Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Allopatric vs. Sympatric Muskie Populations |
| Message Subject: Allopatric vs. Sympatric Muskie Populations | |||
Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | This is going to be a long post, a record perhaps. I had thought about making it an article but decided it would be much easier for you readers to comment or pose questions here without having to go back and forth. Please be civil and stay on topic: Near the bottom of the third page of the 72-pounds 2-ounces… thread, Angling Oracle made reference to Sympatric vs. Allopatric populations of muskellunge (US)/masquinongy (Canada) populations. My first introduction to the facts behind this took place in 1986, when I spent 5 ½ months working with now Dr. Bernard Lebeau, during his field work for his Doctoral Thesis on Ontario’s Eagle and Wabigoon sympatric Lakes and Masquinongy (a 50-year sanctuary lake) and one other allopatric lake. His explanation of the differences between the two populations, and the basis for his hypothesis that there were two different “species” of Muskellunge (the proper name recognized by the American Fisheries Society), made the realization of that possibility quite clear to me. As an aside, Dr. Lebeau’s Thesis was completed and, in some circles, made believers. However, due to complications with his first Thesis Advisor, his findings were banned from being published in Scientific Journals. Subsequent happenings within the Province of Ontario over the next several years, however, indicated that many Ontario fisheries scientists did indeed agree with his findings of major differences between the two populations as realized for maximum growth of the species, whether or not they bought into the idea of two separate species, and hence forth was likely the reasoning for creating higher maximum size limits in certain waters (with historic sympatric populations) of 54-inches (137.16 centimeters) and the re-opening of Masquinongy Lake to angling! It had been set aside as a sanctuary lake in case of a major failure in other NW Ontario muskie lakes but Ontario abandoned that idea after Dr. Lebeau’s proving it to be an allopatric population with limited growth potential (note: we sampled 40 muskies from there and none of them exceeded 10-pounds! In addition, we learned that pike had also invaded this lake. As another aside, prior to continuing, when I last talked with Bernard several years ago, he related to me that he had been working with a geneticist and based on what he had learned up to that point, he stated that “Once you know what to look for, seeing the difference between the two groups is as clear as telling the difference between large and smallmouth bass.”! To delve deeper into the history and explanation of the primary differences between these two populations that affect trophy muskie anglers, we need to go back around ten to twelve thousand years! During the last period of glaciation, muskellunge (likely a single species at that time) retreated to the Mississippi refugium below the farthest advance of the glaciers covering the upper eastern half of the United States and Eastern Canada. As the glaciers “melted back” (some like to say retreated-I disagree), muskellunge followed (pike came later). As glacier melt waters dropped many muskellunge were “isolated” in waterbodies with no ingress or egress (a noted exception are southern waters of the muskie range where no pike exist). It is that in these waters absent of pike, within the whole of the North American native muskellunge range as known today, with the southern exception, where maximum size has topped out around the 50-pound mark (very rare), that “allopatric” populations, normally small maximum growth, flourished. Bernards discoveries found that within these allopatric water’s muskellunge spawned only once annually due to the absence of pike and did not reach near the maximum sizes found in “sympatric” populations that had co-existed historically (a very important component) with pike and had developed a survival strategy of spawning twice annually, and therefore evolved into a larger growing animal to allow for a much higher number of eggs spawned annually (about three to four times more eggs per individual female)! Example: a search of the literature, research on muskellunge egg count, which had been done almost exclusively on allopatric populations, finds numbers to be in the 100,000 to 250,000 range per female. Conversely, an egg count from the O’brien sympatric muskie by Dr. Lebeau, found an egg count of over 850,000 eggs, indicating the potential of sympatric populations! So, that brings us to the part of most interest to trophy muskie anglers. Genetics, either allopatric or sympatric populations plays a HUGE part in the size of muskies a particular waterbody can produce. I have long posed in my seminars, that if the lake you are fishing has a lake record of 35-pounds, guess what? The likelihood of you capturing a world record there are, in my opinion, impossible! Deviations from this could be stocking of muskies from sympatric populations in new or allopatric waters (unadvised by todays fisheries scientists), which has been done both ways by man for the past 125 years, which muddies the water, so to speak, with regard to true designation of a certain waterbody. It is unknown just how many “new” muskie lakes have been created in recent history, especially during the early part of the twentieth century. Newly hatched muskies were loaded in milk cans, delivered by train to whomever wanted them and they were indiscriminately stocked all across the northern part of Wisconsin!! Even with ten to twelve thousand years of evolved genetics, slight differences in genetics are found even within the same waterbodies such as large muskellunge rivers like the St. Lawrence or Great Lakes populations. This can often play a part in maximum growth potential. According to Dr. John Casselman PhD, North America’s top muskie researcher, muskies also need a lot of space and minimal disturbance to attain maximum growth, as well as years with maximum spawning success, often affected by weather events. To further support the growth differences, I did research of histories largest known, verified, and supported (believed) muskellunge. What I found was no surprise to me. Only a mere handful of “possible” allopatric waters produced very few muskies over 30-pounds, let alone over 40 or 50-pounds (extremely rare) and NONE over 55-pounds. And none of those were in recent history (last 80 years or so) which would indicate that these larger specimens were in fertile bodies of water and hadn’t been harassed! Some allopatric waters experienced maximum growth spurts when recently (within the past 100 years or so) were flooded into large impoundments, such as the Chippewa Flowage in Wisconsin. In addition, where sympatric muskies were re-introduced into previously failed muskie fisheries such as Mille Lacs Lake and Lake Vermilion in Minnesota with their large populations of ciscoes and whitefish, history was made and some of the most incredible fisheries on the planet were developed. I think that is enough “food for thought” for now. I hope you found it interesting. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1192 | Yes I do, I just bought a book Conservation Of Freshwater Fishes, and I have the old 1986 book Managing Muskies too. Good stuff hard reading. | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 596 Location: Duluth | Have been waiting for a post like this for a while. Thank you Larry and can't wait for more. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | It is a very interesting topic and certainly I will have a few contributions here once I find a bit of time. I am very worried about pike getting into our allopatric lakes up here. Smallmouth bass have probably already affected the musky population structure in a negative way in these lakes, but the niche overlap with invasive northern pike much greater and of course interspecific spawning between these muskies pike and overlap with the fry is going to lead to a further decline. Kawarthas allopatric muskies up here in trouble from invasive pike and now it looks like formerly allopatric musky lakes north of Vermillion Bay are as well based on the number of tigers showing up. Larry, I think a really interesting revelation about the sympatric musky populations is the high spawning fidelity. The implications is of course how important to protect these highly specific spawning areas, but within the data there was also this tidbit where the same pair of tagged male and female muskies returned annually to the exact same sites. The implication to me of this is sort of chicken and egg scenario - if you have the nest and there is no chicken to lay in it, there are no eggs. Very important to protect every big female. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028487.2016.1209556 Edited by Angling Oracle 1/2/2024 9:46 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | From the 72 2 thread quoting Larry Ramsell: "Between this thread and the "Allopatric" thread you are painting two dire situations (real or imagined), for the muskie lakes in NW Ontario. Should you wish to continue this "no keep", basically "no handling" discussion I would ask that you combine it with the "Allopatric" thread and leave this one to the 72-2 discussion. IMO, you are dangerously close to advocating for NO muskie angling in NW Ontario at all when such factors as release mortality are factored in!" I am advocating no-keep in the sympatric "trophy" systems only given I believe that the initial rationale for the over-54 was the prevailing belief that there is reproductive senesense in those fish and that they were expendable. I don't believe this is the case and that these are the least expendable fish in the population. The fact that they are such a low density predator and do grow to achieve these large sizes in the sympatric systems would suggest that a longer lifespan would also be an evolutionary trait of muskies in Lac Seul and elsewhere. This would be in keeping with other large low density freshwater fish predators that live into their twenties and beyond. The overwhelming majority of musky anglers are not going to keep an over 54 - so really if the prevailing attitude would be that we want these fish to remain in the system, then we should change the rule to that. The lodge I primarily stay at and I'm sure many others already have a no-keep rule conditionally for staying there. I didn't make the immediate release rule nor do I advocate the way it is worded. It is what it is. The OFAH is advocating for a revision to allow for CPR. I have likely killed muskies fishing for them - eager small muskies impaled in gill areas. They swam away, but probably didn't make it. Fishing for muskies and fishing for other fish and catching muskies is going to kill some. I think the systems are resilient enough to withstand a certain amount of fishing pressure, but permitting the removal of the biggest females doesn't make any sense to me. At this point just an opinion - as far as OMNR is concerned I think they believe everything is A-okay with the muskies in NW Ontario. We have had a no over rule for channel catfish here in Manitoba for decades - fishing for them continues to be insane. Likewise now for walleye, bass, pike, crappie, lake trout, brook trout and even burbot and freshwater drum. It is very difficult to make changes but these no-over rules actually very easily agreed to but all but a very few (the commercial fishers - a.k.a. tournament organizers). I know the Ontario folks are jealous of our regulations. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/2/2024 5:42 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle says: "At this point just an opinion - as far as OMNR is concerned I think they believe everything is A-okay with the muskies in NW Ontario." LR: At this point that is what matters. The OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) obviously believes that the 54-inch size limit on trophy (sympatric) muskie waters to be sufficient to protect the fisheries, especially, as you noted, with the overwhelmingly high percentage of CPR practiced by todays muskie anglers. With NO stocking there, this is an important fact. Angling mortality (even in your Provinces rule of "none over") is unavoidable and unknown but appears to be in the acceptable range in Ontario's trophy muskie waters which has had the protective 54-inch size limit rule for quite some time now, with greatly increasing numbers of undersize (below 54") muskies in the system and no apparent decline in trophies over 54-inches. Eagle Lake is a great example of this. In one of your earlier posts on another thread, you expressed great concern for the allopatric lakes and the invasion of pike, and the long-term damage being caused by it. I too share your concern in this matter. It has been an ongoing (and getting worse) problem here in Wisconsin for over 75 years. I suspect that the majority of today's muskie anglers' fish allopatric waters and their supply of available catchable muskies is rapidly diminishing, even in the remaining lakes with self-sustaining natural reproduction! Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/3/2024 8:40 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/3/2024 8:37 AM Oracle says: "At this point just an opinion - as far as OMNR is concerned I think they believe everything is A-okay with the muskies in NW Ontario." LR: At this point that is what matters. The OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) obviously believes that the 54-inch size limit on trophy (sympatric) muskie waters to be sufficient to protect the fisheries, especially, as you noted, with the overwhelmingly high percentage of CPR practiced by todays muskie anglers. With NO stocking there, this is an important fact. Thanks Larry, I think a worthwhile debate -- great to hear another perspective. I will be careful with comments re. NW Ontario OMNR. Let's just say walleye are the focus (rightfully so from an overall fishery importance) and any data from creel surveys regarding muskies the trend is positive as far as catch rates - ergo nothing to worry about with muskies. Next species on the agenda... Regulations are not easy to change so they are going to default to status quo unless there is a five alarm bell with a deputy minister calling because his/her boss the minister is getting guff from stakeholders. So status quo is the default, even if a regulation is a relic of former times. There is no question in my view that whatever legally kept over-54s that are taken in the higher density sympatric NW Ontario trophy musky lakes will not jeopardize the fishery's existence, but any that are taken do reduce the trophy quality of the fishery, at minimum locally where such a fish was harvested. From a fishery science perspective I believe allowing the removal of the largest fish is removing the most robust and fastest growing specimens of the stock. Not smart. In Manitoba on both the hunting and fishing side of things all the regs were looked at to see what they are supposed to achieve. On the fishing side of things locals and tourist alike want to catch lots of big fish and plenty to take home to eat as well. Size and limits changed across the board, to support rec anglers and to compromise with commercial fishers as well who sacrificed in terms of mesh sizes and quotas. Some things were not necessarily obviously broken, but could achieve new objectives (new trophy fisheries, new opportunities), so they were changed. Status quo is not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps a first step in this debate as to whether reg appropriate or not would be to find out how many big muskies are taken with mandatory reporting to find out who, how many, and where from. I think whatever the answers are from that though the result will still point to what am suggesting: why have the reg? It is a relic of a time when taxidermy was a stakeholder group that had a bit of sway; they have evolved away from skins. It only benefits a tiny few and in fact could and is likely detrimental to the fishery given inferences from other studies. Does it actually benefit anyone? Obviously we cannot have a world record if a world record fish cannot be harvested and weighed. I can understand completely that would be a reason to leave the reg from your perspective, and I am okay with that being your reason. It is only logical that keeping the one over-54 limit is detrimental to trophy musky fishers, whereas eliminating the reg and changing to zero over is beneficial: one option is killing a super rare top predator fish, gone from system forever, whereas the other is hope and opportunity for the next musky fisher. This is a case where the status quo is not a good thing. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/3/2024 12:51 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle you make interesting comments about unfounded and unproven ideas regarding upper end muskies and their "potential/possible" contribution to the fishery. Remember that prior to 1988, the muskie regulation in Ontario was two fish PER DAY with a 28-inch size limit!! I don't recall exactly when the "Trophy Lakes" size limit was increased to 54-inches, but it hasn't been an excessive amount of time. During that time lakes like Eagle Lake have benefitted dramatically with an amazing increase in muskies of all sizes, including the upper lengths! I believe we have to trust the muskie scientists of Ontario to keep a close eye on things and react as necessary as they did when they closed Wabigoon Lake down for a while and of course the move to make Lac Suel catch and release only in the early 1990's to prevent another Wabigoon and have maintained it in that state due to population concerns. IMO trophy muskie waters are in fine condition and in good hands. No need yet to even consider making all trophy waters catch and release only, nor "none over". Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/3/2024 3:07 PM | ||
| R/T |
| ||
Posts: 76 | "In one of your earlier posts on another thread, you expressed great concern for the allopatric lakes and the invasion of pike, and the long-term damage being caused by it. I too share your concern in this matter. It has been an ongoing (and getting worse) problem here in Wisconsin for over 75 years. I suspect that the majority of today's muskie anglers' fish allopatric waters and their supply of available catchable muskies is rapidly diminishing, even in the remaining lakes with self-sustaining natural reproduction!" Very much a concern of mine. Not sure what can be done but would like to hear about the "what happens" when the pike move in to where they weren't. Hoping for a better understanding of what may be expected in years to come. Is there hope the native muskie populations can adapt? Will I be gone by then? The lakes I spend most of my time on have naturally reproducing muskies and now pike populations. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry Ramsell - 1/3/2024 3:03 PM Oracle you make interesting comments about unfounded and unproven ideas regarding upper end muskies and their "potential/possible" contribution to the fishery. Unfounded is a bit unfair, Larry. We've both probably read as much of the musky science literature that there is out there, and it is pretty thin for good reason. Not an easy fish to study. That being said, there are lots of papers on the fish length, fish age and egg size, dry weight relationship for many freshwater species, including pike. The higher dry egg weight and increased larval survival is well established. Maternal experience (age) is also well established in many species, including pike in terms of timing of spawn and hence larval survival and development - ie. older fish making better spawning decisions than younger ones. I think safe to speculate that muskies would be similar in this regard and even more important for their reproductive success given their low density. Longer, older fish should not be considered expendable. I don't know how the over-54 was arrived at - it may be in one of Casselman's papers. Certainly scientists likely had input, but I can say from personal experience that what a scientist or stock assessment biologist suggest is just that, a suggestion. Most decisions are ultimately political with managers implementing them. The over-54 was likely some sort of compromise that made sense at the time. In Kerr's 2004 Ontario volunteer diary, I believe the stats indicate that 99% of fish are released. It also indicated most of the fish kept are actually kept by Ontario residents and non-musky dedicated anglers (cottage owners wanting a mount perhaps??). I would suggest again that this reg is not a good one for trophy musky fishers. We can agree to disagree, but I think this reg's time has passed. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/3/2024 4:44 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8719 | Look at some of the camps on Eagle. They see what, all of 2 or 3 54"ers caught in a season? Of those, how many are actually harvested? Even if it's all of them, we're talking about such a small number of fish that I don't see where a regulation change would have any effects on the overall fishery. Are the locals really harvesting them when they get to that size? For what? | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | esoxaddict - 1/3/2024 5:05 PM Look at some of the camps on Eagle. They see what, all of 2 or 3 54"ers caught in a season? Of those, how many are actually harvested? Even if it's all of them, we're talking about such a small number of fish that I don't see where a regulation change would have any effects on the overall fishery. Are the locals really harvesting them when they get to that size? For what? It's what they survey indicated. People who don't fish muskies certainly would marvel at such a giant fish. You have to ask them, I don't know. Look, the mortality of big fish happens one way or other - fishing handling, natural or otherwise. In some cases too many big fish can have top down effects of suppressing recruitment - not the intent of this reg I don't believe. I believe the intent of the over-54 regs was to ensure enough big fish available to sustain these trophy fisheries by having big fish do their thing, and then some harvest to pacify the animal rights crowd at the time "you shouldn't just fish just for fun." We don't need the reg anymore, but I can't ague that changing is going to make a big difference. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/3/2024 6:41 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle says: "There is no question in my view that whatever legally kept over-54s that are taken in the higher density sympatric NW Ontario trophy musky lakes will not jeopardize the fishery's existence, but any that are taken do reduce the trophy quality of the fishery, at minimum locally where such a fish was harvested. From a fishery science perspective I believe allowing the removal of the largest fish is removing the most robust and fastest growing specimens of the stock. Not smart." LR: From your different posts I find contradictions. Isn't the idea of size limits to prevent overharvest? And how can you determine the limited harvest (you quote Kerr saying 99% are released) reduces the trophy 'quality'? And, going to your idea of a good thing "nothing over", isn't that allowing and encouraging harvest "under"? And you would still be harvesting the "offspring" of the genetic giants which in the end also eliminates some of the best of the Gene pool? Oracle: "In Manitoba on both the hunting and fishing side of things all the regs were looked at to see what they are supposed to achieve. On the fishing side of things locals and tourist alike want to catch lots of big fish and plenty to take home to eat as well. Size and limits changed across the board, to support rec anglers and to compromise with commercial fishers as well who sacrificed in terms of mesh sizes and quotas. Some things were not necessarily obviously broken, but could achieve new objectives (new trophy fisheries, new opportunities), so they were changed. Status quo is not necessarily a good thing." LR: See my previous comments. Oracle: "Perhaps a first step in this debate as to whether reg appropriate or not would be to find out how many big muskies are taken with mandatory reporting to find out who, how many, and where from. I think whatever the answers are from that though the result will still point to what am suggesting: why have the reg? It is a relic of a time when taxidermy was a stakeholder group that had a bit of sway; they have evolved away from skins. It only benefits a tiny few and in fact could and is likely detrimental to the fishery given inferences from other studies. Does it actually benefit anyone?" LR: Do you really think "mandatory reporting" of the harvest of over 54-inch muskies would be complied with? Yes, that knowledge would be helpful but unlikely inaccurate. I don't believe we are far enough along with the 54-inch size limit to be calling it a "relic". RT: "Very much a concern of mine. Not sure what can be done but would like to hear about the "what happens" when the pike move in to where they weren't. Hoping for a better understanding of what may be expected in years to come. Is there hope the native muskie populations can adapt? Will I be gone by then? The lakes I spend most of my time on have naturally reproducing muskies and now pike populations." LR: Short version answer: When pike invade previously "pike free" waters, nothing good comes from it. Pike spawn before muskies and the small pike eat the smaller muskies. Also, hybrids result...beautiful fish, but sterile and therefore every hybrid is displacing a muskie and each lake has only so much carrying capacity, especially the small allopatric lakes. Yes, the native populations could adapt, but you will be long gone as it would take thousands of years of evolution. Oracle: "Unfounded is a bit unfair, Larry. We've both probably read as much of the musky science literature that there is out there, and it is pretty thin for good reason. Not an easy fish to study." LR: And therefore, your suppositions are just that and most likely the studying of most of them will never happen, at least in our lifetime. Oracle: "That being said, there are lots of papers on the fish length, fish age and egg size, dry weight relationship for many freshwater species, including pike." LR: Pike are not muskies nor do their eggs react with substrate like muskies. Pike eggs have a much higher survival rate than do muskie eggs. Oracle: "The higher dry egg weight and increased larval survival is well established. Maternal experience (age) is also well established in many species, including pike in terms of timing of spawn and hence larval survival and development - ie. older fish making better spawning decisions than younger ones. I think safe to speculate that muskies would be similar in this regard and even more important for their reproductive success given their low density. Longer, older fish should not be considered expendable." LR: Again, given the low % of kept muskies I find that statement extremely hypothetical and unproven. Oracle: "In Kerr's 2004 Ontario volunteer diary, I believe the stats indicate that 99% of fish are released. It also indicated most of the fish kept are actually kept by Ontario residents and non-musky dedicated anglers (cottage owners wanting a mount perhaps??). I would suggest again that this reg is not a good one for trophy musky fishers. We can agree to disagree, but I think this reg's time has passed. " LR: We tend here to edge into the area of release mortality. Are as many large muskies lost to mishandling as harvest? If yes, and the 54-inch limit waters are still doing ok or improving, doesn't that counter your hypotheses." EA: "Look at some of the camps on Eagle. They see what, all of 2 or 3 54"ers caught in a season? Of those, how many are actually harvested? Even if it's all of them, we're talking about such a small number of fish that I don't see where a regulation change would have any effects on the overall fishery. Are the locals really harvesting them when they get to that size? For what?" LR: Interesting questions EA, and a good point. See Oracles post above for his thoughts on who and why are harvesting. Oracle: "It's what they survey indicated. People who don't fish muskies certainly would marvel at such a giant fish. You have to ask them, I don't know. Look, the mortality of big fish happens one way or other - fishing handling, natural or otherwise. In some cases too many big fish can have top down effects of suppressing recruitment - not the intent of this reg I don't believe. I believe the intent of the over-54 regs was to ensure enough big fish available to sustain these trophy fisheries by having big fish do their thing, and then some harvest to pacify the animal rights crowd at the time "you shouldn't just fish just for fun." We don't need the reg anymore, but I can't argue that changing is going to make a big difference." LR: There fore we leave it to the OMNR. | ||
| EsoxWanderer |
| ||
Posts: 46 | R/T - 1/3/2024 4:45 PM Very much a concern of mine. Not sure what can be done but would like to hear about the "what happens" when the pike move in to where they weren't. Hoping for a better understanding of what may be expected in years to come. Is there hope the native muskie populations can adapt? Will I be gone by then? The lakes I spend most of my time on have naturally reproducing muskies and now pike populations. Lets see if this works R/T, I'll try to attach a snippet of MCI data on Balsam Lake in Ontario hours per catch, invaded by pike. (Plz delete if not permitted). The MNR maintains limits on keeping pike in this zone and on this and connected lakes, which I find strange. The MNR has previously tried to remove/stop the spread of the pike here. The musky won't evolve to better co-exist in our lifetimes, and even if they did they would remain lower density than in the absence of pike. Attachments ----------------  Balsam.PNG (29KB - 17 downloads) | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Thanks Larry, I believe my arguments have been consistent, but perhaps disjointed in the way presented as counter-arguments. I will summarize the way I see the current trophy management (one over 54") lakes The lakes/river systems are currently management for trophy musky fisheries. To achieve this, the goal is maximize opportunities for trophy size musky, defined by musky fishers in creel surveys as 45" and up for some systems, and 50" and up in others. To achieve this, first the musky in theses systems must have the genetic traits to grow to these sizes, and secondarily must be allowed to grow to these trophy size by minimizing fishing mortality before doing so. Allowing them to get to these large sizes will also give these trophy stock fish the ability to spawn multiple times and sustain the population and genetics long term. Natural mortality cannot be effectively reduced significantly by fisheries management, but must be considered in setting the regulations. Natural mortality will occur from various causes, including disease and senescence, and in the sympatric systems there is likely significant interspecific competition and predation between pike and musky given significant niche overlap; this would be in additional to intraspecific competition within each species and cannibalism. The significance being that natural mortality and interspecific competition pressures in sympatric systems is likely a much more significant limiting factor in strong year classes than in allopatric systems where intraspecific competition and cannibalism likely more dominant. Fishing mortality can be regulated by fisheries management. Fishing mortality can occur from harvest (licensed anglers or rights-based) and handling mortality of fish intended to be released (fatal injury, barotrauma, heart failure, etc). We can reduce fishing mortality by implementing closed seasons, reducing the harvest numbers by licensed anglers, setting size limits, creating refuges, setting gear restrictions. Considering the allopatric systems first, given that overall natural mortality comparatively low, but intraspecific competition and cannibalism is comparatively high, a limited harvest is acceptable and perhaps even desirable given there will be replacement (a musky will replace a musky vs sympatric where it might be a pike). A slot fish would be more desirable than an over fish if the objective is larger musky in a specific allopatric lake, but in any event harvest likely low considering the high release rates. In NW Ontario there is a variety of different regs for different allopatric musky lake systems. In the allopatric lakes with invasive pike, I would suggest it now move to a zero keep rule for all musky and mandatory keep, kill all pike caught. In the sympatric trophy lakes, with the objectives being trophy musky, the current one over 54 regulation accounts for both the natural and fishing mortality by ensuring all muskies are released under 54" and a significant portion of the population reaches trophy size. All of the trophy genetic potential is therefore retained in the population and the large females will spawn many times hopefully prior to succumbing to either natural of fishing mortality. At some point, yes, they will all die. The current regulations is one over 54. The number is only biologically significant given the numbers of fish that actually reach this length is comparatively tiny, and gives fish that reach this size a chance to reproduce numerous times. It has been very successful and the trophy fisheries are by all accounts in very good shape with many trophy size fish caught and seen. To be clear, in my view, there is no biological reason to allow these fish to be harvested. There may be a management reason to do so (ie the counter animal rights - not just fishing for fun). CONTEXT: Keep in mind that that animal rights folks stopped the spring bear hunt in NW Ontario last decade). I stand by my initial and continuing assertions that longer, bigger fish have bigger, heavier eggs, and that older fish are wiser, more experienced spawners. Letting these big fish spawn out their remaining years only seems as a wise long term investment in maintaining these trophy fisheries. Now I suppose my wording "not expendable" was interpreted a certain way, but this wording was countering Larry's initial wording that the Lac Seul 72 2 probably at the end of its life span. We already have the evidence that 54" fish can grow to 58", perhaps over 60". We should change the reg to allow these bigger fish to spawn for several (or many) more years and let other folks have an opportunity to fish for them - seeing perhaps more likely than catching. I suggest we do not need this reg for the animal rights reason any longer. However I would be open to pushing the reg out to 57-58" and include Lac Seul given this would alleviate some of the potential controversial issues seen with the Lac Seul fish. I do believe we need a justification to measure a fish for example. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/4/2024 10:02 AM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Great discussion Oracle! Don’t know if we are solving anything, but certainly have created “food for thought” whether we agree or not. After putting my last post to bed last night I put myself there. However, I was awake for several hours thinking more about this subject, more in the aspect of allopatric stocks rather than sympatric trophy stocks. I came to the conclusion that Oracle’s thoughts and hypotheses could very likely apply more to allopatric populations. That however becomes a multiple edged sword. I don’t believe that much consideration for ultimate size is given the trophy aspect of these populations. Allopatric lakes are considered numbers lakes. Higher, but not maximum, size limits are mainly to appease the catch and release anglers. For another thing, an allopatric population will never produce an all-tackle world record muskie. In addition to all of that, there is no consistency in the maximum sizes in these lakes, making standard application of regulations extremely difficult. This is not the case with sympatric populations. The variables in maximum growth in length, range to the extreme. I can give a few examples of the lowest maximum growth length lakes. One of the lowest would have to be Shoe Pac Lake, Minnesota. I have never heard of a 40-inch muskie coming from there. Sadly, this is where Minnesota got the eggs for their hatchery system for several years! Fortunately, after I gave a several hour presentation to the MN DNR Chief of Fisheries Burrows, the MN Research Biologist Bob Strand and Muskie’s, Inc. Board members among others, things were about to change. Unknown to me at the time, the fisheries Chief told the research biologist after the meeting to “Fix it”! That resulted in Bob Strand learning by radio telemetry where the muskies in Leech Lake spawned and the rest is history. Some of the most incredible fisheries on the planet were developed! But I digress. Other very small growth allopatric lakes are Kekekewa and Fisher Lakes near Eagle Lake in NW Ontario (rarely a 20-pound 40-inch or bigger muskie is caught there). Another would be Masquinongy Lake near Lac Suel. Masquinongy Lake was a dedicated “Sanctuary Lake” where no angling was allowed for over 50-years! The thought was to have a population to go to given a major failure in any other lakes in NW Ontario. During his doctoral field work in 1986, when I assisted Dr. Lebeau in sampling Masquinongy, one of his thesis allopatric lakes, we made some startling discoveries. To set the stage, this was supposed to be a “muskie only” lake. We sampled 39 muskies; one tiger hybrid muskie and 2 northern pike. The largest of the 39 muskies was 10-pounds! The hybrid was 12 pounds. This in a small lake that hadn’t been fished in 50-years. Subsequently, the Ministry removed Sanctuary status and opened the lake to angling, albeit catch and release only (the only other lake than Lac Suel that I am aware of with catch and release only regulations). I am sure there are many more minimum growth allopatric muskie lakes in North America as well. On the other side of the coin, there are indeed allopatric lakes that can produce muskies of a side that would thrill a high percentage of today’s muskie anglers. But we are not talking about world-class sizes, but rather sizes maxing out in the low 40 pound range. One such lake that I am familiar with, having fished it for over 60 years, has produced only one verified muskie over 40 pounds in its 135-year impounded history (likely fewer angling years as the first resort was built there in 1908). At any rate, I think you can see that attempting to have a blanket management program for allopatric lakes would be a nightmare. I might note that Wisconsin and Ontario have by far the highest number of muskie waters; Wisconsin 794 and Ontario 407 per Steve Kerr’s 2011 publication. The vast majority of Wisconsin’s waters are allopatric. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I know the "base" lake there very well, Larry - Little V. I don't know what to make of those lakes, really, with pike dominating some, muskies others. The tiger ratios are pretty high there as well. Certainly Little V itself is very much defined by a lot of lake trout type water - steep breaks, clear cobble bays - very clear. It seems the muskies, whether these were initially an allopatric type or not, have the upper hand overall in Little V. The weedy bays do provide spawning areas for muskies and pike, but perhaps the overall habitat types favour musky. Smallmouth bass fishing terrific in there as well, and of course they are planted/invasive, so makes one wonder if maybe pike found their way in same way and not necessarily indigenous to those lakes. From what I understand Big V (which is downstream via a outlet with waterfall from Little V) was stocked with muskies and they are not natural there - so bit of head scratcher there. When I was on Abram lake there this fall was intending to hit both Big and Little V for lake trout and perhaps luck into a musky, but noticed some excessive inner wear on my trailer (bent axle probably) and left the boat at home - grouse hunting was great there as had our two labs along too. Bit of a haul to get there for grouse hunting compared to say the Kenora area, but blastomycosis really high in the Kenora/Minaki zone there - little gas to keep the dogs safe and also visit an area hadn't been in a while but spent a lot of time in back in the day. Glenn doesn't name his tiger lakes on his YT channel (but obvious), so don't want to burn those lakes, but those are similar to Little V, steep and rocky with limited, defined weedy spawning bays, so hopefully muskies will have the upper hand over the invasive pike. They do need to switch the reg to zero muskies and mandatory kill all pike though to give muskies all the advantages available. There is an allopatric lake (and some other small ones in area) upstream which I'm worried about. I can't recall if there are any barriers on the outlet stream - I hope so. I suppose it could have even been the source. I don't know if Kenora OMNR has these invasive pike in their managment planning, but it needs to be. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/4/2024 11:11 AM | ||
| R/T |
| ||
Posts: 76 | EsoxWanderer, Thanks for posting those numbers although they were crushing. Great discussion overall. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | In reference to EA's earlier post I contacted Steve Herbeck to find out how many over 54's were caught there this past season. Andy Myers Lodge is where a lot of top notch muskie angler's go. The total for 2023 was...wait for it...2! While Herbie did say that he and the other guides had many sightings and missed opportunities on fish over 54 it just didn't happen. I don't believe there has ever been a "legal" muskie kept there since the advent of the 54-inch size limit being enacted!! To add to Oracle's lament about pike invading allopatric waters, that too is a huge and growing problem here in the Hayward, Wisconsin area. Our local biologist is attacking the problem lakes best he can, but total kill of all pike caught cannot be implemented without regulation change. There have been pike removal programs on Lac Couderay and reward programs on the Chippewa Flowage, Spider Lake Chain and the Tigercat Chain to keep angled pike. I believe regulation change is the only way to really attack the problem, but I won't hold my breath. The mass DNR removal of pike in LCO was beneficial but short lived and needs to be done on a regular basis. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8719 | I don't see how removal would have any long standing effects short of a few good year classes of muskies following. Not a bad thing, but if the right genes aren't there, it only means more muskies and not necessarily bigger ones. What needs to change is the attitude of anglers that Pike are stinky and don't taste good. I eat them whenever the opportunity arises, and don't honestly understand why more folks don't. With walleye recruitment numbers being what they are in Northern Wisconsin as of late, maybe that will change. Sure fire way to control a population of anything is when people figure out that "them's good eatin'!" | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | EA: According to Dr. Casselman, weather events during the spawning season has more bearing on year class size than most other factors. One thing I found disturbing during the early years of catch and release is that most anglers had it backwards...keep the big ones and let the little ones go. Thankfully over the decades that has changed to include the release of the giants as well. As far as eating pike, I prefer them over walleyes, especially the smaller ones...filet them and score them like carp and when they are deep fried the bones all cook up! Don't even need to worry about removing those nasty Y bones. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Yesterday, Wednesday, January 17th, as a representative of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc., I attended a "Pike Invasion" meeting at the office of our Wisconsin DNR biologist Max Wolter. Also in attendance were folks from the Chippewa Flowage, Spider Lake Chain and the Tiger Cat Flowage as well as the Winter Lakes group, the newest front of pike invasion contention. Max presented by slide what was happening (these former three mentioned waters were of the most concern since they were the latest area lakes to be invaded by pike). The removal of pike was of foremost concern and how to deal with it. Max indicated that a recent creel census showed that in one season on the Chippewa Flowage, 32,000 pike were angler caught but ONLY 7,000 of them were kept! Gaining angler cooperation to keep as many legal pike as possible is the ongoing method of attack being used by these lake groups and will be adopted by the Winter Lakes group. By the way, Max has gotten a bag limit change for pike on the original three waters of 10 per day instead of five. However, the possession limit shall remain at 10 for now. Max gave some data on the numbers of pike surveyed in these waters and the picture wasn't great, but at least steps are being taken to hopefully deal with the problem rather than let the pike run wild and ruin some of our finest native muskie waters! Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/18/2024 8:59 AM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| I have not done it, but the spouse of a co-worker was a pike guy and he pickled them. By pickling, the bones dissolve in the jar. Folks that had it said it was really tasty, served on crackers, with a cold beer. He would filet some for a fish fry but didn't like frozen fish, so any that didn't go right into the pan got pickled. | |||
| walleyejoe |
| ||
Posts: 43 | Larry, I'm curious, if pike are considered an invasive threat in these lakes that needs to be eradicated, why have any regulations or limits at all? I would think the only regulation should be that caught pike can't be returned to the water. The goal should be elimination, not conservation, right? Another point, if organized fishing groups hadn't been preaching for the last 40 years that keeping fish is comparable to child molestation, maybe getting people to keep pike from certain waters wouldn't be such a problem. I doubt if that thought will go over well, but maybe it's time to revisit the idea of C&R, as it seems to have become an agenda juggernaut of it's own. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1276 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Walleye Joe: changes of that nature have to occur at the State level. I agree it should go that way to protect native fisheries. I think the biggest problem getting people to keep pike is they don't know how to clean them or are too lazy. Many don't realize how good eating they are. And they make good fertilizer. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1192 | I stayed on the Flowage in late October and the lodge at the resort was closed for the season and one of the days the guide picked us up at the resort. So no signage. A couple days we fished other lakes and another day we fished the Flowage but we went out for breakfast first and put in at one of the landings. At the there was a bunch of different signs and stuff (I didn't read them) And when I bought my license no signage in the tackle shop. If somethings hurting the fishery hang up signs everywhere. We have lakes here in Colorado where we have Pike thru Bucket Biology and the Fish and Game folks will have a Pike killing day, show up catch a Pike and kill it and turn it in for a $20 bounty per fish. Pike are great eating (don't eat the big ones they are full of Mercury.) | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8719 | I've never had good luck removing Y bones from Pike. I finally decided to just split the fillets in half, leaving the bony parts in one pile and the back (upper part of the fillet) in another. They cook better that way, anyway. You have one meal that you basically eat like a caveman, and the nice boneless fillets go in the freezer for when you want to eat with your wife. We don't usually target them specifically, but we catch enough of them without trying, especially in WI. We fish one lake in particular where I know they are not native. The DNR says there are none in there, and so does everyone else. Yeah, well explain the ones I just caught, then. A friend of mine actually admitted to putting "a couple" in there a long time ago. That explains that. I'm reasonably sure a lot of muskies get spread around that way, too. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |