Yeah muskies dont naturally reproduce in many of the lakes they have been stocked in. I would say the vast majority so without stocking they are certainly going to decline. I havent thrown a musky bait in years, but used to spend an entire day doing doing it. This used to be the best state to chase muskies because of the population and likelihood of catching one over 40.
I’ll pass on the survey but will add that stocking Muskie hasn’t been proven to have a downside. They bring many hours of enjoyment to hundreds if not thousands of anglers a year. Anybody who has watched the prices of baits knows that it’s a very expensive hobby and brings a lot of tax revenue to the state & counties.
If a photo of every large Muskie caught in Minnesota was posted you would be amazed at the number & size. I know hardly any of the guys catching the tanks on Mille Lacs in the fall post pictures but they are catching them. Same goes for Leech, Vermilion and some lesser known lakes & rivers.
Took the survey. Thanks gimruis for posting the link!
They have reported that muskie populations are on the decline due to lack of recent stocking and increased pressure from live sonar/FFS.
Thanks for posting the link. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see a word about FFS on the DNR page.
Thanks for posting the survey Gimruis.
Thanks for posting the link. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see a word about FFS on the DNR page.
I initially saw the survey on MPR News under this article which mentioned that part. I found the article interesting, here’s the link. That’s where they mentioned the technology advancements/increased pressure.
“The DNR has posted a public survey about the future of their muskie plan in MN. They have reported that muskie populations are on the decline due to lack of recent stocking”
They are on the decline because they are stocking less. Well Duh.
“and increased pressure from live sonar/FFS.”
This statement seems like a week excuse.
Saw this. When I was up at vermilion last september we saw a handful of guides just using licescope off each side and cruising basins. When they would see one the client would standup and make three casts with different lures at it. Pretty crazy to see.
I wish they would stock some of the natural musky lakes instead of some of these new lakes, not that they have added much lately. Lakes like Woman are a native musky lake and would be a great fishery if they augmented it with stocking. Right now there is a fishable population, but its really tough to get one.
Saw this. When I was up at vermilion last september we saw a handful of guides just using licescope off each side and cruising basins. When they would see one the client would standup and make three casts with different lures at it. Pretty crazy to see.
I think that’s exactly what they’re referring to.
Less muskies being stocked, and increased pressure due to technology. Not necessarily because there’s more people actually fishing for muskies, but because there’s a combination of less around (due to lower stocking), and the ones that are around are getting this type of pressure on them.
Both recent state records (weight and C & R length) out of Mille Lacs were caught using this type of technology. My guess is that neither one would have been caught without it.
So, one of the reasons listed for stock decline is live sonar/ffs. Does this mean more people are retaining muskies, or there’s more mortality because of poor catch and release methods, or a bit of both?
A bunch of years ago the DNR stocked some muskies in a local lake. I guess they did it three years, maybe a year between stockings. It didn’t take. The some muskie organization stocked with dnr supervision. That didn’t take. I thought the world was ending when they started this stuff. After some research I figured what the heck, if they get settled they might be something else to catch. I did in fact. A 19 incher. Now a guy never hears a peep about muskies there.
In talking with the dnr one day I was told they prefer soft rayed fish, like suckers, and there’s no shortage of those in this lake, but in the end, I never noticed a decline in any of the panfish. Honestly I think they’re harder to get stocked successfully and most people get too worked up over seeing them stocked. I know I did. And for what?
So, one of the reasons listed for stock decline is live sonar/ffs. Does this mean more people are retaining muskies, or there’s more mortality because of poor catch and release methods, or a bit of both?
Neither. It means the DNR has a hooking mortality guesstimate, and FFS results in more muskies being caught, so that means more are dying. But for the umpteenth time there is little to no legitimate science behind hooking mortality.
I think that’s exactly what they’re referring to.
Who exactly is saying this? Who is this “they” person or persons? Careful reading of BOTH links fails to identify just who “they” is.
The DNR link does not mention technology at all.
=========================================================
The news article, would lead you to believe this is what “anglers” are saying, without identifying any actual source for the info.
“Anglers hope better stocking can revive Minnesota’s muskie fishing.
But some anglers say those catches are getting more rare.
They say (presumably this group is the “some anglers”) Minnesota’s once-robust muskie fishery has declined in recent years, due to reduced stocking and increased pressure from anglers aided by the latest sonar technology. They want to see the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources improve its stocking efforts.”
It means the DNR has a hooking mortality guesstimate, and FFS results in more muskies being caught, so that means more are dying.
I don’t muskie fish but aren’t most muskies caught less than 20 feet down? If yes, not much chance of barotrauma unless the fish just moved up to that depth. Or are the muskie not being handled correctly? I don’t think that is true since most muskie fishermen treat them like the Holy Grail.
Thanks for posting the survey, Gimruis. Done.
Who exactly is saying this? Who is this “they” person or persons? Careful reading of BOTH links fails to identify just who “they” is.
The DNR link does not mention technology at all.
Yes, my apologies. The survey link does not mention increased aid of technology. The link in MPR News does, which is how I originally found the survey.
In talking with the dnr one day I was told they prefer soft rayed fish, like suckers, and there’s no shortage of those in this lake, but in the end, I never noticed a decline in any of the panfish. Honestly I think they’re harder to get stocked successfully and most people get too worked up over seeing them stocked. I know I did. And for what?
All valid points I agree with. There is no scientific data showing they have a measurable effect on panfish or walleye populations.
I do think that if there isn’t a demand to stock them in certain new lakes though, why would they? If anything just stock sterile tiger muskies instead. At least with those you know that they aren’t reproducing.
I find it funny that so many people say that technology is having little to no effect on fish populations, but when asked why they buy and use one they say to help catch more fish. Last year for the 1st time on our Canada trip in the fall I saw someone with a FFS. He was staying at the same Cabins as we were so had a chance to chat with him. He told me since he added the FFS his Catch rate on Large Pike has increased by almost 5X the #’s as prior. The lake we fish is rather large and those Bigger pike have lots of water to move around in. He said with the FFS / Side scan sonars he drives down miles and miles of bank and only stops and fishes once he marks fish. They are having effects on both #’s of fish caught as well as Keep or injure no matter what some like to think.
Good link, thanks! We have the best water for Ski’s they should make them a priority.
Or are the muskie not being handled correctly? I don’t think that is true since most muskie fishermen treat them like the Holy Grail.
Generally its not the muskie anglers themselves that mishandle them. Its the people who catch one by accident while fishing for something else that mishandle them.
Mostly because they just aren’t prepared with a muskie net, jaw spreader, heavy duty pliers, and other proper gear.
Even with Great handling technique, there are times that a fish dies. I like to feel that myself and my fishing buddy have excellent fish handling skills on large pike, But we still end up with a fish that dies from time to time. I hate it, but it happens from to time. Sometimes the Hook ends up tearing the gills rather bad. It is for that reason that I will with a increase in the # of fish caught, Its also likely a increase in fish hooking mortality.
If you look at the stocking numbers over the years since the MN Muskie stocking program began it is easy to see how MN rose to the musky capital of the world 20-30 years ago and is now hardly a shadow of what it was. It was one of our dnr’s great accomplishments and has now become one of their biggest failures. Some of the lakes in the western part of the state still receive adequate stocking and the fishing results show the results.
The downfall came long before FFS was introduced. It even began before side imaging was a thing.
I hope to see the MN DNR get serious about the Muskie program again and start stocking meaningful numbers.
I don’t know if this is 100% accurate but Muskies Inc was part of the big push 20 years ago or so in MN and 10-15 years ago they moved a lot of their effort in getting muskies in other states. Without their push this state took a hit.
I seem to recall that the DNR suspended stocking during COVID? Shouldn’t take a Fisheries PHD to come to their current conclusion. I personally don’t think FFS should be in the discussion at all. Focus on management practices they as a fisheries organization can control, not pass down restrictions to the taxpayers.
Even with Great handling technique, there are times that a fish dies. I like to feel that myself and my fishing buddy have excellent fish handling skills on large pike, But we still end up with a fish that dies from time to time. I hate it, but it happens from to time.
Absolutely true on the mortality front, I would imagine sadly its quite high for unexpected/unprepared catches, but also an unfortunate reality for experienced anglers.
Appreciate the link, Gimruis. I took the survey and indicated my preference is to prioritize strengthening our existing fisheries. Admittedly my interest in muskie fishing has waned in the past few years, especially during the times of the year when FFS is a massive advantage.
f you look at the stocking numbers over the years since the MN Muskie stocking program began it is easy to see how MN rose to the musky capital of the world 20-30 years ago and is now hardly a shadow of what it was. It was one of our dnr’s great accomplishments and has now become one of their biggest failures. Some of the lakes in the western part of the state still receive adequate stocking and the fishing results show the results.
Can you post a link to that info? I’d be interested in seeing it. Also, curious why the stocking declined? Less pressure from Muskie Inc? Or the Association influence against them?
I don’t muskie fish but aren’t most muskies caught less than 20 feet down? If yes, not much chance of barotrauma unless the fish just moved up to that depth. Or are the muskie not being handled correctly? I don’t think that is true since most muskie fishermen treat them like the Holy Grail.
I don’t think it’s any of that, any actual hooking mortality with musky (meaning the few fish that actually die after catching them) is likely due to just how violent they are and the tackle used ending up in the gills or eyes. Or old age and the fish being unable to handle the stress of being caught near the end of their natural life.
Generally its not the muskie anglers themselves that mishandle them. Its the people who catch one by accident while fishing for something else that mishandle them.
While I’m sure that happens, I don’t think that is a statistically significant amount of musky encounters to matter. And I sure haven’t heard or seen anything from the DNR on Snoopy Poles being a threat to musky populations.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
