people are losing touch with the outdoors. I've seen people who are only mildly interested in fishing get really excited when they caught or saw a muskie. I think increasing the interest in fishing, and growing the sport, is a GOOD thing -even if it puts more people on "MY" spots. Should we keep it all for ourselves, or pass our traditions and opportunities on to the future?

[HorseshoeChain]

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "trophy". That word tends to bring negative thinking. I do not think I'm in the "elite" crowd or that fishing muskies puts me above others. I do not think muskies are "better" or "more important" than other fish. A "trophy" is many different things. Any memorable catch, maybe your dad's, or your wife's, or your kid's first or biggest of any species, -If it excites them and makes their eyes light up- That's a trophy!

Many of us who fish -I'm guessing you too Buckhunt- also deer hunt. Most, including me, love to put venison on the table. Most of us also hope to someday shoot a big buck. That doesn't mean we don't truly enjoy everything else about the hunt or that we are "Trophy Hunters". It's just that getting the big one adds another level of excitement.

So that's where I place muskies. When you see a family member or close friend hook one, and it jumps, and jumps again, and it dives under the boat, and it pulls drag, and basically takes them for a ride, -and then they finally catch it and it's the biggest thing they've ever caught, and their knees are shaking, and they're smiling from ear to ear- that's when you'll know why we want to pass the opportunity on to others! It's an exciting fish, and the fact that it gets big adds to that. It's not "better" or more deserving of stocking than walleyes, the same as walleyes are not "better" or more deserving of stocking than muskies. Most of our walleye fishing opportunities in MN exist because of stocking. Stocking a few more lakes with muskies will just add a few more opportunities to excite people and keep our outdoor heritage alive.

As far as it being MANAGED as a trophy, AWH covered it pretty well. They are intentionally kept at low population densities, and allowing harvest at smaller sizes results in very few surviving to their potential. -Yes, of course their potential size is part of the attraction. Now you'd have a fishery where you could try for small fish like panfish, medium fish like bass,walleyes, AND big fish. Well rounded opportunities for all!

If it was shown that some other large species -you named asian carp- could co-exist in our fisheries and be a fun opportunity, WITHOUT harming the existing fishery, then YES, I'd be all for it. More fun is GOOD!!

The fact is, though, those carp have proven to cause A LOT of harm to our native species. Muskies, which are native to much of MN, including ALL WATERS connected to the Mississippi River, have proven through many studies done by many biologists (not muskie groups) that they do NOT have negative impacts on our other species.

[binsfeldnick]

Haveing grown up on the chain of lakes I have to say it has always been a great fishery and with the help of the DNR it will continue to be. The amount of fishing pressure those lakes receive is unbelievable at certain times of the year. The easy times, when people don't have to work to catch fish.

I also have to agree with what horseshoechain is saying about the same people being out there day after day catching limit after limit of fish. I also would like to point out the fact that the catfish have done nothing to ruin the chain of lakes fishing. Granted when they first put them in there they were a bit of a nuisance but once you realized it you just changed your technique of fishing to mostly avoid them. And yet I still managed to catch walleyes. I have read thru this entire 12 pages of diff arguments and It basically comes down to the opponents of muskie stocking thinking the muskies are gonna eat all the other fish. Hate to say it all, but it's not gonna happen. The best walleye, perch, pike, lakes in the state also have the largest muskies in the state. I have to say that, yes I do fish muskies and would love to see them stocked in the chain; but not if it was going to ruin the great fishing experiences I enjoyed as a kid for others.