no1son
09-03-2008, 08:13 AM
I fish panfish and walleyes in the Minneapolis chain of lakes where muskies are regularly stocked. Normal size is very small and stocking is necessary to maintain the walleye population. Furthermore I am having increasing trouble over the past few years finding bait shops that can stay open.
I credit that to two top sized and essentially unnatural predators. Humans and muskies. First humans take a huge number of smaller panfish especially from the shoreline reducing the number available to grow to larger sizes and muskies in these smaller waters take larger panfish as they increasingly orient to open water in sizes larger than the smaller native pike are able to. This applies to walleyes, also, and certainly perch both of which increasingly orient to open and deeper water as they grow. The panfish populations are receiving a double whammy, getting hit on both ends of their growth cycles.
Every panfisherman I know has relatively frequent run-ins with muskies stealing hooked fish, that goes all the way up to two and three pound walleyes, and all of us who use artificials have lures as small as 1/32 ounce taken by muskies up to the high 30 inches at least and I know for a fact that 50+ muskies will take hoked walleyes up to at least mid teens in length, because I have seen that more than once, too. Occasionally we win one of those contests, like I did last April involving a 38" musky on ultralight with 4 pound test. Now that certainly is a thrill, but far more often we get cut off. Last summer I had something like over a dozen such cutoffs, just fishing for crappies on ultralight. I know some of them were direct takes of my tiny lures, because I saw the musky take the tiny jig in its own right. So I know that muskies feed from that size up to what they call decoy suckers which are the size of respectable eater walleyes in many cases, because I have seen it quite a number of times. IOW they feed on just about everything in their environment. Even in such small waters as the Minneapolis chain of lakes, they grow rapidly to outsize any naturally occurring predator. All smaller species are adversely affected by a change in natural predator/prey formulas. In short we are not going to get decent populations of larger panfish or medium sized walleyes and probably pike, too, no matter how we manage them as long as musky populations in those lakes remain abundant.
Quite a number of fisherman I talk to are increasing dissatisfied with the emphasis that the musky elite has been able to get the state to make on their special quarry. That includes a lot of average musky fisherman, too, BTW.
Those lakes still produce an occasional 30" walleye and pike and outsized largemouths. Those that survive to the larger sizes are still present, but the medium sized walleyes and pike are not there in the quantities they should be any more than the larger sized panfish. I have seen virtually no pike under 24 or 25 inches. The smaller ones, which include many of the males are virtually never taken, which is quite different from most natural pike waters. The largemouths are more oriented to weedbeds and so we can probably thank the milfoil that their populations remain passably complete.
My belief is that muskies have been overstocked into many inappropriate waters and that should be curtailed. Additionally I think that musky management should be restricted to native, natural musky waters, allowing year around catch and release in all others. In native waters management should be intensified to protect the natural populations. Not just muskies either. Muskies are present in a lot places and I am not advocating extermination anywhere, but releasing extraordinary protections where those fish did not naturally occur will benefit all other parts of those fisheries. In those other places, that year around access will also benefit our struggling bait shops who get important income from outsized bait sales to the current musky pursuit. The December 1 closer, as it now stands, may put some of them out of business, and they are too few and far between now.
BTW I would also like to see more intensive panfish management with minimum sizes and decreased possession limits for perch, bluegills, and crappies, allowing more of the younger fish to grow to the size where they start to move to open water. I have no doubt that declining populations of yellow perch in our chain of lakes is due to lack of an effective top size on native open water perch predation, and that means muskies. Adding muskies is simply too much predation on perch populations, which are open water oriented throughout much of their life cycle. They are too important as a forage fish to continue to allow 40 in possession.
I would also like to see sales of a specific catch and release additional license stamp that allows a one additional rod or hook per fisherman, for catfishing, trolling in medium to shallow levels, etc, but not applicable for trout or on specifically designated waters or for specifically managed fish in particular waters. Catch and release is a relatively mature fishing technique and should be more widely available. I would have no problem limiting particular tackle, either, such as requiring circle hooks for bait to increase the likelihood of successful release or requiring the cutting of line for deep hooked fish. Catch and release fishermen are very likely to pay attention to such requirements. That increases DNR revenues and puts less pressure on populations which should also decrease stocking needs.
Right now in musky stocked waters that also get walleye stocking, pretty much what we have is walleyes stocked to be heavily musky forage. Non-native muskies are every bit the drain on such walleye stocks as the cormorants are on some lakes.
There are far too waters where muskies were stocked that were and still are inappropriate. Lots of such local fisheries for other species have been damaged.
:stirthepot::stirthepot:
I credit that to two top sized and essentially unnatural predators. Humans and muskies. First humans take a huge number of smaller panfish especially from the shoreline reducing the number available to grow to larger sizes and muskies in these smaller waters take larger panfish as they increasingly orient to open water in sizes larger than the smaller native pike are able to. This applies to walleyes, also, and certainly perch both of which increasingly orient to open and deeper water as they grow. The panfish populations are receiving a double whammy, getting hit on both ends of their growth cycles.
Every panfisherman I know has relatively frequent run-ins with muskies stealing hooked fish, that goes all the way up to two and three pound walleyes, and all of us who use artificials have lures as small as 1/32 ounce taken by muskies up to the high 30 inches at least and I know for a fact that 50+ muskies will take hoked walleyes up to at least mid teens in length, because I have seen that more than once, too. Occasionally we win one of those contests, like I did last April involving a 38" musky on ultralight with 4 pound test. Now that certainly is a thrill, but far more often we get cut off. Last summer I had something like over a dozen such cutoffs, just fishing for crappies on ultralight. I know some of them were direct takes of my tiny lures, because I saw the musky take the tiny jig in its own right. So I know that muskies feed from that size up to what they call decoy suckers which are the size of respectable eater walleyes in many cases, because I have seen it quite a number of times. IOW they feed on just about everything in their environment. Even in such small waters as the Minneapolis chain of lakes, they grow rapidly to outsize any naturally occurring predator. All smaller species are adversely affected by a change in natural predator/prey formulas. In short we are not going to get decent populations of larger panfish or medium sized walleyes and probably pike, too, no matter how we manage them as long as musky populations in those lakes remain abundant.
Quite a number of fisherman I talk to are increasing dissatisfied with the emphasis that the musky elite has been able to get the state to make on their special quarry. That includes a lot of average musky fisherman, too, BTW.
Those lakes still produce an occasional 30" walleye and pike and outsized largemouths. Those that survive to the larger sizes are still present, but the medium sized walleyes and pike are not there in the quantities they should be any more than the larger sized panfish. I have seen virtually no pike under 24 or 25 inches. The smaller ones, which include many of the males are virtually never taken, which is quite different from most natural pike waters. The largemouths are more oriented to weedbeds and so we can probably thank the milfoil that their populations remain passably complete.
My belief is that muskies have been overstocked into many inappropriate waters and that should be curtailed. Additionally I think that musky management should be restricted to native, natural musky waters, allowing year around catch and release in all others. In native waters management should be intensified to protect the natural populations. Not just muskies either. Muskies are present in a lot places and I am not advocating extermination anywhere, but releasing extraordinary protections where those fish did not naturally occur will benefit all other parts of those fisheries. In those other places, that year around access will also benefit our struggling bait shops who get important income from outsized bait sales to the current musky pursuit. The December 1 closer, as it now stands, may put some of them out of business, and they are too few and far between now.
BTW I would also like to see more intensive panfish management with minimum sizes and decreased possession limits for perch, bluegills, and crappies, allowing more of the younger fish to grow to the size where they start to move to open water. I have no doubt that declining populations of yellow perch in our chain of lakes is due to lack of an effective top size on native open water perch predation, and that means muskies. Adding muskies is simply too much predation on perch populations, which are open water oriented throughout much of their life cycle. They are too important as a forage fish to continue to allow 40 in possession.
I would also like to see sales of a specific catch and release additional license stamp that allows a one additional rod or hook per fisherman, for catfishing, trolling in medium to shallow levels, etc, but not applicable for trout or on specifically designated waters or for specifically managed fish in particular waters. Catch and release is a relatively mature fishing technique and should be more widely available. I would have no problem limiting particular tackle, either, such as requiring circle hooks for bait to increase the likelihood of successful release or requiring the cutting of line for deep hooked fish. Catch and release fishermen are very likely to pay attention to such requirements. That increases DNR revenues and puts less pressure on populations which should also decrease stocking needs.
Right now in musky stocked waters that also get walleye stocking, pretty much what we have is walleyes stocked to be heavily musky forage. Non-native muskies are every bit the drain on such walleye stocks as the cormorants are on some lakes.
There are far too waters where muskies were stocked that were and still are inappropriate. Lots of such local fisheries for other species have been damaged.
:stirthepot::stirthepot: