Why mess with a great fishery like Gull. Leave well enough alone, it doesn't need Muskies. We have plenty of lakes and rivers to fish for them.

The animals listed below are just a few non-native species that currently reside in our area. I'm not sure about you but I'm glad they're here. I wonder what group(s) would try to scare us into thinking that any one of these species would potentially destroy the ecosystem if they were introduced today?

Cattle (from Europe)
Horse (from Europe)
Sheep (from Asia)
Swine (from Europe)
Ring-necked Pheasant (from Asia and Europe)

P.S. With the amount of lakes that are stocked (with muskies) there should be no need for speculation on what would happen if Gull was stocked. Does anyone know of a lake that was negatively affected after being stocked with muskies?

and all of those animals have changed the ecosystem......but we also rely heavily on those animals for food....except horses I guess........plus what are the percntage of muskie anglers in the state.....I think it is under 10% with anglers questioned on if they are interested in trying fishing for muskies was 14% according to a radio show that was on Saturday morning in the brainerd lakes area.......if those numbers are correct I think going crazy on changing lakes forever with stocking would not be smart.....

Ozzie, I think every FM member is well aware of your anti-muskie personality. All I have to say, is stop WHINING. Put this issue to rest, it is history. The "haters" won the battle, its over.

I don't think anyone is suggesting "going crazy stocking", not that I've heard anyways. Sometimes an ecosystem can be enriched by introducing a species that has been scientifically tested and proven to not have a negative impact (unless you have an example of a fishery being destroyed by the musky). I think if you asked any of a number of resort owners, baitshop owners, etc. if they would not appreciate a 10% to 14% increase in potential customers you would receive an overwhelming response in favor, especially if there was no "down side" to the environment.

DHanson -I am not anti-muskie at all....to each there own and different strokes for different folks.......I just think that they are changing the ecosystem for a small % of anglers. Sorry you can't deal with fishing the other major lakes and rivers in the state that have Muskies!!!

46" - 94" angler- I agree if the overall long term health of a lake gets better with the introduction of a new species than I would be a little more open to the idea but I don't believe there have been enough studies done that say that introducing muskies alone make a healthier lake...... I know they are supposedly to make a better pop. of northerns-walleyes- to even panfish but I believe the same results are happening with slots and the studies are also coinciding with slot placement on many of the stocked muskie lakes....Coincidence maybe but maybe not.

Historically Gull Lake had muskies in it or they were at least present via the chain when it was connected directly or via tributary to the Mississippi. There have been muskies caught in Gull in the recent history, so stocking really wouldn't be introducing an invasive, but rather a restoration of a habitat.

nice little rant "fish on".......

Dano- Are you sure? Never heard of muskies in there now or then. Where are you getting your info?

I have seen 2 muskies out of Gull in the last 15 years, and I know that I am not the only one that has.

9 or 10 years ago i caught 4 tiger muskys out of gull in the 30in range realeased them back. i fish for walleyes, bass, trout and musky and its to bad money made the diffrence between muskys being restored in gull.for the slot on musky stocked lakes a few of them also have nets in them coicidence maybe but maybe not.

I've fished the lake for over 25 yrs. never seen one or had any follows. I'm real skeptical.

I would bet that there are a few in there. Just because you have fished a lake for X amount of years does not mean much. There are a ton of 50inch Muskies in lots of lakes and guys can go lifetimes without ever seeing one. So if there are a dozen or so in 11,000 acres of water it would be rare to see one. I belive that they were in there naturally when the river was open. There is no reason that they were not. If i am correct there used to be a very healthy smallmouth pop. in there as well before the dam went in.

While Muskies aren't the most fished for prey in the state, the number of peopel who are targeting them is increasing yearly, as is the number of out of state people coming into the state to chase Muskies. With Minnesota being the premier muskies state in the nation, it is natural for more out of state anglers to come here. I will double check my facts, but counting the out of state fishermen, muskies total 25% of the targeted prey in the state. While that is not as high as walleye, if you break down the amount of water with muskies and muskies anglers on it per acre, i bet it would rival or surpass that of any other species.

I hope that they do target the Whitefish chain to stock muskies in it. Although they will have a tough time with all the whiners and anti muskies folks in the area. You would think that resort owners and tourist businesses would want to bring more people into the area...........

And yes, Dan was correct. Muskies have always been in Gull, entering in from the river. I know of people who have caught them in there before, so lets reestablish the population!!!