DNR to Release Muskie in Gull Lake Chain of Lakes

DNR to Release Muskie in Gull Lake Chain of Lakes, Fairmont Chain of Lakes

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will be releasing muskie in the Gull Lake chain of lakes near Brainerd and the Fairmont chain of lakes in southern Minnesota this fall.
The announcement comes after two years of gathering public comments as the DNR works to establish new muskie angling opportunities around the state.
DNR officials say muskie fishing is one of the fastest-growing segments of Minnesota sport fishing and that 14 percent of Minnesota’s licensed anglers target muskie. Their research also shows an additional 18 percent of anglers want to try muskie fishing.
DNR officials say the growing interest in muskie fishing caused concerns about long-term sustainability.
Monday’s announcement means the DNR will not stock Big Marine Lake in Washington County or Franklin, Lizzie or Loon lakes in Otter Tail County, which were originally discussed in the DNR’s long-range plan to stock eight new waters.
However, other lakes included in the plan have already been stocked; they include Roosevelt, Pokegema and the Sauk River Chain.
Some lake associations, anglers and lake homeowners pushed back against the plan to stock the eight new waters because they worried about the affect muskie have on other fish populations and the increase of boat traffic from tournaments, among other concerns.
Learn more about how the decision was made on the DNR’s muskie management page here.

Links from story:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/muskie/index.html

http://kstp.com/politics/muskie-stocking-ban-dnr/4083225/

-J.

Good for them. That’ll stir up them Gull Lakers.

it’s really nice to see the DNR push through the political BS and stock these fish in new lakes. Muskies Inc probably has alot to do with it, but kudos to all of those involved!

It’s funny how many people think they’re an expert on what Muskies eat… The increased boat traffic argument is what makes me laugh the most…good lord, most Muskie fisherman fish in late fall when the ramps are completely empty, plus they are typically one of the most honorable fisherman groups on the water, they follow the rules and are respectful of the resource… can you say the same about the yahoo’s driving the 25′ powerboats who are likely the group opposing it?

I completely agree Joe. I laughed when I heard the lame boat traffic argument. Like Gull isn’t already a busy lake. I was out there in early June, fishing in Margaret in a no wake zone, and some yahoo with a big inboard and likely a small Richard had to gun it full throttle just as soon as he got past the no wake buoys and to get to his dock no more than 300 yards away.

I feel and believe that the majority of the Anti’s pretty much worship at the alter of the great and powerful Walleye and no matter what you tell them or show scientific data supporting the fact that Muskies do not have a huge impact they will never ever ever believe it..Muskies are the Bogeyman and everyone is stupid. Glad the DNR made a decision.

Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

I don’t know about muskies but I really like to eat largemouth bass.

Bass_attack wrote:

Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

There are hundreds of lakes in MN that are stocked with walleyes that aren’t native. The whole thing about stocking any lake or river/stream is to provide angler opportunities.

The only negative I have seen is from the walleye lovers on that lake. Is there any sort of credible evidence or study that shows that stocking ski’s in walleye lake hurts the walleye population? Nothing I have ever seen…Mille Lacs is doing pretty darn good this year!

roosterrouster wrote:

Mille Lacs is doing pretty darn good this year!

as are essentially all of the other lakes that have muskies, year in and year out.

blank wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass_attack wrote:</div>
Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

There are hundreds of lakes in MN that are stocked with <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes that aren’t native. The whole thing about stocking any lake or river/stream is to provide angler opportunities.

Ok but why should any species be intoduced into a lake to simply give anglers opportunities. Bass, walleyes, muskies, trout, carp, golfish any of em. Would crappie fishing on the south side of mille lacs be better if muskies were not introduced? Would panfishing be better on minnetonka if walleyes were not stocked? Just curious. I dont care about muskie angler vs walleye angler wars. I fish multispecies. Most can agree that the DNR doesnt manage bodies of water correctly so what makes stocking fish in un native waters correct?

They tast good also.

Don’t shoot the messenger here but in the early days of gull Muskie were native.
The gull dam changed that.

Also… There are still a few in there

Bass_attack wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blank wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass_attack wrote:</div>
Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

There are hundreds of lakes in MN that are stocked with <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes that aren’t native. The whole thing about stocking any lake or river/stream is to provide angler opportunities.

Ok but why should any species be intoduced into a lake to simply give anglers opportunities. Bass, walleyes, muskies, trout, carp, golfish any of em. Would crappie fishing on the south side of mille lacs be better if muskies were not introduced? Would panfishing be better on minnetonka if <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes were not stocked? Just curious. I dont care about muskie angler vs walleye angler wars. I fish multispecies. Most can agree that the DNR doesnt manage bodies of water correctly so what makes stocking fish in un native waters correct?

Not to sound crass, but its a simple answer. It brings in MONEY. There are less than 100 lakes in MN with fishable populations of muskies in them. Combine that with a growing group of people who want to target them and the fact that MORE would like the opportunity to do it the amount of water being frequented by musky anglers gets crowded in a hurry.
You cannot compare walleye stocking to musky stocking since the muskies will be in such low density, where walleyes are stocked by the thousands and millions depending if its fry, fingerlings, etc.
Aside from the benefits of giving anglers more places to target muskies, they also help manage the lake with stunted populations of panfish, etc.

blank wrote:

I completely agree Joe. I laughed when I heard the lame boat traffic argument. Like Gull isn’t already a busy lake. I was out there in early June, fishing in Margaret in a no wake zone, and some yahoo with a big inboard and likely a small Richard had to gun it full throttle just as soon as he got past the no wake buoys and to get to his dock no more than 300 yards away.

Isnt that the truth!? Couple that with the fact on Tonka all the partiers that flock to the island and dump all their trash in the lake.
They just talked about the “record” clean up this past weekend. Great they had a nice cleanup, but shame on everyone for using the lake as a landfill.

Bass_attack wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blank wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bass_attack wrote:</div>
Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

There are hundreds of lakes in MN that are stocked with <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes that aren’t native. The whole thing about stocking any lake or river/stream is to provide angler opportunities.

Ok but why should any species be intoduced into a lake to simply give anglers opportunities. Bass, walleyes, muskies, trout, carp, golfish any of em. Would crappie fishing on the south side of mille lacs be better if muskies were not introduced? Would panfishing be better on minnetonka if <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes were not stocked? Just curious. I dont care about muskie angler vs walleye angler wars. I fish multispecies. Most can agree that the DNR doesnt manage bodies of water correctly so what makes stocking fish in un native waters correct?

To provide angling opportunities. People fish because it’s a fun, relaxing, exciting, entertaining activity that you can do outdoors. Walleyes are stocked in lakes because that is an interest from many anglers, and it expands opportunities for walleye fishing beyond the natural reproducing lakes. Same reason why they stock muskies in non-native lakes. The DNR has seen an increase in popularity of muskie fishing and they heard many people asking for more opportunities.

fishmantim wrote:

I feel and believe that the majority of the Anti’s pretty much worship at the alter of the great and powerful Walleye and no matter what you tell them or show scientific data supporting the fact that <em class=”ido-tag-em”>Muskies do not have a huge impact they will never ever ever believe it..Muskies are the Bogeyman and everyone is stupid. Glad the DNR made a decision.

Because in the state of Minnesota, it’s always been about the “great and holy walleye”.
The reality is that there is always going to be a “select” group of people that crave power and self serving agendas. With blinders on and completely closed minds, it’s less about the agenda but more about them building their own egos in being able to “control”. They adopt these kinds of things as a personal crusade. No real science, biology, or much of anything other than falsehood and fear mongering to gather their “followers” and then toast to themselves on being like the leader of North Korea. Anyway, Ottertail county lakes…Loon, Lizzie, etc. are off the table and pending legislation still held up at the state government impasse but likely to get through at some point is moratorium on all future muskie stocking in Minnesota.

It’s because the state doesn’t want anyone to catch fish to eat, so lower the bait fish and they can say what happened to the gills and eyes

Outdraft wrote:

It’s because the state doesn’t want anyone to catch fish to eat, so lower the bait fish and they can say what happened to the gills and eyes

Oh boy…

Thanks for sharing this post, I went ahead and linked it to the homepage.

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Outdraft wrote:</div>
It’s because the state doesn’t want anyone to catch fish to eat, so lower the bait fish and they can say what happened to the gills and eyes

Oh boy…

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blank wrote:</div>
I completely agree Joe. I laughed when I heard the lame boat traffic argument. Like Gull isn’t already a busy lake. I was out there in early June, fishing in Margaret in a no wake zone, and some yahoo with a big inboard and likely a small Richard had to gun it full throttle just as soon as he got past the no wake buoys and to get to his dock no more than 300 yards away.

Isnt that the truth!? Couple that with the fact on Tonka all the partiers that flock to the island and dump all their trash in the lake.
They just talked about the “record” clean up this past weekend. Great they had a nice cleanup, but shame on everyone for using the lake as a landfill.

2 Words, ICE FISHERMEN. Let’s not call the kettle black here. Sadly there are some Big slobs that fish too.

wormdunker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CaptainMusky wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blank wrote:</div>
I completely agree Joe. I laughed when I heard the lame boat traffic argument. Like Gull isn’t already a busy lake. I was out there in early June, fishing in Margaret in a no wake zone, and some yahoo with a big inboard and likely a small Richard had to gun it full throttle just as soon as he got past the no wake buoys and to get to his dock no more than 300 yards away.

Isnt that the truth!? Couple that with the fact on Tonka all the partiers that flock to the island and dump all their trash in the lake.
They just talked about the “record” clean up this past weekend. Great they had a nice cleanup, but shame on everyone for using the lake as a landfill.

2 Words, ICE FISHERMEN. Let’s not call the kettle black here. Sadly there are some Big slobs that fish too.

Fair enough. But if you have ever been around Big Island immediately following the 4th you would see how much of a mess they create.

I view the Muskie stocking debate this way…………….

1) Muskie destroy the species balance of a lake.
2) Guns kill people.

Tuma wrote:

If you look at the studies of lakes that were stocked with muskies in MN, almost all of them are doing better now then they ever have been. I have not heard the walleye guys complain about catching more walleye and less sheep head after muskies were introduce to the lake.

I have a place at Mille Lacs and despite what some around here maintain that the muskie stocking was another significant factor in the walleye decline, the fact is that there are so few per littoral water acre that they have had little if any contribution to the walleye population change. There are many other factors at play here. Studies have proven that muskie preferred diet is suckers, redhorse and of course tullibees which are still maintaining a good population. Plus, for many of us the chance to possibly catch something like this caught last November creates lakes/areas to legendary status!

Attachments:

1. 

   VIDEO_-Massive-Mille-Lacs-Muskie-_-mcfeely1.jpg
   

Gull is a 10,000 acre lake with good water quality and an abundance of tullibees. It should be an awesome fishery in 10-12 years! With the clear water and boat traffic, most of the muskie guys will be off of the lake by noon when most recreational boaters are just getting out.

Phil Bauerly wrote:

Gull is a 10,000 acre lake with good water quality and an abundance of tullibees. It should be an awesome fishery in 10-12 years! With the clear water and boat traffic, most of the muskie guys will be off of the lake by noon when most recreational boaters are just getting out.

Or better yet sundown and after dark. Best time for Muskie on heavy traffic waters and clear water. Topwaters over cabbage or bucktails,crankbaits off the edges? Pow!

I can only imagine that the rock pile is going to become a very popular spot in the fall! Government and Squaw points will also be developing hot spots!

Bass_attack wrote:

Why introduce a new species to a lake that did fine without muskies until now? If you want to fish for muskies go to mille lacs or many of the other muskie lakes to catch them. I dont hate muskies but I dont understand adding them to new bodies of water they were never meant to be. As far as not eating walleyes I bet they do the things eat ducklings why wouldnt they eat a walleye?

I’m generally for stocking of most species if native to a lake. But if not native, especially for a top predator such as a muskie, its frustrating as the concept does not align with the other messages being sent to boaters/anglers regarding the transport of anything – AIS check points, boat launch inspections, questions as to the prior lake/river the boat was in, no movement of bait, no drops of water in the boat, etc. I enjoy muskie fishing tremendously for what it is worth.