Great Lakes Muskellunge

Jim tenHaaf · Post by **Jim tenHaaf** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:39 pm

Not a really big lake by any means at only 350 acres. We should be sure to note the already unsatisfied people who fish there so in 15 yrs they can't blame it on the muskies. http://www.fishingworks.com/lakes/michi ... bear-lake/

LonLB · Post by **LonLB** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:14 pm

I thought that I had heard, or read that years ago Northern strain fish were being stocked in the Indian river. What I remember was that they stopped because the fish were heading to Lake Huron, and leaving the system. Not staying in the river, and Burt/Mullet/Black lakes.

I hope that these fish that are stocked into lake connected to Lake Michigan, don't just leave the lakes, and enter Lake Michigan.

Does this sound like a reasonable concern?

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:33 pm

LonLB wrote:I thought that I had heard, or read that years ago Northern strain fish were being stocked in the Indian river. What I remember was that they stopped because the fish were heading to Lake Huron, and leaving the system. Not staying in the river, and Burt/Mullet/Black lakes.

I hope that these fish that are stocked into lake connected to Lake Michigan, don't just leave the lakes, and enter Lake Michigan.

Does this sound like a reasonable concern?

There were some fish we got from Wisconsin stocked in the inland waterway but they were GL.

Yes, many of these waters on the radar for the future will lose fish to Lake Michigan or Huron for sure. That really goes in hand with a restoration project like this. Consider the fishery created in Green Bay, most fish stay nearby some leave and never come back. Then again maybe they find their way to another suitable location and find a parntner the following spring... voila... restoration reaching new water.

pikerule2 · Post by **pikerule2** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:47 pm

Please forgive this ignorant and selfish question but for those who have caught plenty of both, would you say they are essentially the same in habits, difficulty to catch, etc.? I've had very little experience with the GLS and was hoping that they weren't even tougher than the Northern Strain, but either way I do still like the shift to what would be a more natural part of our waters. Thanks.

Steve S · Post by **Steve S** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:16 pm

Let's say things are up and running to produce GLS muskies. Say they are going to put some in the Antrim Chain. Do they put these fry close to the areas where John M. said the muskies spawn or is it the closest boat launch and you kids are on your own!

Jim tenHaaf · Post by **Jim tenHaaf** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:35 pm

pikerule2 wrote:Please forgive this ignorant and selfish question but for those who have caught plenty of both, would you say they are essentially the same in habits, difficulty to catch, etc.? I've had very little experience with the GLS and was hoping that they weren't even tougher than the Northern Strain, but either way I do still like the shift to what would be a more natural part of our waters. Thanks.

Joe, there was an article in Musky Hunter back in 2008 written by Steve Gensen on a lot of the differences that he has observed fishing both Wisconsin and Minnesota waters. There were some differences like the GLS are pack feeders, and there are more intense feeding windows, whereas the barred were more likely to bite at any time throughout the day. Also, the GLS seemed to be more wandering. I still have the mag and can make copies if you are interested in reading it.

LonLB · Post by **LonLB** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:56 pm

Jim tenHaaf wrote:
pikerule2 wrote:Please forgive this ignorant and selfish question but for those who have caught plenty of both, would you say they are essentially the same in habits, difficulty to catch, etc.? I've had very little experience with the GLS and was hoping that they weren't even tougher than the Northern Strain, but either way I do still like the shift to what would be a more natural part of our waters. Thanks.
Joe, there was an article in Musky Hunter back in 2008 written by Steve Gensen on a lot of the differences that he has observed fishing both Wisconsin and Minnesota waters. There were some differences like the GLS are pack feeders, and there are more intense feeding windows, whereas the barred were more likely to bite at any time throughout the day. Also, the GLS seemed to be more wandering. I still have the mag and can make copies if you are interested in reading it.

I would like to see that article.

kid coulson · Post by **kid coulson** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:21 pm

So how will this affect the smaller inland lakes? Will these lakes get switched over to GLS or will they fade away?

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:23 pm

kid coulson wrote:So how will this affect the smaller inland lakes? Will these lakes get switched over to GLS or will they fade away?

Depends on the lake. Some of the N. Strain lakes were on their way out anyway so this will likely end those prematurely.

kid coulson · Post by **kid coulson** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:29 pm

Are they worried at all about NS and GLS cross-breeding together throughout the Thornapple river. Reproduction seems to be zreo in the lake but who really knows throughout the river?

Steve S · Post by **Steve S** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:41 pm

Would Hudson be switched over to a GLS?

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:43 pm

kid coulson wrote:Are they worried at all about NS and GLS cross-breeding together throughout the Thornapple river. Reproduction seems to be zreo in the lake but who really knows throughout the river?

The NS don't belong there so hopefully they'll be replaced over time by the GL.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:44 pm

Steve S wrote:Would Hudson be switched over to a GLS?

Hudson could get them eventually if it is decided that the GL will be the only strain reared here. That hasn't been decided and it's possible that some NS will be reared in another hatchery eventually.

Steve S · Post by **Steve S** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:13 pm

Have they ever crossed a NS & GLS to see what would happen? Bigger gene pool.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:14 pm

Steve S wrote:Have they ever crossed a NS & GLS to see what would happen? Bigger gene pool.

I'm not aware of that ever being done on purpose. There are some areas around the state where they're together but that was a mistake. When crossing strains generally the purpose is to get a faster growing fish and/or one that is adaptable to a variety of water. With the goal to rebuild/enhance self sustaining fisheries around the state it's best to select the strain based on their spawning site selection habits. In many of our waters, even where NS have been stocked the GL seem to be a better fit. Once again though, this is the strain that belongs in the LP and most of the UP waters and not the NS.

The planned genetic testing will answer lots of questions. Let's keep our fingers crossed on the money!!