The part that got me going was the statement that any saved money from not stocking muskie MUST go to walleye stocking. It always comes back to the walleyes. That is a real problem with this state. There will never be any fish near the pedestal that the walleye is on. No other fish deserves a chance in this state to have a great/trophy fishery because it will “decimate” the walleye population.
The only thing that decimates the walleye are the humans poaching and over fishing them.
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.
I agree wholeheartedly Dutch, but this is a least a 2 headed monster at minimum.
Not only is it an assault on the public “state owned” waters for control, but also a misguided attack to vilify a prized game fish that has never been proven to cause more damage to a walleye/panfish/perch population than an over-abundance of “native” northern pike.
Easy answer is, you lose the first battle (access to public land & water) and you don’t need to worry about the second problem. (Muskie myths)
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
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 don’t think people are “blaming” the musky.. they would just as soon spend a dollar on a walleye, than on a musky… hence Muskie’s Inc. That is reality, that’s all I am saying. I am not saying that muskies eat all the walleyes… or vice versa. Don’t read any more words than what I typed… can we have both …? Absolutely, but given the “choice” MOST would prefer stocking eyes, right or wrong. So yeah, as someone said we live in a Republic, but when it comes time to vote for your local representative, the old numbers game kicks right in at election time. As I said before, don’t shoot me for stating the obvious, that seems to be lost… Muskies Inc has a BIG voice, and given the choice, if I donate a dollar or buy a stamp for stocking, it would be for a Walleye and not a Musky… and I think I am in the majority. Again right or wrong, not worried about it, but only for my own selfish reasons… and again, hence why Muskies Inc.
here is some data so that people can see the scope of what is actually being discussed here. yes, walleye is king. however at the same time, muskie management in MN actually under-represents the degree of interest expressed by anglers.
MN DNR information:
– 1.5 million licensed anglers in MN in 2017
– 4285 waters managed by MNDNR for fishing (2.3M acres)
– 1560 walleye waters in MN
– 260 larger lakes/rivers with natural walleye populations
– 1300 lakes supported by walleye stocking
– 256 million walleye fry stocked in 2017
– 1.6 million walleye fingerlings stocked in 2017
– 99 lakes managed for muskie (2.3% water, 21% acres)
– 39 lakes/rivers with natural muskie populations
– 60 lakes/rivers stocked (1.3% waters, 11.8% acres)
– 30 thousand muskie fingerling stocked each year
University of Minnesota research:
– 60% of non-muskie anglers in MN are interested in fishing muskies
– 26% of MN resident anglers agreed or strongly agreed with increasing the number of lakes managed for muskies
– 16% of MN resident anglers preferred/strongly preferred to fish for muskies
I don’t think people are “blaming” the musky.
you aren’t…many do, including some of the leaders of this proposed legislation.
Muskies Inc has a BIG voice
Muskies Inc would love to have that much influence, but isn’t particularly responsive to these advocacy issues, imho. there are other muskie-friendly groups and individuals who do a better job of organizing influence campaigns.
and the smaller MN Darkhouse Angling Association has been more effective by far – particularly through shifting the issue away from the DNR and into the state legislature – such as with the recent removal of the pike spearing ban on a number of key muskie waters. this time it’s a very small group of lakefront property owners who have a loud voice through money and political influence at the local, county, and state level.
given the choice, if I donate a dollar or buy a stamp for stocking, it would be for a Walleye and not a Musky… and I think I am in the majority.
well, you have the option to do so via the Walleye Stamp in MN as that money goes into a dedicated walleye stocking account. i’d absolutely favor MN doing the same with a Muskie Stamp.
in that same light, are walleye anglers active in supporting fish stocking through donations? I don’t know, so I’m curious about it. muskie anglers do make those kinds of donations very actively. for example when the Fargo-Moorhead chapter proposed stocking muskies into a new lake in northwest MN to spread out fishing pressure the state of MN agreed to allow it, with the caveat that all fish stocked would be purchased privately by that chapter.
muskie anglers do make those kinds of donations very actively.
I think this is a big deal. Musky anglers are generous folks when it comes to fishing and fishing related activities. Just look at all the fund raisers selling baits for 300% over cost just to raise money for either club chapter stocking efforts or even just families of passed musky anglers that made an impact on the sport. And of course you can’t forget the thousands of dollars we spend throughout the local communities when we go fishing (we typically go back again even when we get skunked).
I don’t get the same vibe from the walleye guys. When they don’t catch fish, they don’t go back to the resorts or lakes. they simply give up on any given lake and move onto the “hot bites”. Seems like many don’t like the challenge of actually fishing.
But thats just my personal thought.
– 99 lakes managed for muskie (2.3% water, 21% acres)
This number can be broken down even more if you look at the number of these lakes that are managed for tiger muskies and regular muskies. By lumping both together is about the same as lumping walleye and sauger together.
This number can be broken down even more if you look at the number of these lakes that are managed for tiger muskies and regular muskies. By lumping both together is about the same as lumping walleye and sauger together.
88 for pure strain
11 for tigers (Twin Cities metro)
any way you stack them up, the interest from both in-state and out-of-state anglers is greater than the supply of waters…and it’s the fasting-growing segment of fishing in the state, so that gap is only going to widen.
Here is the perspective from Jeremy Smith and Mike Hehner from Lindner’s Media / Angling Edge.
(link to video posted to Facebook on the Lindner’s Angling Edge page)
Commentary by John Feld in Star Tribune:
http://m.startribune.com/attack-on-muskies-another-example-of-legislative-incompetence/477688613/
The studies which Hartman refers to show that “traditional” muskie prey such as perch are impacted by introducing muskies. When perch and tullibee are less prevalent than other fish are impacted. Muskies eat. They eat what is available. That could be walleye or panfish. One study shows a significant drop in crappies on a lake known as a good crappie lake.
Furthermore the DNR has a bias in favor of their muskie “program”. Like any political organization they are heavily influenced by lobbyists. Hartman et al put enormous pressure on the DNR to stock muskies. They represent about 2% of Minnesota fishermen yet the DNR sees that as a “significant” number. My college statistics class taught us that 5% was statistically significant.
I’ve seen the studies that the DNR relies on. My overwhelming impression was that they will call any data “significant” if it trends in their favor. Losses of gamefish are “insignificant”.
Bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets greased. Support what you think is right. But vote early and often!
They represent about 2% of Minnesota fishermen yet the DNR sees that as a “significant” number. My college statistics class taught us that 5% was statistically significant.
Well, facts:
University of Minnesota research:
– 60% of non-muskie anglers in MN are interested in fishing muskies
– 26% of MN resident anglers agreed or strongly agreed with increasing the number of lakes managed for muskies
– 16% of MN resident anglers preferred/strongly preferred to fish for muskies
Apex predators are the smallest in numbers in a system and help the balance in an ecosystem. Muskies prefer soft, fatty fish like cisco, whitefish, carp & suckers. Yea, they’ll eat a bass, bluegill or walleye but not in the numbers some believe. The fact is, apex predators help prevent stunted overpopulation of lesser species. That’s one of the first things you learn in elementary school natural science. I’m sure our Representatives aren’t sitting in their offices studying biology, though. Top of the line fish, like muskies and pike can help put a dent in invasive species like rusty crayfish in Lake Vermilion or silver carp in the St. Croix River, which seems good to me. I do believe this issue is as much about property rights as anything but moving forward with this legislation is akin to suggesting shooting wolves because they’re eating all the deer. That’s an arguement for another day, though.
Hmmm? of those surveys you mention not one I participated in. I gather you did or should I ask how many on this forum did? How many participated in this study and what were the demographics.
I’m not against musky they taste great but you supporters wont let me eat them. My theory as why they tastes so good is the forage they eat. Think about it, eating walleye, crappie sunnies and perch gotta enhance the meat a bit.;) throw in few junk food for a well balanced routine and you get the perfect chicken of fresh water.
Hmmm? of those surveys you mention not one I participated in. I gather you did or should I ask how many on this forum did? How many participated in this study and what were the demographics.
I’m not against musky they taste great but you supporters wont let me eat them. My theory as why they tastes so good is the forage they eat. Think about it, eating walleye, <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie sunnies and <em class=”ido-tag-em”>perch gotta enhance the meat a bit.;) throw in few junk food for a well balanced routine and you get the perfect chicken of fresh water.
Yes don’t forget the small dogs, children and the occasional small Deer & Bear. I would imagine a study in a few years will determine thats where the Dinosaurs went.
#Perchlivesmatter
I think this state has ridiculous laws that mandate Muskie protection. Muskie may only eat 5% of Walleye for diet, but it’s competition for food is the real issue. Perch and other bait fish are key contributors for a healthy lake population of Walleye. Problem with our fishery is greed. Many take the big ones and now we have nothing but small cookie cutter size pan fish and few walleyes around in local city lakes. Many have given up the Walleye pursuit and became Bass or Muskie fisherpeople. It’s a shame that many local twin cites lakes that get stocked with, have no sustainable Walleye populations. It’s pretty much all pay to play headed by the DNR. Now the DNR wants to fund Muskie because of it’s failed experiment with Walleyes. We still can’t reproduce mother nature and the rivers where the Walleyes belong. If you really cared about the Walleye you would care about the Perch just as much. Muskie data related to Perch is irrelevant to many of the DNR studies in there pursuit to increase “Muskie Sport Fishing”. Please take your cheese with you on your way to Wisconsin. These are Walleye lakes, we are not Wisconsin and should never strive to be.
I would much rather live in Canada, fish for Cats, Pan fish or Carp before I would pick up a Muskie rod. Maybe if this passes I will pick up a spear fishing!
Dino was eaten buy a muskie! Don’t tell Bam! Bam!
I would much rather live in Canada, fish for Cats, Pan fish or Carp before I would pick up a Muskie rod. Maybe if this passes I will pick up a spear fishing!
If it passes you can read how they have Muskies in these lakes…….
Minnetonka
Forest Lake
Big Marine
Cass
Winnie
Leech
Women
Boy
Mille Lacs
Miltona
and then you can read about how all those lakes and more have Walleye in them. Then you can write a report for the DNR how Muskies have decimated the Walleye populations in those lakes.
Seriously, you need to get over your phobia of Muskies destroying Walleye populations.
Yonkers! 
I fish Minnetonka all the time, where the DNR allows companies to spray toxins in the water to kill plants for home owners. Don’t tell me the DNR has the fisheries best interest in mind. DNR doing a great job regulating Mille Lacs…Really seem to know what they’re doing.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>browsky wrote:</div>
I would much rather live in Canada, fish for Cats, Pan fish or Carp before I would pick up a Muskie rod. Maybe if this passes I will pick up a spear fishing!If it passes you can read how they have Muskies in these lakes…….
Minnetonka
Forest Lake
Big Marine
Cass
Winnie
Leech
Women
Boy
Mille Lacs
Miltonaand then you can read about how all those lakes and more have Walleye in them. Then you can write a report for the DNR how Muskies have decimated the Walleye populations in those lakes.
Seriously, you need to get over your phobia of Muskies destroying Walleye populations.
Adding a few more to your list…
Vermilion
Little Boy
Wabedo
Andrusia
Bemidji
Mantrap
Bald Eagle
Waconia
Clear Lake (Washington county)
BTW, Little Boy is one of the better walleye lakes I have fished, secret…secret. 
Clear Lake too. 
#Perchlivesmatter
I think this state has ridiculous laws that mandate Muskie protection. Please take your cheese with you on your way to Wisconsin. These are Walleye lakes, we are not Wisconsin and should never strive to be.
Don’t tell me the DNR has the fisheries best interest in mind. DNR doing a great job regulating Mille Lacs…Really seem to know what they’re doing.
I would much rather live in Canada, fish for Cats, Pan fish or Carp before I would pick up a Muskie rod. Maybe if this passes I will pick up a spear fishing!
Sounds like you are truly suffering here in Minnesota…
I suggest you pack your bags (and spear) and move to Canada…now!
We’ll sure miss you though… 
I gotta say browsky, your first 3 posts are world class good!! 
Now, before #4 you might wanna tone down the Muskie & DNR bashing, gather some facts, but also accept some facts. Then we can maybe start over with a civil discussion. 
If not……………….
as an outsider looking in,it looks like a distraction from the mille lacs debacle.
ya,I know,that didnt take long but it appears to be what it is to me.
I will also add,the MN government is as crooked as the rest of the country.
I bet crooked enough that when all of our chosen leaders die,you could put an axe handle between their legs and screw them into the ground.
It may seem the same as Mille Lacs but this is actually about Muskies and the rights of people to enjoy fishing them. Then by extension it’s about privatizing lakes.
But ya, I can battle over either or both I suppose. 
http://www.startribune.com/apparent-decline-in-minnesota-s-perch-has-officials-concerned/311078601/
DNR can’t figure it out. hmmm wonder what we did in the 70’s that started this trend… So Pike are the problem, but can’t be the Muskies. Not like Muskies are aggressive or anything, totally different from Pike right?. I’m sure not one Perch has been eaten according to DNR and Muskie fishermen alike. Maybe the Linder’s can pray the Perch population back to normal. Seems like something Muskie fishermen would support.
http://www.startribune.com/apparent-decline-in-minnesota-s-perch-has-officials-concerned/311078601/
DNR can’t figure it out. hmmm wonder what we did in the 70’s that started this trend… So Pike are the problem, but can’t be the Muskies. Not like Muskies are aggressive or anything, totally different from Pike right?. I’m sure not one Perch has been eaten according to DNR and Muskie fishermen alike. Maybe the Linder’s can pray the Perch population back to normal. Seems like something Muskie fishermen would support.
Not sure what your point is here but I’ll take a whack at it. Are you suggesting the decline of the Perch population is solely because of Muskies? What do Pike eat? What do Walleyes eat? As for the 70’s are you saying because of what happened in the 70’s is causing some kind of Perch shortage today? Or are you saying because Mille Lacs was known as the dead sea in the early 70’s that there were no Perch then?
As for the Linders. How does their faith have any more relevance then your belief that Muskie are to blame for everything wrong with the world?
It’s good that you are passionate in your beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. I just find it amusing that if others are passionate about something other then your beliefs they are wrong.
The topic has strayed far from the original post. But it has generated discussion about the fisheries which is good I suppose.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
