Musky Are Eating Our Perch!

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/outdoors/5040992-What-are-muskies-eating-in-Miltona-Local-lake-part-of-Minnesota-diet-study-on-four-major-game-fish

Good article, will be great to have ammo against the cranks in Otter Tail county and their allies in the Legislature.

Poor Perch are just getting walloped

I think the results are what most sensible anglers would expect. However I doubt it will provide any relief from the anti musky crowd, they don’t like facts. All they care about is keeping people off of “their” lake.

I fear that you are correct.

Interesting article, and study. The science so far indicates what should be expected. Clearly muskies are not having a sizable dent in the population of other fish, and not even close to the extent that pike, walleye, and bass are having. Really just shows how important perch are for all species of game fish as food.

For those who can’t get through the paywall:

In Miltona:

65% of muskie diet items were perch, 8% of total diet mass in muskies was perch.

Largemouth bass, bullheads, bluegills, crappies, white suckers and dogfish were important food items. They also found muskrat, gull, frogs, and northern pike.

Only 1.5% of muskie diet items were walleye, 2% of total diet mass in muskies was walleye.

There was also a low overlap between muskie diet items and walleye diet items, so little competition for food.

Samples from one lake does not offer a conclusion of a study. Why report a story when all the facts are not in. Lake to lake studies can differ. Look into Wisconsin and Michigan studies, they will give a more rounded conclusion, they have been studying this long before Mn.
If one prefers to hang ones hat on one lake just so one can say anti musky crowd more power to them but I think it’s rather short sided.

They did sample other muskie lakes, and will sample more lakes too.

“Miltona, Little Boy (Longville), Bald Eagle (East Metro), Ten Mile (Hackensack) and South Center (Chisago) Lakes were sampled in 2019 during the spring, summer and fall seasons. Other muskie lakes that are scheduled to be sampled for the study include Bemidji and Shamineau (Little Falls) in 2020 and North Star (Grand Rapids) and Pelican (Fergus Falls) in 2021. Lakes without muskies in the study are Ten Mile, South Center, Grace and Deer (Bemidji).”

I understand that, I can read, so I will wait until all the facts of this one study are in and compare them with other studies to make a more rounded decision from multiple
studies and resources

I think it’s been widely demonstrated that musky don’t decimate walleye, this is just more evidence.

Please point us to the Michigan and Wisconsin studies

Fair enough. I had got the impression that you didn’t read the article. Sorry about that.

Thanks for posting! I’ve always wondered out loud about the carrying capacity. This is the first time where I’ve seen “overlap”. Really cool information.

1hl&sinker wrote:

Samples from one lake does not offer a conclusion of a study. Why report a story when all the facts are not in. Lake to lake studies can differ. Look into Wisconsin and Michigan studies, they will give a more rounded conclusion, they have been studying this long before Mn.
If one prefers to hang ones hat on one lake just so one can say anti musky crowd more power to them but I think it’s rather short sided.

Took me 3 seconds to find this. Looks like Wisconsin found the same thing… next!

Burri said despite strong walleye populations in some of the Wisconsin study lakes, walleye were not an important food for muskellunge.

“When we used electro-fishing boats to sample fish populations at night, we often found walleye and muskie in close proximity yet the muskellunge stomachs rarely contained walleye,” said Burri.

Here’s the article if you’d like it.
https://www.presspubs.com/studies-reveal-what-muskies-eat-impacts-on-other-fish/article_f017ff8c-3708-55b0-877d-5ecca7bb581e.html

Michael C. Winther wrote:

For those who can’t get through the paywall:

In Miltona:

65% of muskie diet items were perch, 8% of total diet mass in <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>muskies was perch.

Largemouth bass, bullheads, bluegills, crappies, white suckers and dogfish were important food items. They also found muskrat, gull, frogs, and northern pike.

Only 1.5% of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>muskie diet items were walleye, 2% of total diet mass in <em class=”ido-tag-em”>muskies was walleye.

There was also a low overlap between <em class=”ido-tag-em”>muskie diet items and walleye diet items, so little competition for food.

Not anti Muskie just asking the question because I can not see the article.
It states 65 percent of Muskie diet was perch. It then states there is no overlap between walleye diet and Muskie diet?

What are they saying the walleye eat then?

Joe Scegura wrote:

Took me 3 seconds to find this. Looks like Wisconsin found the same thing… next!

funny, let me guess after 3 seconds you found something that supported a particular view. My guess is you stopped there.
Some reason your gotcha moment seems to support an agenda. I have no agenda against musky as you seem to think other than muskie like other species should not introduced or stocked in some lakes just because they can.

Been a few years since I read these studies by I’ll try to track them down.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Not anti Muskie just asking the question because I can not see the article.
It states 65 percent of Muskie diet was perch. It then states there is no overlap between walleye diet and Muskie diet?

What are they saying the walleye eat then?

65% of the prey muskies eat were perch in Miltona, but since they are so small, they only represent a very small percentage of their prey mass because they preferred larger meals.

I can’t open it now anymore either but I could earlier…

Then my question is how is there no overlay of what Muskie eat and what walleye eat. Do walleye not eat a good amount of perch. Again not anti muskie just trying to figure out what Mike meant. Or the study says.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Then my question is how is there no overlay of what Muskie eat and what walleye eat. Do walleye not eat a good amount of perch. Again not anti muskie just trying to figure out what Mike meant. Or the study says.

I really wish you could read the article.

It says there IS overlap between muskie and walleye diets, but it’s insignificant in comparison to the overlap between walleye and pike/bass diets.

By mass, perch were only 8% of muskies’ diet. Every predator eats perch, and muskies eat less perch than other predators because they generally target larger prey.

Open the link in incognito mode, that should do the trick

1hl&sinker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Joe Scegura wrote:</div>
Took me 3 seconds to find this. Looks like Wisconsin found the same thing… next!

funny, let me guess after 3 seconds you found something that supported a particular view. My guess is you stopped there.
Some reason your gotcha moment seems to support an agenda. I have no agenda against musky as you seem to think other than muskie like other species should not introduced or stocked in some lakes just because they can.

Been a few years since I read these studies by I’ll try to track them down.

Nope just typed in “Wisconsin Muskie what do they eat?” and this was the first one. Out of all of the studies on walleye and muskie I’ve seen I’ve never seen a negative one, so what did you do look until you found a study that supported your agenda??

100% of the best walleye lakes in the state have muskie in them I have no reason to believe they are a bad thing for our lakes. I don’t fish muskie but I don’t mind em. At least I don’t catch a 100 hammer handles when I’m on a muskie lake.

Please inform us of these negative studies right away though. I’m open to changing my mind if someone had real info.

Here is a direct quote from the Wisconsin Study findings. Pretty much the same results. http://www.mi22.com/Diet_study.pdf

“For the 375 stomachs (34.3%) containing 582
food items, the combined volume of food was
16,130 mL (Table 5). Fish composed 98% of the
volume of food, and the 547 fish items included
12 families and 31 species. Overall the two most
important food items for muskellunge were yellow
perch (RI 5 25) and catostomids (RI 5 21; Table
5). Yellow perch represented 30% of the total number of prey but only 17% of the total volume of
prey (Table 5). Conversely, catostomids represented only 8% of the total number of prey items
but 47% of the total volume of food. Cyprinids
(RI 5 7), walleye, Micropterus spp., and esocids
ranked low in the muskellunge diet (RI , 4 for
each prey type). Unidentifiable fish made up 17%
of all food items and 3% of the total volume. The
35 nonfish items (2% of the total volume of food)
included crayfish, aquatic insects,”

I attached the table with a breakdown of stomach contents… Suckers it is.

Attachments:

1. 

   Annotation-2020-04-15-123254.png
   

@joe What is my agenda? Hope you can tell me so I know what I should think.

Joe Scegura wrote:

Please inform us of these negative studies right away though. I’m open to changing my mind if someone had real info.

I wish I could read the article.
Out of all the studies I have read I only found one negative one. It was on a Michigan lake that was not managed back in the 60’s if I remember right. Go figure why it came out negative. The anti-muskie guys love this study and all seem to know about it. Every anti-muskie guy that has brought up musky studies with me has quoted this one study. Probably because it is the only study out there that says muskies are bad. Bottom line is you can find a study to support your view on anything if you look hard enough.

1hl&sinker wrote:

@joe What is my agenda? Hope you can tell me so I know what I should think.

I’m not one to tell anyone what they should or should not think.

So you’re saying you do or you don’t have any actual negative studies? Like I posted above, if you do please post them I would love to see them. The more everyone knows the better.

1hl&sinker wrote:

I think it’s rather short sided.

Dang, I was hoping to be on the long side

I think one can infer your agenda, casting doubt on yet another study that indicates musky don’t have a negative impact on walleye population. Still waiting to see “these studies” that have been done long before.

I am now convinced, lets stock more muskies in more lakes.

Joe Scegura wrote:

So you’re saying you do or you don’t have any actual negative studies?

No, I don’t have those studies at hand.
No I am not trying to poke the Hornets nest and if anyone wants to read between the lines that are not there that’s understandable. Like I said I’ll try to find them again it’s been a while. I dont dispute the studies given here at all. Predation either by musky,bass or walleye over a particular species happens when the lake is out of balance and it can happen from natural occurrences or by man made occurrences. I never ounce said musky can not coexist in natural settings.
The one study I remember for some reason there were an over abundance of musky in some lakes, in that when the over abundance overcame thier natural food source walleye became the next target reducing their population dramatically and stunted the size of musky to which the WI dnr had remove musky and reduce the size limit and increase the bag limit of muskie. If one looks at musky regs in Wisconsin from lake to lakes or by zones regs are all over the place.
Mn is doing something similar with northern pike right now.

uninc4709 wrote:

Here is a direct quote from the Wisconsin Study findings. Pretty much the same results. http://www.mi22.com/Diet_study.pdf

“For the 375 stomachs (34.3%) containing 582
food items, the combined volume of food was
16,130 mL (Table 5). Fish composed 98% of the
volume of food, and the 547 fish items included
12 families and 31 species. Overall the two most
important food items for muskellunge were yellow
perch (RI 5 25) and catostomids (RI 5 21; Table
5). Yellow perch represented 30% of the total number of prey but only 17% of the total volume of
prey (Table 5). Conversely, catostomids represented only 8% of the total number of prey items
but 47% of the total volume of food. Cyprinids
(RI 5 7), walleye, Micropterus spp., and esocids
ranked low in the muskellunge diet (RI , 4 for
each prey type). Unidentifiable fish made up 17%
of all food items and 3% of the total volume. The
35 nonfish items (2% of the total volume of food)
included crayfish, aquatic insects,”

I attached the table with a breakdown of stomach contents… Suckers it is.

Interesting as this study says that perch is significantly more consumed. It also points to a large number of unidentified fish as part of their diet. No agenda here. Just trying to learn more about this subject, as for me I am currently not on either side of the fence per say. I will say introducing any new species to a body of water I think needs to be studied for a good amount of time to see long term affects. That includes walleye and Muskie for me.

Is that why they taste so good??

The article can be read here:

https://www.theosakisreview.com/sports/outdoors/5040309-What-are-muskies-eating-in-Miltona-Local-lake-part-of-Minnesota-diet-study-on-four-major-game-fish

Or just google miltona muskie diet

Ripjiggen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>uninc4709 wrote:</div>
Here is a direct quote from the Wisconsin Study findings. Pretty much the same results. http://www.mi22.com/Diet_study.pdf

“For the 375 stomachs (34.3%) containing 582
food items, the combined volume of food was
16,130 mL (Table 5). Fish composed 98% of the
volume of food, and the 547 fish items included
12 families and 31 species. Overall the two most
important food items for muskellunge were yellow
perch (RI 5 25) and catostomids (RI 5 21; Table
5). Yellow perch represented 30% of the total number of prey but only 17% of the total volume of
prey (Table 5). Conversely, catostomids represented only 8% of the total number of prey items
but 47% of the total volume of food. Cyprinids
(RI 5 7), walleye, Micropterus spp., and esocids
ranked low in the muskellunge diet (RI , 4 for
each prey type). Unidentifiable fish made up 17%
of all food items and 3% of the total volume. The
35 nonfish items (2% of the total volume of food)
included crayfish, aquatic insects,”

I attached the table with a breakdown of stomach contents… Suckers it is.

Interesting as this study says that perch is significantly more consumed. It also points to a large number of unidentified fish as part of their diet. No agenda here. Just trying to learn more about this subject, as for me I am currently not on either side of the fence per say. I will say introducing any new species to a body of water I think needs to be studied for a good amount of time to see long term affects. That includes walleye and Muskie for me.

I think you’re reading into it a little to much. Spread that 17% out per the rest of the species and you’ll find your answer. Stomachs digest things… It’s what they do and perhaps all 17% of unidentified fish where perch as the stomach digested them quicker being one of the smaller species…

I would look into the far right 2 columns.