Minnesota Legislature declares war on muskies

The local yokels are not the problem. As a group they have no power anyway. They can only bitch and moan but can’t control DNR policy. However, getting politicians involved is a direct assault and the first step in privatizing lakes. This bill not only needs to get crushed but anybody supporting it needs to get voted out of office.

This isn’t a joke, it’s Muskies today, lakes and rivers tomorrow, Hunting and wildlife areas next. Sit on our hands on this one and the horse will be out of the barn.

So, what exacly is the policy of the DNR introducing a specie to a lake that has not been associated to that body of water. You can not tell me introducing a species to an echo system will not interupt the echo system with out research on that specific echo system nor can I tell you that it will. But I can tell you the there are definitely cases of species that have been intrduced to echo systems that decimated the local population of preditor game fish from introducing musky to lake trout. Look up lake trout in the western states decimating cut throat trout in some lakes and Bull trout in other lakes. Wisconsin and Michigan has studies on lakes where the population of muskies thrived after introducing them while the catch rate per acres of walleye plummeted in the same lake.
Look up yellowstone lake and the dissappearing elk and see how an entire echo system of water and land was changed because of a non native fish was introduced to yellowstone. What exaclty is the motive of this push to stock nonnative fish.

1hl&sinker wrote:

You can not tell me introducing a species to an echo system will not interupt the echo system with out research on that specific echo system nor can I tell you that it will.

You are 100% correct, but remember the majority of lakes in MN that have walleye, were not native walleye lakes.

The pushback is exactly this.

A politician has no working knowledge of what the DNR people are hired to do. Do you want St.Paul to have control of the resources of the state? Why do you suppose he introduced this bill? Was it because his constituents don’t want Muskies stocked in their lakes? If they decide next year they don’t like gunfire between the hours of 10 am and noon and he passes a bill are you OK with that? I’ve got Deer that roam around my house. I think they are cute. Should my representative write and get a bill passed outlawing Deer hunting in Sherburne and Mille Lacs county?

As I said before, this isn’t about Muskies, thats just the vehicle they picked because it’s the smallest group of outdoors-man. It’s about setting the precedent of allowing politicians to control the natural resources of the state.

To endorse this is asking for trouble. And, if you aren’t opposed you are endorsing it. There is no straddling the fence.

I find it interesting that there is so little discussion about this. It’s the exact same thing as limiting the type of guns or the type of ammo you can purchase for those guns. Only difference is this is Muskie stocking vs AR15’s.

1hl&sinker, do you share that same idea about the many lakes that are stocked with walleyes which are not native to those bodies of water?

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Michael C. Winther wrote:</div>
I’d like to remind everyone that “the people in that area” (including lakefront property owning Senators) don’t actually own the lakes and rivers…those are held on behalf of all state citizens, and thus should be managed for the good of all state citizens. This was affirmed by amending the MN state Constitution to preserve hunting and fishing rights forever “for the people” and to be managed “for the public good.” Laws can do this, but it’s mostly through policy set by experts – the primary job of the DNR.

My family’s waterfront property is a short drive north of the Senator’s, and it ends at the waterline…right where YOUR lake begins. Seeing this issue as just about “muskies vs walleyes” is reductive and a huge error, as this is absolutely a proxy fight about property rights.

Winner!^^^^^^

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when reading this thread. This is just the latest example of Local Yokos trying to privatize a resource that belongs to the people of the State of Minnesota.

This is no different from the Christmas Lake debacle where rich lakeshore landowners are trying to control a whole lake, or the public access issues where local yokos are “tired of so many people using ‘their’ lake” so they restrict parking for miles around the public access to limit use.

Every sportsman in Minnesota should be against this bill. This is NOT about a fish species, this is about a bunch of locals trying to steal a resource that belongs to everyone in MN. Think about the precedent this sets. This time it’s stocking policy, next time what? Maybe the local yokos suddenly feel like “outsiders” are “damaging their lake” and public accesses need to be removed….

Every outdoorsman and woman in the state of MN needs to make sure this bill gets crushed. We have an agency that is responsible for managing these lakes for the common good, it’s called the DNR. Local yokos need to butt out. It’s NOT your lake.

Grouse

Well…while you are 100% correct, those people, who live there, who probably spend waaaay more time there then those who don’t live there, have waaaay more vested interest in what goes on.

Do you monitor federal lands in Arizona? Do you follow the off-road restrictions that OHV are doing? Probably not but the locals do, and since they see it first hand, of course the are pushing their agenda.

Muskie Critic Cited For Shooting Geese Out Of Season

So concerned about “native” fish, but willing to poach/kill “native” geese out of season for personal benefit.

“There are many waters that have been introduced with walleye where they were not native. In fact more are probably introduced than have natural populations. And in most cases has proven to be highly successful and popular. In all likelihood, a favorite walleye water(s) near you.”

This is not likely the case as that my favorite lakes in MN don’t receive stocked walleye in recent (20+) years. Have they been stocked? Yes , some mostly due to over harvest. My home lake gets sturgeon stocking on a regular basis? Why? Does any one know how many sturgeon were in the lake before there was a dam?
Why do we/DNR , fed government try to change the make up of our lakes, forests,and prairies? Poor management in the past?
Pelican lake has had Muskie stocking for over 25 years. I don’t know if they were ever native?
Look at the Feds trying to reintroduce wolves on Isle Royal, why can’t hunters reduce the moose population , before they eat themselves out of house and home? The wolves will be starving in a few years if reintroduced because they ate all the moose, then what?

I agree this issue on Pelican Lake is not about Biology.

Dutchboy wrote:

As I said before, this isn’t about Muskies, thats just the vehicle they picked because it’s the smallest group of outdoors-man. It’s about setting the precedent of allowing politicians to control the natural resources of the state.

I agree here that this is exactly that. A smokescreen to serve an entirely different agenda. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous I think it is.

Would the author of this bill and supporters be able to distinguish between a muskie and a large northern pike? A little color difference…? They share the same habitat and diet within the same water bodies.

Difference is that muskie is in far lower density than northern pike and in fact in most waters northern pike do more damage to walleye population and walleye stocking efforts. Has anyone seen a lake that has become over-abundant with hammer handle muskies?

What would be the next proposal…encourage harvest of all pike over 20″?

Let me start off by saying that I don’t have an opinion about how Muskies affect a lake. I’m not going to go out and believe the first study that’s been introduced as fact for all bodies of water.

I have to mostly agree with dutchboy in that this is a public property dispute. I’ve seen articles about stocking Muskies in the brainerd area that clearly showed that the property owners didn’t want Muskies because it would mean increased traffic on “their” lake and upset the ecosystem. Especially “their” walleyes.

The only other thing to consider is it doesn’t seem like the DNR has much input on the musky management at all. It seems to me that Muskies Inc is in total control for their own benefit. You can’t tell me that increasing the number of musky lakes doesn’t benefit them. Seems like some middle ground needs to be reached and keep this organization check as well. This isn’t much different than lobbying our legislators.

I think it’s important to note that as of March 2016 there were 99 lakes (page 5 of the link has all of them listed) managed by the DNR for Musky in all of MN. There are also over 1,000 lakes in Ottertail County alone.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/species/mue/MUE_2016_waters.pdf

biggill wrote:

The only other thing to consider is it doesn’t seem like the DNR has much input on the musky management at all. It seems to me that Muskies Inc is in total control for their own benefit. You can’t tell me that increasing the number of musky lakes doesn’t benefit them. Seems like some middle ground needs to be reached and keep this organization check as well. This isn’t much different than lobbying our legislators.

Really?! While I agree that the Muskie Inc, Musky & Pike Alliance, etc have been vocal in their desire to have more stocked muskie lakes, its not like the DNR has stocked lakes without any additional thought because they were so heavily pressured to do so from those groups. Back in 2008 they put together a 88 page muskie plan, additionally there was a 2011 study on the fish community response to muskie stocking.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/fisheries/plans/muskiepike_2020.pdf
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/brainerd/response_to_muskie.pdf

Disclaimer, I’m not a member of any muskie organization nor actively fish for muskies in MN.

biggill wrote:

You can’t tell me that increasing the number of musky lakes doesn’t benefit them. Seems like some middle ground needs to be reached and keep this organization check as well. This isn’t much different than lobbying our legislators.

Obviously it benefits them… their mission is to promote, support, donate, and educate the public on musky fishing and aide in providing opportunities for everyone to catch and target musky. No different then pheasants forever or ducks unlimited.

Perhaps whatever walleye organizations are out there just need to step up their efforts in doing the same thing Muskies Inc is doing.

biggill wrote:

The only other thing to consider is it doesn’t seem like the DNR has much input on the musky management at all. It seems to me that Muskies Inc is in total control for their own benefit.

I’m just curious biggill @mwodziak do you have any info to back up this comment? I’m seriously asking because I know a couple local Muskie guys that claimed to have quit being apart of Muskies Inc. because they had no power to do anything at all. They said there was really no point. Now you claim they have all of this power. I’d love to hear who or where you got this info.

Those pointing out the walleye stocking in non-native lakes… I would venture to guess that 75%+ of the states anglers, agree with the walleye stockings…. now the musky on the other hand… I would venture to guess almost those same 75% give or take a few, would say keep the musky out and do walleye instead. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents… not the whole state, not the DNR, not even their own agenda, but that of their constituents. To get to lake property owners wanting to “privatize” their lake… yeah maybe wanting to, but being able to are two totally different things. If you honestly polled fishermen in the state, you could probably draw a line, between those diehard musky fishermen voting for the stocking of musky and other fishermen saying no to musky and yes to walleye. That I am afraid is just reality.

Well…while you are 100% correct, those people, who live there, who probably spend waaaay more time there then those who don’t live there, have waaaay more vested interest in what goes on.

It’s understandable to have a vested interest in the health of a lake where you own property – my family does – and it’s also important to understand that your emotional investment and stewardship is for the good of all, not as a private playground.

So, establish those wild plant buffer zones on your lakeshore, stop fertilizing the lawn, educate and inspect for AIS at the landings, upgrade those aging septic systems, and voice your opinion on public policy. Just be wise enough to understand that best use of a shared resource is the use that benefits everyone, not the one that keeps everyone from using it.

Joe Scegura wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>
The only other thing to consider is it doesn’t seem like the DNR has much input on the musky management at all. It seems to me that Muskies Inc is in total control for their own benefit.

I’m just curious @biggill do you have any info to back up this comment? I’m seriously asking because I know a couple local Muskie guys that claimed to have quit being apart of Muskies Inc. because they had no power to do anything at all. They said there was really no point. Now you claim they have all of this power. I’d love to hear who or where you got this info.

This is my impression. The number of managed musky lakes has increased exponentially over the past 3 decades. Do you think think this would’ve happened without them? This is how the DNR works. Organizations pressure the DNR to work with them and to develop workshops to support their cause.

I’m not saying it’s wrong but it sure seems like they’ve accomplished a lot over the past few decades. Besides, you don’t get what you don’t ask for. As you can see, they only represent a small portion of the fishing community but seem to have a disproportionate amount of emphasis.

Maybe it’s not Muskies inc. Maybe it’s another organization or individuals with this type of influence. I doubt it.

ClownColor wrote:

Well…while you are 100% correct, those people, who live there, who probably spend waaaay more time there then those who don’t live there, have waaaay more vested interest in what goes on.

I don’t agree and IMO it’s this “you ain’t from ’round here” attitude that creates this entitlement sense that locals have more of a vested interest and, therefore, should be the ones setting policy. Wrong.

Once again: It doesn’t matter where you live. The water is NOT owned by the people of a city, county, township, whatever. It’s owned by the People of the State of Minnesota. Therefore, where you live does NOT give you special rights and privileges when it comes to access, management, or use of that asset.

As I said, this is just the latest shot fired in the war that local yokos are waging on the resources that belong to everyone in this State. They are trying to wrestle control and ultimately ownership of a State resource away from the people of Minnesota.

This is one slippery slope that NOBODY will benefit from stepping on.

Grouse

big_g wrote:

If you honestly polled fishermen in the state, you could probably draw a line, between those diehard musky fishermen voting for the stocking of musky and other fishermen saying no to musky and yes to walleye. That I am afraid is just reality.

Well, thank goodness we’re a republic and not a true democracy. Our government is put in place to do what is BEST, not to simply do what the majority desires. Although everyone likes to believe they know how to set regulations to fix fishing/hunting/trapping/etc., the simple reality is that most of us have no real idea of what it takes for a ecosystem to be healthy…but we pay the DNR to hire experts who do know how to develop and manage those systems. Are they perfect, no. Are they a sight better than the tyranny of the majority? Hell yes. If the DNR says (and has demonstrated through both research and experience) that muskies and walleyes and panfish co-exist swimmingly in MN, probably they should be allowed to do their work.

We went through this a couple years ago.

http://m.startribune.com/dnr-will-stock-muskies-in-two-new-lake-chains-while-bowing-to-opposition-in-two-others/388148042/

big_g wrote:

Those pointing out the walleye stocking in non-native lakes… I would venture to guess that 75%+ of the states anglers, agree with the walleye stockings…. now the musky on the other hand… I would venture to guess almost those same 75% give or take a few, would say keep the musky out and do walleye instead.

This is the problem though, those 75% (I don’t think that # is correct, but for arguments sake) are ill informed and blaming the boogeyman (musky) for a problem that doesn’t exist. The top walleye lakes that support the lions share of fishing related tourism all have musky (ML, LOW, Leech, Winnie, Cass etc.). And if you go through the list of MN Musky lakes you will find a bunch of great walleye lakes among the smaller lakes as well. Just looking thru the list again, I found 2 more “musky” lakes that I want to fish for walleye. Walleye fisherman (of which I consider myself) need to be vocal in calling out the BS blame game toward musky.

“I once knew a guy who said his uncles neighbors step-brother’s cousin caught a Musky in our local stocked Walleye hole. Ever since then, the Walleye fishing has gone down hill. It’s because of all the Muskies, he even told me so. We need stop this atrocity now.”

Bill Ingebrigtsen – MN State Senator

biggill wrote:

This is my impression. The number of managed musky lakes has increased exponentially over the past 3 decades. Do you think think this would’ve happened without them? This is how the DNR works. Organizations pressure the DNR to work with them and to develop workshops to support their cause.

30 years ago I only read about muskies in In-fishermen magazine and dreamt of the far off lakes where they could be caught. Then TV shows by the likes of Bob Mehsikomer and Joe Bucher brought the allure of musky fishing into my living room on film. Those two guys and their shows had a large influence on getting large masses of people interested in targeting muskies and the DNR simply reacted to the increase in demand by seeking out additional lakes for stocking. Its quite the success story actually. If you research all that was done to determine which bodies of water would benefit from having a trophy fish like muskies introduced and which “strains” of fish were the best candidates (Leech Lake strain) MN was put squarely on the Trophy Musky Destination map as the place to go. While Muskies Inc may have played a role in teaching things like proper release and handling techniques to novice anglers I don’t believe there was any heavy handed influence over the DNR to stock additional lakes. The DNR knew they were on a heck of an opportunity with the newly acquired research data and people were getting into targeting them at a furious pace, but the challenge became WHERE? Where would all these anglers go to target the fish they were seeing on TV? The vast majority of the bodies of water with natural fishable populations were well up North in MN and many were giant lakes that really excluded many from being able to fish them due to their shear size.
Its not even remotely fair to compare walleye and musky stocking. The goals as far as density are on polar opposites of the spectrum. I read an article a few years ago that there were something like 150 muskies over 50 inches in Mille Lacs. I wish I could find it again, but that is estimates from a DNR fisheries person. I know, I know the jokes are there about DNR surveys and estimates, but think about that for a minute. Even if its 100% off and there are 300 muskies of that size in Mille Lacs that is a lot of dang water for those fish to swim around in.
What the DNR has tried to do and have been very successful at is provide anglers another opportunity at catching a trophy fish. Its a tremendous success story. It was never the intent to stock half the lakes with muskies or make it that you can catch 50 in a day, that isn’t the point or the goal.

BigWerm wrote:

This is the problem though, those 75% (I don’t think that # is correct, but for arguments sake) are ill informed and blaming the boogeyman (musky) for a problem that doesn’t exist. The top walleye lakes that support the lions share of fishing related tourism all have musky (ML, LOW, Leech, Winnie, Cass etc.). And if you go through the list of MN Musky lakes you will find a bunch of great walleye lakes among the smaller lakes as well. Just looking thru the list again, I found 2 more “musky” lakes that I want to fish for walleye. Walleye fisherman (of which I consider myself) need to be vocal in calling out the BS blame game toward musky.

But on the other side you and others are indirectly suggesting that they improve walleye fishing.

I also read an article years back that said the more predominant Muskie lakes are generally poorer pike lakes in regards to numbers. Size is excellent but numbers tend to be low. So, they do have an impact. On every lake? Probably not.

Muskies are a great resource. I do not fish for them, but respect what Muskies Inc and other supporters have done. They’ve managed to essentially create a C & R culture (with corresponding regulations), and have encouraged stocking to increase. With that being said, muskies do not belong in every body of water. Limit them to areas where there’s true trophy potential with regard to acreage and forage. Let the MNDNR do their job and keep politicians hands out of it. The MNDNR may not be perfect, but I’d trust their education and knowledge of our resources 100x’s over before I’d want politicians dictating regulations and stocking.

…In other new, pike are 10 times the problem that muskies will ever be. Pike are to the point in some lakes where unless their overwhelming numbers of small hungry fish are addressed, stocking programs shouldn’t touch that body of water

Perfect example………….the thread has drifted off into a discussion of Muskie vs Pike vs Walleye instead of control of public resources. Keep your eyes on the prize.

biggill wrote:

But on the other side you and others are indirectly suggesting that they improve walleye fishing.

No, that would something you are inferring. There’s plenty of great walleye lakes without musky as well.

Why would we turn control of policy making on the states waterways away from the DNR experts who went to school to understand marine biology and how fishery systems work. The Sen Ingebritsen’s wants to change that. Based on his bio it appears he does not have the credentials to discuss this with any scientific backing.

http://www.senate.mn/members/member_bio.php?mem_id=1120#bio

Snippet from the biographical details.
Home: Alexandria
6968 Sunset Strip NW 56308
(320) 846-1893
Born: 03/26/1952
Family: Spouse Marilyn, 2 children (6 grandchildren).
Occupation: Retired County Sheriff
Education: AA, Alexandria Technical College

I call the fisheries office every year and ask to stock muskies in our lake. They have fiddled done some experiments out there in the past. I believe a small population of adult muskies would be an excellent apex predator for hammer handle pike. Not to mention, if stocked as yearlings, they would put plenty of work in on our stunted sunfish.

Most interestingly, they last thing the DNR documents in their update to the lake survey, is that selective harvest by anglers may have the strongest impact on the fish population. I think that applies to walleyes as well…

Status of the Fishery

Lake X is a shallow lake located approximately X miles southeast of Aitkin in a watershed of pastureland, rolling hardwoods, and a spruce wetland. The lake has an average depth of 8 feet and a maximum depth of 31 feet. There is no public access on the lake, however, there is private access through a campground on the east side of the lake.

In the early 1990’s, Lake X was part of a management project that involved the removal of a large number of northern pike (2,681), and the stocking of a large number of yellow perch (38,113). The goal of the project was to improve the size structure of northern pike and bluegill populations. Theoretically, had the perch population flourished, they would have provided a forage base for the northern pike as well as predation pressure on an overabundant and stunted population of bluegills. The experiment was short lived and unsuccessful. The last two surveys (1999, 2009) have shown the fish community to be much the same as before the project.

Northern pike abundance increased to 14 fish per gill net lift, which is high compared to other lakes of this type, and is the highest that has been observed on Lake X. The average size of the northern pike was 20.6 inches, which is similar to observations made in 1996 and 1999. The largest northern pike sampled measured nearly 36 inches.

Bluegill abundance was within the normal range for this type of lake at 22.2 fish per trap net. The average size of the bluegills has remained small, fluctuating between 4.6 inches in 1991 and 5.2 inches in 2009. The bluegill in Lake Four may not be able to grow beyond these sizes because of fishing pressure that targets the largest individuals.

The black crappie abundance index of 4.0 per gill net is stable at a level that is normal for this lake class. The average size of the crappies was over 8 inches long with individuals measuring over 10 inches. The 2009 sample had fish from five different year-classes, which suggests consistent recruitment.

Lake X continues to support a population of largemouth bass with higher than average abundance based on the gillnet catch rates in 2009. The size structure of the population appears healthy, with a maximum size observed approaching 19 inches and an average length of around 14.5 inches.

Angler behavior has the greatest potential for restructuring or protecting existing fish populations in Lake X. For example, selectively harvesting smaller northern pike and voluntarily releasing pike over 24 inches is encouraged. Anglers are also encouraged to release the larger panfish and bass. Recycling these large fish has the greatest potential to improve the size structure of anglers’ catches.

Funny how I keep reading it’s the “LOCALS” and Ingebrigtsen’s constituents who don’t want the muskies in Otter Tail County. It’s common knowledge that this all started from the PLPOA (Pelican Lake Property Owners Association). The PLPOA hired attorneys and lobbyists in an attempt to remove muskie stocking from “their” lake.

Look at the tax information to find where these people actually live. Practically none of the properties on Pelican Lake are full time residences, the vast majority of owners live outside of Otter Tail County, and after a quick look I see around half don’t even have Minnesota addresses. Yet these people have somehow become known as the “LOCALS” who are so worried about the fish population in “their” lake.

If you have any doubt that removing muskies from our lakes has absolutely nothing to do with fish populations, check out the PLPOA photos page – http://www.pelicanlakemn.org/photos.html – 146 photos of various lake activities on there and guess how many are of fish(ing). ONE! One picture of a fish, and it’s a muskie. These people want fisherman off “their” lake and are simply starting with the easiest target.