Pelican Lake Property Owners Sure DNR Over Muskie Stocking

This is getting super ridiculous on Pelican Lake and could set a very bad precedent if these wackos are somehow successful. This is more about some lakeshore owners thinking it's "their" lake. Again, another case of the vocal minority getting way too much pull in America these days.



The Great Pelican Lake Muskie War has gone to court.
And it has reached the point of silliness, with anti-muskie residents of Pelican Lake saying some residents have avoided swimming in the lake for fear of being bitten by a muskie. It also says some people are considering selling their property if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources continues to stock muskies.
The Pelican Lake Property Owners Association has filed a lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the DNR from stocking muskellunge in the lake.
Pelican Lake is located north of Pelican Rapids. The DNR has stocked the fish in the lake for nearly 40 years, making it a popular destination for anglers to pursue the big predator fish. An adult muskie can reach more than 50 inches in length in some Minnesota lakes, according to the DNR.
But residents and cabin owners around the lake began to push back in September, saying muskies had damaged the walleye population in the lake. Three other Otter Tail County lakes are also being considered for muskie stocking: Lizzie, Loon and Franklin. Property owners on those lakes are also opposed to stocking.
The lawsuit was filed in Otter Tail County District Court Oct. 13, citing “damage to the natural ecosystem of the lake, muskellunge predation on non-introduced species, and the risk to recreational lake users.”
The DNR submitted a response earlier this week, refuting most the allegations. Court documents say walleye and yellow perch populations have been trending upward in Pelican Lake since 1978, when muskie stocking began. While bluegill numbers have declined in that span, the average size of bluegills has increased. Black crappie and tulibee numbers have remained steady.
A DNR spokesman said the department doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.
A call to the lawyer for the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association, Tami Norgard of Fargo’s Vogel Law Firm, was not returned.
The association also filed a request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be completed for Pelican Lake, which was denied.
The lawsuit alleges muskies have bitten swimmers without warning and that the DNR’s plans to continue stocking has caused some residents to avoid using the lake for recreation due to fear of muskies.
The DNR’s decision has caused some residents to consider selling their property on the lake, the suit alleges.
“The Department has ignored public input from residents and lake users on the muskellunge stocking issue,” court documents say.
The DNR responded by saying, “… the reports of Muskellunge bites generally across the state are statistically insignificant.”
The next hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 20.

I have no interest on the lake; no desire to fish it; used to fish it; may fish it but its an extra turn that i dont need to make -- my days in ND exceed MN; i fish MN for bass; pelican lake ND has 1000X times more walleye then pelican MN, the list could go on and on. add to that i dont like zebra mussels and foam beat up from a million jet skis and traffic from pontoons and zebra mussel holding moombas.

But my question is where is the DNR's report how many walleye a 50" walleye eats in a year. Produce the report. In addition where is Greg Power's stance on stocking musky to the big three of ND. I would like to see that too.

No offense maniac -- but you know my stance on private funds stocking walleyes vs public funds to stock musky. IMO you stock both or none with regards to public funds (fishing license revenues)

I know where your heart is musky

but you surely have to admit that musky fisherman are a pretty vocal minority too!

What is the take on any walleye fishermen that fish pelican in MN (little mil lacs)

Minnesota stocks plenty of walleye. Right from the DNR website:

Average number of fish stocked per year:

• Walleye Fry - 250 million
• Walley Fingerlings - 2.5 million
• Walleye Yearlings - 50 thousand
• Walleye Adults - 30 thousand
• Northern Pike (fry,fingerlings & adults) - 1.2 million
• Muskellunge (fingerlings) - 30,000
• Largemouth Bass - 7,500 (fingerlings and adults)
• Channel Catfish - 100,000 (fingerlings and yearlings)
• Bluegill - 40,000 adults
• Tiger Muskellunge (fingerlings) - 2,000
• Trout - 2.3 million (fingerlings and yearlings)

I have an honest question: why is there a push by DNR to keep introducing musky into more lakes? What's driving that?

The pickle industry

The same people who won't swim in the lake probably have no problem going in the ocean while in Cancun. People are stupid.

shorthairsrus said:

I have no interest on the lake; no desire to fish it; used to fish it; may fish it but its an extra turn that i dont need to make -- my days in ND exceed MN; i fish MN for bass; pelican lake ND has 1000X times more walleye then pelican MN, the list could go on and on. add to that i dont like zebra mussels and foam beat up from a million jet skis and traffic from pontoons and zebra mussel holding moombas.

But my question is where is the DNR's report how many walleye a 50" walleye eats in a year. Produce the report. In addition where is Greg Power's stance on stocking musky to the big three of ND. I would like to see that too.

No offense maniac -- but you know my stance on private funds stocking walleyes vs public funds to stock musky. IMO you stock both or none with regards to public funds (fishing license revenues)

Click to expand...

Multiple studies have shown time and again that walleye are not even close to a main food source for musky. This is such an old and stale argument and holds no scientific value that it's tiresome to even keep responding.

There are plenty of walleye in Pelican, and I'm sure the DNR is going to do a complete study on the lake as a result of this lawsuit. But then the Property Association will just come up with another reason why they don't want people using their lake........like muskies eating children and senior citizens.

MuskyManiac said:

Minnesota stocks plenty of walleye. Right from the DNR website:

Average number of fish stocked per year:

• Walleye Fry - 250 million
• Walley Fingerlings - 2.5 million
• Walleye Yearlings - 50 thousand
• Walleye Adults - 30 thousand
• Northern Pike (fry,fingerlings & adults) - 1.2 million
• Muskellunge (fingerlings) - 30,000
• Largemouth Bass - 7,500 (fingerlings and adults)
• Channel Catfish - 100,000 (fingerlings and yearlings)
• Bluegill - 40,000 adults
• Tiger Muskellunge (fingerlings) - 2,000
• Trout - 2.3 million (fingerlings and yearlings)

Click to expand...

ND stocked 4 million finglerlings in sak alone. MN will never compete as they have a political agenda that will never have the $$ to spend the money properly. This is what they did in pelican

Fry are every other year. I dont have a number of walleye "fingerlings" that are stocked privately.

I bet those 735 fingerlings cost X more than all those fry and they go in longer than a finger (more like 12")

Stocking is one thing --- but the ability not to keep a fish under 50" is another. The sota fishermen have learned how to work around the y bones. Let em keep em if they want put em on par with the willy.

Sounds to me that a few local asshats (probably not local at all, only have a lake home there) cannot catch their daily limit of walleyes to stock their freezers and are getting pissy pants about it. Damn liberals. They are trying to say that the muskies are eating all of the walleyes. Can somebody say "fished out"?

You cannot keep taking, without giving sometime. I hope it goes to strictly catch and release.

guywhofishes said:

I have an honest question: why is there a push by DNR to keep introducing musky into more lakes? What's driving that?

Click to expand...

First, because it's the fastest growing segment in freshwater fishing today and second, because there are only 95 lakes managed for pure strain musky in a state where there are 4,500 fishable lakes. You should try fishing muskie on Pelican or Detroit on a weekend....every spot has muskie fisherman on it.

Minnesota DNR has a long range plan to produce trophy muskie and pike.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/fisheries/plans/muskiepike_2020.pdf

I got brave this summer and went swimming with the kids "yeti incouraged" then my feet hit moss f water

if you ever swam over the top of a barracuda and the current pushes you foward. Your heart races. Every kind of fish has attacked -- is it rare yup. Young lab pup food yup. The attack portion is not what the big deal is about. I also dont believe the boat traffic thing as more boats on the lake for walleye. I dont believe in holding a fish out on a pedestel and saying he is the king -- when its just another fish that you have to f with the bones to get it to the table. Our forefathers would laugh if they seen what was done to fishing now days. The fish doesnt reproduce in pelican why have any type of size law.

shorthairsrus said:

ND stocked 4 million finglerlings in sak alone. MN will never compete as they have a political agenda that will never have the $$ to spend the money properly. This is what they did in pelican

2014	muskellunge[SUP]2[/SUP]	fingerlings	735	81.7
	walleye	fry	1,625,000	13.8

Fry are every other year. I dont have a number of walleye "fingerlings" that are stocked privately.

I bet those 735 fingerlings cost X more than all those fry and they go in longer than a finger (more like 12")

Stocking is one thing --- but the ability not to keep a fish under 50" is another. The sota fishermen have learned how to work around the y bones. Let em keep em if they want put em on par with the willy.

Click to expand...

By the way, it's 54 inches in Minnesota. There are plenty of other fish to keep besides musky. You can't put them on par with walleye as the population density are not even comparable. If you can't understand that and the huge difference that makes I can't help you short......I could explain all day and you just won't get it.

54" inches is absurd. that 54 incher is eating anything and everything. I support the lawsuit. i wonder how many musky trollers kill them things pulling em out of 40foot of water with 50lbs test and they get the bends.

you have to admit that musky fishing takes real know-how, drive, and pretty serious equipment ($$$)

that means there IS a price to be paid by the casual anglers, older folks, kids because they won't benefit by musky fishing AND some of their target fish do get eaten

I don't really have a horse in the race but I don't think it's not without its winners and losers - musky don't grow large in a vacuum - it takes lots of "eaters" to make that happen

when musky get introduced then the people who pursue muskies win - but other people get the short end of the stick - this is especially true in waters with relatively little non-game fish forage base for the muskies

the counter argument (I imagine) is lakes with lots of stunted gills, etc. where a large predator fish might throw things into a better balance and break the stunted cycle

disclaimer: I also know dang near nothing about fishery management - just making stuff up :;:smokin

shorthairsrus said:

54" inches is absurd. that 54 incher is eating anything and everything. I support the lawsuit. i wonder how many musky trollers kill them things pulling em out of 40foot of water with 50lbs test and they get the bends.

Click to expand...

Each reply you make shows your lack of knowledge.

MN is managing musky to make trophy waters. Read the PDF link above. It really wouldn't take much keeping of large musky to decimate a population.

Even though they're still fun, I am not out fishing musky to catch a 40 incher. I want a 40 or 50 pounder!!!!

And again as far as musky diet...they are not eating everything and anything. Get informed, short.

- - - Updated - - -

guywhofishes said:

you have to admit that musky fishing takes real know-how, drive, and pretty serious equipment ($$$)

that means there IS a price to be paid by the casual anglers, older folks, kids because they won't benefit by musky fishing AND some of their target fish do get eaten

I don't really have a horse in the race but I don't think it's not without its winners and losers - musky don't grow large in a vacuum - it takes lots of "eaters" to make that happen

when musky get introduced then the people who pursue muskies win - but other people get the short end of the stick - this is especially true in waters with relatively little non-game fish forage base for the muskies

the counter argument (I imagine) is lakes with lots of stunted gills, etc. where a large predator fish might throw things into a better balance and break the stunted cycle

disclaimer: I also know dang near nothing about fishery management - just making stuff up :;:smokin

Click to expand...

95 lakes in the whole state, Guy. I think it's the musky fishermen getting the short end of the stick. And they don't stock muskies in lakes that can't support it. There is very specific criteria.

And it's laughable if you think other fishermen are negatively impacted by muskie fishermen, or that because there is some costs involved that it's somehow prohibitive.

Again, it's the fastest growing segment in freshwater fishing today, Guy. More kids are getting hooked on fishing because of musky!

MuskyManiac said:

95 lakes in the whole state, Guy. I think it's the musky fishermen getting the short end of the stick. And they don't stock muskies in lakes that can't support it. There is very specific criteria.

And it's laughable if you think other fishermen are negatively impacted by muskie fishermen, or that because there is some costs involved that it's somehow prohibitive.

Click to expand...

you get arrogant every time muskies come up - you do realize that right?

I try to respectfully discuss and you find opinions other than yours laughable

seems to be a relatively common characteristic of musky fisherman - a characteristic that I don't admire

Here is why people oppose having their lake 'managed' for muskies....

Seriously who wants to catch fish they cant keep? Id be pissed also!!!
[h=1]54-inch Minnesota-wide muskie minimum signed by Mark Dayton[/h]By Dave Orrick
[email]dorrick@pioneerpress.com[/EMAIL]Posted: 05/24/2014 01:43:11 PM CDT | Updated: about a year ago


Part of the attraction of muskie fishing for the fanatics who pursue them is the fish's imposing presence. (Courtesy photo)




With a stroke of his pen Wednesday, Gov. Mark Dayton made Minnesota the most-protective state in the country for muskies.
Starting in 2015, a pure-strain muskellunge will have to be 54 inches long to be kept statewide on inland waters, with a few exceptions.
That's a rare fish, and the new minimum will effectively make Minnesota a catch-and-release state. Catch-and-release -- with measurements and photographs for replica mounts -- have become the unwritten rule for muskie aficionados for years. But advocates for the change -- up from 48 inches -- argued that some anglers -- enough -- were keeping fish once they reached 48 inches, the current minimum.
"It's such a rare fish -- less than 5 percent of the population of muskies, which are rare to begin with -- that they just can't take much harvest," said Shawn Kellett, vice president of the Twin Cities Chapter of Muskies Inc. Kellett's group and the Minnesota Pike and Muskie Alliance were the drivers behind the change.
The groups initially pushed for 55 inches, but that was felled soundly in a House floor vote after opposition from Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, who chairs the Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee. It was the Senate that approved 54 inches, and in the end, Dill supported that.
The measure was included in the final Game and Fish Bill that was reconciled between the two chambers, and that larger bill was unanimously approved by the Senate, with one vote against in the House.
The Department of Natural Resources was neutral on the plan, demurring to legislators on what it deemed a social issue, not an ecological one. "I think us coming out publicly the last couple of years not opposing lifting the spearing bans on various lakes made a big difference for us," Kellett said, referring to the steady loosening of darkhouse ice spearing bans for northern pike over the last several years. "People understood this wasn't about bad blood. This was about keeping these special fish."
The Minnesota Darkhouse & Angling Association remained opposed to the larger muskie limit.
The 48-inch rule will remain in effect this season, which starts June 6. The 54-inch regulation will be in effect in 2015.