Mille Lacs Muskie Population?

Interesting read/commentary from the Mille Lacs Messenger:

http://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/what-happened-to-the-mille-lacs-muskie-population/article_bdb9e436-1015-11ec-8319-4f271ed5bb70.html

According to a YouTube video called “Mille Lacs Lake Muskies … What happened?” by muskie guide Josh Borovsky. The short answer is stocking. Mille Lacs, like so many other muskie fisheries, relies on stocking to keep the numbers up. It’s really that simple.

Stocking by the numbers

If you fished Mille Lacs for muskies in the mid-2000’s, you know what I’m talking about. There seemed to be fish everywhere. According to Borovsky, that was when the lake peaked due to the Minnesota DNR’s stocking efforts some fifteen odd years earlier. For eight years, from 1984 to 1992, the DNR stocked north of 45,000 fingerlings (approximately 7 inches long).

From 1988 to 1991 alone, there were over 25,000 fingerlings stocked. That’s why fishing was so good in the later years when they grew up to a catchable size. And just for reference, only one out of ten fingerlings survive the first year of their existence.

To put things in perspective, from 1993 to 2019, there were 36,000 fingerlings stocked total for all of those 26 years. Although, there was no stocking at all from 2000 to 2003. Since 1993, the DNR has been stocking Mille Lacs with around 3,000 fingerlings every other year. Basically a drop in the bucket for a fishery the size of Mille Lacs.

Catch rates by the numbers

According to Borovsky’s data in the video, the catch rates are totally proportionate to the number of fish that are in the lake. The old “you can’t catch what’s not there” philosophy. Well, back in the mid-2000’s, it was the absolute peak of the muskie population.

One thing anglers did note was the fact that there were very few small fish. It seemed the fish that were caught were going to be over 40 inches then under 40 inches on average. That is actually a very striking sign of a fishery that is on the verge of collapse. The big fish will not live forever. If anglers are not catching small fish, where is the recruitment?

Most muskie fisherman don’t really mind only catching bigger fish, as that is what it is about for most muskie anglers. They would simply fish for another species if they wanted to catch more numbers and smaller fish.

The mid-2000’s was the best chance at a trophy muskie on Mille Lacs Lake by far. The lake was literally full of them. Back then, the minimum size limit was 48 inches to keep. And when Mille Lacs was kicking out the trophies, many anglers decided to keep them. According to Borovsky’s data in 2006 alone, the DNR creel census reported there were 80 muskies harvested that had an average of an astonishing 36 pounds each. That was just in that one year.

Muskies Incorporated data

According to Muskies Incorporated catch data, the peak of the lake was 2007 with over 450 entries into their “Lunge log” database. By 2008, just one season later, the entries had dropped to only 75 total, and since then it has been a fairly low flat line averaging only 10 to 50 entries per year from 2009 to 2020. The absolute bottom was 2016 with just 10 muskies entered from the entire lake.

So far this season, as of this writing there are eight total entries, but one was a 54.5 inch fish. That is a fish that not very many fisheries are capable of producing – and the main reason diehard anglers will continue to fish the lake knowing full well they may go days without even seeing a muskie, much less catching one.

What does the future hold?

So the data proves that the catch rates are proportionate to previous years stocking numbers. And since 1993, the stocking has been dismal to say the least. Now, even if the DNR decided to really make an effort into rebuilding the muskie population as a whole and started stocking fish in there like back in late 80’s and early 90’s, the reality is it would take at least 10 to 15 years for those fish to grow up to a catchable size/population.

That would put us well into the 2030s as a time frame. But if the DNR continues to stock it as a “low density/trophy potential” fishery at 3,000 fingerlings every other year, nothing will change. According to Borovsky, “Change needs to happen now for future fishing.”

So if you’re not satisfied with the “status quo” of the DNR’s plan for the muskie fishery on Mille Lacs, give them a call or drop them an email. Be respectful and let them know you’d like to see more muskies stocked in the lake.

I saw this article too. It was interesting.

Muskies have never been common in that lake. It was the size of the fish that made it what it is. There has likely been a state record fish caught several times from that lake already.

The issue as it relates to their primary forage, ciscoes, may also be a factor. When we get a warm summer, there is cisco mortality. There will come a point when they can no longer survive in that lake.

gimruis wrote:

Muskies have never been common in that lake. It was the size of the fish that made it what it is. There has likely been a state record fish caught several times from that lake already.

Oh, if you fished in the early 2000’s out there they absolutely were common. My buddy and I fished that lake very often in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and in that timeframe if we didnt have 20 to 30 follows in a day that was terrible. We had many days where we caught multiple fish in a day and the smallest fish I have ever caught out of there was my first ever musky and it was 37″. In one day my buddy and I caught 7 fish and all were over 40 inches back in 2005. I dont care where you are fishing that is incredible.

Stock it with a 60″ minimum keep number.

Dutchboy wrote:

Stock it with a 60″ minimum keep number.

Not so sure that would have helped. Even 100% C&R. I would put a couple factors up there higher than keeper mortality.

1. People fishing walleye or bass with accidental muskie catches. Then 20 minutes later after 20+ pics and several floor drops, the doomed fish is released.

2. Fish getting propped. I personally took out 2 big fish in Sunset bay. There were summers where propped fish would wash up on shore on a regular basis.

3. Tribal netting.

-J.

gimruis wrote:

I saw this article too. It was interesting.

Muskies have never been common in that lake. It was the size of the fish that made it what it is. There has likely been a state record fish caught several times from that lake already.

The issue as it relates to their primary forage, ciscoes, may also be a factor. When we get a warm summer, there is cisco mortality. There will come a point when they can no longer survive in that lake.

Wut? The lake was Loaded in the early 2000’s. Multiple big fish days were the norm, not the exception.

BTW, I don’t support the full blown stocking that happened in the 80’s. (Note – there was some damn good walleye fishing back then) Same with trying to manage the SMB population. I would like to see the lake managed for walleye. Bass and Muskie can take a back seat.

Edit:
The lake is probably at the correct population right now. The muskie guys I know still send me pics. Seems most of the better muskie guys focus on the Oct – Dec time frame these days. Still fish to be caught out there.

-J.

I am surprised how low the number of fingerlings that are stock every other year are. Only 300 surviving the first year. I wonder how many of those survive the second year.

Jon Jordan wrote:

BTW, I don’t support the full blown stocking that happened in the 80’s. (Note – there was some damn good <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye fishing back then) Same with trying to manage the SMB population. I would like to see the lake managed for walleye. <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>Bass and Muskie can take a back seat.

I think they can manage the lake for all of them and they could each thrive. Muskies are never meant to be at high volumes of fish, it is intended to be a sport or trophy fish. Bass is similar I would think. I agree walleye should be the number 1 focus which I think it is and always has been.
I dont think we can underestimate the impact that smallmouth bass have done to the late good or bad.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Oh, if you fished in the early 2000’s out there they absolutely were common. My buddy and I fished that lake very often in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and in that timeframe if we didnt have 20 to 30 follows in a day that was terrible. We had many days where we caught multiple fish in a day and the smallest fish I have ever caught out of there was my first ever musky and it was 37″. In one day my buddy and I caught 7 fish and all were over 40 inches back in 2005. I dont care where you are fishing that is incredible.

Are you kidding me! That’s freaking awesome!

I didn’t fish it for muskies in that era. I started off fishing it for walleyes in 2000 and then started muskie fishing about 5-6 years later. Sounds like I started with the wrong target…

CaptainMusky wrote:

I think they can manage the lake for all of them and they could each thrive.

I don’t. We’re 30+ years into that experiment and it’s not working!

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

I don’t. We’re 30+ years into that experiment and it’s not working!

-J.

Are you suggesting that muskies and bass are to blame for the walleye problem? The problem with the walleye situation is more about how they are being managed than anything else.

Jon Jordan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CaptainMusky wrote:</div>
I think they can manage the lake for all of them and they could each thrive.

I don’t. We’re 30+ years into that experiment and it’s not working!

-J.

We might be 30 years in but Muskie isn’t the only factor. It may contribute but it’s far from the only problem.

Dutchboy wrote:

We might be 30 years in but Muskie isn’t the only factor. It may contribute but it’s far from the only problem.

Dutch – We are 30+ years in to trying to keep EVERYONE happy. Not possible.

Mille Lacs is and should be managed solely as a walleye lake.

-J.

JJ you need to convince GLIFWC not me.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Are you suggesting that muskies and bass are to blame for the walleye problem? The problem with the walleye situation is more about how they are being managed than anything else.

The lake isn’t even remotely the same as it was just 15 years ago either. Water clarity has increased dramatically. There’s more weed growth. There’s far less perch. The water temperatures are also warmer. None of these factors help walleye populations.

I’m not commenting about the tribal netting.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CaptainMusky wrote:</div>
Are you suggesting that muskies and bass are to blame for the walleye problem? The problem with the walleye situation is more about how they are being managed than anything else.

The lake isn’t even remotely the same as it was just 15 years ago either. Water clarity has increased dramatically. There’s more weed growth. There’s far less perch. The water temperatures are also warmer. None of these factors help walleye populations.

I’m not commenting about the tribal netting.

Bingo on the clarity, warming waters, fewer perch, and ultimately more mouths to feed (growing bass populations).

I’d love for Mille Lacs to be a walleye first lake indefinitely. I also am in the party of just simply stocking more muskies isn’t the answer that serves the lake best. There needs to be a philosophical stance as to what the primary focus is and how that is going to be achieved given the changing conditions over time. If not, you will have one large “decent” lake for a lot of species that can never handle a harvest of walleyes again. If that’s the goal, then great. If not, the strategies have to change.

If someone thinks the biological carrying capacity of that lake will handle walleye populations of 20 years ago, muskie populations of the past cited in the article, and today’s booming bass population….they clearly haven’t paid attention to the last decade or so. The walleye are losing that battle every single time, as the conditions are shifting away from their favor with warming temps and clarity.

I ultimately think that my grandkids will think of Mille Lacs as a fairly warm, clear, big bass lake 30 years from now with the occasional walleye running into their bait…and people still arguing about how that happened

Since I’m not from up there, it’s not my place to say what should be done on the lake. But it’s amazing, and a little confusing, to me that you guys are on THE world class smallmouth lake (barring perhaps Erie), and want it managed for walleye. I guess it’s because I don’t eat fish…

That being said, we’ve done pretty good on walleye when smallie fishing the last couple years.

BRIAN AUSTIN wrote:

Since I’m not from up there, it’s not my place to say what should be done on the lake. But it’s amazing, and a little confusing, to me that you guys are on THE world class smallmouth lake (barring perhaps Erie), and want it managed for walleye. I guess it’s because I don’t eat fish…

Its because there are far more anglers who fish walleyes than bass around here. Yes, its a wonderful bass fishery, but that is a recent phenomena. It used to be a world class walleye lake, sadly those days are long gone. It should be managed primarily for walleye and I believe it is, but the population age structure is so upside down with so many larger fish the young ones are just not having the highest survival rate.

The lake isn’t even remotely the same as it was just 15 years ago either. Water clarity has increased dramatically. There’s more weed growth. There’s far less perch. The water temperatures are also warmer. None of these factors help walleye populations.

I’m not commenting about the tribal netting.
[/quote]

Are we talking about the same Mille lacs? I’ve been fishing that lake since 1997. Water clarity hasn’t changed that much. I remember seeing the bottom in 21ft of water ice fishing on the south end back in the 90’s. Honestly can’t remember seeing it that clear since. Last week visibility was 4-5ft at the most.
As far as weeds go, I think they’re fewer weeds than ever on that lake. The west shoreline near twin pines was our favorite place to ice fish late winter for years. We’d catch great numbers of walleyes and pike from green cabbage beds in February. The last 4 years we’ve attempted this pattern and they’re no weeds to be found anywhere from Terry’s harbor to pike point.
The experts say zebra muscles create clearer water and clearer water creates more weeds. Maybe on paper that works. There are more factors than that though.
Rusty crayfish are everywhere in the lake and they are very hard on weed beds. Zebra muscles are also hard on aquatic plants. The last green cabbage I found through the ice on that lake (with a underwater camera) was laying down under the weight of the muscles attached.
I talked to an AIS guy on another mille lacs area lake and he agreed that rusty crayfish had dramatically changed the plant life in that particular lake to the point where crappies have almost vanished, the smallmouth love it though.
Also, I think there are just as many perch if not more than 15 years ago. They are coming back slowly.
Now if you compared it to the perch population 20-25 years ago I’d agree.

Valid points Grubson. There are going to be seasonal variations in water clarity and weed growth and temperature based on local conditions which you’ve clearly indicated.

When I first started fishing that lake around 2000, the water was much darker and murkier. I have not fished it since July this season so I can’t comment on what it looks like at the moment but overall it has definitely become clearer. Smallmouth generally do better in clearer water.

I think a lot of it has to do with pressure as well. Musky fishing is at its peak of popularity. Once people get burnt out it will come back.

Jon Jordan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
We might be 30 years in but Muskie isn’t the only factor. It may contribute but it’s far from the only problem.

Dutch – We are 30+ years in to trying to keep EVERYONE happy. Not possible.

Bingo!!!

I have a novel idea lakes are cyclical. Always have been and always will. It amazes me that people think fishing should be lights out year in and year out for every specie. Weird Muskie population cycles down and the Tullie population is rising including size. How about leave the lake alone and let it be what it is and always has been instead of managing the lake differently each year. Oh wait we can’t do that.

Feathers wrote:

Ya’ll should watch the video with Josh, Luke, lee and Greg. There is also another video with just Josh and a numbers cruncher dude that got more in to the stocking statistics.

Musky fishing will absolutely not come back in the lake with current stocking levels even if no one fished the lake. Very low reproduction in the lake like a lot of stocked Muskie lakes. If I remember right from watching the vid a few weeks back, Luke said it would probably be decent again with 5,000 fish a year. That’s not much fish when you consider its size and survival rate of stocked fish.

Muskies will not eat all the walleyes. I promise. Look at the Canadian side of lotw for a perfect example. The walleyes are eating all the baby walleyes due to lack of forage. If they want more walleyes they should start stocking the lake with <em class=”ido-tag-em”>perch or fat heads to make the baby walleye a secondary target.

Mille lacs was the best Muskie fishery in the world for size and numbers. Now it hardly gets fished. Pretty sad what it has become.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

Seams like an easy answer to stock every lake with more this or that and poof it’s fixed. Riddle me this then why hasn’t a lake ever been stocked with more baitfish? Just like walleyes SMB and Muskie, if a lake cycles down and you can’t catch said species go pound another lake. Because it worked in lake X doesn’t mean it will or does work in lake y. What does a lake on the Canadian boarder have to do with Mille Lacs except they are both lakes? Two completely different lakes that will have two completely different reactions.

Sources please.
They don’t stock the lake for anything but Muskie.
Nope lakes don’t cycle when stocked it is just great fishing all the time since it’s stocked. Ever fish Leech or Winnie. More than just fish cycle in an eco system especially one as large as Mille Lacs

Feathers wrote:

It’d be great if they ramped up Muskie stocking again but with the amount of drama the lake gets I won’t hold my breath.

Although I don’t target muskies in ML much anymore, I agree that its not going to sustain itself with a self-reproducing population. At its current rate of stocking, its not really doing much either. If they want to continue to have them, they’re going to have to increase stocking, which I would be fine with.

The muskie population density is low out there. There simply aren’t enough to make a sizable dent in any bait fish population (or the walleye population). But since there is a self-sustaining population of ciscoes, there is a natural forage base to make muskies grow very large. So why not utilize that forage base?

I think lake management needs to stock more rock bass and green sunfish, the two most important gamefish in our waters

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Feathers wrote:</div>
It’d be great if they ramped up Muskie stocking again but with the amount of drama the lake gets I won’t hold my breath.

Although I don’t target muskies in ML much anymore, I agree that its not going to sustain itself with a self-reproducing population. At its current rate of stocking, its not really doing much either. If they want to continue to have them, they’re going to have to increase stocking, which I would be fine with.

The muskie population density is low out there. There simply aren’t enough to make a sizable dent in any bait fish population (or the walleye population). But since there is a self-sustaining population of ciscoes, there is a natural forage base to make muskies grow very large. So why not utilize that forage base?

For now, maybe.

For long, probably not.

Mille Lacs is warming quickly. It’s not a matter of “if”, rather “how soon and how much” the fishery will change. Fisheries ebb and flow over time even when conditions stay steady (temperature, flow, species present, etc.) Conditions are changing rapidly on Mille Lacs as a function of time…a couple decades is a very short timeframe in the grand scheme of things. In that time we’ve seen temperatures warm, invasive species, netting variables, clarity increase, and ice fishing explode exponentially along with corresponding technology. The ebbs and flows are going to be more and more extreme as a result of this and certain species are more susceptible to the changes – mainly walleye.

Throwing money with stocking into Mille Lacs may help some species stabilize, but it’s ultimately a crapshoot until a specific goal is mentioned and questions are answered. Is Mille Lacs a walleye at all costs lake despite trends? Is Mille Lacs a lake that should host national bass tournaments and be managed accordingly? How does the lakes fragile forage support all of this? How do these goals fit the local economies? What legislation is in place (or not in place) to ensure these goals are achieved? What is the relationship with native bands and can there be long-term success without truly having the same goals?

buckybadger wrote:

For now, maybe.

For long, probably not.

I agree, in the long run ciscoes will be some of the first fish to go because they require colder more oxygenated waters.

Your responses have been very informed and well thought out on this subject Bucky.

Incorrect again. They dumped about 30,000,000 walleye in the lake from 2016-2018. Source below.

I suppose one could argue this is the same as stocking baitfish for the walleyes to feast on. Would millions more perch cost the same or less as walleye and be more effective for walleye recruitment from natural reproduction? Who knows. Worth a try. Worst that could happen is we get some good perch fishing.

I am not sure what you are even trying to get at with your leech and Winnie comparison but you don’t seem too knowledgeable about muskies so I am done debating with you.

It’d be great if they ramped up Muskie stocking again but with the amount of drama the lake gets I won’t hold my breath. The dnr doesn’t seem to even want to open the discussion and I can’t say I blame them with how much heat they get from this lake. One more thing for the walleye guys to blame.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showstocking.html?downum=48000200&context=desktop

Not sure where I was incorrect the first time. Frankly I don’t think I am incorrect this time either.
That stocking was a research study to determine how many walleye hatch in the wild on Mille Lacs and to study the survival rate of a stocked walleye on Mille lacs. Should it ever need it.
It was NOT a stocking effort to help build the walleye population, so yea only Muskie are stocked in Mille Lacs.