Cost of muskie production.

MuskyDan · Post by **MuskyDan** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:30 pm

I am going to Murray because it is the closest lake in Michigan to being like Webster!!!

Bomba · Post by **Bomba** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:03 pm

MuskyDan wrote:I am going to Murray

Post by **Will Schultz** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:20 pm

gmochty wrote:Will I disagree! GM

How can I even respond to “Will I disagree! GM”?

What don’t you agree with? That our generation is dominated by people that only want what’s good for them and could care less about what is best for the fishery as a whole? That Sanford and Wixom would be better off without Ross, Secord and Smallwood? That we, as stewards of the resource, should be less concerned about Lake X, Y or Z and more concerned about the big picture?

Are any of those what you don't agree with?

MuskyDan wrote: I thought I started at the begining, maybe I am missing something? Why do the minnow prices vary so much from year to year? I am comparing the total minnow cost to the fish produced and there just seems to be some huge differences. What is the unit of measure that the state buys to feed the fish and what does it cost, and does that price change? And who sorts the minnows for the naturally occuring fish?

The hatchery buys minnows by the pound, the price increases every year. Minnow cost/fish would vary even if the price was stagnant. What if they buy minnows to feed 25,000 fish but the return is only 5,000 fish? It’s going to make the cost per fish look out of whack compared to a return of 15,000 fish – right?

While I appreciate the sarcasm in your question “And who sorts the minnows for the naturally occuring fish?” you need to see it for what it is. In nature you have all kinds of fry and minnows swimming around in a lake/river, while in a closed hatchery environment you only have what is put in. The downside, they need to be able to eat what you give them. The upside is that the hatchery return is 75% and the natural return is .001%.

MuskyDan · Post by **MuskyDan** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:27 pm

I am glad you caught the sarcasm I wasn't sure if you would!!! :D

So why don't we drop the number to 50% but increase the total amount of fish we end up with by saving the money on the fish sorter. If we get 70% and can feed them unsorted minnows wouldn't we be better off fiscally? BTW I am not argueing I am seriously curious as I know this has all been hashed out.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:18 pm

MuskyDan wrote:I am glad you caught the sarcasm I wasn't sure if you would!!! :D

So why don't we drop the number to 50% but increase the total amount of fish we end up with by saving the money on the fish sorter. If we get 70% and can feed them unsorted minnows wouldn't we be better off fiscally? BTW I am not argueing I am seriously curious as I know this has all been hashed out.

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with the percentages, you mean drop the return on muskies to 50%?

They've played with this and the formula they have right now works well, particularly after the cost per fish realized in 2006.
Here's what they do and hopefully this will make more sense:
- In spring, while the muskies are inside the hatchery they seed the ponds with fatheads. This allows the fatheads to spawn a couple times before the muskies go into the ponds in July.
- After the muskies get into the pond they eat everything of appropriate size. Once they've gulped down all the "right size" fatheads they start trying to eat the bigger ones too.
- The hatchery then brings in more fatheads of appropriate size as needed.
- In September and October the muskies are big enough to eat all the fatheads in the pond and they're ready to leave.

If the food supply runs low at any time they start eating each other.

The sorting isn't a huge cost increase to the minnows they purchase. Getting disease free minnows is worth every penny when one "dirty" batch of minnows could wipe out every muskie. They are considering using one of the clean earthen ponds to raise their own fatheads.

gmochty · Post by **gmochty** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:34 pm

Will if you took ross, smallwood, and secord off the stocking list. I think sanford an wixom will still get the same numbers there getting now. I doubt they will all of a sudden start getting a full perscription, that will just leave more fish for another lake like loud pond. Why should we give up on some of the lakes in this chain? Ross has been on the muskie program since maybe 1983. All i'm saying is before we go full steam ahead, let's take care of what we have now. It's easy for some people to say lets look at the big picture, alot of lakes in mich are going to be real good muskie fishing for at least 10 years. not so with the titt chain. If we focus on natural reproduction lakes, why are we stocking ovid bud san bankston round? As far as winyah D Barnard told me it's just another impoundment ( same as sanford). And now we have to compete with loud pond. don't get mad at me but ( same old song an dance). just my 2 cents. I'm sure NICE RESPONSE for me. be nice!!!!

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:44 pm

Wow, a week away and what an explosion to come back to! Cabin fever at a boil, I suspect. I'm printing the whole dang off for some good conference reading...

NSTAGATOR · Post by **NSTAGATOR** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:51 pm

good luck on murray for the opener

tip......it`s usually a turnover lookin mess......

DU

gmochty · Post by **gmochty** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:06 pm

Will ? for ya. Dont take it wrong,but who gave up what for the small little lakes like Bud ovid murray bankston for them to get there full perscription. I'm not calling you out (not). Dont take this wrong but .I think the titt chain sacraficed for those lakes. I know what your going to say (Iowa fish) but we have received iowa fish before not just last year in wixom but in the past in sanford. When is it the titt chains turn. most of these lakes been on the muskie program since the mid 80's or early 90's. Dont get me wrong Ilove going to ovid bud it's awesone. I think the muskie fishing in mich is 100% better than it used to be (thanks to YOU,DNR,PETE L) and the club in general. I know your not going to like my 2 cents. All i want to do is muskie fish. If i have to drive 2 hours to muskie fish than so be it. I dont even know if i should send this. I think my dime is up.

Larry Porter · Post by **Larry Porter** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:45 pm

I think the state is doing a great job trying to scatter the muskie lakes around so that any Michigander can drive 45 minutes or so and have a shot at a muskie.
The SW Michigan lakes have a great advantage in that there are not many northern pike in them to eat the newly stocked muskies. This is a big reason why the muskie populations are good in these lakes.
The Tittabawasee chain has a dandy pike population, which is fun but does cut into the number of muskies that survive their first few months. However, the more scanty population of muskies will result in lower fishing pressure and hence a better chance that some of these fish will get to be pigs.
It is hard to compare the two areas equally, but they both have muskie water. It's kind of like Vilas county where you have numbers lakes, big-fish lakes, brown lakes, and occasional freeze-out puddles to choose from. I don't know if the Titt chain will ever be numbers water, but with luck it will be muskie water nonetheless.

Post by **Will Schultz** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:39 pm

gmochty wrote:Will ? for ya. Dont take it wrong,but who gave up what for the small little lakes like Bud ovid murray bankston for them to get there full perscription. I'm not calling you out (not). Dont take this wrong but .I think the titt chain sacraficed for those lakes. I know what your going to say (Iowa fish) but we have received iowa fish before not just last year in wixom but in the past in sanford. When is it the titt chains turn. most of these lakes been on the muskie program since the mid 80's or early 90's. Dont get me wrong Ilove going to ovid bud it's awesone. I think the muskie fishing in mich is 100% better than it used to be (thanks to YOU,DNR,PETE L) and the club in general. I know your not going to like my 2 cents. All i want to do is muskie fish. If i have to drive 2 hours to muskie fish than so be it. I dont even know if i should send this. I think my dime is up.

As mentioned a hundred times before, the muskie program never got a fair shake until the last five years. Anything we had before that we were just lucky to have. Trying to compare puddles in SW Michigan to the Titt chain is apples to oranges. When is it going to have its turn? When we come to the table with a solution and get a biologist in that area to listen. I feel the idea to reduce or remove Ross, Secord and Smallwood are a step in that direction. As mentioned I've also been pushing for reduced numbers in many other lakes particularly SW lakes. All these things go to helping the premier lakes get fish.

I can see you really want to point your finger and the blame at someone or some thing (SW lakes). So maybe I can help you with that...

The Titt chain didn't sacrifice a thing for the SW lakes. If you look back at the numbers of fish produced there wasn't much to go around and the decision maker chose to stock lakes that could get, at least, the minimum (level 1) number of fish. That left the small lakes of the SW and other small lakes like Budd most years. The thought being "at least we're stocking something right". Remember also that Hudson, Thornapple and Bankson (broodstock lakes) always get fish even if there are only enough to stock those. So, strike one for the larger Titt chain lakes. Years ago was simply low numbers of fish that created poor stocking. Take a look at Thornapple for instance, it has gaps in stocking and that is a broodstock lake!

Strike two...
I'm sure you're aware of the marsh stocking that happened in the Titt chain. If I wanted to point the finger at a single issue, that would be the one. You see, when the person that decides how many fish are going to each lake sees that Sanford already got 1000 fish from a marsh then it automatically gets moved down the list to the point where it will only get fish if all other lakes on the list get their fish first. As much as I commend Don for the marsh project, it was really doing more harm than good.

There's more to it though...
The muskie program isn't managed by one person or even one committee. There are so many people involved, so many that it's like trying to do a crossword puzzle with no clues.
Here are some examples:
- The district biologists write the presecriptions with no real basis for their requests. Some even openly admitting that they know nothing about muskellunge biology/management. Ross is a great example of how easily something can get screwed up. The prescription was written for marsh stocking and got that number of fall fingerlings - twice. Two big chunks of fish that could have gone to Sanford or other lakes.
- The requests are prioritized each year with little if any regard to what happened the year before. In most cases if the district biologist doesn't make sure the lake stays high on the priority list it will get skipped until its next rotation.
- The person making the final decision on where fish go only has the requests from the district biologists. If a lake comes up and he can't even meet the level one number the lake gets skipped for other lakes that can get their level 2. This is where you would see lakes like Sanford or Wixom skipped to stock two or three small lakes at their level 2+.

So, as much as I know you want to make this an east vs. west thing it simply isn't. There's no one place or person to point the finger.

Pete and I had a sit down a few years ago before the Esocid committee was started again. One of the things we presented that got shot down was to place a priority on a certain number of lakes and only if those priority one lakes got their fish would/should lakes like Campau, Budd, Osterhout, Long, Round, Ross, Secord, Smallwood, etc. ever get fish.

I still feel this is the way the program needs to progress. The lakes that should have natural reproduction like Winyah, Hamlin, Margrethe, etc. only have one prescription written right now and in my opinion that is a problem. They should start on a rotation of supplemental stocking eventually.

Maybe its time again to schedule a special meeting so all this can be discussed. Could we, once and for all, clear the air on the subject of stocking. The problem isn't one region or another, the problem is that feelings are getting in the way of actually understanding the facts of the program. The speculation, finger pointing, blaming just ends up making people divided and right now there's nothing more important than being united.

NSTAGATOR · Post by **NSTAGATOR** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:34 am

Not trying to scratch your back on this.....but....that was probably one of your best posts/things(your last post)you`ve ever written/said.Think that about covers it east vs.west :? I try and stay out of these discussions for the most part :lol: Larry made a good point about the lack of pike in the SW michigan waters.Pull out a map..look what`s to the east.A lot of flowages/impoundments etc..Maybe there are some other lakes in that region that offer some different water situations.ie..lack of pike,500-1000 acre clearer lakes,etc..But that would be a tough nut to crack with the committee as they would be lakes that NEVER had muskies in the past??Who knows...As far as creating NEW lakes.I think they are still going with the formulas of what lakes had muskies(tigers)in the 70`s & 80~s.hamlin,marg,budd,otsego...they were all tigers.I know sanford has been getting pure strains since the 70s.

Sanford does grow PIGS,Todd frank went there one day last year and got a 47".

the best..stay united :idea:

DU

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:28 pm

Some good discussion here for sure. Great, actually. I love reading this crap. Not enough time right now to comment on all I would like to, so just a few thoughts to toss out there...this may be a bit of a ramble since I'm deep into some multi-tasking (doing work, watching hoops, on the phone and changing a diaper!)

I guess first off it seems there has been some offense taken to the statement that the Titt chain folks shoudln't be whining when so many fish have come up this way. Well, I think we can all agree that it isn't so much an issue of HOW MANY fish have gone into the general area, but more of exactly WHERE those fish have gone. Unfortunately the lakes in the chain are sprawling - in most cases 20-40% larger than their listed topographic acreages even. Top that off with big pike populations, endless structure, spearing, and it's a bit of an uphill battle. History has shown that those hurdles are NOT insurmountable. Spreading fish out around here the way that has been done in the past, with a heavy unintentional bias against Sanford, will hopefully come to and end soon. This would ease a lot of local tension and suffering, believe me.

As Will hinted at, if the same number of fish that has come up to the chain would have just been better distributed, skewed to assist Sanford even slightly, there would be no issue. It would leave plenty remaining for Wixom and Secord (which has a decent shot at some natural reproduction), and even 1-2 fish/acre still leftover for Ross and Smallwood if we can't remove them completely from the list. No one had gripes with Sanford 5-8 years ago, and even back then it wasn't receiving it's full prescription of fish (not many where, other than the puddles, at that time).

Specifically, I guess it's really just Sanford, then, (and I suppose one could argue North Manistique) that has been hosed over and over, and unfortunately, thanks to a great run in the late 90's and early 00's, Sanford's where most of us head for a first choice. Don't get me wrong, I still typically see my biggest fish of the year in that lake, but those run-ins have dwindled from once every 5-10 trips, to once a month, now to once a year, or less! She'll never be a numbers water, which is just fine, but boy there's just something magical about seeing a true GIANT stocked musky at your feet that gets at your soul...never again can you even hear the name of the lake without a quiver going deep into your belly. I love big, native muskies too, but a 40-50 lb stocked fish, who has an outside shot at naturally reproducing, is the pinnacle of musky management success in my book. Anyway, it's those darned emotional ties that contribute to making it unbearable to watch the lake fade away.

Hopefully that won't continue to happen, and the recent stocking past is nothing more than the random stretch of bad luck that it appears to be.

Speaking of the stockings, since I pretty much spend a good portion of my company time thinking about and analyzing such things, I thought I would paste in a chunk of what I consider interesting info. Nothing more than organizing some of the stocking database data here, but fun (and disturbing, in some cases) to look at. I am particularly fond of the "# fall fingerlings stocked per acre, per year" (aka fish stocked/(acre*year)) ... it paints a good picture of how densely muskies have been stocked in a given body of water throughout its stocking history. So for example a lake that has received say 4 fish per acre every third year will have 1/3 the fish-per-acre-per-year value of another lake stocked at 4 fish per acre every year. Duh, eh? I also did the numbers for just the last 5ish stocking years, since that's when Wolf Lake has really gotten their act together.

This isn't intended to support or refute any points made above by any means - just an FYI that may or may not peak your interest.
sorry about the goofy formatting...

..............total fish...fish received...% of post-......total fish/......post-2001/
..............received......post-2001......2001 fish....(acre*year)...(acre*year)
Hamlin-----17,510------17,510---------16.1-------------1.75------------1.75
Margrethe-11,904------11,904---------10.9-------------1.24------------1.24
Winyah-------5011--------5011----------4.6-------------1.64------------1.64
Sanford----12,708--------4859----------4.5--------------0.31------------0.51
Wixom-----10,657--------6409----------5.9--------------0.49------------0.63
Ross----------5828--------4428----------4.1--------------0.86------------2.51
Murray-------4367--------2617----------2.4--------------1.52------------1.36
Campau------2154--------1005----------0.9-------------1.72-------------1.34
Ovid----------4450--------3050----------2.8--------------1.35------------1.23
Budd----------5509--------1500----------1.4-------------1.43-------------1.43
Secord--------7325--------5758----------5.3-------------0.86-------------1.13