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.