# Musky/Pike and walleyes



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Just got the walleye instider mag and there was a small bit in there about a study done on wisconsin lakes and what fish affect the eyes there. Most poeple think that musky and pike feed heavily on eyes and in some places would fight to out law muksy and pike from being stolked, just like the old "musky are eating up all the eyes in the lake" mentality. This study suggest that it was largmouth bass that impacted the eyes at a higher rate then any other fish in the system.

Yet more proof that musky and pike dont rune eye populations.


----------



## waterwolf (Oct 15, 2003)

> Yet more proof that musky and pike dont rune eye populations.


We are dealing with this problem locally here in Brainerd. They are talking about putting Muskies in Gull lake, which is known for it's walleye fishing.

A lot of people feel that the fishery will be hurt.

Looks like more proof that the impact is not as significant as some believe.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Where's Madison for this discussion??? (he'll pop in soon enough)

We've had this discussion many times and he talks of studies/diets of muskies and walleyes are rarely on the menu.


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

I've posted some other information regarding muskies diets and walleyes are a very small percentage..

Gull is great fishery and supports the type of forage needed to house and grow trophy class skees.. Good buddy of mine lives in Pequot and is pumped that Gull will be stocked with skees..

Did they give the percentage of walleyes found in the stomachs of largemouth??


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Though it would take time for a musky population to be noticable on gull, the impact would be little. The fact a large fish would rather eat somthing that is hurt makes me always think of the lion factor. Lions dont eat the healthy prey but most often try to take out the weeker of the hurd. Most musky lures (cranks and jerks) have more of a hurt fish motion. Never has a Co. tryed to imitate a perfectly healthy fish. It is not deniable that musky and pike do eat any other fish that can fit into its mouth, but they dont have the impact that poeple think they do. I always find that its more of a people taking and taking and taking and dont blaim them selves for it.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Though it would take time for a musky population to be noticable on gull, the impact would be little. The fact a large fish would rather eat somthing that is hurt makes me always think of the lion factor. Lions dont eat the healthy prey but most often try to take out the weeker of the hurd. Most musky lures (cranks and jerks) have more of a hurt fish motion. Never has a Co. tryed to imitate a perfectly healthy fish. It is not deniable that musky and pike do eat any other fish that can fit into its mouth, but they dont have the impact that poeple think they do. I always find that its more of a people taking and taking and taking and dont blaim them selves for it but try and find some other factor to blaim.


----------



## AWH (May 5, 2006)

I've had a chance to read the above mentioned study. Some interesting quotes that I will mention....

Walleye stocking could be improved by stocking lakes with "fish communities that are likely to support walleye reproduction (i.e., muskellunge, but not northern pike or largemouth bass)."

"interactions with northern pike and largemouth bass may hinder the presence of self-sustaining walleye populations"

"predation by largemouth bass on stocked walleyes limited walleye survival"

"If high densities of northern pike and largemouth bass are present, the probability of establishing a self-sustaining walleye population may be low and thus walleye stocking, for the purpose of establishing a self-sustaining population, may not be effective."

"Muskellunge and largemouth bass abundances were related to walleye abundances."

It goes on here to say that muskies are positively correlated to walleye abundances while largemouth bass are negatively correlated to walleye abundances.

And some more direct quotes from the study.....

"Because muskellunge abundances were positively correlated to walleye abundances, DIRECT COMPETITION OR PREDATION IS UNLIKELY TO BE OCCURRING BETWEEN THESE TWO SPECIES."

The all caps portion wasn't written this way in the study. I just wrote it this way to emphasize this very important point. This is a well known fact for those that have taken the time to become educated on the issue. But a little known fact for those that simply go by "what they've heard" or by the many myths that are out there when it comes to muskies.

The final statement that I will quote from this study is this one.

"High largemouth bass and northern pike densities often characterized lakes with stocked walleye populations, whereas high walleye and muskellunge densities often characterized lakes with self-sustaining walleye populations."

There's plenty of factual information out there that shows that muskies will not harm fisheries. On the contrary, if they are in lakes with diverse fish communities and adequate forage, they can and do benefit most lakes.

It's interesting to me that two of the lakes in MN that are mentioned most often in terms of lakes that have been hurt by muskies being introduced are actually two of the lakes that I think of when I think of success stories in helping to improve fisheries. Lake Alexander and Miltona are the two that I'm thinking of. Both were excellent lakes prior to muskies being introduced. And both lakes today are better than they've ever been. DNR studies have shown this. And just as important, those that are most familiar with these lakes will also share this opinion based on their own personal fishing experiences over the past 20 to 30 years. Some of these individuals fish for muskies, so their opinion is seen as biased by some. But just as many of these people never fish for muskies, but also share the opinion that these fisheries have improved.

I spoke with Al Lindner about Lake Alexander about a month ago. Al is obviously a well respected individual for his fishing knowledge. Al's opinion on Lake Alexander, to quote, is that "it's better than it's ever been".

Education can go a long way. Unfortunately, the uneducated make it very difficult to educate the masses. But hopefully with the more factual information that's presented, the uneducated times can change.

Aaron


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

why are 90 percent of the best ski lakes in sota also awesome walleye lakes then? Mille lacs (small largemouth pop.) leech, vermillion, LOTW.. I hate it when ignorant people effect musky stocking negatively this way.

That being said when i buy a new bait to try i usually get the walleye color first..


----------



## AWH (May 5, 2006)

USAlx50 said:


> why are 90 percent of the best ski lakes in sota also awesome walleye lakes then?


This is exactly why it blows my mind that anyone could ever claim that muskies are hurting "their" walleye lakes. I've never seen evidence of this happening, ever. The sad part is that they actually believe that. It's as if they are completely ignorant of the obvious. But the only thing we can do is to continue to educate based on factual information.

Aaron


----------

