# CJ BROWN MUSKIE THOUGHTS



## slabseeker (Mar 7, 2012)

Just wanting to get some opinions from other Muskie Hunters regarding the future fishery at CJ. Think it will be a boom or bust? I'm unfortunately thinking bust IMO. With the lack of vegetation, bottom structure and breaks feel many fish will hold at rip rap, therefore losing many fish to the spillway. Value and curious about your thoughts and opinions regarding furure?


----------



## BrandonMiller526 (Dec 18, 2018)

slabseeker said:


> Just wanting to get some opinions from other Muskie Hunters regarding the future fishery at CJ. Think it will be a boom or bust? I'm unfortunately thinking bust IMO. With the lack of vegetation, bottom structure and breaks feel many fish will hold at rip rap, therefore losing many fish to the spillway. Value and curious about your thoughts and opinions regarding furure?


I have seen two musky caught at C.J while I was crappie fishing. Both fish were taken out of the water for over 10 minutes, the one was kept, the other was dropped on the sidewalk about 1000 photos. Sure that happens everywhere was just sad to see, I've never targeted or caught one but probably will if C.J reaches some in the 40 inch range.


----------



## burnsj5 (Jan 30, 2014)

Success will be based off the number of guys who will fish for them there and I'm thinking guys probably won't fish it. Looking at 10 years until it's a mature fishery in my opinion. Too far from Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus guys may give it a go but if I was in Columbus would probably fish alum or make a drive to clear fork or salt fork even. I still wonder about how east fork could have been, but again wonder if guys were giving it a go outside the one year the muskie clubs fished it for one outing. 
I also don't understand why the DNR puts so much money into already established muskie lakes for tracking vs setting up readers and tags on a new lake. Seems like if possible tracking fish on a new lake would be more of a benefit so you can pull the plug sooner and have more data than spending years and tons of resources with advanced fingerlings on a lake that was doomed to fail.


----------



## Vin (Oct 7, 2014)

I wish DNR would stock some Muskie directly into streams. They are riverine fish and we have lots of good looking streams that historically had them and are in good enough shape that may have a real shot at some natural reproduction. I know there’s a good number in some rivers from reservoir escapees but it feels like DNR puts a disproportionate amount of resources into lake fisheries when a lot of serious fishermen spend a good amount of time in rivers. I’d especially love to see some LMR stocking considering you don’t seem to see much if any CC escapees. In addition, although there are plenty in the columbus scioto area and alum/big walnut from Alum escapees, there are quite a few tribs that I think could support good populations (aside from the small handful of streams in the southern region that still has naturally reproducing pops)


----------



## TopRaider15 (Mar 10, 2015)

A decent amount of fish have made it into the LMR, whether they are from CC or bailed from East Fork is yet to be established...probably both. CJ does not look like an ideal musky lake.

Would absolutely love it if the DNR stocked the rivers, it is where they belong. Also feel like mortality rates are significantly higher is these reservoirs. Accidental summer catches, then throwing a fish back into 80 plus degree water doesn't bode well for survival. 

Join Muskies Inc and begin lobbying for a different style of stocking.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

I've seen reports of a couple 30" fish caught this year. Those fish are only 2 years old and don't have much competition! They're quickly becoming the apex predator in that system. Some will die due to mishandling. Some will get caught. However, many are thriving!! 

My children are quite young, and not ready to battle a true brute. So, I plan to take them there next summer to see how the trolling bite is shaping up! I'm expecting some 35 - 36" fish! However, even 27 - 31" fish would be fun for my kids to battle!

I'm excited about this fishery! I think it's going to be awesome!!


----------



## TopRaider15 (Mar 10, 2015)

Wonder how welcome the muskie will be when an escapee is caught in the Mad?


----------



## Vin (Oct 7, 2014)

TopRaider15 said:


> Wonder how welcome the muskie will be when an escapee is caught in the Mad?


It’d be a shame if they started eating all those non-native trout


----------



## walleyejigger (Sep 29, 2009)

not a lot of trout in that strech of the mad river


----------



## Southernsaug (May 23, 2019)

I saw this thread and debated commenting, because I have been out of the loop so long and don't know the reasoning for what Fisheries is using for this. In all honesty, I have a hard time figuring out why they have done several things that were contrary to research from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. I have a long history with the Muskie program and played a key role in some of the decisions in the past, but that is old history. So I will comment on what I know. 

C J would not be one of my top choices, but I think it will do ok. It has done ok with Walleye for a long time and that is encouraging. It was discussed when Rocky Fork was removed, because there was desire to keep a Muskie lake in the region. Caesar Creek won that round and has turned out good. The key thing is patience as Muskie fisheries take several years to establish. 

I don't understand why they won't reconsider Rocky Fork. When the program was pulled there it was the right thing to do. The lake had become a cesspool and disease was rampant in the lake. I was one of the voices saying end the stockings there, a decision I still believe was right. However; after the central sewage system went in the lake has done one of the most dramatic habitat returns I have ever seen. It is a really stable lake now. Of course many of you know I think they screwed up the Saugeye fishery there as well. I hate length limits on hybrid fish!

On stream stockings. Yes there are some streams that would do ok with Muskies. One of the premier Muskie Research papers done, that was nationally recognized, on streams was done by a dear friend of mine in another state. He helped establish the guidelines for good Muskie streams. Many that you think would do well, don't fit. There is a reason they disappeared from our streams years ago. Those streams that have natural populations have really been compromised. Sedimentation has ruined a lot of habitat. I think the fish would just migrate out of these streams for the most part. The next issue with streams is access. Stream access is probably in the area of 95% private. When you have a product as expensive and limited as Muskies then you have to use that resource wisely, making it available to as much of the public as possible. Stream stocking would be great for a few, but in the big picture very limited to the general public, when you consider the whole state. I would not vote to stock streams.


----------



## slabseeker (Mar 7, 2012)

Southernsaug said:


> I saw this thread and debated commenting, because I have been out of the loop so long and don't know the reasoning for what Fisheries is using for this. In all honesty, I have a hard time figuring out why they have done several things that were contrary to research from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. I have a long history with the Muskie program and played a key role in some of the decisions in the past, but that is old history. So I will comment on what I know.
> 
> C J would not be one of my top choices, but I think it will do ok. It has done ok with Walleye for a long time and that is encouraging. It was discussed when Rocky Fork was removed, because there was desire to keep a Muskie lake in the region. Caesar Creek won that round and has turned out good. The key thing is patience as Muskie fisheries take several years to establish.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your reply and reasoning for your answers. Agree with your thoughts and reasoning.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

burnsj5 said:


> I also don't understand why the DNR puts so much money into already established muskie lakes for tracking vs setting up readers and tags on a new lake. Seems like if possible tracking fish on a new lake would be more of a benefit so you can pull the plug sooner and have more data than spending years and tons of resources with advanced fingerlings on a lake that was doomed to fail.


They don't do any tracking, they dump them in and that's that, they rely on MAL (musky angler log online) for statistics of size, numbers, fishing hours on a given lake etc. 

Fun fact, it costs $9.00 per fish to get a musky to advanced fingerling stocking size. They eat like pics, raffles and fun raising events take place throughout the year to help pay for minnows to feed them, believe it not some musky anglers have ZERO clues about the program and could give two shits, pretty selfish if you ask me.


----------



## burnsj5 (Jan 30, 2014)

K gonefishin said:


> They don't do any tracking, they dump them in and that's that, they rely on MAL (musky angler log online) for statistics of size, numbers, fishing hours on a given lake etc.
> 
> Fun fact, it costs $9.00 per fish to get a musky to advanced fingerling stocking size. They eat like pics, raffles and fun raising events take place throughout the year to help pay for minnows to feed them, believe it not some musky anglers have ZERO clues about the program and could give two shits, pretty selfish if you ask me.


I don't know if Id put that much responsibility on an angler to feel obligated to contribute to catch something the state willingly stocks. I do enjoy the club outings, minnow fund tournies, and other fundraising to help pay for the fish but I wouldn't hold it against someone who liked fishing for them but didn't engage in such activities. There isn't even any local representation anymore in south east Ohio if a guy wanted to be active. SOMA ch56 of MI disbanded years ago, I signed up with Akron and don't mind driving up there for events and gives me a chance to fish with my dad and visit family (I'm from NE Ohio) but some guys may not be able to take the time off or drive that many hours to fish or attend meetings, how can they contribute outside cutting a check for "their share" of muskie fishing. 
When I state tracking fish I mean the tags and readers on spillways/dams. The state uses MAL, creel surveys, nets placed in the spring on some lakes (Leesville, east fork when stocked), and there are study lakes like salt fork that have tagged fish and readers near some exits to see loss of fish. Ive always wondered why have tagged fish and readers on established lakes like salt fork, which the data will almost never result it a discontinuation of program vs those same tags and readers on a new lake like east fork that could give real information for loss of fish and result in a quicker stopping of stocking if data showed too high of an attrition to escape, you now have more fish to put elsewhere instead of continuing a stocking program doomed to fail and waste all those fish.


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

MAL is definitely used by alot of guys, I agree with your assessment and thoughts on the other lakes, it seems like they have 1 or 2 lakes they use as experimental lakes, which I suppose would be needed to expand the lakes to stock if they aren't established lakes for other species. I'm in the northeast part of the state so don't know much about the lakes south as I don't visit them.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

K gonefishin said:


> They don't do any tracking, they dump them in and that's that, they rely on MAL (musky angler log online) for statistics of size, numbers, fishing hours on a given lake etc.
> 
> Fun fact, it costs $9.00 per fish to get a musky to advanced fingerling stocking size. They eat like pics, raffles and fun raising events take place throughout the year to help pay for minnows to feed them, believe it not some musky anglers have ZERO clues about the program and could give two shits, pretty selfish if you ask me.[/QUOTE
> 
> /QUOTE]


Yes they do. They have been stocking tagged fish the last 5 or 6 years as part of a 10 year "escapement study". They want to see which lakes have higher dam escapement than others. 2 reservoirs had fish stocked with radio tags that transmit a signal. I know Alum was one, I think Leesville was the other! All the others are stocked with fish that just have a pit tag that anglers would need to call in the number on.[


----------



## Vin (Oct 7, 2014)

Giving consideration to the previously mentioned point about keeping musky in publicly accessible water, I understand how it’s frustrating to see declining reservoir populations and loss of fish through spillways. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re “wasted”. Spillways escapes give plenty of people, myself included, who don’t have a boat an opportunity to target musky in spillways and further downstream in the rivers. Even streams that have no shot at sustaining reproduction seem to hold onto musky in fishable numbers, and they certainly stick around long enough to get some size on them.


----------



## burnsj5 (Jan 30, 2014)

Vin said:


> Giving consideration to the previously mentioned point about keeping musky in publicly accessible water, I understand how it’s frustrating to see declining reservoir populations and loss of fish through spillways. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re “wasted”. Spillways escapes give plenty of people, myself included, who don’t have a boat an opportunity to target musky in spillways and further downstream in the rivers. Even streams that have no shot at sustaining reproduction seem to hold onto musky in fishable numbers, and they certainly stick around long enough to get some size on them.


Very true, lost fish are not a waste but not ideal for guys like myself fishing from a boat. There are numerous popular spillways and creeks that now have fishable populations for people to enjoy. When I say waste I more so mean long term stocking that ends and could have been used elsewhere if pulled earlier. These fish are a valuable resource and if you take 10 years of stocking a lake that was doomed to fail, then switch, once realizing after all this time and moving to a new lake, to me is a waste as those fish could have been allocated to other waters. If a lake is discontinued there are no more escapees, no backwaters or spillways to explore because the fish wont be there. If escaped fish die in a non sustainable water way it is a waste too, but I agree just because a fish leaves the lake it wouldn't be fair to call it a waste if others are able to enjoy it.


----------

