Minnesota Legislature declares war on muskies

No if you really read my post you would understand I think the majority issues is greed by fisherman and not practicing selective harvesting. I just want to call out the BS by Muskie guys that say Muskie have no impact on the ecosystem. Just trying let you know that the Perch have been suffering even before Muskies were introduce, now it’s even worse with them. If the DNR had to admit what they did was wrong it would totally destroy their remaining credibility. They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. To sit back and suggest that everything they say to be true, is how we get a fishery that used to be able to support million pounds a year fishery to 30,000 and have to close the season early. My Linder joke came from all the people that quoted what Ron said as the gospel truth.
“Ron Lindner state,its one of the most successful programs everdone, no PROVEN NEGATIVE IMPACT on any body anywhere and Gull will prove to be the same, they know what there doing in this case.”
The all caps really mean he knows what he’s talking about. I just find it difficult in taking advice from a guy who quotes bible verses as real world solutions. Is our fishery in such bad shape all we can do is pray? I know I sound twisted and it may require me to remove all my Lindy rigs from my tackle box, if so, so be it. I just find it absolutely asinine to protect the largest and most aggressive fish in the fishery, especially when bait fish continue to drop. For pete sakes, we can even maintain a shiner bait population year round. You think if the DNR had all the answers, this would have been taken care of years ago. Can’t bring in minnows from out of states in fear of spreading disease, but can’t harvest our own minnows from many lakes due to shortages and or zebra mussels and milfoil regulations. The DNR doesn’t have all the right answers and taking everything they say as the truth is very dangerous for our fishery. If Donald Trump was head of the DNR would you still accept all the results as truth. Well people have no idea who is really running some of these studies and what data they cherry pick, tossing our hands up and saying they know what they are doing instead of trying to check and verify their results, is as good as a prayer.

Bump

browsky wrote:

No if you really read my post you would understand I think the majority issues is greed by fisherman and not practicing selective harvesting.

Yes. The biggest impact on fishing is from humans through the combination of overharvest and environmental changes.

I just want to call out the BS by Muskie guys that say <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>Muskie have no impact on the ecosystem.

They do impact the system, anyone who says so is misinformed. They take up biomass for one, but very little. They eat stuff as well, but very little in relation to how many gamefish and non-gamefish are in a lake, and the diet is almost exclusively non-gamefish, and their presence doesn’t even impact those species!

Just trying let you know that the Perch have been suffering even before Muskies were introduce, now it’s even worse with them.

That’s partially true, partially false. The research says that muskies do prey on perch, but have no meaningful impact on the population. Ie., perch are important for the muskies, but they’re aren’t enough muskies to matter to the perch. Any decline is for other reasons.

If the DNR had to admit what they did was wrong it would totally destroy their remaining credibility. They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again.

Of course they’ve been wrong at times. But mostly they do a damn fine job. And it’s 100% better than anything that some “stay off my lake” Senator would come up with.

Well people have no idea who is really running some of these studies and what data they cherry pick, tossing our hands up and saying they know what they are doing instead of trying to check and verify their results, is as good as a prayer.

That’s simply untrue, all of the published studies are peer-reviewed as scientifically valid. That matters a lot. Also they absolutely are available for the public to read and understand. Have you read any of the research yourself?

Here’s two for you to start with that relate directly to some of your comments.

“Fish Community Responses to the Introduction of Muskellunge in Minnesota Lakes” (MN DNR, 2008)
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/special_reports/166.pdf
Pike populations essentially unchanged.
“Walleye and Muskellunge management do not appear to be in conflict…direct competion or predation was unlikely between the two species…walleye populations can be maintained or improved in the presence of muskellunge.”
Black crappie populations did not decrease over 15 years with presence of muskellunge.
“White sucker, tullibee, and yellow perch are important prey species…despite these species’ importance as prey, the introduction of muskellunge has not appeared to be detrimental to these species.” Even in lakes with no tullibees, other prey species did not decline.

“Diets of Muskellunge in Northern Wisconsin Lakes”
(UW Stevens Point, 1999)
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/species/mue/mue_diets.pdf
Main food items are yellow perch and white sucker
Walleye and pike were very uncommon food items

Not directing this at anyone. I didn’t read the entire Art of War topic. THat being said…

Stop blaming the “Fish of a thousand casts”. You suck at fishing.

mplspug wrote:

Stop blaming the “Fish of a thousand casts”. You suck at fishing.

Its been more like 100,000 for me lately.

I’m really not on either side but it is bothersome how musky guys here seem to have these fish as the “do it all” species.

Balance populations, heck yeah, but they also just don’t eat all that much

Stunted populations, we got you, done deal fixed, at the same time it’s shown they don’t really even eat that many gamefish. They like softer fish like suckers and stuff.

Let’s also not forget they are being documented more and more for attacking innocent children.

#savethefeet

I emailed Sen. Ingebrigtsen (among others) and surprisingly he replied. “Actually if you went on the DNR web, you would find out how many walleyes the muskies eat. That comes from their studies and yet they continue to stock a dish that very few people enjoy. Not my web site, the DNR’s.”

I requested a link to the DNR study he references, but thought maybe someone hear could point me in the right direction? He is right that very few people enjoy musky as a dish but assuming that was a typo I thought musky Fishing was one of the fastest growing angling communities…

nhamm wrote:

Let’s also not forget they are being documented more and more for attacking innocent children.

The children had jewelry on in the documented cases of muskies attacking them. Mabey they don’t like shiny things. But I had one attack my trolling motor and that’s black.:???:
Browsky, muskies do have an impact on the ecosystem a positive one.
And only the DNR that is in Muskie INC are allowed to run these studies. J/k

nhamm wrote:

Balance populations, heck yeah, but they also just don’t eat all that much walleye

missed a word

I love how muskies have cleaned up the freshwater drum so I can catch walleye again on some lakes.

Musky anglers are more of a let them go let them grow type. I also have never liked eating bass but will target walleye or peach if I want something as a dish.

BigWerm wrote:

I requested a link to the DNR study he references, but thought maybe someone hear could point me in the right direction?

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a link from him. LOL
Funny, how he uses “DNR” data to support them eating a lot of walleyes, but doesn’t use the DNR data that shows there is a large number of people that are interested in fishing for, are in favor of increased stocking, or fish for muskies regularly.

BigWerm wrote:

I emailed Sen. Ingebrigtsen (among others) and surprisingly he replied. “Actually if you went on the DNR web, you would find out how many walleyes the muskies eat. That comes from their studies and yet they continue to stock a dish that very few people enjoy. Not my web site, the DNR’s.”

Here is one of the more recent ones I had found.

http://www.presspubs.com/article_f017ff8c-3708-55b0-877d-5ecca7bb581e.html

I particularly like this quote: “We found only five walleye in the stomachs of 1,092 muskellunge,” said Burri. “Muskie actually ate more muskie than walleye. We found six muskies inside of muskies.”

Tuma wrote:

Browsky, muskies do have an impact on the ecosystem a positive one.

This is out of the Knapp study. The ONE MN study that the DNR is basing their whole trophy muskie programs over. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheriThis is out of the Knapp study.
Located on page 199 at the DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS section. “Though muskellunge stocking does not appear to have a
pervasive effect on fish communities, there were 16 significant increases and 9 significant declines in mean CPUE for some species in the individual study lakes. Even so, these changes do not imply a benefit or harm to the fishery. Data were insufficient to determine whether muskellunge stocking caused these apparent abundance changes, or if the observed changes are spuriously correlated with the introduction of muskellunge.
Many factors besides muskellunge have influenced fish communities and abundances in these lakes. Changes I fishing pressure, angler knowledge, and fishing technology, along with changes to the lake environment, including habitat,productivity, and climate, have all played a role in shaping the fish communities that exist today” Since you agree they know what’s best for the fishery, shouldn’t we listen and get more data before we come to any conclusions? Many of your other Muskie bandwagon buddies like to bring up this Canadian source to show that Muskie do NOT eat Walleye.
http://muskie.fishn.ca/articles/whatdomuskieseat.shtml
Well technically that is incorrect. As you can see they found around 4% of a diet is from Walleye for that study. You have to be careful with that 4% because it can vary from lake to lake and from river to river system. What you do find in this study, is that 63.5% of the total stomach content volume was made up of yellow perch and various minnow species. Now STOP. Think about that, what do other Bass, Walleye, and Pike eat? The same thing. The issue we face is not Muskie eat too many walleye,(even though they do eat a few) the issue we have is not enough Perch and baitfish and too many Pike in the system in most lakes. If you care to look at another DNR study, please see this. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational_reports/404.pdf
Page 15 . Here you can lean about how too many top predators in the chain and not enough perch can effect the system. This is one of the reason Walleye eat themselves. They’re are in survival mode. One fishery this has happen to is Mille Lacs. A lake that went from over 1,000,000 pound harvest down to 30,000 and closing early of the season. If you ask the DNR about it, they will confirm that over an abundance of Pike and a decline of the Perch is a true assessment. Many still argue for the reason of the sharp decline in numbers over the years starting in the 70-80’s. Regardless the reason the fishery is not healthy. We are loosing entire year classes because there is not enough Perch and other bait fish in the fishery.
http://www.startribune.com/apparent-decline-in-minnesota-s-perch-has-officials-concerned/311078601/
Here you can read about that also in the link above. Notice how the DNR doesn’t mention Muskie. Now ask yourself why is that? We know Muskie eat perch, it is their favorite meal we have learned. Could it be because they don’t want to draw any criticism to their Trophy Muskie program? Many Muskie fans will say we need Muskie to keep the population healthy and weed out the bad genetics. To that I say that are what the Pike are already doing. Many people wanted to remove Pike from the fishery but the DNR insisted that it is health for an ecosystem. They do such a good job at it that the DNR struggled for many years trying to figure out why their Muskies didn’t make it to adulthood. They finally found out that Pike did not like in their world and ate many juveniles. Then you might say well Muskie keep the Pike in check, sounds good in theory but when you go back to your chart on what do Muskies eat, they don’t eat very many Pike, about the same amount as they eat Walleye. Muskie belong in the rivers, some lakes are big and strong enough to support small musky populations, but the DNR has been putting muskie in lakes that can’t support the system. I can show you report after report of local lakes with Musky populations and historically low Perch populations. We have too many Pike is the real problem, The whole system will suffer. Many lakes that have super small muskies that are sickly skinny and even many die from starvation. This has been the lack of leadership by the DNR. In 1982 they wrote a long term management paper. This paper came out after many years of stocking Muskie into various lakes. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/special_reports/132.pdf On page 25 you can see the long term management plans for Muskies. The DNR has now put Muskie into waters that don’t fit all the habitat requirements listed in the paper. The DNR continues to make changes like trophy size definition. Also in that report you can read about how Muskies should not be introduced with high populations of Pike. By now I hope you can piece together why. The DNR has known what they have done, the public is out of control destroying habitat, poisoning the water, add in Spiny Waterflea, loss of plankton, water clarity, too many Pike, not enough forage. That is the reason why we need more testing done, and help from local communities to restore our fishery and improve it for the upcoming generation as we humans continue to multiply faster than the Pike. Right now, the best spot for Muskies is the rivers. A few of the stocked lake are okay but some are not. The 20 additional lakes they want to add should be carefully looked at, we have already seen the DNR not use their best judgement in some lakes. Public input for local resident should come first before outside muskie fisherman try and weigh in on what they think. We all know what you want, you want to come here and use our resource because more than likely your fishery was managed by people like you and now it sucks and you want to borrow ours. We hear you but please let us do more research and solve some of the problems that we face before we add Muskie to every lake and become like Wisconsin. The DNR and the state love your money but please don’t push your agenda for your need to take pictures with large fish. We have many great river systems that are much better than a lot of the lakes you can find. I know you want a trophy, who would have thought all those consolation trophy that were given out would turn out to be Muskie Fishermen. I guess we are all like the DNR, sometime things don’t always go the way you had them planned. Please I know you want to be “sportsmen” how about you take a few Pike home with you next time you visit our lakes. Maybe after cleaning a few you will really learn how many fish they can eat. 36 fish in 1 pike is my record, can you top that? Don’t eat to many, probably lot of mercury and PCB the DNR say, one a week is probably safe. I’m guessing you have no problem taking their word for it.
Good morning, and in case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!
TY

Browsky, the simple answer to why they don’t mention musky as having a damaging effect is because of their density in the system. Simple as that. When you have a lake the size of Mille Lacs and only have a couple thousand adult muskies in the entire lake compared to tens of thousands, more like hundreds of thousands of pike, there in lies the most damaging factor.
If one musky ate 100 perch a day and 1 pike at 50 perch in a day, but there are 10 muskies, but 500 pike, which specie is eating more perch?
Aside from that if the DNR isn’t noticing dramatic impacts to prey species numbers then neither of them are having a dramatic impact and even if they were noticing a population change in prey species that doesn’t necessarily mean it was because of predation, it could have been caused by other environmental factors or overharvest by anglers.

You make some good points and are right browsky, we should be stocking 26” to 36” muskies. The large number of hammer handles is the problem. The DNR recognizes this and is trying to fix it with the inland limits on pike.

Rod Bent wrote:

The studies which Hartman refers to show that “traditional” muskie prey such as perch are impacted by introducing muskies. When <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>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.

That is not how statistical significance works. A p-value of .05 is often used as a guideline for statistical significance, but that p-value is not just a proportion of a population. The p-value represents the probability that you’d observe results ‘as extreme’ as those by random chance.

browsky wrote:

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.

Don’t get me wrong, one of my favorite past times on IDO is getting people riled up about Mille Lacs stuff by reminding them that anglers also play a role in fish populations, but I never thought about blaming the muskies! Look out Dutchy, big_g, RR, Andy, etc. I have more ammunition for those debates!

But seriously, go look at the harvest numbers (angler and tribe) and tell me Mille Lacs problems aren’t a result of mismanagement, tribal netting and angler greed. Muskies didn’t seem to be a problem in 1992 when anglers harvest 1.2 MILLION pounds of walleye out of the lake, 400,000 pounds more than the ‘safe’ harvest level determined by the DNR.
https://www.perm.org/pdfs/Mille_Lacs_Fish_Mgmt_PlanPDF.pdf

Well after lots of plucking out-of-context one liners from fisheries studies; it’s nice to finally see @browsky get to the real issue here…

browsky wrote:

Public input for local resident should come first before outside muskie fisherman try and weigh in on what they think. We all know what you want, you want to come here and use our resource because more than likely your fishery was managed by people like you and now it sucks and you want to borrow ours.

It’s clearly “their” resource and we fishermen are oh so lucky to have the opportunity to borrow it from time to time. If lake associations are able to block muskie stocking today, then maybe tomorrow it’s added/removed slot limits, and the next day it’s simply removing public accesses.

Let’s not forget this is not “local residents” vs. “outside muskie fishermen”. It is lake associations vs. the MN Department of Natural Resources.

This bill is horrible legislature and sets a very scary precedence for the future use and control of OUR Minnesota public waters.

tswoboda wrote:

If lake associations are able to block muskie stocking today, then maybe tomorrow it’s added/removed slot limits, and the next day it’s simply removing public accesses

Jimminy if a group like musky ink can come into your neighborhood and tell you what to stock then put a limit what you can do with that fish, simply may result in less stocking of walleye to promote musky.
Sounds and looks like a pretty dumb statement does it not?
Hmmm? always a special interest group telling others what to do or whats best. I see no difference between these special interest groups and the lake shore owners groups and watershed districts.

A statement from NYS DNR
” We anticipate that the tiger musky fishing should be good for at least several more years, but resumption of walleye stocking in 2002 may have some implications for the long term quality of the fishery. We will continue to monitor the abundance of both species and try to make adjustments to stocking policies, as necessary.”

Coming to a Mn lake near you? There’s a new twist to put into the fold.

Can one really trust a Mn DNR policy that works both sides of the fence. Promoting and working with water districts and lake shore associations programs that restrict access to lakes in the name of AIS prevention then advocate introducing a species to a lake to promote an agenda. Kinda looks like their on both sides here.
These policies are so messed up on so many levels.

What if lake associations had the option to stop stocking muskies on their lakes, but in doing so they are required to pay a substantial yearly fee to the DNR to start stocking on 5 previously un-stocked muskie lakes.

Then those new lakes that were chosen could choose to stop stocking muskies, in turn starting the stocking program of 5 more lakes.

The result would be an exponential increase in musky stocking efforts, in turn decimating ALL THE FISHING. Pretty soon you wouldn’t be able to fish a lake without those pesky muskies falling all over each other attacking your lure.

Eventually, it would be an arms race as one lake association would fight another, political and physical battles would rage as association after association tries to fend off the impending musky disease.

Then, the DNR would secretly pocket a large portion of the money to put their FINAL PLAN INTO MOTION. Off shore walleye-farms in china would be setup, billions of pounds of walleye would be shipped into the state every month and air-dropped directly into Mille Lacs. Anglers would rejoice as local businesses start to flourish once again. Harvest numbers go through the roof and FINALLY anglers can fill their freezers once again.

But all is not as it seems. Inside of those walleye are genetically implanted ASIAN CARP DNA OMG. A few years go by and all of sudden BILLIONS of walleye are cruising through the air, concussing casual fishermen and tribal members alike. Gill nets are useless as these fish take to the air, thirsty for blood. Mille Lacs turns to a ghost town as all the anglers and tribal members are killed, sinking to the bottom of the lake, the decomposing bodies feasted on by the ever growing zebra mussel population.

At their office, by firelight, the Mille Lacs DNR office sits toegether, cigars lit, “They wanted F’n walleye, here’s your ****** walleye.” The lights fade….el fin.

1hl&sinker wrote:

Jimminy if a group like musky ink can come into your neighborhood and tell you what to stock then put a limit what you can do with that fish, simply may result in less stocking of walleye to promote musky.
Sounds and looks like a pretty dumb statement does it not?
Hmmm? always a special interest group telling others what to do or whats best. I see no difference between these special interest groups and the lake shore owners groups and watershed districts.

Sounds like you walleye guys need a organization that you can donate to that helps promote, educate, and stock walleyes to provide you with opportunities.

Not sure why everyone feels like Musky Inc. is the new North Korea.

1hl&sinker wrote:

Jimminy if a group like musky ink can come into your neighborhood and tell you what to stock then put a limit what you can do with that fish, simply may result in less stocking of walleye to promote musky.
Sounds and looks like a pretty dumb statement does it not?
Hmmm? always a special interest group telling others what to do or whats best. I see no difference between these special interest groups and the lake shore owners groups and watershed districts.

A statement from NYS DNR
” We anticipate that the tiger musky fishing should be good for at least several more years, but resumption of walleye stocking in 2002 may have some implications for the long term quality of the fishery. We will continue to monitor the abundance of both species and try to make adjustments to stocking policies, as necessary.”

Coming to a Mn lake near you? There’s a new twist to put into the fold.

Can one really trust a Mn DNR policy that works both sides of the fence. Promoting and working with water districts and lake shore associations programs that restrict access to lakes in the name of AIS prevention then advocate introducing a species to a lake to promote an agenda. Kinda looks like their on both sides here.

Muskies Inc. does not control muskie stocking. They simply support the DNR’s stocking efforts through purchasing fingerlings, volunteering their time, etc. Many other organizations such as Walleyes Unlimited, local sportsmans clubs, and lake associations do the exact same thing with walleye stocking. It’s groups of fisherman supporting the fish they are passionate about to be used and enjoyed by the general public.

The MN Muskie & Pike Alliance is simply trying to empower the MN DNR to manage fisheries based on scientific studies.

These select lake associations and a few state senators are trying to take that power away from the DNR and give it to local entities.

BTW, I am in no way affiliated with Muskies Inc. or the MNMPA. I am simply an average MN multi-species fisherman.

Love how some can pigeon hole a person with a view from a few comments. I to am a multi species fisherman and I have no problem with Muskie though I am a proponent of smart policy that is not guided by special interest groups. If one cant see irony of blaming the Lake associations and not see the DNR working with them on one front then supporting another front against them. Yes the LA are in for themselves but so are the ones on the other side of the fence.

That is my 2 pennies and more. ITS all oneself view that is defensive(paranoid in some) in nature filled with only one sided testimony not even considering the other studies out there. Even I know Muskies will not devastate all bodies of water of walleye or another species, although one specie will suffer and that depends on the echo system. Though there are accounts where this has happen to walleyes with the introduction of muskie and the policy of those lakes were changed. I believe a lake should be studied on a case by case scenario not governed by a policy guided by an agenda set by an outside source, be it Water districts, Lake shore assoc or Muskies for the world or even walleyes for us.

For ones information I could careless who or what one’s associated with. If a person belongs to an organization that deals in what that person has passion for cud-do’s for them.

If the DNR has already studied a lake and deemed it a worthy candidate of musky stocking, what else does the DNR need to do to satisfy the anti-musky stocking crowd?

The studies have already been done. It sounds to me like an opportunity to educate the uninformed. Maybe the DNR needs to educate people better about what the studies show.

1hl&sinker wrote:

I believe a lake should be studied on a case by case scenario

Each lake that has been suggested to start stocking muskies in have been looked at independently and studied multiple times before adding it to a stocking plan.

1hl&sinker wrote:

…I am a proponent of smart policy that is not guided by special interest groups.

So you must be against this ridiculous bill, right?

Kyhl wrote:

Maybe the DNR needs to educate people better about what the studies show.

DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!

So you must be against this ridiculous bill, right?
[/quote] YEP! Though I do understand what (I) believe the message behind it is and its not a lake association conspiracy

Outdoor news reported that the bill has been struck down. Cant post the article currently. Do a search.

philtickelson wrote:

What if lake associations had the option to stop stocking muskies on their lakes, but in doing so they are required to pay a substantial yearly fee to the DNR to start stocking on 5 previously un-stocked muskie lakes.

Then those new lakes that were chosen could choose to stop stocking muskies, in turn starting the stocking program of 5 more lakes.

The result would be an exponential increase in musky stocking efforts, in turn decimating ALL THE FISHING. Pretty soon you wouldn’t be able to fish a lake without those pesky muskies falling all over each other attacking your lure.

Eventually, it would be an arms race as one lake association would fight another, political and physical battles would rage as association after association tries to fend off the impending musky disease.

Then, the DNR would secretly pocket a large portion of the money to put their FINAL PLAN INTO MOTION. Off shore walleye-farms in china would be setup, billions of pounds of walleye would be shipped into the state every month and air-dropped directly into Mille Lacs. Anglers would rejoice as local businesses start to flourish once again. Harvest numbers go through the roof and FINALLY anglers can fill their freezers once again.

But all is not as it seems. Inside of those walleye are genetically implanted ASIAN CARP DNA OMG. A few years go by and all of sudden BILLIONS of walleye are cruising through the air, concussing casual fishermen and tribal members alike. Gill nets are useless as these fish take to the air, thirsty for blood. Mille Lacs turns to a ghost town as all the anglers and tribal members are killed, sinking to the bottom of the lake, the decomposing bodies feasted on by the ever growing zebra mussel population.

At their office, by firelight, the Mille Lacs DNR office sits toegether, cigars lit, “They wanted F’n walleye, here’s your ****** walleye.” The lights fade….el fin.

This was about the funniest thing I have read in a while. Thanks for being so creative.

1hl&sinker wrote:

So you must be against this ridiculous bill, right?

YEP! Though I do understand what (I) believe the message behind it is and its not a lake association conspiracy
[/quote]

I’m glad to know that you’re against the bill as well.

What do you believe is the message behind this bill?

Personally, I think there are multiple messages behind this bill.
1. There is certainly a lake association aspect to it since it singles out Otter Tail County and because it allows county boards to make stocking decisions. Now, I’m not sure this is a message for statewide associations, but certainly for those in the areas in which the authors of the bill reside in.

2. In conjunction with that, I think there is a message that this bill is working specifically for those authors of the bill, which is very poor legislation, especially when considering it effects public water.

3. There is a message that says they don’t trust the DNR and/or have an ax to grind against them. Since other parts of the bill ask for scientific studies to be done, thus assuming they are proponents of science, then why would they think allowing county boards have a better idea on stocking decisions than the DNR who have qualified professionals? Additionally, they want a study to be done by the UofM, not the DNR, which I perceive as a trust issue.

4. The last message is that walleyes are superior, hence the first section of the bill that states that all funds that would have been used for muskie stocking in new lakes must be used to stock walleyes.

Finally, I agree that the DNR could probably educate better regarding those studies, but thats really only effective if people read and listen to them with an open mind and not have preconceived opinions towards the species or for the agency that did the study.