|
|
Posts: 99
| I was just sitting on the stationary bike pedaling away going through last summer's In-Fisherman mag and came across a piece by Dr. Hal Schramm that discusses a report done by the WI DNR from an examination of the Vilas Co Muskie Marathon records dating 1964 to 2010. We all know catch and release has since caught on over that period and what was found in the report was the average size of the muskies in Vilas Co showed a "significant" increase in length. What was noted was that the average length of the 10 largest muskies entered in the contest each year saw a "significant decline" from 52.8" in 1964 to 48.4" in 2010.
The author appeared to me making the point that there are too many muskies around that crowd each other out in competition for food and that may be the reason they do not grow to the larger lengths generally. Ok, could be. My first question would be are the biggest fish being reported?
So, is this an issue? Without any science to back me up I am having a hard time believing we need more harvest. I think many die post release anyway. So many factors at play. Thoughts? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| I know of quite a few fish over 50" that are caught in Wisconsin every season that are not reported... As a member of 2 state musky Clubs MANY,MANY members never report these fish----2 Main reasons---- Fishing pressure on the lakes they fish & Internet Know it all Police who already question anything a Angler posts..... So I can only Imagine that many other Angler simply DO NOT REPORT THESE FISH for I am sure many reasons---- I am glad they are not reported---Keep it that way I say.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| I have been fishing muskies in N. Wisconsin every year since 1963 with some success.
Way back then, just a KEEPER (30") would draw crowds to see the wolf of the water, close up. LOOK AT THOSE TEETH!!
We did a lot of 'cradle robbing' in those days....
I remember one rare sunny November day on the Chip in the early 70s when myself and a buddy caught 35 muskies in about 5 hours, and there wasn't a keeper among any of them.
That was the day I decided to start putting them back...
Over the last 50 years a lot of people got the same idea I think, because the average size is definitely getting bigger, and will continue to do that, as long as we all keep putting them back. Wisconsin 50s are becoming common, if you can find anyone that will admit it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Define "common" lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | Do they make a sun visor with a badge on it?:-)
Funny, I know people who fished back then and they claim the fishing wasn't as good as it is now and neither we're the fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Todd, from what I can tell you have put a very large # of hours in WI over the last 20 yrs... how many 50s do you have again? I know some very good anglers to have fished in Northern Wi a very long time and every one says the big fish #s are down as compared to 10 yrs ago... when I look at guys who actually do register their fish (accurately) the #of 50s is the same or a touch less.... when someone says they are becoming common I have to sort of chuckle... the guys who fish a lot and who are very good anglers are not catching them nor are the guys they know... maybe there are more fishermen now than ever before so a few more might get caught.. personally I've fished in Wi since 1993 and minus a few fisheries like Green Bay (which is not an inland water) and Madison....my view is that the # of big fish say over 48" is not what it was 10 to 20 yrs ago and many I know who fish a lot more and catch a lot more in Northern WI would agree...
Edited by BNelson 1/3/2019 7:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | One only need look at the old Chip Flowage catch/keep charts (can be seen at the Landing) to see that every fish over 30 inches got bonked and very few BIG fish were caught (which ironically is about the same as it is now for the 50's). However, now there are many more fish in the 40's caught and released than the old days, but not nearly as many fish are being caught now as then. Not nearly as much pressure either, because frankly, the fish just aren't there anymore...you should hear the complaints from the folks that own property there! And of course the "unclaimed and unmentioned" winter kills are being kept quiet. The big drawn downs to supposedly get rid of milfoil are simply killing fish. LOTS of photographs of these kills exist... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| I'm sure there are fish that don't get reported, but anybody who thinks 50"ers are "common" has some rethinking to do.
There are a few systems that have "the right stuff" in terms of acreage, water quality, forage, etc. If you find them, your chances go up. But the fact remains that many of the lakes in N/WI are relatively infertile, perch/panfish forage base that just can't support the biomass needed to consistently produce trophy class muskies. That could be helped some with increased size limits, and (more importantly) creel/slot limits.
But the lakes are what they are.
That said, anybody who remembers the 70's will tell you that we've come a long way since then. It's never going to be Canada, but it's a #*^@ lot better than it was.
I attribute that to catch and release and the fact that there just aren't that many people fishing compared to 30-40 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | If only WI fish were built like WI women...Giants! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | I see many articles being written about declining license sales, but I don’t think you will find many active fisherman who would tell you they are seeing less pressure. Certainly not happening on the launches I go to... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/3/2019 11:28 AM
fact that there just aren't that many people fishing compared to 30-40 years ago.
When was your last visit to a boat ramp? Pretty busy out there. Maybe a drop in nationwide fishing license sales, but locally there are quite a few anglers out there. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I agree that Wisconsin inland 50s have never been “common”, not now - not then… and I would add they simply never will be for a variety of reasons as already mentioned. Even though they were clubbed back in 1964, I suspect that delayed mortality particularly with larger muskies is still more prevalent than we would like to think today, especially when they are handled for pictures in warm water by less than professional means.
Kind of a small point but would also guess that they primarily used a soft tape to measure over the curve in 64… this probably added an 1” or more depending on who was doing the measuring, this would skew the data some if true. There might be less fishing pressure, but what about muskie pressure... for sure it's more intelligent nowadays as well. Although it would still be a smallish number, there are certainly some 50” class fish not being reported, and would guess that back in 1964 almost all of them were reported, but these would still be smallish numbers and therefore easily skewed.
A blanket statement of too many muskies as the reason for the big fish decline using that data... hog wash.
Edited by Jerry Newman 1/3/2019 12:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| Pointerpride102 - 1/3/2019 11:56 AM
esoxaddict - 1/3/2019 11:28 AM
fact that there just aren't that many people fishing compared to 30-40 years ago.
When was your last visit to a boat ramp? Pretty busy out there. Maybe a drop in nationwide fishing license sales, but locally there are quite a few anglers out there.
Maybe on the "circus lakes"... Where we like to fish 5 boats is a crowd. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | Brad this is an interesting discussion. Certainly more harvest 20 years ago and I bet more stocking too. The inland waters I fish, I would not say there is more pressure, certainly the equipment used to catch them is better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 1/3/2019 12:14 PM
Pointerpride102 - 1/3/2019 11:56 AM
esoxaddict - 1/3/2019 11:28 AM
fact that there just aren't that many people fishing compared to 30-40 years ago.
When was your last visit to a boat ramp? Pretty busy out there. Maybe a drop in nationwide fishing license sales, but locally there are quite a few anglers out there.
Maybe on the "circus lakes"... Where we like to fish 5 boats is a crowd.
We? As in you and the guide?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| We as in my wife and I. Wife who looks out the window at the landing and says "#*#*, there's another boat. Let's go somewhere else!" and thinks a 25 minute drive each way down washed out fire roads to go a lake that's literally 3 miles away is a fun adventure.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 300
Location: Minocqua, WI | Any time a big fish and their population members feels exploited, threatened, pressured to absurd excessive amounts like many of Vilas and Oneida's top musky fisheries are experiencing right now, odds of catching the 50's that do exist lessens to very extremely low odds. It's nature's response for all species of the magical animal kingdom. Hence they become elusive, wiser. They want nothing to do with people.
I have no doubt the limited number of 50's were more catchable back then than they are now. But not every body of water is even capable of producing or growing one today thanks to forage imbalances or declines, habitat loss (more common now than 1960's), and pee poor handling or harvest....... Unlike the 60's, our lakes and landings are more populated with homeowners and anglers now than ever before = pressure and habitat loss / fisheries detriments.
I get chastised on facebook by a few of the commentators (some above posters) every time I make mention I saw a northwoods 50" at WI public water. In 10 years of musky fishing I have only witnessed 5 specimens at 50" or better. 1 caught and measured in the water, and 4 others to boatside (non caught) and giving me a shortness of breath. All from popular and publicly accessible water in Minocqua with history of producing 50's. Time on the water increases odds and I've been fortunate to have seen what many have never seen.
When one primarily fishes out of a small jon boat and tri hull like I do, both less than 50" wide, it's far easier and accurate to estimate fish length when they come up to boatside. I use my narrow boat for visual aid and it always helps debunk overestimation. Most musky guys won't have a vantage or reference point because like this because apparently musky fishing is for the wealthy and one needs a 60K yacht to catch fish these days.......
That proves Esox911's post for many fishermen declining to report to avoid interrogation by the musky community. But if they're friends I get satisfaction riling them up and getting their reaction. Ain't that right guys?  |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I'd have to disagree whole heartedly with less musky guys today than 30-40 yrs ago EA..you are off your rocker .. every musky guy I know who fishes in Vilas says there is 5 x the pressure now than 20 yrs ago.. oh I guess you don't know what it was like 20 yrs ago up there without a boat in all seriousness there are absolutey more musky fishermen today and with the advent of map chips, and the internet, dvds like the Badfish vids which helped many figure out some under utilized patterns, and now all the wannabe YouTube rock stars,,fish are seeing wayyyy more pressure than ever before...add in the new crop of guides we see every year.. it never ends...
Edited by BNelson 1/3/2019 1:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | BNelson - 1/3/2019 1:01 PM
I'd have to disagree whole heartedly with less musky guys today than 30-40 yrs ago EA..you are off your rocker .. every musky guy I know who fishes in Vilas says there is 5 x the pressure now than 20 yrs ago.. oh I guess you don't know what it was like 20 yrs ago up there without a boat in all seriousness there are absolutey more musky fishermen today and with the advent of map chips, and the internet, dvds like the Badfish vids which helped many figure out some under utilized patterns, and now all the wannabe YouTube rock stars,,fish are seeing wayyyy more pressure than ever before...add in the new crop of guides we see every year.. it never ends...
This is correct. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| Brad, there are 148 class A muskie lakes to choose from Vilas and Oneida counties. 30-40 years ago, there were resorts on just about every lake, camp boats everywhere on those lakes all summer. All those resorts are gone. There's a bunch of guys out there flocking to this or that lake because someone caught a big fish, or wrote an article, or put up a bunch of pictures or whatever. Yes, you can thank the internet for that. More pressure? Bah. Everybody is all piled up on the same lakes chasing rainbows down in Minocqua. Granted "our lake" isn't a tremendous fishery. Class A2, very clear water, not a lot of structure. I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for a 50. But the most boats I've ever seen out there is about a half a dozen, and that was when we had 50 guys up there from MuskieFirst. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Resort traffic has certainly decreased, but boat ownership has never been higher |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | again EA, I guess I disagree, I know quite a few guys that fish all over Vilas, on lots of lakes and they tell there are more and more musky guys each year on those lakes... do you fish any lakes besides your own? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: North/Central WI | Pressure is at an all time high in Vilas County. I've been musky fishing up there since 1990 and it gets worse every year. EA - I used to fish your lake all the time. My parents live 5 minutes away. 10 years ago or more I was the only boat out there. Now there are 5+ musky boats almost every day I fish it (I basically only get to fish weekends). I agree that 5-6 musky boats isn't a crowd but it does affect the fish. I expect several musky boats on the popular lakes but it seems like more and more lakes are becoming "popular". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | AndrewR - 1/3/2019 12:56 PM
When one primarily fishes out of a small jon boat and tri hull like I do, both less than 50" wide, it's far easier and accurate to estimate fish length when they come up to boatside. I use my narrow boat for visual aid and it always helps debunk overestimation. Most musky guys won't have a vantage or reference point because like this because apparently musky fishing is for the wealthy and one needs a 60K yacht to catch fish these days.......
This is my favorite part of the thread thus far. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | good point Nate, there is a lake we chat about that I started fishing in about 1999.. fished it a lot in the fall from say 2002 to 2009.. we would fish it in late Oct / Nov and pull in and 9 x out of 10 be the only rig at the landing, if anyone was there it was a local guide row trolling a sucker around for his client..... last few times I went there in the last 4 yrs... pull in, 3 to 4 other rigs ... like you say, pressure is up, is 5 rigs on 800 acres a lot? maybe not but in the late fall the key spots are smaller and everyone is on em... pressure changes fish and fisheries... no doubt about it... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 300
Location: Minocqua, WI | I'm happy to have entertained you today, Mike Bolinski, like I do on facebook apparently. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | AndrewR - 1/3/2019 2:20 PM
I'm happy to have entertained you today, Mike Bolinski, like I do on facebook apparently.
You entertain a wide audience. Though you’ve limited my entertainment on Facebook these days. I haven’t been able to keep up on Loyola’s season. I assume they’re still destined for greatness? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I’m surprised nobody has touted the catch recording for the ,so called, “Nationals” held on a whole lot of lakes every August with over a thousand musky anglers fishing three days. I’m not in possession of those numbers but I’d guess maybe an average of one single fifty per year. One tenth as many fishing (let’s say) Vermilion, Leech, right next door in ViQueen territory would boat several. That’s fisheries management for you! |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I don't think they even get an avg of one a year,,, I think its less... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | Interesting, while I can say I have not seen an increase in the number of musky fisherman on the waters I fish up there I have seen more boats at the hotel I stay at. I fish out of the way places and lakes that get passed by for more famous and well known water. I suspect there is more pressure on those lakes.
Edited by ToddM 1/3/2019 3:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | I havent seen anyone mention the stocking in Vilas. I can only find records back to 1972...all these fish are "unspecified" strain. I imagine time and money were in short supply back then and obviously not the research back then as today. Could it be the DNR went to the lakes with the most muskies and got the eggs from whatever fish they could? Maybe the best strains have been watered down to the point where a 48"-49" is maxed out? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | I've been fishing northern WI muskie for 35 plus years, living in the northwoods and can say my unscientific observations are:
Population increase of more catachble fish at a high now
A lot more muskie fishing pressure than ever before. Walleye numbers are down, more fisherman targeting muskie.
Peak of "nice fish" 45-48" in the 90's early 2000s with a study decline since.
Average size of catachable fish is up to high 30's to low 40 inch range but less and less true "big fish".
50 inchers are not common, never were and sure as heck not now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Dick Sleight was right up there towards the top of the list for putting big, inland Wisconsin muskies in the boat, in the area(s) referenced in this thread, correct? In Rizzo's "All Star" book, which was written in 91, Sleight said catching fish in general was improving, with a lot due to catch and release working. But, he also said catching big fish, over 30 lbs, was much more difficult. Stated he used to get 5-6 a year over 30 lbs & now (in 91) getting 1 or 2 a year was a good year.
Personally, I think there's a lot more pressure out there today, specifically for muskies, than there was 10, 15, & 20 years ago. If inland 50's were common, we'd be hearing about them. Sure there are some good sticks that put a lot of time in that stay under the radar; but think of all the guides, lodges, tourney results and other fishermen in general that would be publicizing the hell outta an inland 50.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Can add netting surveys over the years, to that list above--in regards to inland 50s, too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 99
| Interesting read:
http://musky.com/2012Single/RizzoVilasFacts.htm
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | my guess, no I'm not a biologist, but..it's not that hard to figure out. less fishermen back then, equipment etc was not near what it is now, with gps, map chips, bigger faster boats... they simply were getting caught less so they could get bigger... fish are caught a lot more today per season.. compound that over their life, they simply aren't getting as big as they did back then... add in the fish that are stocked are from lakes / fish that don't even have 50s.. how can one expect their offspring to pass 50" with any regularity in todays world... I don't agree with his assessment that less fish will grow bigger fish, maybe in lakes they recieve little to no pressure, yes, but not in todays world with so many guys fishing them, less fish in a body of water would only mean those fish are getting caught all that much more and more pressure on them... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | spin it to forage for a moment ... from my seat i see a significant increase and growth of ice fishing which pressures the forage base. from businesses, to gps, sonar, now panoptix, heaters, shelters, electric easy-to-use augers, ATV's etc... ice fishing has never been easier or less limited to barriers and the primary take is out of the forage base that never gets discussed in stocking discussions.
interested to hear the opinions on it ... good discussion to follow.
Edited by jonnysled 1/4/2019 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | forage could be part of the equation but in my opinion it's not in the top 5... there are tons of fish for them to eat in the lakes.. ice fishing or not.
Edited by BNelson 1/4/2019 10:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 318
| I always question the accuracy of the data from decades ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Forage, water chemistry, lake type, river type and size. Angling pressure, competition from other species, average water temps, other factors like netting, spearing, etc. There's no one thing that will 'fix' anything, unfortunately.
Pelican Lake muskies reach 50 with relative success, but there has to be enough of them with the nr being poor to sustain a healthy population and support a trophy fishery. For over a decade stocking ceased. Now, because Pelican is a brood lake and is getting a good stocking from that purpose, it's coming back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 424
Location: MN | FYI,
Out of curiosity I looked at some lunge log stats for all of Vilas county (25k fish) over time. I don't see a clear trend of fish not growing as big - seems like roughly the same size distribution overall, with a slight upshift in average size. Big fish are quite rare - roughly 1/65 caught are 48+ and 1/250-300 are 50+, a trend that is pretty consistent over time.
Notes:
- Some fish are logged back in early 70s, but OK numbers started in 1976 and good numbers started getting logged in 1985 - can't draw any conclusions regarding populations before 1976.
- I have compared the lunge log stats with DNR netting survey results on a bunch of MN lakes and found they are usually close. Mean size is typically within an inch, and size distribution has been quite close when that data is available. So... the point is that you can have some faith that the lunge log size distribution (with enough entries - 25k counts!) is usually pretty close to what is physically in the lake.
Edited by nar160 1/4/2019 11:58 AM
(no reported vs year.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 avg size vs year.JPG (74KB - 342 downloads)
no reported vs year.JPG (82KB - 325 downloads)
cummulative trends.JPG (30KB - 324 downloads)
last 5 yr stats.JPG (58KB - 332 downloads)
last 10 yr stats.JPG (57KB - 338 downloads)
99-08 stats.JPG (57KB - 331 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| re: ice fishing/forage:
Jon's point makes sense. But then muskies preferred forage is nothing we're taking out of the lake. Might be an issue on the perch/panfish lakes. I don't see much that we can do to alter the size structure, but I do wonder how the 11 year heat wave (that is hopefully now behind us) might have changed things. Warm water is generally not good for muskies, but it does lead to a bit of a longer growing season. That may have bumped up growth rates some. It may also have negatively affected the spawn. We might see lower numbers of fish overall from that, which could actually benefit the larger fish in the system with (presumably) less competition for forage. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | 1 in 300 caught in vilas is over 50 in the lunge log? you sure your math is right? I'd think that is a bit off
Edited by BNelson 1/4/2019 12:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 424
Location: MN | That's what I've got. I manually counted now to be sure, but I see 92 total fish 50+ entered all time, and 24819 total, although one fish has a length of 0 entered, so let's say 24818. 24818/92 ~ 270.
To be clear, how I selected Vilas county was Lake Inquiries --> WI --> Vilas County and then manually opened all of the lakes and copy/pasted the logs into a single spreadsheet. This is 204 different lakes, some of which have just a few fish entered. If there are Vilas lakes that for some reason are not listed as being under Vilas county, I would not be counting those. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 390
| Thanks for putting that together nar160. Interesting to see some of the trends. One anecdote that comes to mind from the original post was a Mississippi strain fish that got into a "non Muskie lake" through a high water event. when said fish was caught it measured somewhere in the realm of 54-56, sorry, going off memory here. Now I'm not going to put together a spread sheet or anything, but just going off reports from people I know that fish that area of the Miss as their "home water" they wouldn't typically expect to be able to catch a fish of that caliber - 50 would be big-big and 52 would be reasonably considered the potential maximum size limit(of course there's always that one mutant) . One could theorize that this individual fish was able to reach the size it was due to a lack of intra-species competition. You could also theorize that fish was one of those "mutants." I am definitely NOT and advocate for harvesting muskies, however population densities definitely need to be considered when choosing lakes to manage for trophies or just choosing which lakes to fish for trophies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| common: not THAT unusual |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Whoever said that is right. Fishing was lousy then and most all were small sized, of course, they never had any time to grow...
THAT is why 50s are more common now. but not always reported, mainly because of all
of today's 'experts' who know everything about everything.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| If there are WI 50's not being reported it's NOT because of the "experts", it's because the anglers don't want anyone to know where they caught the fish. There's something that has NOT changed since the 1970's and likely won't even when all of us here are long dead. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | More common now? Prove it. You have guys in this thread like Jason Mollen who fishes with Lijewski and Nate Osfar who are pretty credible saying they are not... kinda cracks me up a couple guys in this thread commenting a lot have never had a single 50 in the boat anywhere are now experts. Ahhh. Winternet.
Edited by BNelson 1/4/2019 9:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| A buddy of mine took his fiancee out for her first time muskie fishing. She got a 53.5" on her third cast... ever.
Maybe we should bring her on board here to shed some light on the status of N/WI fisheries. Or the 10 year old kid who caught one on a nightcrawler a few years back. Pretty sure he's a muskie genius based on his average size... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| That's a pretty good reason too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| what color was the crawler? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 778
| This thread is a good read here. I can't come at this from a scientific or biological perspective, only a long time, 40 yrs. plus northern wis. fisherman vacationer and now resident. I currently reside on a popular chain in north west wis. that operates a good twenty some resorts. Some of the changes I observed is the disappearing resort boats that I rarely see on the water. The 14 footers with the 61/2 hp. motors seem long gone. Everyone has there own boat or pontoon. It was cool as a kid because you would know where people were staying because the resorts would have there names painted on the boats. So consider that fish now had to learn how to adapt to much more noise from high powered boats and of course added fishing pressure. Like people who live next to a busy airport. What are you to do? You either adapt or you move. Well, fish do not have that option. I still believe the big fish are there, but have changed patterns, gone really deep or really deep into the heavy weeds. Has anybody tried down rigger trolling in those deep clear lakes and have we really perfected our shallow slop fishing? There is more knowledge to be learned on these monster muskies. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | I talked to two of the top muskie guides in Vilas at a musky show a couple years back. Between the two of them they had just under 300 muskies and none at 50". Obviously there are not many of them swimming in Vilas waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Interesting discussion and many good (often unsupportable) comments made. Mr. Worrall's notation about "nr" (natural recruitment, i.e. viable spawning) is, I believe a major concern, especially in many of the hundreds of N. WI small lakes.
Another concern, from my prospective of over 60 years of dedicated muskie fishing and researching same, is that prior to the 1980's, when catch and release really started kicking in, and even beyond that for the really big muskies, the native gene pool of big muskies was "cropped off" (kept) and size and frequency of the larger of the species all but disappeared.
In Tony Rizzo's article, he alluded to something that I have often wondered about; more muskies but fewer large muskies. Due to C&R, many lakes now have a much larger population of mid 40 inch muskies and fewer (caught) over 50. A balanced fishery is considered to be like a pyramid, with the top (smaller numbers) being top predators. Has C&R now created a "diamond" shaped fishery, heavy with predators in the midsection and fewer top end predators? Or is it too late to expect a return to the days when more large trophy muskies were caught?
This thread has discussed angling pressure, which too must be considered. That is likely the reason bigger water bodies contain more big muskies...they simply have a better chance to grow large without constant pounding by anglers. While it would never fly, I wonder what a rotating multiple year closed season (5 to 10 years) would do to revive trophy fisheries. And of course, original genetics would have to be a consideration. You cannot expect water bodies that never did produce trophy muskies to start doing so even without pressure unless better genetics were introduced.
Nice work or the charts nar 160! Love that kind of data. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| Ok my $0.02 I believe the change in numbers in both size and numbers is based on pressure . As stated technology has changed exponentially. Equipment vastly improved and media had allowed exposure. So now you have massive numbers of scientifically equipt anglers tied to real time reports fishing lakes with LIMITED populations of muskies. Now I believe that the DNR is trying to bolster these populations, but are challenged by budgets, inferior strain, and the common belief that the muskies eat all the walleyes. Plus the spearing doesnt help. I believe the fish are conditioned and have adapted and moved. There are no more dumb fish that chase anything that is thrown. These fish have seen baits, and have had speed boats driven over them time and time again. I also believe that the MAJORITY fisherman have not learned to adapt, they are still doing the same old same old. I base this on two things, first netting reports from Escanaba. I heard that the DNR has been recording lowering spring netting results over the years on the traditional spawning grounds. I also hear they, on a hunch, they tried netting on a non-typical shore and the results were very high. I have also seen this on Kinkaid where netting on new areas showed higher results than the traditional old areas. My conclusion is that the fish have moved due to netting pressure. The second thing is discussions overheard from a long time guide on LOTW who has changed tactics and has noted that his catch rates have gone up over the vast number of people who are doing the same old. I dont believe there is enough data taken to make these scientific decisions. Just my onion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| Interesting theory on size structure Larry. If that is case, perhaps the key to obtaining a trophy class fishery is to allow for some harvest. If we're indeed we're seeing fewer big fish because we're putting the smal/med fish back instead of harvesting them, than that points to the big fish of yesteryear being a result of their competition winding up on the table. Talking that one step further.... If we didn't fish for them at all, what would the size structure look like? If they were all left alone to do their thing, and we had a "pyramid" type size structure like you'd expect in an undisturbed environment, would there be more big fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | EA: Interesting thoughts. "Some harvest"? Possibly, BUT in all size ranges, which would naturally "remove" more of the mid size fish just because there are more of them. Remember, back in the days of almost "total harvest" of legal size muskies (when the size and bags limit was 28 inches in Canada/2 per day and 30 inches if any in the states/at least 1 per day), the BIG ones were kept too. At the beginning of C&R, the big ones were kept almost to the exclusion of the mid size fish...human nature; anglers still wanted to "harvest and mount" their personal best. Just look at what happened in Green Bay when the 50's started showing up there. Almost TOTAL release has only been in vogue for about 20 years or so. Thank God for replica's! We just can't know how that continued keeping of big muskies vs. releasing mid size muskies has affected the original "pyramid" and created a "diamond" situation.
One would have to believe, if "left alone to do their thing" that a natural pyramid balance would return (but how long would it take?), but the BIGGER unknown is what the removal of those biggest fish genes has done to the overall picture. Are they still there in previous offspring, OR are they gone forever? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 556
| ToddM--- I fish a lot of the same area you do----- But I do see some more pressure on even those small by passed waters..... Guys drive by them because most know the chance at a 50" fish on those lakes is few and far between--------But I still do see more fisherman on the lakes and areas I have fished since the Mid 70's...…. And I would think --like mentioned with all the advance equipment todays anglers have-- That those Anglers are more advanced then 20 years ago.. Just by the equipment improvements alone. |
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | Larry Ramsell - 1/6/2019 9:07 AM
but the BIGGER unknown is what the removal of those biggest fish genes has done to the overall picture. Are they still there in previous offspring, OR are they gone forever?
.
.
right, its all about the genetics...once the big fish gene is gone, its gone... years and years of stocking from "unspecified strain" has cost us in northern Wi. Its such a watered down strain up here now..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sukrchukr - 1/6/2019 10:11 AM
Larry Ramsell - 1/6/2019 9:07 AM
but the BIGGER unknown is what the removal of those biggest fish genes has done to the overall picture. Are they still there in previous offspring, OR are they gone forever?
.
.
right, its all about the genetics...once the big fish gene is gone, its gone... years and years of stocking from "unspecified strain" has cost us in northern Wi. Its such a watered down strain up here now.....
And yet in some waters, these fish do very well...IF they are stocked in the numbers needed and pressure/forage/changing water chemistry/etc doesn't crush the process. If the strain has the potential to get to 50+, and the strain in George, Pelican, Moen, and others around here certainly do, then what's the problem? Why have the 4 footers become harder to find? Pressure and vastly reduced stocking over 2 decades, maybe? Competition for food from a rapidly changing predator base?
Watch the progression of the Minnesota stocked waters as alway increasing pressure and less stocking hits them. Already happening, and lots of complaining about it, too. |
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | "if the strain has the potential to get to 50+"" is the question. Thats a big if. I think the Wi DNR shoepac`ed us without really knowing what was happenng. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sukrchukr - 1/6/2019 11:48 AM
"if the strain has the potential to get to 50+"" is the question. Thats a big if. I think the Wi DNR shoepac`ed us without really knowing what was happenng.
All of the lakes mentioned have kicked out occasional 50s, and were not stocked much at all for a couple decades with the supposed goal of testing NR...actually I believe it was a zero dollar budget more than anything else. The strain in Pelican is a good one, and the crew Keith worked with for the time he was at the hatchery has been on Pelican the last couple years collecting spawn from that water, and they will return a percentage to Pelican as part of that plan. That water is healthier now than it has been in 15 years, and will get a lot better in the next few years. The numbers they netted in Musky Bay were off the charts and pressure is very...very low compared to historic stats.
The population in Pelican really suffered from no stocking, was back to what I saw when I first started fishing it in the early 70's. Low pressure, very low density, with a good distribution up to trophy. Fine if you are looking at the chance of not catching a fish for days, but a shot at a hog. Not so much for what the average muskie angler wants.
Read all the material from Dr. Sloss to get an idea where we are, and there is some gray area in that stuff as Larry can point out. There's also some stocking of Great Lakes fish in waters with no NR we can begin to see the results from now, that will be quite telling.
One thing of note, the shoepac fish were specific in the evolution of that strain, and not something caused by crossing strains or stocking over a native population. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Grey area(s)" indeed. Dr. Sloss is an expert in the field of genetics. Nice guy (met with him a couple of times and got along well). However, as he quite clearly admitted when we first met, is that he is first and foremost a "genetic preservationist". In other words, his goal (despite over 100 years of stock mixing in Wisconsin) is to preserve genetics is all Wisconsin water bodies "as they now exit", REGARDLESS of whether they have the genetic potential to grow to what today is considered trophy size or not or are the original genetics or not (which would be hard to determine)! He would insist on preserving Shoepac Lake as is if it were in Wisconsin.
Early in the game (after he was hired by the WDNR) he set forth some goals and guidelines for the state hatcheries with regards to the taking of muskie eggs and milt. Some of his advice they followed and some that didn't or couldn't. Basically, he backed the DNR into a corner they couldn't get out of...more in a moment.
The most important thing he did get the DNR to do was to get out of Bone Lake, where they had taken hatchery eggs and milt for over 50 years for the Spooner hatchery. He told them, and a short time later proved it, that they had "likely created a hatchery strain of muskies." A strain, that didn't grow big and to my knowledge, didn't reproduce in waters they were stocked in! Double whammy.
Next, he told the DNR to select 5 lakes that had natural reproduction and hadn't been stocked and use on a 5 year rotating basis for egg taking. Impossible mission! Such doesn't exist in NW Wisconsin. He also told them to no longer use Lac Court Orilles for egg taking. Guess what? It wasn't long that they were right back there taking eggs because they had to have eggs for the hatchery and there are precious few lakes where they can do so and get enough for production and maintain recommended diversification.
I suspect that one of the reasons they returned to LCO was that his early studies indicated that despite 50 years of mixing, the base genetics of LCO was still intact.
What he didn't say, or perhaps didn't know at the time, was that those many years of mixing had created a second genetic population of muskies in LCO (this was reported in a paper by one of his students working on the genetic study). When I asked (c2017) the at the time, Spooner hatchery manager how they knew which LCO "genetic pool" they were getting their eggs from, he had no answer, and in fact, he and the local biologist at the meeting professed minimal knowledge about same and wouldn't discuss it further.
At any rate, in my opinion, the only real bright light for Wisconsin muskie anglers is Green Bay. This to the great detriment to the lakes, anglers and more importantly, northern Wisconsin muskie related businesses. Muskie tourism in northern Wisconsin is a dying breed, so to speak and Green Bay isn't doing much to enhance tourism dollars into Wisconsin either. An Illinois angler (where the bulk of muskie anglers reside) can gas up the truck and boat, pack a cooler full of food and spend the weekend on Green Bay and NEVER SPEND A DOLLAR in Wisconsin other than an initial purchase of a yearly non-resident fishing license!!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/7/2019 8:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | Larry,
I see since 2006 the WDNR has been stocking an Upper Wisconsin River strain. Is this a step in the right direction or is this strain been watered down as well? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | The lake I am on gets Upper Chippewa fish lately. How do these do? We have been seeing many upper 40's fish and one 50 with great overall build in the last few years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
In Minnesota, though, that same thing happened on a few lakes where the shoepack strain was used for stocking and it has shown to lower potential for length as once the genetics are in the water, it's there to stay. Baby Lake, Mantrap Lake, Moose (if I remember correctly) all were stocked with Shoepack strain in the 70's and early 80's, and those lakes can put out a fair number of fish, but few rarely reach 50". There are mid 30" fish to be had and the occasional low to mid 40" fish...but those in my humble opinion are very hard to come by. Things have improved with length since they have quit that stocking program in Baby Lake, but there now is no stocking of the lake whatsoever, and with a public access installed in 1997, pressure has increased dramatically, and thus the body of water it used to be for catching numbers of fish has gone down
Seems with what Larry stated, the issues are due to lack of genetic knowledge for those some 50 years, and the strains have been "tainted" so to speak with fish that don't grow to large size like the original strains on naturally occurring bodies did before stocking started.
Hopefully, some of this can be turned around to some extent to help the waters out...sounds like it will be a big undertaking and many many years...
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/7/2019 9:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 434
Location: searchin for 50 | Harvested fish with holes in them no longer swim! That's all I have to say about this! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| Maybe shooting the shoepac fish and replacing them with something else wouldn't be such a bad idea.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| Will the shoepac fish have a sticker on them so I know which ones to shoot? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| And yes Steve they do get 50" on Pelican.
Attachments
----------------
50 inch muskie.jpg (79KB - 420 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8822
| Jimbo - 1/7/2019 5:16 PM
Will the shoepac fish have a sticker on them so I know which ones to shoot? :)
Just the green ones... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | sukrchukr: The Wisconsin River drainage lakes get stocked with Wisconsin River drainage lakes fish from the Woodruff hatchery. The Chippewa River drainage lakes get stocked with fish from the Chippewa River drainage lakes from the Spooner hatchery.
To get the whole story, you'll have to go back in the archives on this site to around 2006 to 2008 or so. Looooong story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Additional food for thought. Most of Canada's "trophy muskie waters" now have a 54 inch size limit. Basically almost forced catch and release, including most of the 50 inch plus fish. Short of a closed season, this will likely serve to allow these water bodies to produce world class muskies without closure. Lakes like Eagle Lake, that have never been stocked vs those like. Lac Suel which has been stocked should have the best chance to produce the future monsters. |
|
| |
