Michigan anglers asked to complete online muskellunge survey

[djkimmel]

Anglers asked to complete online muskellunge survey
The Department of Natural Resources, in partnership with the Michigan Muskie Alliance, is investigating the muskellunge fisheries of the state by distributing an online angler survey.

Since 2014 an angler survey has been conducted, gathering information about muskellunge angler demographics and catch data. Fisheries managers have difficulties obtaining muskellunge angler information through traditional survey methods, such as creel and postcard surveys. Starting this year the survey is being conducted online and can be found on the DNR and Michigan Muskie Alliance websites or through the survey's link.

By completing this survey, anglers will be assisting fisheries managers in their evaluations, assessments and trend monitoring of Michigan's muskellunge fisheries. Information collected includes fishing location, method used, catch preferences, catch-and-release data, and frequency of muskellunge fishing outings.

All of this information plays a key role in proper fisheries management, and the DNR appreciates respondent cooperation and feedback. Anglers may fill out one survey per person per trip and they may complete a survey for each angling trip they make.

Please note, anglers must obtain a muskellunge harvest tag when deciding to harvest a fish. These tags are obtained when purchasing a Michigan fishing license or any date thereafter as long as the angler has a fishing license and a valid driver's license. Those interested in registering a harvested muskellunge (optional) can visit Michigan.gov/muskie.

[djkimmel]

Once again another chance to have your thoughts and opinions possibly heard if you muskie fish or are interested in muskie management. They have a hard time monitoring the muskie fishery because it is small overall and scattered. They are asking for contact information and they are asking you to take a survey for each muskie trip you take if you wish. You can also choose that you primarily fished for other species.

[djkimmel]

I assume Michigan Muskie Alliance is covering some of the costs because they are getting equal billing to the MDNR on this survey, something us organized bass anglers never seem to get a chance to also have. Something we should push for in the future because the behavior is skewed against us in the past. Groups don't always have to foot the bill to get help for 'their' favorite fish but seem to expect differently for us. A muskie guy actually said if we wanted a study to see if we could have more bass fishing we should pay for it, which I found interesting becuase they don't pay for all the work that goes into the tiny-by-comparison muskie fishery supported by stocking and lots of biologist work. Always interesting to see these efforts and how they play out for each group.

[djkimmel]

Meanwhile, I do muskie fish a time or two each year, or part of some days out on the water and I do value each and every fishery fairly and in comparison to each other, which I think is only fair also. Considering bass is #2 after panfish in Michigan and #1 in angler-days we should be getting a significant part of the available resources, right? Unfortunately, if it went by fishery size muskie wouldn't get much attention. They are lucky it doesn't go by that or a lot of their stockings would go away, or have to be paid for by themselves.

[Waterfoul]

Filled it out.

[robhj]

Meanwhile, I do muskie fish a time or two each year, or part of some days out on the water and I do value each and every fishery fairly and in comparison to each other, which I think is only fair also. Considering bass is #2 after panfish in Michigan and #1 in angler-days we should be getting a significant part of the available resources, right? Unfortunately, if it went by fishery size muskie wouldn't get much attention. They are lucky it doesn't go by that or a lot of their stockings would go away, or have to be paid for by themselves.

Thanks for sharing the link Dan. However, I have to disagree with this. You can't base fishery management decisions solely on the popularity of the species. The DNR has a tough job trying to manage the diverse fish species that we have in our state. I split my fishing time between muskies and bass so I may be somewhat bias, but I don't feel the DNR's resource allocation has been unfair at all. Hopefully in the coming decades the recent muskie stockings will lead to a self sustaining population in many waters where they were once native and less stockings would be warranted. It will be great for our state and for the fisheries as a whole.

[djkimmel]

I don't have a problem with them creating fisheries AS LONG AS IT IS NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF other fisheries, especially fisheries that are bigger and more valuable as bass fishing clearly is. I don't necessarily agree that we need muskies in all of these lakes if they may mess up the existing fisheries at all. No one seems to be 100% sure that they don't mess up existing fisheries. I'd like to see more clear answers on that before I want a bunch any stocked fish in any already fished lake in Michigan.

That is not a do or die for me but they just don't need to stock a bunch of various fish in a bunch of lakes to try to keep anglers happy. There are already pike lakes and walleye lakes and muskie lakes enough without feeling they have to allow stocking of those fish in new lakes to create 'new' fisheries. I don't agree with that idea unless I know for sure it won't hurt the existing fisheries for sure.

What I do have a real problem with is that bass does not get their fair share of the resource allocation, and most people who don't primarily bass fish, seem to think that is okay. However, they don't agree when it is THEIR fish that doesn't get enough of the resource allocation - the old different rules for different people story that never accomplishes anything positive.

The MDNR has told me now that 70% of fishing license sales are by anglers who primarily are bass anglers. Show me anything close to 70% of the resource allocation going towards bass or even warmwater, inland fisheries? Can't do it because the bulk of the resource is allocated to trying to keep other fisheries going. We all know that is true.

So, when a muskie angler tells me we should have to pay for any new bass studies I say that is hypocritical bs because we have paid for a ton of muskie, trout, walleye and pike work with our bass dollars already. I know the fear is that if bass starts getting its fair share the other fisheries will suffer. How would that not be fair though if bass anglers are buying 70% of the licenses?

I don't necessarily want 70% of the resource allocated to bass but we deserve a fair share and no angler should be telling me or any other bass angler to pay for our own. We have already paid for it many times over and deserve attention to bass necessary to protect and promote the fishery, and particularly to investigate new opportunities that our existing bass population could provide.

It the end, we aren't asking for very much considering the value of the Michigan bass fishery - much bigger than any other statewide - and the sheer number of fishing licenses and other user pay revenues that bass fishing provides the MDNR.

It will happen in the future regardless of what I say or think because the long term outlook is for Michigan to have a climate similar to Missouri, and to shift even more to a bass fishing state even heavily in the U.P. I expect lots of complaining from other angler groups but the inevitable is that less opportunity for pike, walleye, trout, salmon and muskie, and more opportunity for bass is in our long term future down the road the next 50 years.

I'd like to start getting the reality across sooner than later some idea that bass may eventually have to be actively managed if many more anglers shift to bass fishing and we don't do something about the mismanagement of aquatic plants on many lakes and similar habitat and water quality issues.

With some more work on habitat improvement and aquatic plant management our bass populations can easily provide year round fishing and a longer bass tournament season far into the future even with a shift towards more bass fishing. We probably don't have  a choice if situations like Mille Lacs are to teach us anything about the future pressures on other fisheries due to changes out of our control. If we want to keep a lot of people in fishing we have to get them fishing for what is available. The last thing I want to see is bass become a food fish but the reality of it all the stocking in the world may not keep walleye and other fisheries at the levels they are now.

[bigjc]

I too split most of my fishing time, these days, between bass and musky, as well as a bit of time chasing walleye and perch.  I applaud any DNR effort to support the musky fisheries of our state.  I believe that we underestimate how much money is spent by recreational anglers chasing species other than bass in MI.

As far as musky anglers go: Lake St. Clair is hands down the best musky fishing in North America!  Plenty of musky anglers make the pilgrimage to LSC, particularly in the late fall after the WI musky season has closed.

As far as the misconceived notion some bass anglers have of musky being harmful to bass fisheries: in my experience this is hogwash!  I remember the days when the MIDNR stocked Belleville Lake with tiger muskies, and those were the best days of bass fishing on Belleville.  I have not caught a tiger musky on Belleville in about 8 years, so I assume that much of that stocking has stopped, but I don't believe that it caused any harm to the bass fishing on that lake.

Thanks for posting Dan, I will take that survey.

JC

[djkimmel]

You can look at the every 5 year angler census by the US FWS to get some idea about the value of various fisheries. Bass fishing is the biggest value to Michigan by far of all the fisheries. Per day spend of related costs alone by bass anglers is several hundred million dollars (over 1.8 million anglers-days * the average of $37 or $39/day - can't remember off the top of my head for 2011 the last year available).

I value all fisheries but sometimes push comes to shove, and decisions have to be made. I won't be telling anyone else they have to pay for their own study if they want one but they better not tell me I have to either as a bass angler who has already paid his fair share