Great Time !!!

[NSTAGATOR]

Great time at the sanford shootout.What a bunch of first class guys and gals that make me feel proud to be apart of such a wonderful group !! Wish I wouldn`t have missed that fish on the believer in the last hour...oh well...don`t think it was 46 to take first place anyway....lol...might have taken second..RATSSSSSS....

Going to make it a annual thing and i would like to fish it once or twice a year also.......very cool lake.....

Dave 8)

[MuskyPimp]

I second DU's comments, great jobs Scott, Bomba and everyone else who helped put the shoot-out together! Tough fishing but a good time anyway.
Congrats to those who did catch fish though!

[Will Schultz]

No kidding, great job.

That lake is something special and I wish I lived closer. You would think from all the complaining I hear the lake would be terrible. Once again, it showed me a good day though we didn't boat a fish.

I'll trade the west side puddles, including Thornapple for Sanford any day.

[Scrappy]

Bomba did most of the heavy lifting and deserves the most thanks. It was a good time. Will, glad to hear you say that. Now please help Pete and I get some more fish from the DNR.

[Will Schultz]

Will, glad to hear you say that. Now please help Pete and I get some more fish from the DNR.

They've already taken care of that at the hatchery. When Sanford comes up on the rotation next year it should be stocked at the max. It was stocked well in 2004 and will be up for stocking again in 2006.

There's not much for us to do except support the DNR and offer assistance when they need it. Our position in the grand scheme now becomes that of educator.

[Scrappy]

I agree that Wolf Lake has made great strides and I'm hopeful for the future but we should give it a few years to see if Wolf Lake can keep up the success rate they have achieved in the last two yerars. Sanford and the other chain lakes up here have never received their full perscriptions (i.e., a full 3,800 fish for three years straight then 3,800 every third year on the rotation). I personally wish the DNR would make good on making up for prior year shortfalls first before adding new lakes to the approved list. I'm certainly all for expanding the musky lakes in Michigan, especially ones with trophy potential, but I fear that the DNR is putting the cart before the horse and should fully stock all the approved lakes up to their allotted perscriptions before any new lakes are added. That's just my two cents but I think that is only fair

[Will Schultz]

I had to take a step back so that I could respond to this without calling anyone something I might regret later...(like something Wisconsin Badger realated) Edited by MODERATOR.

Funny analogy Scrappy... I seem to have read a similar thing in another post about Hamlin being stocked. Maybe the cart isn't really before the horse. When I'm passing an Amish cart on my way home from Indiana the cart is always before the horse. Then again, I'm passing the cart and horse. Maybe that's what we're doing in Michigan with the muskie program, passing the old ways...

Look around the state and tell me how many lakes have been stocked correctly since they were started. Even one of the broodstock lakes hasn't been stocked correctly.

I would like to hear the sound biology behind how stocking Sanford in 2005 would make up for fish that weren't stocked in 2002? There aren't any three year old fish to stock so that doesn't really make much sense - right?

How about some more perspective that is actually a little scary...
There have been over 11,000 fall fingerlings stocked in Sanford in the last ten years. Thornapple, a broodstock lake, has had 6,000 fish stocked. Sure, Sanford is twice the size, however Thornapple has ten times the pressure. If we only look at delayed mortality it's very likely that Sanford has a better poplulation than Thornapple.

I know everyone has their pet lake and frankly I don't care. From the perspective of the president of MMA the muskie program can and must benefit the entire state. In ten years when we look back we'll see 2004 as the beginning of the muskie program in Michigan, 2005 is year two and it's looking really good.

Don't rain on their parade.

[Scrappy]

I certainly don't want to make this personal Will but I am entitled to my opinion. An opinion shared by Pete as well whom I think is one of the people in the club most up on the science.

How about you show me some science about why the DNR would allow northern strain muskies to be stocked in a lake where there may already be a population of great lakes strain fish? Don't you think the DNR's position on not stocking northern starins into lakes with a population of GLS fish would dictate they should do a bit more research about Hamlin's potential native GLS musky population (no matter how small) before allowing 13,000 northern strain fish to be stocked in there? Also, look at the regs on Hamlin lake, my assumption is it is a nuisance pike lake since the pike keep rate is 5 and no size restriction. Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there is a stunted pike problem in Hamlin? Hum, 13,000 little fall muskies being gobbled up by a large stunted pike population. That my friend is some sound fisheries biology for a state that has historically been unable to meet its quota of musky stocks.

As for Thorn, its a brood stock lake that has natural reproduction right? That might be why Thorn doesn't get its full perscription because presumably it can self sustain a musky population. However, to be consistent, I think every lake on the present approved list should get its full perscription of fish before we add new lakes, even lakes far from my home waters.

I'm not raining on any parades despite what you might think. Yes, the musky program has to benefit the entire state which is why the DNR should make good on the promised perscriptions that in the past it has never been able to meet. I hope you are right that 2004 was the year the DNR turned the corner and I hope in two years you can tell me I was wrong. Until then, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Will Schultz]

I certainly don't want to make this personal Will but I am entitled to my opinion. An opinion shared by Pete as well whom I think is one of the people in the club most up on the science.

My concern is that these opinions, while not personal, always seem to be geared toward one particular lake that you live on and Pete lives near.

How about you show me some science about why the DNR would allow northern strain muskies to be stocked in a lake where there may already be a population of great lakes strain fish? Don't you think the DNR's position on not stocking northern starins into lakes with a population of GLS fish would dictate they should do a bit more research about Hamlin's potential native GLS musky population (no matter how small) before allowing 13,000 northern strain fish to be stocked in there?

Esox Masquinongy historically present, Esox Masquinongy being stocked.

Also, look at the regs on Hamlin lake, my assumption is it is a nuisance pike lake since the pike keep rate is 5 and no size restriction. Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps there is a stunted pike problem in Hamlin? Hum, 13,000 little fall muskies being gobbled up by a large stunted pike population. That my friend is some sound fisheries biology for a state that has historically been unable to meet its quota of musky stocks.

Sanford is in the same boat but they're a little ahead of the game on Hamlin. Were the muskies on Sanford wasted also? Seems to me there are a bunch of muskie in Sanford that didn't get chewed up by pike...

As for Thorn, its a brood stock lake that has natural reproduction right? That might be why Thorn doesn't get its full perscription because presumably it can self sustain a musky population.

There is NO natural reproduction in Thornapple.

The bottom line is that we can discuss this until we're blue in the face but it does'nt matter. The reason there are fisheries biologists working at the DNR is so they can make these decisions. It's their job.

IMOP stocking a lake three years in a row, which is current protocol (thankfully not followed), is not the best idea. If each of those year classes does well there would be too many juvenile muskies in a lake. Stocking every other year and in some cases at a level below two or even one fish per acre makes sense. We don't have shad in our lakes and we can't stock muskies like Indiana. I'm of the opinion that one fish or less per acre would be the correct prescription for each lake on an annual basis. Then again my opinion really doesn't matter...

[Pete]

Wow, so this is what happens when 2 stubborn type-A's disagree? Very entertaining! I'll have to make time to get on the site more often if this keeps up.

I think I know Will and Scott well enough to say that I think both are in the same boat (though I'm guessing that, literally speaking, isn't going to happen anytime soon). Both want more stocking-supported, trophy options in our state. Right? I think a lot of the more serious musky nuts would say the same. I mean looking at the stocking reports it sure looks like our little lakes have been pounded, maybe even overstocked in some cases, with fingerlings, while the few biggies have gotten the raw end in the past. There was a time when folks will say that this had to be (although I don't buy it), but this shouldn't be the case anymore.

The big difference as I see it is that Scott has an endless number of hours on Sanford, while Will probably fishes it 2ish days/year. Most (maybe all) who have spent serious time on Sanford, especially if they experienced the fishing from 1999-2002, would consider the lake in need of more aggressive stocking. I should use names here, but let's just say that I've heard the same theme over and over from 11 different area musky nuts. Sanford has big fish, but not very many total fish. That is changing.

Knowing how few and far between muskies are in Sanford, it might seem more reasonable to some, who don't necessarily have their finger on the pulse of Sanford's musky fishery, to hear that those darn locals are bummed when in the biggest "bumper crop" year ever at Wolf Lake, the Titt chain probably gets nothing. The fact of the matter is that the DNR by-and-large sticks to their prioritized list regardless of what angler/survey data says the lakes need. So that stinks, but it's the way things will go until the next Esocid Committee meeting, from what I've heard.

And although we seem to be targetting Sanford here, the same need for more fish can be said for our other developing trophy waters. In fact, my priority listing would be: 1)North Manistique, 2)Margrethe, 3)Chicagon, 4)Sanford and 5)Wixom. I like to fish all over...my proximity to where fish should go simply isn't a factor, especially when we're talking trophy water.

Anyway, just some rambling there....so big picture-wise, I'd like to think we are all on the same page. I just think people tend to get upset when assumptions are made about their home water. For example, given the limited data from my boat and looking through the stocking reports, I once told a fellow MMA member that I thought Campau, Round, Ovid and Murray were getting overstocked because the fish seemed slim-er (not slime-ier!) and the early plants had plateaued more than other stocked waters I had fished. Well, let's just say that's not what he thought!

[Rob Pound]

Oh but opinions are the very issue at hand. How much effort do we really think MIDNR would put into any inland lake musky stocking without opinion-driven anglers pleading to have their favorite lakes stocked? I lived on Sanford from 1991 until 1996 and fished mostly on Budd during this time. Sure I launched across the street and tried to find a musky, but didn't until a few years later. During this same time, I experienced a decline in success on Budd, so I shifted my emphasis to Sanford. By about 1998, I began to find and catch a few and then with improved consistency until 2002. I’ve seen scarcely few since the season of 2002. Whatever the reasons, there are many suggested....spillover, chemical weed treatment, mortality, lack of stocking, dispersion (not where they used to be)...whatever. I just can't catchem' anymore! I have tried to travel elsewhere for my fish, but simply cannot afford the family time it costs. Truth is for me that if Mid-Michigan lakes aren't productive, I won't have the opportunity to spend the time on the water to have any consistency. Gone are my days of marathon outings on the water. I have to take advantage of afternoons, half-days, and the like in order to get any time on them. Time is simply too precious to compete against so many obstacles for "the hard-to-catch Sanford strain". At this point, I don't even think Sanford is a smart choice. (Sorry Pete) I only wish I thought the DNR biologists were studying a scientific approach to improving the musky fishery for our benefit and then executing the plan to get there. But I don’t. Obviously, we possess the right to express our desires for fisheries improvements, and although Will is correct is stating is their job, it is only one focus on a list of many, which competes for resources like everything else. I have worked and lived here since 1988, and have heard much more negative support for a Sanford musky fishery than positive. The vast majority of locals believe the musky is to blame for declining crappie fishing, which they seem to treasure much more. If the musky is to blame for declining panfishing (obviously, being senical), then who are we to blame for declining musky fishing? No one. The ever-changing ecology of this system. For those who haven’t lived here, you might not have the same perspective. Likely though, if you live or lived on an inland lake for at least a few years, you may witness similar changes. Zebra mussels, non-native weed proliferation & subsequent chemical treatment efforts, for example. Moreover, gone seem to be the days of fishing weedbeds with being hassled by PWC operators For these reasons, I am very unsure that our causes are well conceived. I think there is far more that we don’t know about how to implement an improvement strategy than that which we do know. I won’t for a moment to pretend I know what our fisheries biologists do, and in fact I appreciate everything they have done. My biggest concern has always been that I doubt inland lake stocking efforts will ever get the resources needed to make a sustained impact mostly because we have Lake St. Clair as our resource, and more broadly desired gamefish species to manage with their available time. It will always be more politically correct for our biologists to focus on walleye, salmonids and bass than muskies at least for the foreseeable future in Michigan. I just wish they’d make a short list and stick to it.

No offense to the numerous folks who enjoy wherever they fish muskies...I simply knew some much better times on Sanford. Maybe there is a better fit elsewhere which could be established and sustained for us to enjoy within a reasonable drive for many of us. I hope it lies ahead.


Respectfully,

Rob Pound