PA Musky Summit summary

[allegheny river kid]

For those who weren't able to attend the meeting in October, here is the summary from the PFBC

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/m...t-2014-ppt.pdf

[Ivan]

What's everybody think? I would like to hear some comments.

The wait and see approach should fix our state's pitiful muskie fishing. haha I'm glad I didn't bother going to that summit and went fishing in NY instead. Boated/released 11 muskies with a 45" and 47.75" that day. Keep stocking ponds and creeks with muskies. Continue to neglect the big waters with potential that could actually produce well if stocked appropriately. Guess I'll keep driving out of PA to OH, NY, and Canada to fish instead of staying in my home state. The best muskie fishing I've experienced in the last several years in PA was on a body of water that isn't even on their stocking list. They really don't have a clue.

I hope you don't take offense to my comments Red. You have a great business and do well on the Allegheny. I think that river is, without a doubt, one of our state's bright spots. However, I'm not a jet boat guy and our lakes stink for the most part.

Adam Andresky

[Red Childress]

I have not really had time to read all of it.....just skimmed through some of it last weekend so I really shouldn't comment yet.

I don't get too concerned with other people's comments because I have no control over them anyway.

[ppalko]

I did not attend the conference but did read over the report. I think the PFBC does make an attempt to please as many anglers as possible at the expense of irritating some. I also think they are budget challenged. With so few enforcement officers out there, regulations are almost voluntary at times. DO you really think all musky under 40 inches are released?? No way, especially in areas heavily targetted by those who keep every fish (I could really go off on this one....). I do think as they evaluate the stocking effort in terms of the number of lakes stocked; maybe put more fish in lakes that seem to have the greatest success. They can't raise more fish...too expensive so a different stocking distribution maybe? Regulations are not really enforced so what then? I fish a local lake and it seems to have a nice poplation of tigers so I do not agree that lakes in PA are a waste of time at least in terms of catching numbers of fish.

[allegheny river kid]

Minus the stretches of the Allegheny I fish and maybe 2 other lakes(one likely ppalko is talking of) I think PA musky fishing leaves plenty to desire. The last 5 years I've spent a good bit of time in surrounding states fishing for musky, catch rates are significantly higher per hour fished. The first 5 years I spent primarily for musky in PA were on the Allegheny and 2 other lakes in PA, the last 5 I've spent a lot of time traveling around state to state, and having less time to fish, my catch rates have soared. PA raises the 2nd most musky fingerlings in the USA, 1st being Wisconsin. We definitely don't have fishing comparable to a state like Ohio that raises 25,000 musky a year, and were raising somewhere in the neighborhood of 120,000 to 140,000 musky a year to stock! I don't feel we need to raise anymore fish, bigger maybe, we need smarter stocking, unfortunately some waters will have to be eliminated from the stocking and people may have to travel to fish other waters now. That's just an unfortunate part of the game, some bodies of water don't produce enough to keep dumping fish in year after year. Our biggest and best lake in the state was being stocked at less then .5 fish per acre! Now fishing is in the dumps there, and likely will take years to get back to being good if ever getting back to where it once was. I'd love to never have to leave PA to catch musky but if I want to make the most of my time and energy to catch fish, I have to.

[ppalko]

I guess I take a very narrow view of lakes as I tend to only fish one!! I did spend a summer looking for alternatives a few years ago and found little success even though I went to places that according to PFBC publications were highly rated. I've never been impressed with any aspect of the management practices in PA. A very long time ago, when I wrote to the PFBC to suggest special regs for the Allegheny below Kinzua for trout, I was flat out told that there were no trout in the river! When I recently inquired about excessive harvest of smallmouth in the Warren area, I was told that the bass population was solid in that area and no evidence of such harvest was seen (I guess I needed to take pictures of the stringers and stringers I saw leaving) and was then told that there was no enforcement in that area anyway due to a lack of personel. I could go on but it just seems like things are done better in other states. So, stop stocking fish in places they don't survive and stock larger fish. They used to stock 12-18 inch musky years ago, why did that practice stop? Is natural reproduction so bad that no natural populations can be sustained despite a big catch and release effort (or do to many people keep fish)?
Let's keep talking.

[Ivan]

Good stuff guys. I agree with much of what's been said here. Joel and I have had the opportunity to discuss this since I attended some of the Three Rivers board meeting to try to get some changes moving with the PFBC.

Here is what I see as the overarching problem with PA muskie program. PA manages muskies wrong. They have created a muskie fishery that gives any angler, on almost any body of water, an opportunity (albeit a very small one) to catch a muskie. Instead, they should create a muskie fishery, where an angler can go to a designated muskie lake/river if he or she is interested in catching a muskie.

I'm not suggesting that PA spend more money or raise more muskies. They should focus on raising larger muskies prior to stocking, but they should actually be able to reduce the overall number of fish stocked by raising larger fish because of better survival rates. Then, instead of stocking these fish in every puddle across the state, make 10 to 15 designated muskies waters across the entire state that have a good population of muskies. Then, an angler who wants to pursue muskies, can go to a designated muskie water and have a reasonable chance actually catching fish. This is why I travel out of state all the time....because that's they way other sate's manage their muskies...they create designated muskie fisheries.

Problem is, the PFBC doesn't seem to want to do this. They talk a good game when approached about it, but then they don't ever change anything. That's what is most disappointing to me about the results of the summit. I was hopeful that they would start making the tough decisions to start cutting bodies of water off the stocking list and start focusing stockings on few selected "muskie waters". This is stuff we started talking about 7 or 8 years ago when I was one of a few muskie guys from across the state that attended meeting with the PFBC back when we changed some of the regs (40" limit,etc). But, they've never taken the next step. Now, they are talking about doing more studies over the next 5 years or whatever...I'll be dead by the time anything actually changes here. Once you commit to the management change in philosophy, you still need time for the changes to take hold and create good, fishable populations. Very frustrating.

[Red Childress]

Ivan,

Is it safe to say that all the discussion/planning that was done back in 2007 (when the statewide size limit increased and creel limits decreased) will likely not be implemented?

Whatever happened to the the PFBC's discussion about identifying waterways that can sustain fishable populations of trophy muskies and stock them accordingly? Designated trophy waters would begin receiving more muskies with the intent of creating a regionalized trophy musky fishery in certain waterways across the state. It is my understanding that the PFBC wanted to see the effects of the 40" size limit first and then after 5 years, refine the plan and go from there. That all sounded fantastic to me but will it ever happen?

The fish that I (and many others) have float stocked the past few years have been in the 8-11 inch range. The strange thing is that the past 2 years, my boat has had some of the toughest musky fishing (regarding numbers of fish) in 20 years here on the river and on Tionesta Lake. We are definitely catching some big fish but I am just not sure if that is due to being better skilled or a little luck. Kinzua just might be on the upturn from what I have experienced but I think the jury is still out on that impoundment.

[Ivan]

Red,

I'm not aware of anything else being implemented from our discussions back in 07. Basically, all we did was change the size limit to 40", the creel limit, and open the season year round. Nothing else that was discussed has ever happened, and I don't think there are any plans to make the other things happen.

There is a concern that float stocking might not be the way to go. It's possible that the additional handling of the fish to float stock them is creating more stress on the fish and causing a higher mortality rate than if they were just dumped straight from the truck. That may have something to do with the tougher fishing you have experienced on the river, but it remains to be seen. I think they may go to a rotation of float vs traditional truck dumping and study to see which may have better survival rates. At least I have heard that as a topic of discussion, but who knows what, if anything, will actually happen.

Finally, Kinzua is one lake that has been receiving year old fish stocked in the spring rather than fish approx 5 or 6 months old that are stocked in the fall. It's obvious that the larger yearlings would have a better survival rate and may explain why Kinzua seems to be a little better. But, I'm sure that they aren't stocking enough in there. I'd bet it's nowhere near 1 per acre, but I haven't looked at the stocking figures to verify that...It's just my educated guess.

[ppalko]

"Here is what I see as the overarching problem with PA muskie program. PA manages muskies wrong. They have created a muskie fishery that gives any angler, on almost any body of water, an opportunity (albeit a very small one) to catch a muskie. Instead, they should create a muskie fishery, where an angler can go to a designated muskie lake/river if he or she is interested in catching a muskie."

Attachment 23208


Here's the stocking list for Crawford County. I'm guessing that the issue is that so many little lakes are stocked. Why not just focus the efforts on one in order to establish a "super fishery"? Is it possible that the concern is too many musky in one place is a bad thing, at least in the smaller PA lakes as listed here?

Or, in terms of lakes, would it be better to stock fewer lakes in general. I did see a number of smaller stream that receive musky. Mahoning Creek in Armstrong Co. for example. Does anyone actually fish for these? I've actually fished this creek and have never seen a musky. Is this another example of wasted fish?

[Anzomcik]

Here's the stocking list for Crawford County. I'm guessing that the issue is that so many little lakes are stocked. Why not just focus the efforts on one in order to establish a "super fishery"? Is it possible that the concern is too many musky in one place is a bad thing, at least in the smaller PA lakes as listed here?

Or, in terms of lakes, would it be better to stock fewer lakes in general. I did see a number of smaller stream that receive musky. Mahoning Creek in Armstrong Co. for example. Does anyone actually fish for these? I've actually fished this creek and have never seen a musky. Is this another example of wasted fish?

I am from erie and Crawford county, the reason a lot of those little lake are stocked in my area is because the fish commission uses them as brood stock lakes. meaning muskies in those lakes are netted in the spring to gather the eggs to make the baby muskies that will be stocked around the state. So its kinda important that these lakes get stocked.

While I understand not every lake in my area is a brood stock lake, but many lakes are small, under 500 acres. IMO to make a super fishery you need a larger lake or body of water. Well PA just doesn't have many big bodies of water, the ones that have most fisherman do not use to the full extent. Conneautte lake it beautiful lake but aweful to fish in the summer due to traffic. PMY Wilham, morain all have hp restrictions.

As for all the small streams being stocked, the number of fish put in is minimal but can yield good results. I spend a lot of time working those small streams on foot and get many fish doing it. It is a different kind of fishing that I find very rewarding and there is a decent size group of guys doing it along with me.

All I know is that I enjoy the many options of small water I have, I do not have a lot of time to fish and with my network of friends we can keep good tabs on what the different waters are like through out the season, most lakes are with in 20 miles of me. So I really like the shotgun effect of the stocking in my area.

When it comes to managing any resource the people making the decisions will never make everyone happy, I am happy I have muskies that I can fish for locally

[ppalko]

Anzomcik...points well taken in regards to the stream fisheries. I enjoy that type of fishing as well. Continuing the discussion....

It seems as if one issue here is the lack of movement on items that were proposed in 2007, mainly establishing trophy fisheries. I for one would like that idea, however, how would it work? More intense stocking in a lake or river section identified as best suited for establishing that trophy fishery? Different regs? I still think many undersized musky are harvested. Can any body of water in PA sustain a musky fishery without stocking?

I'm curious, Red, if you have a theory as to the cause of the lack of production you mention in the river and Tionesta Lake? I can tell you that about 25 years ago, we caught over 30 musky from 24-32 inches while walleye fishing from Nov-Mar on the river around Tionesta. We were averaging 3-4 small musky per trip with an occasional larger one all on small jigs. What was the source of those fish? I also fish the lower river for walleyes and we saw a similar thing at that time. I caught my first smaller musky in years while targetting walleyes last week. We just don't catch as many smaller musky as in the past. I have no idea why the change. Did the PFBC stock larger fish in the past? I believe they did, so that may be an explanation.

So if we could be in charge, what would we want in terms of musky management in PA? This can be a great discussion so please chime in!

[Red Childress]

After reading (or attempting to read and understand) virtually every musky study done on US and European river systems, it is very obvious that Esox do travel up and down those systems on a regular basis following food sources and/or seeking appropriate water temps. I probably should have clarified my statement about "tougher than normal musky fishing" the past 2-3 years. I am not implying that there may be less fish all of a sudden but to simply state that will all the extra work of float stocking, the rewards have not been as quick as I would like them to be. Some years are just better than others for many reasons and I think the last couple of years it has had something to do with high water, water temps and the lack of new/different fish moving upstream.

Anyway, I am very partial to the idea that (I thought) the PFBC was contemplating regarding trophy musky fishery based on regions....maybe have 5-7 regions with 1 larger body of water serving as the trophy designated lake/river within that area which could be accessed within a 100 miles or so of most everyone in the state. This could possibly keep guys like Adam and many other musky hounds in-state with a real shot at a 30 pound fish each time they launched their boats. I assumed that 1 or 2 waterways that are located in the warmer parts of the state would see an increase Tiger stocking to better match that type of environment with a trophy status attached to that body as well.

[TRE]

I've had some correspondence with Mr. Woomer after the first Musky Management Plan meeting over here in our part of the state a few years back. After the most recent meeting I feel that it should be shared as they are using the same statistics and data that they shared back then... Sorry for the long reply, hope that you guys take the time to read it though as it clarifies a little about the process of the stocking program and use of this resource.


First and foremost, I appreciate the work that you do and understand the financial constraints this organization is under.
That being said, I feel that the commission should take the input given by the people who more frequently use these resources than perform studies in which favorable conditions for making catches are used. Coming from a group of serious fishermen, many anglers are travelling out of state to find better musky fishing, and spending their money elsewhere. One of these places is OHIO, where things really aren't that different from PA. Alum Creek, Leesville, West Branch all made the Muskies Inc Top 20 lakes with places like Lake of the Woods, Lake St Clair, Chautauqua, etc. Yet there isn't a single lake from Pennsylvania on the list. Time to wake up and smell the change. A billion dollars on trout isn't doing it anymore.

Thank you for providing your comments and suggestions on the new Musky Management Plan and on musky management in Pennsylvania. As you may understand our agency is frequently questioned on their allocation of resources to the various fisheries programs that we manage around the Commonwealth. During this comment period on the Musky Management Plan we have received messages questioning why we spend so much on musky in Pennsylvania, so opinions vary depending on each angler's preference. Interestingly, both trout and musky are investment heavy programs requiring hatcheries and intensive stocking programs. Our agency thinks both programs are worth the cost and in their own unique way provide outstanding fishing opportunities.

The musky fishing in Pennsylvania is quite varied and I think of a good quality as I am sure other states also have. Our agency wants to continue to improve on what we currently have and that is why we have produced the new musky management plan. We also wish to improve communication and cooperation with the musky angling community and I think we are also doing that through this process. The Musky Management Plan is not the end product but a work in progress. As communication increases hopefully some opinions will be changed on both the agency and angler side and new and innovative solutions to problems will be found that will improve the quality of the musky fishing.

Thanks again for providing your comments on musky management in Pennsylvania


I appreciate you responding to my comments Mr. Woomer. I also hope for an increase in communication and believe that it can have great results for both the angler and the commission.

One of the disconnects has always been the lack of understanding of the scientific process, and I feel that educating the user of the resource (me) to the actual work needed to be done to sustain a high quality fishery is needed. Generally speaking, some of the information in the report seems a little skewed to me. Tamarack Lake is still included in this data. For instance, in Figure 5 where the benchmark is established for stocking, why is it that broodstock lakes (which are stocked at a rate 10:1 of regularly managed lakes) are even included in this data? Sure they are stocked, but when you remove these waters from the list it's alot more telling of the situation in the state. The largest mean value left would be Lake Arthur at .06 mean CPUE. It shows 12 lakes that could potentially be removed from the stocking list based on "the value of .01 muskellunge (pure or tiger) per trap net hour is recommended as the minimum benchmark to maintain a listing of a lake in the stocking program." Plus it lists Keystone Lake twice, in Figure 5 and again in Figure 6, but not in Figure 7. So if the catch rate is .022 mean CPUE for both pures and tigers, I apologize, as the data is unclear here. I feel like the revised table that I attached is a more accurate depiction of the state's stocked waters. You can see the waters highlighted in red with potential to be removed, as well as the largest bodies of water in the state with the better catch rates.



It was stated in 2005: Goal: Maintain or create enhanced sport fisheries through judicious stocking of muskellunge and tiger muskellunge that recognize naturally produced muskellunge and enlist harvest management and habitat management approaches that foster increased density of naturally produced and stocked muskellunge.

And yet, "In Presque Isle Bay (Erie County) where muskellunge nursery and rearing habitat have dramatically improved, management plans were developed such that stocking and elevated minimum size limit fostered natural spawning and recruitment. The size limit for muskellunge in Presque Isle Bay (Erie County) was set to 40 inches with a one fish creel limit in 1995.(Lorantas 2005)" Since 2007, Presque Isle has been stocked at a rate of 49.5 fish per acre (163,670 fish in 3,304 acres). What is the plan there and why wasn't it addressed in the musky management plan?

I understand why some anglers would question the amount of money spent on muskies. It's easy to see when you're on the water chasing them this time of the year. Many more people have cabin fever after not fishing all winter or hunting all winter. But in my honest opinion, when it comes to a sustainable fishery, would a trout last longer than a musky? For the investment in the resource made, I want to know how many 12+ year old trout are ever caught here.

And once again, thank you Mr. Woomer for all that you guys do. Please take into account that I'm just an angler hoping that I understand it all! Have a good one.




Let me say that you have obviously studied the plan and I commend you for your interest and enthusiasm for this subject. I will try to better explain the allocation and stocking procedures we use in stocking waters with musky. We have a system where each year the Area Fisheries Managers across Pennsylvania request a certain number of musky fingerlings based on our stocking guidelines. Most purebred musky waters have an initial or base stocking rate of 1/acre and it is 5/acre for the more readily available tiger musky. Hatcheries staffs try very hard to stock all these base requests each year but some years they have a lower number of fish to stock than the base requests. Other years they have a higher number over the base request. There is also a priority number assigned to each stocked water where those stockings most important to the Area Fisheries Managers are stocked first. In years when there are fewer musky to stock than the base request some of the lower priority waters will go unstocked. In years where there are extra fish after the base request is filled Area Fisheries Manager have waters designated to receive supplemental stockings. Depending on how many extra fish are available for stocking, waters can get up to four supplemental stockings on top of the base request.

Broodstock lakes are a little different. They can receive a base request of up to 5/acre (not 10 times above normal) and generally they are the highest priority stockings. The reason for this difference is those populations are obviously extremely important to maintain because the entire stocking program is dependent on getting the broodstock from them. The additional stress to the populations in these waters from the annual netting and spawning of the broodstock also needs to be accounted for in the higher stocking levels. In addition, if Area Fisheries Managers do not think they need to receive that high a stocking rate they can reduce it. For example up until it was drained this year for dam safety issues, one of the best broodstock lakes, Tamarack Lake, was stocked at a base request of 1/acre and one supplemental request of 1/acre because of the high density of musky present.

My point of the above paragraphs is that stocking rates can vary widely on all the waters managed for a variety of reasons not just broodstock related issues, and it was best to put all the lakes into the catch per effort graph on an equal footing. The stocking history, effectiveness and accuracy of trapnet survey results and all other pertinent factors will be considered in any management decision before a water is removed from the program. Another example that I tried to explain in the plan was that certain musky managed lakes that are very steep sided with little shallow area such as Allegheny Reservoir do not effectively trapnet musky and other sampling techniques will need to be used to ascertain the quality of the musky population before deciding if management changes are necessary.

At this stage in our development of a musky management program, I think the current benchmark for lakes identified in the plan is a good starting point. The process of eliminating some waters that perform poorly can be painful for some anglers who did have success there. Many of the comments I have replied to in this comment period were related to restoring some of the water previously cut from the program. However, most anglers also agreed that the current number of waters managed for musky in Pennsylvania was too high and the PFBC needs to concentrate on improving the best performers. As with any management decision that takes away a program there will be some who are negatively affected.

Regarding Presque Isle Bay, I am not sure what you are referring to in your comments. Presque Isle Bay has been stocked pretty consistently at 5,500 fingerlings per year since 1998. We did not go into detail on any specific management plans for individual waters in the new Musky Management Plan because the plans purpose is to address the overall statewide program with more general analysis and recommendations for the entire musky management program in Pennsylvania. Our fisheries management staff just surveyed Presque Isle Bay in 2012 and the management plan will be updated based on that information and the guidelines in the new Musky Management Plan. Going back to the point above, if we did decide to stock certain waters like Presque Isle Bay at a higher stocking rate, we will need to cut some other waters to come up with the fish. Our agency has reached a point where expansion of the numbers of musky fingerlings we stock each year is not going to be possible given the current fiscal and manpower limitations.

Finally, as I said in my previous email, I do not think we can take resources from one particular fishery management program like stocked trout and move it to musky production. That is not the answer. The answer is to find new and innovative ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all our programs while maintaining or hopefully enhancing their quality. Both programs have great worth to the fishermen of Pennsylvania as do the other sportfish we manage and spend our resources on.

Once again I applaud your commitment to the musky management program and I hope this helps you to better understand the Musky Management Plan.



Thank you for taking the time to respond Mr. Woomer. I appreciate it as I have said before.

I understand the volumes of fish stocked vary based on the availability, and the fisheries managers input involved in stocking is important since they have a better feel of the usage of a waterway. The rate that you mentioned here is different from that in the Plan (which is 10 fish per acre Brood compared to 1 per acre Managed), as I have attached above. If that is the case, maybe it plays into the perception that PA stocks too many muskies. I understand that stocking rates can vary, but if you have established different baselines for broodstock lakes, purebred lakes, and tiger lakes, how do these lakes have an equal footing?

I have also attached the stocking list from Presque Isle Bay from the last few years and agree with you, that 5,500 fingerlings has been pretty consistent. It's the additional fry, small fingerling, and yearling muskies being stocked that made me wonder what the deal was. If the habitat is there for natural reproduction, but yet you want to study if it is occuring, how would stocking all these additional fish help that? If the CPUE for Presque Isle was below the minimum, and it is already considered a great bass,perch, and steelhead fishery, why all the muskies?

If the annual mortality rates of fish ages 4-15 is ~41%, would the rates for fish 0-3 be higher? I also understand where the fiscal and manpower constraints will limit the agency with stocking additional muskies every year. It is nice that there are clubs like the Penn/Jersey Chapter of MI that can aid in raising supplemental stockings.

In addition, I do also understand the roots of trout in this state. The very fact that the majority of the commissioners have ties to Trout Unlimited groups speaks volumes. I understand that musky anglers make up something like 9% of the total anglers in the state. But to pitch programs like this:

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib...#axzz2EIkfIADM

are in my opinion a perfect example to the direction of the state. Sure, it could be sustainable. But if there wasn't a fishery there before, why are we trying to create more fisheries but remove species/stockings from others?


Thank you for pointing out the stocking rate for broodstock lakes in the Musky Management Plan. You are correct, and I was wrong in the information in my last reply. The 10/acre stocking rate is the maximum stocking rate for broodstock lakes, although as I said that high a stocking rate is infrequently used at this time.

Regarding the stocking of different size fingerling musky in Presque Isle Bay, these smaller fingerling are unallocated or surplus fingerlings that the hatcheries need to stock early and sometimes we choose Presque Isle Bay hoping that some might survive given that the cover and nursery habitat for young msuky is good in that water. The reason that we sometimes need to stock this younger fish is that the hatcheries will take extra eggs to insure a sufficient number of fingerlings produced in the fall. After the eggs hatch, the fry swim-up and these musky are converted to feed on a dry or artificial feed, the staff takes an inventory of how many fish they have in the hatchery. They also know the maximum number they can continue to raise in the hatchery at that point in their development. Mortality occurs at each of the above steps especially when the small musky are converted to the artificial feed. The number of fish remaining can vary widely and in good years there are many more fish than the hatchery can continue to raise, so they need to stock them. Although we are aware that this is not a good life stage to stock and mortality of these small fish is likely to be very high we would rather stock them in the hopes of getting a small percentage surviving to adulthood.

Thanks again for the great interest you are showing in the musky management program.

[Ivan]

After talking with a couple people that attended the summit and have a relationship with the PFBC, I have a little more optimism that changes may eventually take place. It's not worth arguing about because it will be years before any changes made take effect, if it ever happens. Andy's right...you can't make everyone happy. But, you should do what's best for the majority of anglers and the resources you have available.

I just wanted to clear one thing up to help people form their own educated opinion. Pymatuning is the only broodstock lake in PA that really matters. It has Linesville Hatchery (the best muskie hatchery in the state) right on it. Some of those other little Crawford Co waters may be called broodstock lakes, but they aren't very capable of contributing much. For years, every purebred muskie raised in the state from PA fish, comes from Pymatuning broodstock. The Union City hatchery does trap net some of the other smaller Crawford Co lakes. They don't get enough from them to do any more than cross-breed those muskies with pike to make their allotment of tigers some years. Even their purebreds come from Pymatuning broodstock. Those little lakes would be easily replaced in the muskie production process for our state.