The Great Minnesota Muskie War

[MuskyManiac]

This is getting ridiculous, and when it comes right down to it the end of the article pretty much sums up the reason for this fight. This has nothing to do with fish, but some lakeshore owners who don't want people coming to "their lake" to fish.

http://www.inforum.com/news/4438438...ota-muskie-war-gets-ugly#.WuTG3hmscC0.twitter

 

[guywhofishes]

I can honestly appreciate both sides in this deal.

I'd not want to live on a decent but "quiet" multi-species lake, then have muskies stocked and do well, and have it become a major muskie fishing draw. Who does want more traffic on their little piece of heaven?

If I was a muskie fisherman I'd like them to stock muskies all over the place.

Who's right and who's wrong? Neither and both... ha ha ha.

- - - Updated - - -

and I have to admit that it seems kind of "pushy" to have an agency stock fish that have never before been in the lake and say "relax - it will have no affect - we know better than you dweebs living on the lake"

it simply has to have some affect - maybe good, maybe bad, but some affect is inevitable

- - - Updated - - -

and finally - McFeely sure has his "stir up ant's nests for a living" dialed in

 

[MuskyManiac]

Studies have been done numerous times on the matter. Again, that's not really the issue. It's about keeping people off the lake. The problem is these lakes are public.

This Dave Majkrzak, who has been a central figure in a lot of this fight, says it's about the walleye. Here's the thing, though, he is the inventor of the weed roller, a device designed to keep weeds from growing along the lakeshore. Well, if anything is more detrimental to fish populations than lakeshore development and aquatic eradication I would like to hear it.

This has nothing to do with science. This has nothing to do with walleye populations. This has everything to do with limiting opportunities for people to enjoy recreation of their choosing on Minnesota public waters. PERIOD!

 

[westwolfone]

MM, you are exactly right. Just a bunch of rich people who want a private lake. Some of the most stuck up, entitled people you will find on any lake.

 

[Duckslayer100]

and I have to admit that it seems kind of "pushy" to have an agency stock fish that have never before been in the lake and say "relax - it will have no affect - we know better than you dweebs living on the lake"

it simply has to have some affect - maybe good, maybe bad, but some affect is inevitable

That's my biggest question, too. Seems a bit hypocritical from an agency that seems to do so much to "naturalize" certain areas, but then is totally OK changing the natural ecosystem of other areas just.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

What! Wait! I thought only Land Tawney and liberals were against expanding hunting and fishing opportunities! #$%^&>

 

[Captain Ahab]

I'd be more po'd over all those hammer handle pike in some of those lakes. Annoying.

 

[KDM]

Adding muskies to a lake changes the regulations for that lake. No question. Adding muskies will change the use patterns of any lake they are put into. No question. If I had investments in the form of lake property on this lake, I'd be a bit hostile to changing any variable that might alter the path of my investment for a fish. MN has 10000 lakes supposedly, if the people that live on this lake don't want muskies, why force them to have them and claim there won't be an effect? I find it difficult to swallow that an alternative body of water can't be found where the local folks won't mind the muskies being there.

 

[MuskyManiac]

KDM, the lakes in question are in Ottertail County and have had muskies for 50 years. Thankfully there is some good news coming out of West Battle. Can't believe some of you guys are buying into this BS, just wait until they come after your walleyes the same way. Do you think all the lakes stocked with walleye in MN, and ND for that matter, had walleyes as a native species? If so, you're sadly mistaken.

https://pelicanrapidspress.com/2018...battle-support/#sthash.rbc6CioO.RvtZdpdX.dpbs

 

[KDM]

Not buying into anything MM, just trying to put a possible perspective on it.

 

[snow]

Its even worse for bass fishermen/women,on well known bass lakes home owners come out to guard their dock and boats on lifts,some will cut line and keep your lure,all give ya the stink eye as you work the shore line and pitch/skip docks and of course these home owners preach muskies are bad.

 

[Rowdie]

I'm confused.... How does not stocking muskies privatize a lake?

 

[guywhofishes]

MM, why do you get so "take no prisoners" so quickly? Is a discussion not healthy?

 

[JMF]

I thought news reporters were supposed to be unbiased. I have no dog in this fight but I can see both sides have a point. However that article makes me what to pitch the next muskie I catch on shore just to spite it.

 

[MuskyManiac]

These are public waters for use by everyone, including muskie fishermen. Again, the lakes in question have had muskies for a long time and now a couple people are causing trouble. When this first started it was about Pelican Lake, but when a survey revealed the walleye population is better than ever they starting going after the other two lakes in the county. They even want muskie stocking stopped on Beers, which is in a state park and totally under DNR control.

Apparently some even here are still stuck on the idea that muskie and walleye just don't get along, which just does not appear to be the case from several studies. If you're still stuck on that issue you really don't know what you're talking about. The top muskie lakes in the state are the top muskie lakes as well. When people start talking that the muskie will eat all their walleye, they just lose all credibility with me. Sorry.

If you're going to live on a public lake don't bitch when the public wants to use that lake. Again, this is the main issue with these people and they're using the big, bad muskie as their arguing point because some people just love to buy into the hype.

- - - Updated - - -

MM, why do you get so "take no prisoners" so quickly? Is a discussion not healthy?

Because it's the same old argument and it just doesn't hold water. When you want to start talking facts I'll listen.

I can't believe you can't see it....this is not about protecting walleyes or protecting habitat. This is about some people wanting to keep you off their lake and their using the muskie to do it and I'm very sick and tired of it.

 

[3Roosters]

I do have a dog in this fight as we own a little slice of heaven in Mn lake country. I don't think our(well not our) but the lake where our lake property is at probably isn't a good fit for Mushkie's(who knows though). This particular lake is managed by DNR primarily for bluegill as it has a 5 bag daily limit so no sure they would add Mushkie's to the mix. At any rate, personally, I would more concerned about the damage caused by the seemingly endless number of hours of jet skiers than any damage Mushkie's may or may not cause. :;:stirthepot

 

[guywhofishes]

I'm confused.

I can fish any lake I want with public access. How is this "keeping me off their lake"?

How is not stocking muskies going to keep anyone off a lake? It won't even keep muskie fishermen off the lake unless that's what the muskie fishermen chooses - but at that point it's a choice by the fishermen.

Tell me how this plays out in the long game with the "slippery slope" concept.

 

[Allen]

Just curious here, but if muskies aren't eating walleye, what exactly do they eat to get to 50+ lbs?


And, of course, these discussions are not exclusive to musky and Minnetucky. There was a very anti-salmon movement back when salmon and smelt were first stocked into Sakakawea. Yeah, yeah, smelt are the life-saving blah blah, walleye were pretty common and in decent shape before the smelt came around (note, DL doesn't have smelt). We just didn't have to deal with months where there were millions of dead smelt on the shoreline before they were stocked. There were times it was bordering on quite unpleasant to camp on Sak back then. Of course, it's not a problem any longer since you can't get to those same primitive camp sites today thanks to the tribe and the Corps.

There were also pissed off people when NDGF stocked trout into several bodies of water. If I remember correctly, they would rotenone the lake to kill off the pike and other "trash fish", stock trout, and then have locals dump pike back in. This is the prevailing theory I've heard from NDGF anyway. I kind of think pike eggs are easy as hell for ducks to transport, since I've seen them in waters they shouldn't have been in.

Not many people like change to their environment. They bought a cabin on the shore of a public lake in which walleye were the number 1 attraction. If Minnetucky were successful and musky fishing became common on the lake, that does increase the number of anglers overall, even if the walleye population were to remain healthy. More congestion at boat ramps, etc.

Overall, I could not care less what Minnetucky does with their musky and walleye lakes outside of generic curiosity.

 

[MuskyManiac]

I'm confused.

I can fish any lake I want with public access. How is this "keeping me off their lake"?

How is not stocking muskies going to keep anyone off a lake? It won't even keep muskie fishermen off the lake unless that's what the muskie fishermen chooses - but at that point it's a choice by the fishermen.

Tell me how this plays out in the long game with the "slippery slope" concept.

Keep in mind I am talking about and referencing two lakes in Ottertail County that have had muskies stocked for the last 50 years, Pelican Lake and West Battle. Please also keep in mind that I am on Lake Lida, which is also located in Ottertail County. Also remember that both of these lakes property values have gone up 500-1000% the past 20 some years.

Again, both of the lakes in question have had muskies for many, many years and they are both excellent walleye lakes as well, especially Pelican. Now why after all this time do some people want to stop stocking muskies after all these years with no apparent decline in any other fishing. Is it because the lakes are busier because of the significant increase in muskie fishing? Is it because the lakes are busier in general and they're just using the muskie because most people will buy into hype about all the walleye getting eaten and children will be attacked while swimming?

What would happen if they stop stocking muskie and eventually the population is not conducive to fishing for them? That would certainly keep muskie fishermen off the lake.

Now that the muskie fishermen are gone, what if they get tired of people coming to their lake for walleye fishing? Lida is a pretty good walleye fishery and I know every weekend the boat ramps are full of people that don't live on the lake. What is to stop lake associations from tying to get state laws changed regarding public access to their lake? Heck, they're already using ANS as a means to shut down public access on nearby Sally and Melisa in Becker County.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/07/regional/invasive-species

 

[guywhofishes]

thanks for the reply MM

I thought a couple years back that there were some lakes in play where no muskies had previously been established - so it was indeed going to be a new species for some lakes. Maybe those were tabled?

I fished Beers for bass many years prior to muskies being stocked. We fished the lake maybe five years later a couple times and found the bass fishing had changed for the worse - but it could have been seasonal, lake age, natural cycle or the bass changed habits. We never went back to fishing Beers for LM bass.