Contrary to what the DNR says in its news release, muskies can cause significant problems to existing walleye and other fish populations. The DNR and some pro-muskie folks say any such concerns are mere "myth" and "misconception". That’s what they want you to think. Don’t be misinformed. Here are some facts...
Studies done in the States of Wisconsin and Michigan have shown that in some lakes muskie populations have exploded and decimated existing fish populations. More on those specific studies below, but the Minnesota DNR says muskies simply want to eat soft-spined suckers and leave the rest alone. This is not the truth. The truth is muskies eat suckers and whatever else they need to survive. Many of us prefer steak, but we, like muskies, don’t always get what we want, so we eat to survive.
THE SCIENCE THE DNR IGNORES
Some say Minnesota has replaced Wisconsin as the Mecca of muskies. That may be true, and according to Thomas Sommerfeldt, a Senior Fisheries Biologist from the Wisconsin DNR, many of the Wisconsin muskie lakes have "new unprecedented muskie densities" and have "eaten themselves out of house and home." Sommerfeldt states that while muskies do like white suckers, "once they run out of white suckers you have problems." In an ongoing study by Sommerfeldt that is in draft form he writes, "I conclude that muskellunge predation can have a severe effect on resident fish populations." His conclusions were based on different lakes. In the case of Lower Clam Lake, as the muskie population peaked, the walleye population tanked from 3.3 fish per acre to 0.8 per acre despite walleye stocking efforts. In Butternut Lake the conclusion was, "muskellunge predation would rank as the number one cause of walleye mortality in . . . 1998." The problems with muskies on Butternut have gotten so far out of control that fisheries biologists are proposing to "mechanically remove 500 adult muskellunge under 38 [inches]" in the near future." Additionally, there is a recommendation to "encourage some angler harvest of muskellunge less than 40 [inches]" long." Sommerfeldt was frank in a phone interview. He stated, "it’s frustrating as heck trying to educate those who do not want to acknowledge that "increased densities [of muskies] are going to impact our fish populations."
In a 1984 study on Sparkling Lake in Wisconsin, the author, John Lyons, concluded, "Coupled with the lack of any other obvious causes of the observed population declines, it seems plausible that muskellunge predations had a major impact on the density of adult walleyes in Sparkling Lake during the early 1980’s."
Crappies as well as walleyes are popular fish in Gull and other Minnesota lakes. In Michigan a study by the DNR showed that as muskie populations rose, black crappie populations crashed. In Iron Lake, muskies were stocked starting in 1962 and white suckers and black crappies were abundant, however, by 1979, "black crappies and white suckers continued to be scarce." The study concluded, "with the advantage of hindsight two lessons to be learned from this
management experience are: carefully consider beforehand all the possible consequences of any major change imposed on a fish population and intensely monitor any fish populations being subjected to novel management techniques." Muskies are not native to Brainerd area lakes and from this writer’s perspective novel is a good adjective for the proposal to stock muskies where they don’t exist and where walleyes, crappie and northern pike are the fish of choice.
There are more studies, but they are not being considered by the DNR. In its recent News Release the DNR states, "there is no research evidence that suggests introducing muskellunge into a lake has caused corresponding decrease in the walleye fishery." It does not take a DNR fisheries biologist to know that the DNR is wrong and gambling with our lakes. To read these and other studies go tomusky-studies-facts.
