musky troubles explained

COMMENTARY

GULL LAKE MUSKY STUDIES SHOW

MUSKY PREDATION PROBLEMS EXIST

By Kirk A. Schnitker

Contrary to what the DNR says in its news release, muskies can cause significant problems to existing walleye and other fish populations. The DNR and some pro-muskie folks say any such concerns are mere "myth" and "misconception". That’s what they want you to think. Don’t be misinformed. Here are some facts...

Studies done in the States of Wisconsin and Michigan have shown that in some lakes muskie populations have exploded and decimated existing fish populations. More on those specific studies below, but the Minnesota DNR says muskies simply want to eat soft-spined suckers and leave the rest alone. This is not the truth. The truth is muskies eat suckers and whatever else they need to survive. Many of us prefer steak, but we, like muskies, don’t always get what we want, so we eat to survive.

THE SCIENCE THE DNR IGNORES

Some say Minnesota has replaced Wisconsin as the Mecca of muskies. That may be true, and according to Thomas Sommerfeldt, a Senior Fisheries Biologist from the Wisconsin DNR, many of the Wisconsin muskie lakes have "new unprecedented muskie densities" and have "eaten themselves out of house and home." Sommerfeldt states that while muskies do like white suckers, "once they run out of white suckers you have problems." In an ongoing study by Sommerfeldt that is in draft form he writes, "I conclude that muskellunge predation can have a severe effect on resident fish populations." His conclusions were based on different lakes. In the case of Lower Clam Lake, as the muskie population peaked, the walleye population tanked from 3.3 fish per acre to 0.8 per acre despite walleye stocking efforts. In Butternut Lake the conclusion was, "muskellunge predation would rank as the number one cause of walleye mortality in . . . 1998." The problems with muskies on Butternut have gotten so far out of control that fisheries biologists are proposing to "mechanically remove 500 adult muskellunge under 38 [inches]" in the near future." Additionally, there is a recommendation to "encourage some angler harvest of muskellunge less than 40 [inches]" long." Sommerfeldt was frank in a phone interview. He stated, "it’s frustrating as heck trying to educate those who do not want to acknowledge that "increased densities [of muskies] are going to impact our fish populations."

In a 1984 study on Sparkling Lake in Wisconsin, the author, John Lyons, concluded, "Coupled with the lack of any other obvious causes of the observed population declines, it seems plausible that muskellunge predations had a major impact on the density of adult walleyes in Sparkling Lake during the early 1980’s."

Crappies as well as walleyes are popular fish in Gull and other Minnesota lakes. In Michigan a study by the DNR showed that as muskie populations rose, black crappie populations crashed. In Iron Lake, muskies were stocked starting in 1962 and white suckers and black crappies were abundant, however, by 1979, "black crappies and white suckers continued to be scarce." The study concluded, "with the advantage of hindsight two lessons to be learned from this

management experience are: carefully consider beforehand all the possible consequences of any major change imposed on a fish population and intensely monitor any fish populations being subjected to novel management techniques." Muskies are not native to Brainerd area lakes and from this writer’s perspective novel is a good adjective for the proposal to stock muskies where they don’t exist and where walleyes, crappie and northern pike are the fish of choice.

There are more studies, but they are not being considered by the DNR. In its recent News Release the DNR states, "there is no research evidence that suggests introducing muskellunge into a lake has caused corresponding decrease in the walleye fishery." It does not take a DNR fisheries biologist to know that the DNR is wrong and gambling with our lakes. To read these and other studies go to musky-studies-facts.

Additionally, when the DNR is asked for studies to support its position, it cites Wisconsin studies that show a very small percentage of walleyes in the stomachs of dissected muskies. Biologist Sommerfeldt states that these studies are probably flawed and writes:

More recently, a study of the food habits of muskellunge in Wisconsin (Masters thesis by Tom Burri, 1997) found that white sucker and yellow perch were the main food items, representing 47% and 17% by volume, respectively. Walleye comprised 3.4% and bass were 3.1%, with both being considered unimportant in the diet. However, there were 2 major bias’ that have been identified in that work (this author was involved in a large portion (56%) of the data collected in Burri’s study). The first being that it was basically a study of the diet of small muskellunge, with over 95% of the data from fish less than 34 inches in length (the legal length limit in Wisconsin). Secondly, the majority of the samples came from waters where the forage base had already been impacted by years of heavy muskellunge predation.

NORTHERN PIKE

So who made the decision there’s something wrong with our northern pike? Gull is a fabulous northern pike fishery. This author fishes Gull, the nearby White Fish Chain weekly and enjoys a solid pike fishing experience. Stock muskies in these or any lakes and the pike population will be displaced. As the jungle will hold only so many lions, a lake will hold only so many large predator fish. Additionally, pike are great game fish, angled, caught and eaten by many. We Minnesotans, I believe, like them. Why should the pike suffer so muskies can flourish? How many times weekly do we see photos of massive muskies caught and usually released? Does the DNR know how these muskies impact our lakes? I’ve asked for their studies in writing and I’ve gotten no reply. Yes there are some who just love muskies and want more and better places to fish for them. That’s fine as muskies are a beautiful fish but they are not native, and can be and have been shown to be a problem in some lakes. The scientific evidence is being ignored by the DNR.

PLENTY OF MUSKY LAKES

We have no shortage of muskie lakes at this time. According to North Metro Muskies there are over 120 lakes and rivers in Minnesota with muskies. Many are vast bodies of water. Winnie, Leech, Vermillion, Mille Lacs, the Mississippi River and more. The DNR says in its News Release there are 91 lakes and rivers that have been stocked with muskies and 50 lakes and

rivers have native populations of muskies. That adds up to 141 lakes and rivers all across the state. Wisconsin has over 700 lakes, rivers and streams with muskies. It is said that fewer than 8-10% of anglers fish for muskies sometimes and much fewer regularly fish for muskies. This author requested this data from the DNR months ago and did not get a response. It’s safe to say as compared to the general angling public few fishermen focus on muskies yet the DNR wants to gamble with our fisheries for a few. The pro-muskie stocking folks and some DNR people insist walleye and muskies coexist in our lakes just fine. They then cite all the lakes that have muskies and walleyes. Most say Leech is doing fine with muskies but walleye fishing is currently lousy. Mille Lacs has good walleye years and bad walleye years. Talk to a walleye angler about Miltona and you’ll hear how walleye numbers have tanked over the years as muskie stocking and muskie numbers have risen. Because the DNR has not responded to requests for studies or reports that support its position I can only surmise they do not know how muskie stocking and populations affect our walleye, crappie, perch, pike, and other fish populations.

CONCLUSION

On October 6th at the Brainerd Community College the DNR took comments on this proposed stocking. Prior to the meeting, the DNR said keep out the emotion and give the facts. All of the above-cited studies were submitted and the DNR admitted it had no studies on muskie predation issues. Just the facts and the facts are that Wisconsin and Michigan studies clearly prove muskies can and have caused significant problems with walleyes, crappies and other fish populations.

Gull, as are all our lakes, should not be gambled with by planting non-native large predator fish like muskies. Minnesota, some say, now has the best muskie fishery there is. Manage what we have and lets learn lessons from Wisconsin and Michigan. Spend our limited resource dollars wisely and not gamble with our fishery resources to benefit a few.

Those who have concerns about muskies are not hysterical. They’re cautious, reasonable and considering the studies that are out there. More people, including those at the DNR, ought to do just that. The really alarming thing is the DNR’s reaction to the Wisconsin and Michigan studies. Even after being confronted with those studies, the DNR denies a muskie predation problem. After the October 6th meeting, Tim Goeman, a DNR fisheries biologist, was quoted in the Brainerd Dispatch as saying, "musky stocking wouldn’t threaten northern pike or walleyes. Many people seem to think it would. But our studies don’t show it." From this writer’s perspective this is terribly alarming given the DKNY admitted it had no studies.

The DNR has credibility problems on this issue. If they were cautious, as advised by the Wisconsin and Michigan biologists, they would slow down, study the lakes they have already stocked and move on from there. Read the studies for yourself at www.muskytroubles.com and reach your own conclusions.

The author, Kirk Schnitker, can be reached at 763/252-0114 and is a founder of Sportsmen for Responsible Musky Management.