# ND needs more muskies



## boondocks

I think North Dakota musky anglers need to ban together and either call or send a letter to the ND game and fish about stocking more muskies in new johns lake.I have done both.Especially after seeing that picture of the new state record.Then the very next year a 35lber was taken fron the system.And I have heard of numerous monster fish being taken out of that lake from very very reliable resources.I think the lake has unbelievable potential if it was just managed right.The G&F just needs help realizing that not every one in north dakota wants to fish for just walleye.They manage Nelson lake for bass,Fish Creek for trout.Why not New Johns for walleye and musky.I think they do an excellent job and all,but why not make it even better.Practice C&R LONG LIVE THE MUSKY


----------



## Invector

The biggest prob with that lake is the size. You cannot keep putting those fish in there and hope the population takes off. For musky tigers and pike to get big they need to have the food, space, and ability to get that size. I have fished that lake for many years targeting musky pike and tigers and have nabbed some nice fish. They do need to keep a healty put of those fish in that lake. But the factors I have mentioned above makes it a bit hard. IF you look at the system that new johns is you will quickly figure out that these fish can be anyplace in that cannel. With the lock that is on new johns there is very little ability to take a boat and go down stream. Also any veterin musky angler will tell you that these fish target areas for some reason or another. I have found that there are spots on almost all these lakes that the fish use time and time again. But there is a lot of area that they do not use. If you know the story behind the new record you will know that the guy got about as lucky as you can get. Not know anything about the lake the guy just sort of started trolling over deep water in the middle of the lake. Lucky if you ask me...lucky to the point of uke: with luck...I'm not trying to bash him but it is more luck then anything that got that fish and I am sort of happy that he did get the fish (though beign a musky nut I am ****** cause I wanted that fish). The other prob is ND goes out of state to get their fish. Mainly to PA to get their pure and hybrid musky. I think that if the G&F would expand their hatcheries and target those fish they would cut a bit of cost down in the long run. But the biggest thing about musky in ND is that they are an unwanted fish. Walleye, perch, and crappy are the biggest targeted fish right now with bass (large and small mouth) and pike being a close second. We just dont have the lakes around here that could produce a viable, catchable numbers of musky like in other states. I do feel that the G&F have looked at this and that is why they put 800k tigers into devils lake. But it will be 2 or more years before they get to any size and they will have to keep putting them into the lake to get a popultion stable enough to be fishable. When it comes down to it we just dont have the lakes to hold both pike and musky...only one can survive and that is the pike. Its not IMHO, its nature...pike hatch first and feed on musky after they hatch. Pike eggs stick musky dont. They need to find a lake that is able to hold musky, have no pike, have tons of feed, and have the water/habbitat musky need. I would love to see more musky in the state...but we just dont have much of a chance.


----------



## Madison

I agree but dont agree on size of the lake being to small. I have fished a few lakes (50-600 acres) comparable to NJL in size, structure, depth, etc. and are able to sustain a very healthy population of muskies and big muskies for that matter... The G&F should start to manage the musky populated lakes a little better.. Start out with minimum size limits on fish that can be taken out..

Most MN lakes have a 40-44" mimimum on a fish caught and some even have a 48" minimum on most metro lakes.. I cant blame the guy for keeping that trophy fish, I am just hoping that it went on his wall and not in the garden for fertilizer or still sitting in some deep freeze..

I have been strictly fishing muskies for 13 years now (just moved from MN) and I would be more than happy to help out any fellow musky fisherman. Heck I would even help out in starting a muskies Inc. in the western part of the state if there were enough interested parties...

Frist step is educating folks on CPR and the habits/nature of a muskie if we want to sustain a healthy population of skees in ND waters..


----------



## boondocks

Granted NewJohns is not a huge lake.Combined with Hecker,East Park and West Park and the numerous smaller bays all connected by the canal the system as a whole is pretty decent sized.It has plenty size to produce a healthy population of musky.And nice ones at that.I don't think the size of the lake is the issue.It would be to start managing the lake more for musky.Its all in the managment.There are a ton of very small lakes in Wisconsin that every year produce huge skis.And the reproduction cycles of musky and pike really is of little importance since all the musky in the lake are stocked to begin with.As for forage New Johns has a huge population of carp,crappie,perch and numerous other fish.Every year the G&F stock tens of thousands of pike and walleye in this system while stocking a minimal amount of musky.All they would have to do is stock a few less walleye and pike and pay more attention to the muskies.As far as being an unwanted fish if there were more around more people would target them,thus gaining popularity.All it would take is one 40 incher and they would be hooked.PRACTICE CATCH AND RELEASE


----------



## boondocks

Don't get me wrong I love fishing for pike and walleye,I would love to see more opportunities in this state to catch these awsome fish.I think a lot of people would agree.


----------



## Madison

boondocks said:


> And the reproduction cycles of musky and pike really is of little importance since all the musky in the lake are stocked to begin with.As for forage New Johns has a huge population of carp,crappie,perch and numerous other fish.


Good Points Boondock!!

I didnt get a chance to check out the forage base on this lake before posting, but perch, bullheads, crappies and pike are main food sources for the Esox Mas. family..

Places like mille lacs and other big MN waters the main forage base are the same, crappies, bullheads, suckers, perch, tulibees, ciscoes, rock bass. Muskies are managers of the underwater world and have been known to eat more pike than walleyes.


----------



## boondocks

Madison, I like the MUSKIE INC idea I would join in A heart beat.I just don't think there would be enough people interested.I would love to see it happen though.


----------



## stevepike

You might be surprised at the number of people who would be interested in a Muskies inc. in the western 1/2 the state...

Madison,
Pretty sure there still is a 40" minimum size limit still in effect for all ND.


----------



## Madison

stevepike said:


> You might be surprised at the number of people who would be interested in a Muskies inc. in the western 1/2 the state...
> 
> Madison,
> Pretty sure there still is a 40" minimum size limit still in effect for all ND.


It would be nice to get a number of interested people...

40" minimum is great I didnt know that.. IT should be 55"!! :wink: :lol:


----------



## Invector

Well I will just say that ND G&F can put as many fingerling musky in that lake as they can, but only 10% will survive, is a common rule of thumb when looking at the conservation aspect of a lake. Now NJL has some size yes. But these fish can leave the lake and never return. Leaving the cannel with the population of fish and leave very few in NJ its self. The feed also is a factor on that lake. My self I have not hurd anyone catching crappies on that lake for many years, not since the pike got in. Now more or less perch is the main feed. Lets look at the other lakes around ND that have musky in them. The lake west of Bismark um...??? Sweetbier is it? Anyways...There has been an agressive try to get musky populated in that lake. But almost every year only one is seen. Usually seen by a guy fishing bass or gills. I do belave that a study on those fish in those lakes needs to be done to see what is happening and are the musky in NJ viable or not. You can put 100k fry or fingerlings in a like like NJ and still only have very few that make it to any size. Size limits wont help. They have a 40" i belave now on the lake. But how many people out there can tell a musky form a tiger from a pike. Very few actually can. YOu have to know the fish enough to. Most people cant. Other factors have to be considered when looking at putting musky into a lake. Viability or hybrid? See tigers grow faster can get big, but have a shorter life span. They can be introduced and if they have a negative effect on a lake, dont put anymore in and in a few years they will all die off. I'm big on seeing a study done on these lakes. Or hearing why not.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Invector said:


> Now NJL has some size yes. But these fish can leave the lake and never return. Leaving the cannel with the population of fish and leave very few in NJ its self.


Does anyone have any information as to where and when the first muskies were stocked in the McClusky string of lakes? I noticed a few nice fish in the back of Dakota Country magazine from various lakes FAR down the string.


----------



## Madison

Invector said:


> Well I will just say that ND G&F can put as many fingerling musky in that lake as they can, but only 10% will survive, You can put 100k fry or fingerlings in a like like NJ and still only have very few that make it to any size.
> 
> Size limits wont help.
> 
> See tigers grow faster can get big, but have a shorter life span.


I dont agree with stocking fingerlings either.. Too many predators and easy pickins.. The fish that need to be stocked need to be bigger than a fingerling and more young adult (15-20") class fish before being stocked.

Size limits do help. Its keeps people from taking a 30" muskie with plenty of growth potential and at least 15 years of additional life expectancy out of the lake.

Also if you want to keep a sustainable poplulation of muskies in ND waters Tigers are not the way to go.. Hybrids are steril fish and do not reproduce. I know out in Utah, Tigers is all they catch and have been able to sustain a fishable population of larger fish.. Well how do they keep it sustainable??? CPR and size limits.. ITs working in MN, WI, IA, Indiana and even out west in the mountain areas of Utah..

I would promote the stocking of the Leetch lake strain, WI strain and maybe even its smaller cousin the Shoepac. Leetch lake and WI will provide us musky nuts with all the battle you need I garuntee it!!


----------



## Invector

I dont agree with stocking fingerlings either.. Too many predators and easy pickins.. The fish that need to be stocked need to be bigger than a fingerling and more young adult (15-20") class fish before being stocked. 

Hm...Well there is a prob with that. I have raised musky before for a project at the college I was at. See pike and musky get very poor food convertion rates. They get (as memory serves me) 20:1. Thats for every 20g of food you give them they will gain 1g. The ones I had did a lot better then that. But I was feeding about 30% of their body weight to them every day. I dont know of anyplace that has the ability to do that. It takes alot of $$$$$ to keep feed around. Musky dont take well to pellet types of food. Pellet type feed is cheaper and easier to feed them. Tigers are used because unlike pike and musky they do take to pellet feed. So to grow them 15-20" you'd have to grow minnows then when they get around that 10" range you'd have to start them on somthing like small suckers or chubs. You then have to have a way to get the feed, grow it your self or get it someplace else. This is hard. I had one period with my fish that I could not keep enough feed around for them. I then was able to trap minnows at another location that kept me well in feed. The other thing is keeping the feed alive. I have a mass die off of minnows one night, it took me several days to get the water back to safe levels to keep minnows in. So you can see why that sort of thing does not happen. Its a good idea but the cost would be too much. So because of this and the idea that tigers cannot reproduce, they are put into many lakes around here. I do agree that a closer look has to be done but let me say this one last thing. I was on a leech lake during a Musky Inc. tourniment and you could not fit that many people into the lakes here in ND that have musky. The thing that NJ has going is how long it is. The lakes make a nice chain but most of the lakes are about 2 blocks wide if that. I still say a study needs to be done to look at how the fish are doing and look at raising our own fish here in ND. But remember we like here in ND.


----------



## boondocks

Hustad,the first muskies stocked in the canal was in 1980.Every year that these fish are stocked they distribute the fingerlings through out the canals chain of lakes,putting a percentage of the fingerlings in each of the four lakes according to the lakes size.Madison,I like the 55 inch size limit idea.A minimum size limit on these lakes is a must being the catch and release ethic in this state ain't all that great.

These are the stocking records for the canal from 1980 to 2004 all fingerlings
1980 4,000 pure 1989 5,000 pure 1998 19,204 hybrid
1981 2,502 pure 1992 2,742 pure 1999 1,900 hybrid
1987 6,500 hybrid 1996 8,090 hybrid 2000 1,812 hybrid
1987 1,500 pure 1997 733 hybrid 2002 1,500 hybrid
2004 1,794 hybrid

Notice the trend in the last 10 years.They turned to stalking all hybrids.This concerned me a tad.I hit on this subject in the letter I wrote to the G&F mentioned in my first post.They replied that they also were impressed with the size the pure strains were reaching and went on to say that possibly by 2006 they will again stock the pure strain skies.I think the G&F just needs to see that some interest has been taken in these fish.In that way maybe they will focus there attention on them a little more.


----------



## Madison

Invector said:


> I dont agree with stocking fingerlings either.. Too many predators and easy pickins.. The fish that need to be stocked need to be bigger than a fingerling and more young adult (15-20") class fish before being stocked.
> 
> But I was feeding about 30% of their body weight to them every day. I dont know of anyplace that has the ability to do that. It takes alot of $$$$$ to keep feed around.
> 
> So to grow them 15-20" you'd have to grow minnows then when they get around that 10" range you'd have to start them on somthing like small suckers or chubs.
> 
> You then have to have a way to get the feed, grow it your self or get it someplace else. This is hard.
> 
> So you can see why that sort of thing does not happen. Its a good idea but the cost would be too much.
> 
> I was on a leech lake during a Musky Inc. tourniment and you could not fit that many people into the lakes here in ND that have musky. .


15-20" stocking fish is VERY possible and does happen... Take a look at MN Musky Farms who specialize in stocking bodies of water throughout the country.. Growing fish in a simple aquarium is difficult when trying to raise wild fish.. You cannot provide the care and space needed in your dorm room.. MN Musky farms will raise and stock the fish for you. COming up with the funds to do it is the other task. But that is what starting organizations like Muskies INc. to help raise dollars and get stockable fish into the systems through the use of organizations like MN musky farms..

You also talked about bodies of water supporting tournaments..This topic has nothing to do with starting tournaments. I would never promote such a thing as a tourney on a lake like NJ.. I have fished a lot of tournaments in MN and have fished in 4 different states exclusively for muskies. Trust me there are some pretty small bodies of water out there that contain trophy fish that have been introduced into the lakes through stocking programs as stated above..

Check it out.. www.minnesotamuskiefarm.com


----------



## tlowes

I would love to be able to fish muskies in North Dakota. How about some place in the east also. Ashtabula has enough bullheads to feed the loch ness monster. and from what I can tell the pike population isn't as strong as it once was so the lake could support another top line predator. As far as size of the lake, I fish some lakes in Minnesota that are less than 700 acres that have great muskie fishing. Here's 1 vote for stocking Ashtabula with Leech Lake strain muskies!!!!


----------



## Madison

tlowes said:


> Here's 1 vote for stocking Ashtabula with Leech Lake strain muskies!!!!


RIght on Man!

It looks like ther are more and more ND Esox anglers than I thought.. GOod to see.

:lol:


----------



## Invector

tlowes said:


> I would love to be able to fish muskies in North Dakota. How about some place in the east also. Ashtabula has enough bullheads to feed the loch ness monster. and from what I can tell the pike population isn't as strong as it once was so the lake could support another top line predator. As far as size of the lake, I fish some lakes in Minnesota that are less than 700 acres that have great muskie fishing. Here's 1 vote for stocking Ashtabula with Leech Lake strain muskies!!!!


Actually they put musky in Ash. And a report I hurd was that is now the place they are looking to collect eggs from pike because of the number of big fish there.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

I don't believe Ashtabula has enough cold water habitat in the summertime to insure a large muskie population. The maximum depth of the lake is only about 40 feet and that is near the dam itself. The average depth is probably less then 15 feet.

I'm no expert on muskies, but I think they need access to deep cool water during the warmer summer months, even more so than pike. Seems like the Corp likes to drop the lake down so much in the winter that there is hardly any water left in the upper parts of the lake. Also Ashtabula's water quality is not too great in the summer.

Tigers were stocked in Ashtabula many years ago, but I don't think too many survived. I agree it would be nice to have a few in there, just not sure if it is biologically feasable.


----------



## Madison

HUNTNFISHND said:


> Tigers were stocked in Ashtabula many years ago, but I don't think too many survived. I agree it would be nice to have a few in there, just not sure if it is biologically feasable.


Muskies can live in very warm water. I've caught muskies in water in the 78 degree range. One of the most important things in handling a muskie in water that warm is ensure you leave it in the water when taking the hooks out and get to the boat as fast as possible. A wore out fish in warm water has a good chance the fish will not survive.

As far as water depth in Ash to be able to sustain a population of skees is a good question. The only thing that I can compare to is Red Lake in MN. That lake is no deeper than 14ft all the way around and has been able to sustain a pretty good population of pike.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Madison,

Interesting. I am sure you know alot more than I on this subject.

Do you think pure muskies would do well in Ashtabula? What do muskies need for good spawning habitat, same as pike or different?


----------



## Madison

HUNTNFISHND said:


> What do muskies need for good spawning habitat, same as pike or different?


Actually muskies and pike spawning grounds are similar. Studies have shown that muskies and pike spawn in shallow areas but pike will use the shallow weeds and attach the eggs, where muskies tend to lay the eggs right on the lake floor in order to prevent the newly hatched pike from eating the muskie fry. muskies usually move in to spawn about 2 weeks after the pike have already spawned.


----------



## Invector

Big pike are considered cold water fish. Musky like the 70 degree range best. Musky move shallow after feeding to speed up digestion. Pike move deep to slow digestion. Yes you guys got it right on the spawning but pike eggs are covered with a stickyness that allows them to attach with almost anything. Musky eggs just dont have the same stickyness to them and often get covered while on the bottom. They both look for new weed growth or flooded grass. In Leech Lake MN they say that an area that musky do spawn in is being destroyed by a resort building on it. See musky dont always spawn in the same place pike do. Pike can almost spawn in anything, but musky are a bit more choosie when it comes to spawning. I do think musky would do OK in Ash. Plenty of white bass and other small things to eat in there.


----------



## Vandy

Madison said:


> muskies usually move in to spawn about 2 weeks after the pike have already spawned.


That is why in Mn there is a delay to open the Musky season compaired to the traditional opener.

I would love to see ski's stocked with significance in Devils Lake. IMO if the water were to stay high for another 2 decades there could easily be a New world record out of there. The lake has great structure, lots of food, and would be a good fit to grow big fish. I know fish have been stocked in the past but I am not sure that it has been done for some time.

mad dog we gotta got out and rip some water this summer. I can hear my Loomis pouting  in the laundry room b/c I didnt get her a fish last summer.


----------



## Madison

Vandy said:


> Madison said:
> 
> 
> 
> muskies usually move in to spawn about 2 weeks after the pike have already spawned.
> 
> 
> 
> mad dog we gotta got out and rip some water this summer. I can hear my Loomis pouting  in the laundry room b/c I didnt get her a fish last summer.
Click to expand...

Definatley Vandy!! :beer:

Come June its on like donkey kong!!


----------



## njsimonson

Ashtabula would be a good place for muskies. There's always water coming in and running out, and there are tons of weedy bays, creeks and headwaters. Not a bad idea guys. I know I'd like it!


----------



## Madison

njsimonson said:


> Ashtabula would be a good place for muskies. There's always water coming in and running out, and there are tons of weedy bays, creeks and headwaters. Not a bad idea guys. I know I'd like it!


I dont know enough about ND waters yet. But if we can get enough interested people lets try to get this lake stocked with some skees.. I know its a far out idea right now but who knows what the future may bring if we can get enough people to raise the issue..

Anyone know how to get something like this started and cooperate with the G&F??


----------



## Invector

njsimonson said:


> Ashtabula would be a good place for muskies. There's always water coming in and running out, and there are tons of weedy bays, creeks and headwaters. Not a bad idea guys. I know I'd like it!


You guys do know that they had put musky in ash at one time. Off the top of my head I dont remember if they were pure or not.


----------



## tlowes

I e-mailed game and fish about stocking muskies in Ashtabula and received a response. It was a lengthy response so I'll try to paraphrase (apologies to game and fish if I'm not totally accurate). Water quality is a concern in Ashtabula as well as whether it would be feasible to get a fishable population and if that ever happened ,would there be suitable spawning sites. It sounded like there are quite a few strikes against it being successful. I mentioned this site and the guy who responded said he had read the posts. I'd like to thank him for taking the time to respond.


----------



## Madison

tlowes said:


> I mentioned this site and the guy who responded said he had read the posts. I'd like to thank him for taking the time to respond.


Thanks for getting that out.. Being he even acknowledged this site and read the posts is the first step in at least getting the word out that there are interested muskie fanatics out there.

WOuld it be possible for you to forward the messsage to me?? YOu can mail it to [email protected]

thanks


----------



## boondocks

Send a letter.E-mail or a phone call,anything to the ND Game & Fish just to let them know people in the state are very interested in catching these fish.Maybe even stress the importance of restricted size limits(40 inch is the current size limit,48 would be even better).Every little bit will help.The more they hear the word Musky the more attention that will be paid to these fish.MY FUTURE SO BRIGHT I GOTTA WEAR SHADES said the musky.


----------



## Invector

I will say again that I would love to see more of these fish in ND. The biggest problem I see though is people. I can remember my father telling me about when they started and then stoped putting musky in Speritwood. The biggest problem there was the cabin owners did not want to see a fish put in the lake that can and does feed on anything. I have hurd other stories/rumers in MN and even CO about musky. In Colorado there was a big stink about how they would eat all the trout and salmon in those waters. Not knowing it though these fish were put in lakes that had a large population of small pike. Speritwood I know had a huge deal because of the fact musky would, in theory, cut the populations of other fish down. If more musky would be planed to be put in ND lakes, well land owners and other people that use those lakes heavily would have to be talked into letting it happen. I think this would be a huge obstical to overcome.


----------



## Madison

Invector said:


> I think this would be a huge obstical to overcome.


Well we finally agreed on something Invector :lol: :lol:

Anyways. Yes this is correct. I have been dealing with Anti-musky folks for a long time.. If we propose stocking ND lakes with muskies get ready for some pushback from walleye, perch, trout, etc. etc. fisherman.

I know of many lakes where the MNDNR decided to stock lakes with muskies and then sat back and listened to all the complaining. I have yet to see a decline in "bait" fish in these stocked lakes. My hometown we still catch huge amounts sunnies, crappies, perch and some walleye still. Heck I have seen more larger walleyes in my hometown lake than I ever have also since introducing muskies. caught a 26" and 28"er on 8" musky baits

A few years ago a study was done in WI on diets of muskies. There were over a 1000 muskies captured ranging in size from nine inches to 46 inches. There stomachs were flushed and size of consumed food items were noted, yellow perch and white sucker were, by far, the most important fish species consumed by muskies. Only five walleye were found in the 1,092 muskie stomachs examined.

Also, If anyone tells you that muskies dont eat Bullheads that person is WRONG! and needs to contact reputable muskie biologists from MN and WI. Try Dave Neuswanger (WIDNR) and Rod Ramsell (MNDNR) These two guys are the best when it comes to state biologists on muskie fisheries..


----------



## boondocks

Invector wrote that the problem is the people worried that the muskies are eating all the walleyes.Very true.No matter where you go I'm sure your going to run into that problem.There are always going to be a few walleye fisherman out there worried about muskies eating all there walleyes.Muskies ain't no bigger threat to the walleyes than the pike are.And besides the whole state of North Dakota has tons of lakes filled with walleye and pike.Managing 2 or 3 lakes specifically for muskies isn't to much to ask.If any thing it will make the states fishery that much better in providing a new opportunity at an awsome fish.I really don't see anything negative about introducing musky into a few lakes.The Game and Fish Dept. has to look past the selfish people that only want the fish they fish for to be stocked in all the lakes in the states.In New Johns with its limited size and forage base, the muskies are doing fine and getting big,although it would be nice to see more in there.And so are the walleyes.I personally have caught some dandy walleye while musky fishing with 8inch cranks.The walleye are doing just fine despite the musky in this lake. :wink:


----------



## Invector

The only bad thing though about NJ and other lakes here is still their size. Its easier to manage for musky with more water the better thought. I know there are tons of lakes out there that could support them. But a small lake wont grow the numbers like a bigger lake will. Take some of the small gill lakes around here and there just is not enough habitat to support many fish...yes though few fish in there would be huge but there has to be a (rule of thumb) a number for the population to be considerd viable. Viable in the world of ecology is a #, depends on area and species but 5k is commonly used, that shows the population can sustain growth ie birth rates are greater then death rates. For musky you got that strike right there since birth rates are low to start. I'm still keen on the idea that we need to look at getting studies doen on the lakes. Finding out the populations of the other fish in the lake then looking at the amount of habitat and the number of fish in that habitat to determin which lakes would be best to put skies in. Since Tigers are a bit more agressive than skies and the populaiton can be managed for viable or non viable much easier then pure can that is also why tigers are put in more often then pure...but a look at when and where and can it work need to be looked at.


----------



## Madison

Invector said:


> But a small lake wont grow the numbers like a bigger lake will. Take some of the small gill lakes around here and there just is not enough habitat to support many fish...yes though few fish in there would be huge but there has to be a (rule of thumb) a number for the population to be considerd viable..


A perfect example of a small lake producing trophy class fish is Lake Webster in Indiana.. This lake is one of the smallest lakes I have ever fished and has very good population of skees. The lake is maybe 600 acres at the most.. The water gets up to 80 degrees in the summer and still manages to sustain a healthy populations. I dont think there is much for reproduction all fish in that lake are managed through stocking programs.. Just like in MN there is more stocking than natural reproduction in most lakes..


----------



## waterwolf

> A perfect example of a small lake producing trophy class fish is Lake Webster in Indiana.. This lake is one of the smallest lakes I have ever fished and has very good population of skees. The lake is maybe 600 acres at the most.. The water gets up to 80 degrees in the summer and still manages to sustain a healthy populations. I dont think there is much for reproduction all fish in that lake are managed through stocking programs.. Just like in MN there is more stocking than natural reproduction in most lakes..


I agree totally Madison. There are many lakes within 60 miles of central Minnesota that have great Musky populations.

A handful of these lakes are under 200 acres. I do think most of these were used to raise them, and for whatever reason, they have moved there stocking efforts to other bodies of water and now the musky they did not remove are doing fine.

Musky's Inc. is a great organization, and would some great ideas on how you can achieve your goal.


----------



## Madison

boondocks said:


> the muskies are doing fine and getting big,although it would be nice to see more in there.


We may have to take things into our own hands Boondock :wink: :wink:

I'm Kidding. But we definatley need to stock more muskies in ND musky waters in order to maintain a fishable populations..

Leetch lake strains are a tough strain of fish (they survive well in MN polluted waters) they should be able to do just fine out here..

Waterwolf-

thanks for backing me up on the small waters examples, small water doesnt always equal small fish..

keep it reeeel


----------



## tlowes

Some thoughts on small Minnesota muskie waters. Little Wolf Lake 490 acres max depth 24 feet, most less than 20 feet. Elk Lake 271 Acres, Mann Lake 445 acres and Baby Lake 750 acres. All with quality Muskie populations. The lakes don't have to be big to produce big fish. You do need a forage base, but what I think North Dakota really needs is the WILL to have a successful muskie program. If you look at the stocking reports for the above lakes, some aren't stocked and some get between 200-300 fingerlings a year. I'd like to see game and fish identify some waters across the state and look into which ones might have a chance at being successes. Put a minimum 48 inch limit, educate people, then start stocking !!!


----------



## Madison

tlowes said:


> Some thoughts on small Minnesota muskie waters. Little Wolf Lake 490 acres max depth 24 feet, most less than 20 feet. Elk Lake 271 Acres, Mann Lake 445 acres and Baby Lake 750 acres. All with quality Muskie populations. The lakes don't have to be big to produce big fish. You do need a forage base, but what I think North Dakota really needs is the WILL to have a successful muskie program. If you look at the stocking reports for the above lakes, some aren't stocked and some get between 200-300 fingerlings a year. I'd like to see game and fish identify some waters across the state and look into which ones might have a chance at being successes. Put a minimum 48 inch limit, educate people, then start stocking !!!


Right on Lowes!! I have fished all but one of the above mentioned and these are SMALL lakes with healthy populations of muskies..

hmmmm. sounds kinda like we need a muskies inc. chapter on the west side of the state..  I know the fargo/moorhead area already does..


----------



## njsimonson

> Put a minimum 48 inch limit


We already have a state-wide 40" limit, is that not enough? I saw my first 40"+ muskie, and that looked like a trophy to me, but is that now relatively small in comparison to what we're seeing at this time?

I wouldn't ever keep one anyhow...they taste like crap. :wink:


----------



## Madison

njsimonson said:


> Put a minimum 48 inch limit
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a state-wide 40" limit, is that not enough? I saw my first 40"+ muskie, and that looked like a trophy to me, but is that now relatively small in comparison to what we're seeing at this time?
> :wink:
Click to expand...

Actually 40" is kinda small in the muskie world Nick.. Most tournaments only 40" and above can be registered.. Most metro lakes in MN are 48" minimums and its proving to work there are a lot of 50" class fish caught in MN every year.

Anything over 45"+ is a good fish.. 50"+ is a trophy 

Hawg Hunters!!


----------



## boondocks

I'd love to see a 48" minimum size limit in the state.Besides 99% of the people fishing for muskies are fishing for a trophy, and the 1% percent that isn't is probably starving to death if their trying to catch one to eat.They would be better off fishing for pike if they're hungry.So the bigger the better.That way everything under 48 inch would have to be released enabling them to reach their maximun size.


----------



## tlowes

I'd like the 48 inch size limit to enable the fish to grow to trophy size. Anybody who fishes for Muskie knows how rare these fish are. Every time I catch a muskie I consider it a good fish whether it's 33 inches or 48. I think almost all muskie fisherman release almost all their fish. Now days I'd like to see people who catch tophies get a fiberglass replica and let the fish go, but that is a personal choice. Why I like the size limit is because a lot of big muskies are caught by people not fishing for them. They see a large fish and keep it. You see pictures of these fish all the time at bait shops. With the size limit maybe more of these fish would be released and someone else could also have the thrill of a lifetime. My advice, never fish without a camera. You never know when the big one will hit!!


----------



## Madison

tlowes said:


> I think almost all muskie fisherman release almost all their fish. !


I know a lot of skee fisherman and I garuntee all fish are realeased. There have been polls on other sites where the question of "what if you caught the next world record skee, would you keep it??" MAjority of skee fisherman said "let it go"

Educating people on this great fish is where I think it needs to start.. People need to realize some of these big fish are 20 years old..


----------



## waterwolf

> There have been polls on other sites where the question of "what if you caught the next world record skee, would you keep it??" MAjority of skee fisherman said "let it go


I guess I would have to think twice if a 60+" landed in my net.

Interesting question though. I guess I would need to weigh it and then make a decision.

Records are made to be broken. :wink:


----------



## Invector

waterwolf said:


> There have been polls on other sites where the question of "what if you caught the next world record skee, would you keep it??" MAjority of skee fisherman said "let it go
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I would have to think twice if a 60+" landed in my net.
> 
> Interesting question though. I guess I would need to weigh it and then make a decision.
> 
> Records are made to be broken. :wink:
Click to expand...

Did you think of the fact that musky due to their anatomy would die and you would end up with a fish that is not a record? Yes it would be hard to put a 60 inch fish back...but it has happend to the musky nuts I know in the METRO lakes with fish dieing on them. My biggest musky had the girth of a 50 inch fish but was in the 40 inch class (45x22) This came out to be a 27lb fish on the musky hunter web page. Its been years since my first musky. Hek I have even done somthing most of the PROs have not done. gotten a back to back musky. That is one cast with a fish then casting agian with another. One of the big guys form musky hunter told me one time that it took him many years to get that. YES I am lucky, so lucky I stink like a musky (love that smell). But this fish is has the make-up as a flower. Very gently does that great beast need to be handled and with great effort does she need to be put back in. I am not saying that a 60 class musky would be tempting but then again unless she was a Louis Spray class fish I think she would be put back. THERE in my eyes should be no musky kept unless proper steps are taken. Those steps are to be sugested to higher personel. Its just these fish are a find of a life time. They should be left to those who know and thoes who know let them grow.


----------



## Madison

Invector said:


> Yes it would be hard to put a 60 inch fish back...but it has happend to the musky nuts I know in the METRO lakes with fish dieing on them.
> 
> I am not saying that a 60 class musky would be tempting but then again unless she was a Louis Spray class fish I think she would be put back.


A lot of the fish that die in the metro are due to catching them during the wrong time of the year and using kill baits like spring dawgs.. Wrong times of the year, I mean when the water is reaching the 75-80+ degreee mark and not getting the fish to the boat right away and getting a quick release. I too fish during these times of the year but no fish comes into the boat. All shaken off boat side..

What the latest on the Luois Spray fish? DId that record ever get appealed??


----------



## Invector

Madison said:


> What the latest on the Luois Spray fish? DId that record ever get appealed??


I have not hurd anything for a while about that fish. Some groups like the freshwater hall of fame done have him down but have down a 67lbs fish that had was better documented when it was recorded and varified.

I'll have to do some poking around on 2 other sights to find out what I can about it.


----------

