|
|
Location: Vilas | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7PazVEProk
very intersting talk with some guys that know!! | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The entire 'It's the Fish' debate including this subject in great detail was held right here on MuskieFIRST (the only publisher willing to publish it all and go to the biologists from the US and Canada for their responses) with VOLUMES of input for those saying that WI fish can't compare to LL strain. Turns out in some cases they can't and in some cases, they do better. Dr. Sloss's work should clarify the track taken over time since then by the WIDNR, we have both video and a volume of content about that on MuskieFIRST as well. Lots of Leech lake fish stocked now, and since then, the Green Bay fishery has taken off like a shot.
I'm not listening to it, so someone please let me know if any if this is mentioned in the podcast, I'd be interested to know. | |
| | |
Location: Vilas | I guess what I take from the video is the DNR is covering up the success of the LL strain being put in Nancy Lake. Larry Ramsell and Pete Maina talking on the subject, with Pete saying it was the best fishing he`s ever seen in Wi! and it was Pete`s opinion that there was natural reproduction going on. If the DNR doesnt know this, why not? and if the DNR does know this... why is it not doing something positive with the info?? I know when I go to Eagle or a Mn lake, I see more big fish in a week then all year in Vilas Cty! If something can be done about that, then Im all for it
Edited by JGlass 2/22/2021 9:09 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JGlass - 2/22/2021 9:08 AM
I guess what I take from the video is the DNR is covering up the success of the LL strain being put in Nancy Lake. --How is the population doing now in Nancy? Didn't LL fish get stocked in other lakes in WI since? What/who determined which lakes could be stocked with LL fish and why? Are there some success stories and some not across the muskie range stocking LL fish? Why would Eagle be better than any lake in Vilas or Oneida, has it ever been stocked? What did Dr. Sloss's long-term genetics study reveal? (That's the real answer, plain and simple)The answers to your questions below are all published right here on MuskieFIRSTif you take the time to look for them. I can tell you this, for every single reason muskie management is complicated and expensive, there are zero magic bullets.---
-Larry Ramsell and Pete Maina talking on the subject, with Pete saying it was the best fishing he`s ever seen in Wi! and it was Pete`s opinion that there was natural reproduction going on. If the DNR doesnt know this, why not? and if the DNR does know this... why is it not doing something positive with the info?? I know when I go to Eagle or a Mn lake, I see more big fish in a week then all year in Vilas Cty! If something can be done about that, then Im all for it
OK, MN stocking their own strain- LL fish. Vermilion is a GREAT case study. What happened and is happening there is exactly what several of the biologists from the US and Canada we spoke with predicted. That's the results in a body of water where one might have expected a tremendous fishery well into the future with great NR and a bounty of 50s never-ending. And now, the MNDNR is under big time pressure and is taking heat to 'fix' Vermilion's declining muskie population. (look up new reservoir syndrome) NO magic bullet. Oh, and Mille Lacs too.......
There's now in MN the kind of heat the WINR was taking back then, the vitriol was amazing, as was the gleeful MN muskie anglers 'Look at Mille Lacs and Leech, OUR DNR is progressive and amazing, this will be forever the best muskie destination forever!!!" Yet now muske anglers FROM MN discourage us all from having unrealistic expectations about a trip to Vermilion or Mille Lacs, and muskie anglers booking cabins has dropped way off in the resorts. The border closing has helped the resorts immensely, but that will end too, and there will be immense pressure on the fish this year again.
Don't get me wrong, I like spotted muskies a lot. I work with Pete and Larry regularly and respect their opinions, agreeing with much of the 'it's the fish' debate. I think spots should be welcome to be stocked wherever it's possible and affordable and they can be acquired, and thanks to many folks including Larry's work and the WIDNR response and Muskies Inc, they are. It's a battle in an ongoing 'war'we have already won, and the reason we did is in large part this community. How soon we forget.
My opinion? Old news brought back up to acquire You Tube views for Today's Angler. | |
| | |
| The first time I witnessed 'new reservoir syndrome' was back in the late 1960s. A dam was put in on the Yellow River in Wood County. Created a large lake, park, etc. A couple years after the dam went in, the panfish exploded. Anyone with a boat could go out and catch a limit of big bluegills. The locals thought that would last forever, but it was a short term thing. There it was a case of the dam creating an explosion of plankton and other small creatures that the blue gills fed on. As that went back to a normal level, the panfish also reverted to normal numbers and growth rate. | |
| | |
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | New and reclaimed lakes can have tremendous fishing as well as newly stocked lakes. It takes a life cycle to balance the lake. Until that happens fishing can be phenomenal, so can growth rates. It's not just with Muskies either. If you have ever had the chance to experience it you know what I am talking about. I caught 10 Muskies in a lake my third time there with a combined total of 18. The guides had not fished it yet. Caught 12 in a day on another and caught 80 in my first 20 trips. Another went 6 for 9 on my first trip. Got in and enjoyed it before the masses and guides descended. While those lakes are still decent they don't offer that type of success anymore because they lakes found their balance.
There was a similar scenario brought up in illinois and brought up by a seminar speaker at our club meeting. Pretty much the same deal about initial stocks from another area doing really well compared to what the fishery settled into. Even though that person could not answer my questions others bit the suick crossways and refused to listen to any discussion otherwise.
Edited by ToddM 2/22/2021 12:08 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 6
| There is a pretty good podcast with Jordan Weeks on Backlash. It gets into this discussion. Worth a listen... Seems like WI is open to stocking whatever strain you desire south of highway 10. | |
| | |
Posts: 1970
| Leech lake fish get 54”+ everywhere they are put..Madison isn’t new res. Syndrome quite the opposite., interesting when Larry talks about many north of 10 lakes don’t have native fish anyway
Edited by IAJustin 2/22/2021 1:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1970
| Someone please throw 5000 15” leech lake strain in West Okoboji , 100% guaranteed Iowa would have 55-56” fish in 15-20 years.. something this state has never seen. 
Edited by IAJustin 2/22/2021 1:27 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1676
Location: Mt. Zion, IL | I would believe Larry on size over nearly anyone else in DNR/lake management on muskies. I say stock them already and let's get this over with. This is not simply a way to get "views" as Steve says above, but a way to try to gain support for the cause. | |
| | |
Posts: 315
| I was the guy that released the 54” Illinois LL strain fish from McMaster in 2006 that Larry referred to. I believe the first stocking of LL fish was in 1991 with another stocking in 1994. The biologist figured that fish was from the original stocking in ‘91 so it was probably a 16 year old fish since I believe they were stocked as 18-20” one year old fish. In 1998 I released a 48” fish there which means if that was from the original stocking as well it was only an eight year old fish! So that LL strain fish went from 20” to 48” in only seven years! We had some absolute giant fish in that lake from around 2004-2010 or so. I saw a couple fish there that I sincerely believed were longer than that 54.
When we had our local club we wanted to put more LL fish in McMaster and other lakes because we saw firsthand how those fish thrived and grew quickly to trophy size and were told no by the DNR despite the fact that we would pay for the stocking. Talk about being frustrated!!!! They seem to thrive very well in almost all lakes where they’ve been stocked. I can’t help but feel they’d do very well in some of the inland lakes in WI too. Personally I’d love to see it! | |
| | |
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | First of all Steve, that Podcast wasn't done to "...acquire YouTube views for Today's Angler." Those gentlemen are serious about the subject and are unhappy with the misinformation being promulgated by certain DNR sources, not to mention using "studies" to slant and interpret the data to their "biased" (in my opinion) view point. I'll not go into detail here, it was stated on the Podcast. If I thought otherwise, I would not have participated!
NOW, some "possible" good news on the spotted fish front, albeit not Mississippi River/Leech Lake strain muskies. After the Podcast, I received an email from a gentleman who has been communicating with a couple of WI DNR Biologists (whose names I won't mention as I do not wish to get them in trouble). He related to me that he was told that beginning THIS YEAR, any waters that get stocked with muskies that drain into the Great Lakes would be stocked with Great Lakes Strain (spotted) muskies!! "IF" true, the battle is half over! Perhaps Steve you can contact your DNR sources and find out if this is true.
As you may recall Mr. Worrall, back in 2006, then Chief Biologist and Supervisor of the Upper Chippewa Basin State waters, Dave Neuswanger, AGREED that Great Lakes strain muskie SHOULD be stocked in Wisconsin lakes that drain into the Great Lakes and that one such, the Gile Flowage, in his domain, would be if he had any say in the matter...evidently he didn't, because it didn't happen and was never mentioned again! (you can check the archives if you doubt this). Can you imagine what we would have in Wisconsin NOW if that strategy had been instituted back then???
Let us all hope it is so and we can look forward to more great "spotted muskie" fishing in the future. | |
| | |
Posts: 1200
Location: Walker, MN | Florida strain Largemouth were stocked in Lake Chickamauga TN starting in in 2000, by 2015 they had a new 15# state record (the fish was 12 yrs old). They also had record tournament results with huge bags, and tons of 8#-10# fish catches. Fast forward to today and the fishing participation and business around the lake are at an all time high. They've since stocked a few neighboring large reservoirs in TN with these fish (Watts Bar, Kentucky L, Nickajack), it will likely be a true bass Mecca in about 5 more years. Results were similar with Florida strain LM in California and Texas.
I know it's not Wi or muskies, but it's an exciting success story. Everyone likes the chance at trophy fish, hopefully they'll be able to figure out the right formula.
Edited by Masqui-ninja 2/22/2021 4:02 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | RyanJoz - 2/22/2021 1:26 PM
I would believe Larry on size over nearly anyone else in DNR/lake management on muskies. I say stock them already and let's get this over with. This is not simply a way to get "views" as Steve says above, but a way to try to gain support for the cause.
We went through this debate for a couple years involving the best muskie minds in fisheries on the planet, and the DNR hired Dr. Sloss to study our muskie's genetics and the strains we have in N WI. No matter how much Larry, Pete, I, and the rest of us want to see great slakes strain stocked here, it's been an uphill battle that is still underway.
Muskies Inc. got all sorts of involved, and I think that's much of the reason why there are LL fish in the waters they are in. It ain't like we deleted years of discussion, either.
Lakes with no NR which are mainly south of ten have been cleared for stocking LL fish, and then there's Bay of Green Bay with that strain. Someone would have to pay for all of this, too.
Then there's the fact the DNR's of both states are clearly not currently stocking muskies of any strain with the goal to create a high-volume no/poor NR trophy population. I suggest you call your area fish manager and ask why not.
What's happened on Vermilion and Mille Lacs since this debate first began? THOSE are the lakes held up as the epitome of LL stocking success when Larry fired up the original discussion. What happens with initial stocking (the new reservoir syndrome) and then trying to maintain that makes things a hell of a lot more complicated because us arm chair biologists don't understand it well.
Then we have the issues of meeting the needs of the entire fishing public on any one waterbody, and those goals frequently clash with ours. I believe Larry is correct and has been, headway has been made, but our requests and perceived needs don't always match the bigger picture.
I'm all over getting fast growing muskies stocked wherever we can, but one has to be realistic and diplomatic in that process.
The entire tone of that piece in the promotion was sensationalistic, which I felt was a deterrent last time, and still feel that way. I have said from the start attacking the people you need to get to agree with you, especially after making headway in the battle, is an ineffective way to negotiate. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry Ramsell - 2/22/2021 3:22 PM
First of all Steve, that Podcast wasn't done to "...acquire YouTube views for Today's Angler." Those gentlemen are serious about the subject and are unhappy with the misinformation being promulgated by certain DNR sources, not to mention using "studies" to slant and interpret the data to their "biased" (in my opinion) view point. I'll not go into detail here, it was stated on the Podcast. If I thought otherwise, I would not have participated!
NOW, some "possible" good news on the spotted fish front, albeit not Mississippi River/Leech Lake strain muskies. After the Podcast, I received an email from a gentleman who has been communicating with a couple of WI DNR Biologists (whose names I won't mention as I do not wish to get them in trouble). He related to me that he was told that beginning THIS YEAR, any waters that get stocked with muskies that drain into the Great Lakes would be stocked with Great Lakes Strain (spotted) muskies!! "IF" true, the battle is half over! Perhaps Steve you can contact your DNR sources and find out if this is true.
As you may recall Mr. Worrall, back in 2006, then Chief Biologist and Supervisor of the Upper Chippewa Basin State waters, Dave Neuswanger, AGREED that Great Lakes strain muskie SHOULD be stocked in Wisconsin lakes that drain into the Great Lakes and that one such, the Gile Flowage, in his domain, would be if he had any say in the matter...evidently he didn't, because it didn't happen and was never mentioned again! (you can check the archives if you doubt this). Can you imagine what we would have in Wisconsin NOW if that strategy had been instituted back then???
Let us all hope it is so and we can look forward to more great "spotted muskie" fishing in the future.
I agree. I am with you and solidly on your side and clearly remember what was said, and the backlash that I dealt with in person and on the phone for months. We lost Dave's participation here not because of Dave, that much is clear. Several times I quoted sources from the US and Canada who refused to let me state a name, not wanting to end up in the situation where they would find themselves pitted against a portion of the muskie angling public and their peers. This was a PRIME example of why folks hire a PR firm or person.
It's the tone of how it was promoted I disagreed with, not your participation or information. The title alone won't make us many friends from those already willing to tell us to pee off.
I have heard rumbles of the same regarding stocking which would be great! I will, in the spirit of cooperation and working together to create change... because of my position here and my position with MI as PR/Marketing VP, do all I can to prevent the creation of a possible new divide or a widening of the divide between anglers, Muskies Inc, Larry, Pete, I and the WIDNR or any other DNR. Working together will get the job done, polarization will not. Let's continue working to improve this situation, use the alliances with area fish managers we have gained to create a new dialog, and make this work. It won't work if we collectively allow another name-calling train wreck to occur. People who are not aware of what it takes to make changes like the 50" limit on Pelican, getting LL stain permits on some waters, and getting the entire establishment structure we must work with to change to meet our hopes have a tendency to be less than reasonable. I'll do my best to stop us from taking a step backward because I want success. | |
| | |
Posts: 64
| I think we also have to remember that for a lot of people who go muskie fishing, their goal isn't necessarily to catch the biggest fish possible. In fact, I believe most muskie anglers are interested in numbers. There's only a select few who are interested in only catching trophies. | |
| | |
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | Protect Green Gene has shown that Leech Lake Strain Muskies do not survive well in Illinois lakes they did not capture a fish after the second year. There are some waters like McMaster that's part deep gravel pit where they would survive. There is some survivability in the fox chain. And I did see a 51.5 pulled from a DNR net. For the most part not many are caught when enough were stocked to see a some numbers caught. One year a.bunch were stocked and a bunch caught in their first year then no two year olds showed up. They are.not the answer but for a couple of illinois lakes.
Edited by ToddM 2/22/2021 4:07 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:11 PM
Leech lake fish get 54”+ everywhere they are put..Madison isn’t new res. Syndrome quite the opposite., interesting when Larry talks about many north of 10 lakes don’t have native fish anyway
Really, what makes you state that about Madison? When were LL fish stocked, how many, how many since the first stocking and what has been the survival and growth rate? The info is available.
I actually belong to the Cap City chapter, just re-upped with a family membership. | |
| | |
Posts: 1970
| sworrall - 2/22/2021 4:47 PM
IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:11 PM
Leech lake fish get 54”+ everywhere they are put..Madison isn’t new res. Syndrome quite the opposite., interesting when Larry talks about many north of 10 lakes don’t have native fish anyway
Really, what makes you state that about Madison? When were LL fish stocked, how many, how many since the first stocking and what has been the survival and growth rate? The info is available.
I actually belong to the Cap City chapter, just re-upped with a family membership.
When Mid 2000’s, how many = not enough... growth = exceptional look at the 53”+ on today’s angler
Edited by IAJustin 2/22/2021 5:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 386
| IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:25 PM
Someone please throw 5000 15” leech lake strain in West Okoboji , 100% guaranteed Iowa would have 55-56” fish in 15-20 years.. something this state has never seen. :)
Where do they come from now? | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | IAJustin - 2/22/2021 5:35 PM
sworrall - 2/22/2021 4:47 PM
IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:11 PM
Leech lake fish get 54”+ everywhere they are put..Madison isn’t new res. Syndrome quite the opposite., interesting when Larry talks about many north of 10 lakes don’t have native fish anyway
Really, what makes you state that about Madison? When were LL fish stocked, how many, how many since the first stocking and what has been the survival and growth rate? The info is available.
I actually belong to the Cap City chapter, just re-upped with a family membership.
When Mid 2000’s, how many = not enough... growth = exceptional look at the 53”+ on today’s angler
Didn't answer my other question. This is a population of fish introduced into a body of water where there have never been any in the past. Same as Mille lacs, in fact, stoked over a population of Wisco fish. It will be interesting to see how they do long-term with multiple stocking years, high fishing pressure, and a long-term general increase in water temps. As for the 'not enough', someone, as noted before, has to pay for all this. Good to see the fish doing OK there for sure, though. Would be really interesting to see how they do in some Iowa water, what's the fisheries manager's stance over there?
| |
| | |
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | This is for Steve. The new reservoir syndrome is a thing and most people do not doubt that. But...in the vermilion/Mille lacs debate, which has experienced this type of syndrome, wouldn’t you think there is a way to improve on it? Yes, there is a decline that cannot be completely reversed but wouldn’t stocking MORE fish help get closer to where it once was? There is a huge difference in the stocking levels nowadays compared to what it once was. More stocking equals more fish. Simple math. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I understand it, stocking the recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre will still not get you what we saw in the Vermilion discovery by muskie anglers. Still lots of pressure there, and a change from the current stable low-density population management will bring more. NR is not what was hoped for I think, and then there are the cost thing and management objectives. Might not meet our hopes or expectations. | |
| | |
Posts: 188
| I can certainly attest to new reservoir syndrome. I made numerous trips in the early 80's to 'new' impoundments in Missouri (Truman Lake) and elsewhere chasing bass. After a few years the system gets past peak and cools down. As for the Podcast I wasn't going to sit through but the topic caught my attention and I learned a lot not having been privy to the info previously. | |
| | |
Posts: 1184
| While each area fisheries manager has some discretion as to exactly how they go about managing their area, and they do manage them a bit differently, the statewide (MN) muskie management plan, is to have a low density, trophy fishery. To that end, they are accomplishing their goal. The only lakes that are actually managed as "action" lakes, are the tiger lakes. Usually smaller lakes with a 40" limit. Perhaps the next time the management plan is updated, a conversation about managing a few more lakes for numbers, might be warranted, especially with the growth of the sport and the desire to grow it more. The DNR does want to add new lakes, but as we saw with the last 5 lakes that were added, it can be a sticky wicket, politically. Whole other conversation. | |
| | |
Posts: 1970
| Steve not sure on stance today, assume nothing has changed , we had a club, had money and tried late 2000’s to get some leech lake strain stockings going, DNR had no interest.. beat our heads against the wall for three years and then donated money raised, I believe it went to walleye stockings | |
| | |
Posts: 1970
| FlyPiker - 2/22/2021 5:51 PM
IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:25 PM
Someone please throw 5000 15” leech lake strain in West Okoboji , 100% guaranteed Iowa would have 55-56” fish in 15-20 years.. something this state has never seen. :)
Where do they come from now?
We pull eggs from fish on Iowa Great Lakes, those fish originated from Wisconsin in the 60’s I believe, I knew the lake/hatchery they came from 10 years ago but forget now. Ha!...they are a heavy built fish but rarely hit 50”, the longest fish I’ve ever heard from Iowa is 53”. | |
| | |
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | IAJustin - 2/22/2021 8:24 PM
FlyPiker - 2/22/2021 5:51 PM
IAJustin - 2/22/2021 1:25 PM
Someone please throw 5000 15” leech lake strain in West Okoboji , 100% guaranteed Iowa would have 55-56” fish in 15-20 years.. something this state has never seen. :)
Where do they come from now?
We pull eggs from fish on Iowa Great Lakes, those fish originated from Wisconsin in the 60’s I believe, I knew the lake/hatchery they came from 10 years ago but forget now. Ha!...they are a heavy built fish but rarely hit 50”, the longest fish I’ve ever heard from Iowa is 53”.
Iowa fish are mutts like Illinois and indiana. Illinois has traded fish with iowa in the past. In the earlier days of indiana I've caught so many different strains even the Wisconsin clear with red fins. | |
| | |
Posts: 357
| its always interesting to me how everyone is caught up in just size (caught a 50 syndrome). i would prefer to have local fish of whatever sort they are. I personally think it is cool to fish for the different strains. Anglers seem to have a desire to have boom lakes, not just sustainable fisheries.
i may be wrong, but i thought a lot of the really big fish early from Mille Lacs were Wisconsin fish?
One of the funnest days ive had Musky fishing was on a Shoepak lake.
You dont have to look very hard to find the realism of stocked lakes in MN. Its not just the big lakes like Vermillion and Mille Lacs in a state of peril. The heydays of MN are long since over. Do the math on a Frank Schneider tournament sometime. | |
| | |
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | RJ_692 - 2/24/2021 7:47 AM
its always interesting to me how everyone is caught up in just size (caught a 50 syndrome). i would prefer to have local fish of whatever sort they are. I personally think it is cool to fish for the different strains. Anglers seem to have a desire to have boom lakes, not just sustainable fisheries.
i may be wrong, but i thought a lot of the really big fish early from Mille Lacs were Wisconsin fish?
One of the funnest days ive had Musky fishing was on a Shoepak lake.
You dont have to look very hard to find the realism of stocked lakes in MN. Its not just the big lakes like Vermillion and Mille Lacs in a state of peril. The heydays of MN are long since over. Do the math on a Frank Schneider tournament sometime.
I strongly agree that returning musky to their natural range, maintaining regional genetics and ensuring natural reproduction should be the goal. Sure it's fun to fish during new res syndrome but some people have trouble understanding that's neither sustainable or desirable for a fishery. | |
| | |
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | CincySkeez - 2/24/2021 9:03 AM
RJ_692 - 2/24/2021 7:47 AM
its always interesting to me how everyone is caught up in just size (caught a 50 syndrome). i would prefer to have local fish of whatever sort they are. I personally think it is cool to fish for the different strains. Anglers seem to have a desire to have boom lakes, not just sustainable fisheries.
i may be wrong, but i thought a lot of the really big fish early from Mille Lacs were Wisconsin fish?
One of the funnest days ive had Musky fishing was on a Shoepak lake.
You dont have to look very hard to find the realism of stocked lakes in MN. Its not just the big lakes like Vermillion and Mille Lacs in a state of peril. The heydays of MN are long since over. Do the math on a Frank Schneider tournament sometime.
I strongly agree that returning musky to their natural range, maintaining regional genetics and ensuring natural reproduction should be the goal. Sure it's fun to fish during new res syndrome but some people have trouble understanding that's neither sustainable or desirable for a fishery.
Obviously the boom is impossible to sustain, but it can be better than it is now. One problem is the money and baby muskies available for stocking are limited but we should be working to create more rearing ponds and provide money for stocking. We can easily supplement our lakes that are struggling and sustain a better fishery. The lakes have everything working against them and it's worse every year with increased pressure and less stocking. That needs to countered by more stocking. | |
| | |
Posts: 408
Location: MN | Kirby Budrow - 2/22/2021 6:24 PM
This is for Steve. The new reservoir syndrome is a thing and most people do not doubt that. But...in the vermilion/Mille lacs debate, which has experienced this type of syndrome, wouldn’t you think there is a way to improve on it? Yes, there is a decline that cannot be completely reversed but wouldn’t stocking MORE fish help get closer to where it once was? There is a huge difference in the stocking levels nowadays compared to what it once was. More stocking equals more fish. Simple math.
sworrall - 2/22/2021 6:55 PM
As I understand it, stocking the recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre will still not get you what we saw in the Vermilion discovery by muskie anglers. Still lots of pressure there, and a change from the current stable low-density population management will bring more. NR is not what was hoped for I think, and then there are the cost thing and management objectives. Might not meet our hopes or expectations.
Some data for comparison. Over 2003-2014 (bigger adults now aged 7-18), a total of 18,002 fingerlings were stocked in Vermilion. That is 0.038 fish per acre per year.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | nar160 - 2/24/2021 2:16 PM
Kirby Budrow - 2/22/2021 6:24 PM
This is for Steve. The new reservoir syndrome is a thing and most people do not doubt that. But...in the vermilion/Mille lacs debate, which has experienced this type of syndrome, wouldn’t you think there is a way to improve on it? Yes, there is a decline that cannot be completely reversed but wouldn’t stocking MORE fish help get closer to where it once was? There is a huge difference in the stocking levels nowadays compared to what it once was. More stocking equals more fish. Simple math. sworrall - 2/22/2021 6:55 PM
As I understand it, stocking the recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre will still not get you what we saw in the Vermilion discovery by muskie anglers. Still lots of pressure there, and a change from the current stable low-density population management will bring more. NR is not what was hoped for I think, and then there are the cost thing and management objectives. Might not meet our hopes or expectations. Some data for comparison. Over 2003-2014 (bigger adults now aged 7-18 ), a total of 18,002 fingerlings were stocked in Vermilion. That is 0.038 fish per acre per year.
Recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre is not targeted to sustain a fishery at low density/high-quality status. That number is to basically create or save a crashing population or introduce new species. Vermilion is currently managed as exactly that, low density, high quality. It was built as a muskie fishery with the knowledge that's where it would end up, and as I understand it, the hope enough NR would occur to avoid regular stocking. Context is kind of important there...
And, it may be wise to look at the cost even before addressing the future benefits, which may not be what people want. What would 100000 LL extended growthers cost? | |
| | |
| Given the tremendous cost of raising fish to be stocked, maybe there should be a musky stamp? You would need a fishing license and then if you wished to fish musky, you would need a musky stamp, the revenue from that would be used to stock lakes. Given how expensive the sport is, I wouldn't think guys would object to a $40 or $50 stamp. | |
| | |
Location: Vilas | Id pay $50 for a stamp for muskie stocking....
Edited by sukrchukr 2/24/2021 3:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8719
| It sounds like a good idea. I wonder about a few things, though:
Typically a stamp is for harvest purposes. Would having a stamp encourage harvest of more legal sized fish. (I paid for my stamp, I'm gonna take my fish)
Would that discourage anglers from other states from fishing in MN? I know $50 is trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I could see a lot of people staying home over it.
| |
| | |
| esoxaddict - 2/24/2021 3:33 PM
It sounds like a good idea. I wonder about a few things, though:
Typically a stamp is for harvest purposes. Would having a stamp encourage harvest of more legal sized fish. (I paid for my stamp, I'm gonna take my fish)
Would that discourage anglers from other states from fishing in MN? I know $50 is trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I could see a lot of people staying home over it.
The "folks won't come" argument is the one that the hospitality industry plead when it was discussed for walleyes in WI. If you are going to travel interstate to fish, which includes gas, lodging, food, etc., would buying a stamp really stop you? $50 barely buys you a pitcher of beer, pizza and tip. | |
| | |
Posts: 1184
| A muskie stamp could easily backfire politically. There are anti-muskie legislators, who would love to see a muskie stamp. They would find ways to misuse data, numbers, dollars, to try to reduce or even eliminate current funding. We see only the good that could come from it, but it's a trap. | |
| | |
| As with anything involving government revenues, you would need to do the groundwork ahead of time. Enlist allies in the legislature, find supporters in the business community, in particular those who would benefit. Resort owners, boat dealers, tackle shops, etc. Make sure they understand not only the potential benefits but also potential pitfalls. Wisconsin does not have the number of waterfowl hunters it once did but sales of the state duck stamp raises close to $500,000 each year. About $150,000 of that goes to Canadian pothole habitat, the rest is spent in the state to support waterfowl habitat. There may well be those in the legislature, departments, that would like to short circuit the funds. That is why you do your homework ahead of time and you also find allies in the news media who will blow the whistle on those who try to use funds for other than what it is intended. In Wisconsin for example, you would talk to Paul Smith, the long time outdoors writer for the Milwaukee Journal whose columns appear in a number of other newspapers as well. He is a life long hunter and fishermen. Big advocate for habitat development, restoration. Take a local broadcaster fishing, explain the purpose of the stamp, both from a sport perspective and economic impact. They get a story with good images from being on the water and if you do it right, may have an ally down the road. | |
| | |
Posts: 1184
| North of 8 - 2/24/2021 5:21 PM
As with anything involving government revenues, you would need to do the groundwork ahead of time. Enlist allies in the legislature, find supporters in the business community, in particular those who would benefit. Resort owners, boat dealers, tackle shops, etc. Make sure they understand not only the potential benefits but also potential pitfalls. Wisconsin does not have the number of waterfowl hunters it once did but sales of the state duck stamp raises close to $500,000 each year. About $150,000 of that goes to Canadian pothole habitat, the rest is spent in the state to support waterfowl habitat. There may well be those in the legislature, departments, that would like to short circuit the funds. That is why you do your homework ahead of time and you also find allies in the news media who will blow the whistle on those who try to use funds for other than what it is intended. In Wisconsin for example, you would talk to Paul Smith, the long time outdoors writer for the Milwaukee Journal whose columns appear in a number of other newspapers as well. He is a life long hunter and fishermen. Big advocate for habitat development, restoration. Take a local broadcaster fishing, explain the purpose of the stamp, both from a sport perspective and economic impact. They get a story with good images from being on the water and if you do it right, may have an ally down the road.
This is what it would take. I can only speak to the MN side of things, and it is not my place to be much more specific, but at this time, more than one of the items above, have serious political challenges that may not be there in the somewhat near future. Along with the heavy lifting mentioned, timing is everything. | |
| | |
| Timing is always important, true. And involvement of participants is key. Look at the snowmobile clubs and the incredible trail system in WI. They built that step by step and big part of it was the clubs doing almost all the work. They get the leases from private land owners, they maintain all but a small portion of the trails. In return, the state funds the trail work with the trail fees snowmobilers pay. I have an old machine I use to pull my ice sled, but I buy a trail pass and pay to belong to a club because I know how important they are to the economy up here. Couple years ago I went out in early fall and helped rebuild a bridge on the trails. The club got reimbursed for our hours and the use of our tools from the fund. The state's biggest headache is the bookkeeping.
The head of the division in the DNR talked about the program on public radio recently and he called it one of the most successful partnerships in outdoor recreation the state has ever seen. And he said it all starts with the clubs and their members. | |
| | |
Posts: 668
Location: mercer wi | Stamps for out of state anglers.
$100 musky
$250 walleye
$500 for panfish
Residence NO STAMP | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.
Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican. | |
| | |
| sworrall - 2/24/2021 6:26 PM
I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.
Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican.
Again, that is why you get the DNR's bosses in the legislature on board first. And that is what the snowmobile clubs did decades ago. They went to the local state assembly reps and pitched the idea of trail fees to them, selling them on economic impact. I don't know if there is enough support from fishermen, but if the problem is money, it will have to come from those that benefit, i.e. musky fishermen and the businesses they support. And keeping the money segregated should not be an issue if it is structured like the state duck stamp. Those funds have to be used for waterfowl projects. | |
| | |
Posts: 668
Location: mercer wi | So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | North of 8 - 2/24/2021 6:33 PM
sworrall - 2/24/2021 6:26 PM
I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.
Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican.
Again, that is why you get the DNR's bosses in the legislature on board first. And that is what the snowmobile clubs did decades ago. They went to the local state assembly reps and pitched the idea of trail fees to them, selling them on economic impact. I don't know if there is enough support from fishermen, but if the problem is money, it will have to come from those that benefit, i.e. musky fishermen and the businesses they support. And keeping the money segregated should not be an issue if it is structured like the state duck stamp. Those funds have to be used for waterfowl projects.
I'm pretty sure that was how it was approached, maybe someone else who remembers this better than I can clarify. | |
| | |
Posts: 1135
Location: NorthCentral WI | upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM
So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.
I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp?) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion. | |
| | |
Posts: 357
| Thought this was interesting, quoted from an article i read yesterday on Melton Hill Reservoir
"Initially, TWRA tried to grow its own stocking-size muskies by stripping eggs and sperm from local fish obtained by electro-shocking and hatching the fertilized eggs at one of their local hatcheries, but that didn’t work out because of limited hatchery capacity.
“This year, the lake received 3,200 8- to 12-inches muskies from a Kentucky state hatchery, which has been our primary source for many years,” said Mike Smith, the long-time manager of the agency’s Eagle Bend hatchery near Clinton, Tenn.
“This Ohio sub-species tops out around 45 pounds while the Wisconsin sub-species is known to grow as large as 60 pounds,” Smith said.
“Last year, we obtained the Wisconsin sub-species from an Indiana state hatchery, and next year we plan to purchase more of that sub-species from an Iowa state hatchery. We shoot for around 1,500 stockers each year.”
https://www.carolinasportsman.com/content/souths-best-muskie-lake/ | |
| | |
Posts: 343
| Melton Hill has received spotted muskies in the past, I've caught a few. Most of the biggest muskies I'm aware of were spotted fish. I've heard the spotted fish were Leechers, others have said they were Great Lakes. Melton Hill is a special case as it has warm water for fast growth but also has a cool water refuge when the water is hot so fish don't burn out as fast as most southern fish, so they can live longer. Unfortunately there are a lot of muskie haters in the area, and many fish are also killed by meat and trophy fishermen. I'm sure the Wisconsin fish will do okay, but in my opinion spotted fish would likely be a better choice. | |
| | |
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Uh oh....someone poked the (Steve Worrall) bear. This is top 4 topics on M1st that get him allllllll riled up. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MartinTD - 2/25/2021 7:22 AM
upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM
So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.
I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp? ) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion.
This was dealt with in incredible detail here years ago, with the involvement of the best minds in muskie management from the US and Canada, Larry at his very best as a historian, and a few radicals on both sides who made somewhat of a mess denigrating the scientists in the program and defending same. We eventually made true headway almost healing the wide rift created between the DNR and the 'it's the fish' movement, and LL fish are now stocked in put and take fisheries across the southern part of Wisconsin. How do I know there was a rift? I took a ton of heat from both sides and did extensive interviews and had long conversations with both. Both sides were convinced I was biased heavily for the other. Dave N was the DNR contact point, and eventually, the vitriol got so bad he was asked not to post here anymore. Is THAT how we get change, by attempting to get it by accusation, abuse, insult, insinuation, and bad behavior? As a neutral journalist attempting to moderate the battle my experience says no, and once that receded, we actually got somewhere. Nancy Lake was an initial study, and I believe the supposedly low ending numbers and apparent poor NR (take what you will from the data and arguments from both sides) and the information from the Minnesota team on Mille Lacs growth of WI strain fish at the time settled that in the management community. The question of genetics in the HUGE argument over a Hayward area lake and much more was settled with the results of Dr. Sloss's team's independent study, which was generated by the debate. A new process was put into place to improve the process and in the end, the fishing. Muskies Inc Chapters became involved and still are. There's rumbling that we may end up with spots in some watersheds in the North yet. SO the way to respond to all of this is to start right back at the beginning, fire up both sides as if nothing happened....
I knew #*^@ well it would surface here and start the uninformed shouting all over again. It seems a lot have forgotten most of this or were never aware of the progression and as a result don't have context, but OFM has not. Who's 'butt-hurt'? I'm certainly not, but I am quite aware of what 'FAKE NEWS!!' titles do in the media. I found somewhere in the middle were the facts, and that's not going to change. | |
| | |
Posts: 1135
Location: NorthCentral WI | LOL. The butt hurt comment was direct response to the "spoiled, instant gratification" comment quoted where in reality that couldn't be further from the truth. But I do think the podcast makes valid points regarding tourism and WI anglers traveling to other states in search of "big fish." Aside from that I think you're correct with your statement that "a lot have forgotten most of this or were never aware of the progression and as a result don't have context, but OFM has not." I for one admit I was never aware of the progression as you said so I found the podcast rather interesting. I was surprised by the backlash they received mainly on FB by a lot of people when in my opinion they (Today's Angler) were just bringing light to the situation for a lot of us. It is obviously a complex issue and it would be cool to see a rebuttal from Jordan Weeks or another member of the WIDNR on a subsequent podcast. I am honestly pretty neutral on the whole issue but find it an interesting topic that I hadn't really seen discussed, at least anytime recently. Larry and Pete on the other hand seem to have some pretty strong opinions and again it would be interesting to see those countered by the DNR.
Edited by MartinTD 2/25/2021 10:07 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I personally hope they dodge that bullet this time and just continue to give us more access to spotted muskies. | |
| | |
Posts: 668
Location: mercer wi | MartinTD - 2/25/2021 7:22 AM
upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM
So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.
I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp? ) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion.
Not butt hurt at all. Just wondering what the Pros would suggest. The 1500 acre comment was just a general comment. Where I live I'm surrounded by small lakes, could they support a fishery that has shown the leech fish eat a lot more the compared to native fish. My comment about the inStent gradifaction angler is that talking to some they expect to catch a 50 every time out. Which in my opinion kind of takes away from the true hunt. Got friend that fish GB and have caught a large # of 50 but all say it's nothing compared to the hunt for a northern Wisconsin 50. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The beginning. If you are truly interested in this, read the entire thing, please. This transfers into many other threads as it progresses.
https://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19... | |
| | |
Posts: 8719
| What I have read is that a "balanced" ecosystem (lot of factors at work here - water chemistry, types of forage, etc.) will support a population of .5 adult fish/acre. So for a 1,000 acre lake, you're looking at 500 fish total. Presuming you've got all the year classes covered evenly (you wouldn't) and a musky lives 20 years on average (to make the math easy) you're left with 25 fish of any given age for every 1,000 acres of water.
In order for a fish to get to "trophy" size, one of two things has to happen: In mature fishery, there simply can't be too many of them. You've have umpteen years of smaller fish behind them competing for the same forage, habitat, spawning areas, etc. In a new fishery, those first few year classes have the whole ecosystem to themselves. No predators, no competition except each other...
Going back to the .5 fish/acre for a moment - in an emerging fishery, the majority of fish are going to be the same size, right? And at some point, they're all going to be big. Woohoo! But that can't last for obvious reasons.
Sooo what do we do? You get limited returns by simply stocking more fish. Apex predators gotta eat, and the more you have, the less there is to eat.
Seems to me standard practice of stocking X number of fish every year or every 2 years is only diminishing the overall quality of the fishery. If its big fish we want you have to "make room" for them. Wouldn't it make more sense to stock a lot of fish all at once and then wait 5-6 years before stocking any more? Take next years hatch and do the same in the lake down the street, and so on. Eventually, you'd have the kind of fisheries we saw in MN about 10 years ago happening all over the place at all different times.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1275
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | All: Just back from 3 days of traveling and trying to catch up on this thread. I have a few comments and some clarifications:
On 2/22, Steve Worral referred to Mille Lacs and Vermilion as though they were not native muskie lakes. That is incorrect. Both have always had muskies (I have pictures, stories and and articles that prove this). However, although both were "native" muskie lakes, they had very small (or in the case of Mille Lacs, non-existent) populations and were not considered viable muskie fisheries.
To clarify a point about the first stockings in Mille Lacs being Wisconsin strain muskies, that is true, BUT they were Kalepp Fish Farm fish, not Wisconsin DNR hatchery raised fish. This was and is often never mentioned.
I agree with those that refer to "pressure" being a huge factor. More reason to have more waters available to spread out the pressure.
As far as MONEY, I submit that it is out there! Muskie's, Inc., The Wisconsin Musky Clubs Alliance, The Hugh Becker Foundation, etc., etc. ASK if it would happen!
IA Austin referred to the Iowa fish. I can assure you that since the 1960's, when the original Great Lakes Musky Club was involved, there were muskie strains stocked in Okoboji from all over the US!! However, Iowa takes fish from lakes to the hatchery to spawn and have had some giants and I'd imagine those are the ones they get the majority of eggs from.
RJ_692 referred also to Mille Lacs and the Kalepp Fish Farm fish. There were indeed some ML giants caught from there from those stockings. Kalepp had 25 brood stock lakes to pick from, with genes from several WI locations, including the Hatchery at the Winter Dam on the Upper Chippewa River from 1939 to 1942. But know also that Kalepp had a "pet" 57 inch female that supplied the majority of their eggs! When LL fish began being stocked, Kalepp fish were discontinued. Hybrids from these two strains have been found in genetic testing.
Mr. Worrall again on 2/24 mentioned the WI DNR and raising LL fish. The Spooner hatchery has indeed done so. One of the three stocking done in Nancy Lake was done with fish raised from eggs they took there and raised in the Hatchery and restocked them in Nancy Lake. Also, they DID prove that even though Nancy was not a native muskie lake, there WAS natural reproduction of the Leech Lake strain muskie there. And DOZENS AND DOZENS of 50" plus muskies caught there since proves it worked. A 55 inch, 42 pounder was caught there just a few years ago.
And of course, the Wild Rose Hatchery on the eastern side of WI is dedicated to raising Great Lakes strain muskies and the DNR has created a number of new GL brood stock lakes for getting GL strain eggs to raise and stock.
In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Worrall that is counter productive to alienate the DNR and will contain myself in the future, however, it would be nice if "studies" weren't used in a biased and slanted manner to support a position by those that have "ink" by the barrel available to them without fear of contradiction...I support OPEN debate on these matters.
I also can see no harm in stocking fish that grow big and fast in non-native muskie waters, but waters in the Northern muskie range, or those native lakes that MUST be stocked to maintain a viable, fishable population.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/26/2021 11:48 AM
| |
| | |
| Larry, do you think that the gradually warming waters will impact the muskie population the way it appears to be impacting walleye populations? Thinking of the Lake Minocqua/Lake Tomahawk body of water where there has been a ban on walleye harvest for six years. The latest survey showed little, if any, natural reproduction. No solid answers, but some scientists suspect it is a result of gradually warming water. Don't know if musky reproduction is impacted by warming water. | |
| | |
Posts: 32791
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | On 2/22, Steve Worral referred to Mille Lacs and Vermilion as though they were not native muskie lakes. That is incorrect. Both have always had muskies (I have pictures, stories and articles that prove this). However, although both were "native" muskie lakes, they had very small (or in the case of Mille Lacs, non-existent) populations and were not considered viable muskie fisheries.
In context, that was for the new reservoir syndrome that was nothing short of spectacular in both, and was clarified as such in a later post.
What's the population of LL fish in Nacny now, is there a viable fishery for spots there still? Think that may be stocked in the future with Great Lakes strain if we can keep the train going that direction?
My partner Zach worked Vermilion as an intern, I believe, during his college years. he mentioned no knowledge of a fishable population there at all back then. I'm quite aware of historical evidence of lots of waters holding big fish that didn't seem to hold a fishable population, I think Enterprize may be an example considering the giants speared illegally there by Gabby Ball and company (one was supposedly over 50# on the grocers scale) and a few 35# class fish caught there by me, the McBrides, and Jimmy Cairnes in the 70's. Then came the pressure, and the fishing declined.
I remember clearly when Moccasin was stocked 30 some years ago, it was a bonanza for action and fish to 42". I am not sure of the strain, but they were beautifully marked. Nothing seems to do well in there for growth anymore, it also used to kick out 14" to 16" crappies and it's hard to get a keeper in there now...pressure.
For a while in the 60's and 70's, Post Lake kicked out 50s fairly regularly for a couple Elcho locals. Might have been from very early stocking or what Larry calls 'milk can, don't know, (wolf river) but I personally saw several out of there in the mid 70's that were 35# class or better. I wouldn't fish there at all for muskies these days. | |
| | |
Posts: 53
| Leechers stocked by me personally. Small 40 acre lake pan fish forage base. Central Illinois. Doing great. | |
| | |
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | DWags - 2/26/2021 4:09 PM
Leechers stocked by me personally. Small 40 acre lake pan fish forage base. Central Illinois. Doing great.
I am curious, without naming the lake, what kind of lake is it? Green Gene showed they did not do well in impoundments. Gravel pit style lakes they seem to do better in.
Edited by ToddM 2/26/2021 4:48 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 6
| I catch multiple leach lake strain fish on the chain every year. and I know other people that do as well. | |
| | |
Posts: 59
| The way I feel that this issue should be handled is similar to the sentiments discussed by Larry. Lakes that are part of the Mississippi river drainage should have Mississippi (Leech Lake) strain fish. Lakes that drain into the Great Lakes ought to have Great Lakes strain, and those small unconnected glacial lakes without a historical northern pike population should have the "traditional" Wisconsin strain fish.
One of the interesting points that has been brought up is the breeding of smaller individuals. Now, I'm not a biologist, but from what I understand it's important to ensure that there is diverse genetics in a lake to keep the population healthy. If this means taking eggs and milt from smaller fish then I am for this. I don't mean to say they should be using sub 30 inch fish, but I don't see the harm in using a few mid to upper 30 inch fish if that means the fishery will be sustainable for the long haul. If you only use a couple of upper 40 inch or 50 inch fish for stocking then any naturally reproducing fish will be inherently slightly inbred, which is never good.
As for the new reservoir effect in newly stocked lakes, this should be recognized and accepted as a short term phenomenon. As has been stated before with what was seen in Minnesota, the incredible fishing can only last so long. Yes, the lakes we have now could be improved with increased stocking efforts, but we will never see action like we saw 10-15 years ago. The only way to go back to these types of conditions is to start stocking new lakes, which we desperately need. Not just in Minnesota, but in the whole Muskie range.. Steve and others have talked at length about these types of stocking efforts, and we should follow the positive examples that have made progress in this area. | |
| | |
Posts: 53
| Crap I didn't realize my pics didn't post. Ill work on it. It's a very old coal strip mine lake. Filled in from farm land run off. Deepest spot is about 30 feet now. Moderate clarity to 10 feet or so. | |
| | |
Posts: 53
| 2017 trying to attach pic here
| |
| | |
Posts: 20179
Location: oswego, il | DWags - 2/27/2021 12:01 PM
2017 trying to attach pic here
You have to resize your pic. I usually pick 500 pixels as my largest side. Gravel pit lakes seem have decent survival rates for LL fish in IL. I don't believe any were used in the green gene study.
Edited by ToddM 2/27/2021 12:36 PM
| |
| | |
| Not specific to genetic strain of musky but wondered if this might have something to do with decline in musky in some areas. Just read a story about the dramatic decline in Cisco in both Minnesota and Wisconsin lakes. The story stated they are big part of the diet of musky in lakes where they are present, with one biologist calling them a "stick of butter" because of their fat content. In Minnesota, over 640 lakes have historically held Cisco populations. But due to climate change, the numbers the DNR is finding in their surveys has declined 60% over the last 30 years. In Wisconsin, which has only about 140 lakes with Cisco populations historically, roughly 30% of those lakes no longer have a measurable population.
Those are both pretty drastic declines. Apparently the Cisco are not tolerant of changes in the water temps.
Edited by North of 8 3/5/2021 12:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 479
Location: Northern Illinois | North of 8 - 3/5/2021 12:24 PM
Not specific to genetic strain of musky but wondered if this might have something to do with decline in musky in some areas. Just read a story about the dramatic decline in Cisco in both Minnesota and Wisconsin lakes. The story stated they are big part of the diet of musky in lakes where they are present, with one biologist calling them a "stick of butter" because of their fat content. In Minnesota, over 640 lakes have historically held Cisco populations. But due to climate change, the numbers the DNR is finding in their surveys has declined 60% over the last 30 years. In Wisconsin, which has only about 140 lakes with Cisco populations historically, roughly 30% of those lakes no longer have a measurable population.
Those are both pretty drastic declines. Apparently the Cisco are not tolerant of changes in the water temps.
This does not surprise me. The northern Minnesota lakes I used to fish 30 some years ago today look nothing like they used to due to eutrophication and silting. I can't imagine this is good for Cisco. | |
| |
|
Wi fish discussion