|
|
| Attached, is a recent article describing the effect of commercial harvesting of large Cod. The conclusion of this article is, that by taking the largest fish out of the population you are taking the ‘large fish’ genetics out as well. Quite simply you are ensuring that the fish will only get smaller.
Isn’t this exactly what has occurred to the ‘Trophy Musky Waters’ of Wisconsin? I will not take a side on whether Louis Spray caught all those giants, but for those who ask why we no longer see fish of similar size coming out of Wisconsin lakes, I can tell you why. The genetics are gone. Have been for a long time.
To me, this only makes the recent no vote on 50” limits in Wisconsin, a sign of the shortsightedness and blindness of the Resort Owners and some of the guides. By harvesting the largest of the fish we are ensuring that they will only get smaller.
What does everyone think of this idea…in general (obviously different from lake to lake), muskies caught between 34-40”s can be kept, muskies between 40-51” may not be kept, muskies over 51”s may be kept ( 1 per year , or something like that).
Just an idea. I would love to hear other’s thoughts.
Let’s grow them bigger, not smaller.
Sean Murphy
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0520/p15s01-sten.html?s=rel
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think the commercial fishing model would apply here, and the idea that a genetic attribute could be eliminated in that fashion is in my opinion a stretch, anyway. Normally, a slot style limit is imposed to protect reproduction by making sure the fish in their reproductive prime remain in the system. Not enough of the total Muskie population from the waters that would support fish of that quality has EVER been harvested in Wisconsin to cause what you describe to happen. I think the numbers of big fish in Wisconsin waters has increased over the last twenty years due to CPR, and by a considerable amount. The reasons Wisconsin looks anemic when compared to Minnesota are several, including the introduction of Great Lakes strain muskies in BIG, fertile, Minnesota impoundments and lakes and the successful introduction of a couple strains in GIANT Lake Mille Lacs and other bodies of water. Great fisheries because of great management and because of the ecosystem involved.
Watch for the BIG water areas in Wisconsin the Great Lakes strain has been introduced, and watch what happens with the quality, it will be there. CPR philosophy is strong in Wisconsin, with most fish getting returned.
I think some of the systems here in Northern Wisconsin should be designated as trophy only, perhaps at 50", maybe even 52". Will that insure greater numbers of 50" class fish available? No one is sure. I for one would sure like to see it tested.
| |
| | |
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | The size limits should definitely be bigger than 34 inches. | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| It's just like QDM for deer hunting. If you shoot a spike buck, you'll never find out if he could have scored in the 150's.
Until size limits are increased, it's a moot point.
CPR is the best that we can do, and from the number of big fish showing up, I'd have to say that it's working.
The combination of CPR and higher limits would make a greater impact.
Just my opinion.
Beav | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Marine_1,
On many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin the limit IS more than 34". | |
| | |
| I was born in WI and I have fished it my whole life. It is so far behind other states like MN, IN, and IL, and the MNR in Canada in terms of fisheries management, but the state has come a long way from where it was. All Class A musky lakes should have a 50 inch limit, and WI should follow the IL DNR in terms of more progressive regulations like no single hooks. Spearing is another issue that must be addressed, and it can be done successfully working directly with Native American Groups. I know of tribes that pretend to spear to keep other tribes that will spear off of their home waters.
I have seen bigger fish in WI than anywhere else in the musky universe, and those big fish genes are still in the breeding pool. Let's figure out ways to be proactive and improve the state of WI musky fishing keeping in mind it will never be perfect.
Or one day we will all be floating around Green Bay randomly searching for Big Bertha  | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Steve W. lives in WI.....so take his opinion into consideration. WI just doesn't get it.
People still love to kill muskies up there. But the resort owners must not mind the drop in business from hard core musky fishermen.....because I know very few people who would travel to WI for a musky trip. The fishing is so much better in Minnesota, Canada, heck, even Indiana.'
My opinion isn't based on where I live. It's based on fact and information from the DNR Fisheries folks here and in other areas as well. It's based on reality instead of emotion, and you have taken it out of context and attacked me and other muskie anglers from Wisconsin without justification based on what; your decades long experience muskie angling and dedication to the preservation and expansion of the sport? I think not, your comments are as usual when you go off on a rant, based on rhetoric and your acidic personal opinion, but stated as fact. I take special exception to the comment 'People love to kill muskies up there' Bull. Absolute Bull. The release rate here is as good or better as many to most areas in the country, WITHOUT legislating it to be so. I DO know many folks who came here to fish muskies this year, and can't tell you of a single killed fish out of many, many caught. I don't have to defend my personal record, that speaks for itself, but I WILL defend the record of other Wisconsin Guides and Muskie anglers from garbage slinging like that. You are out of line. The debate over the 50" limit proposal (and the reasons it failed, straight from the DNR Fisheries manager in Madison) was discussed at length here, and I believe I made my position clear as did many of the other anglers from this State. Everyone here feels we will get Trophy Only designations passed on more waters that will support the management technique, and soon.
The Muskie fishing is better in Indiana??? I have about 200 muskie lakes within easy driving distance of my house. Many hold and give up fish in the 50" class every year. Most muskies caught from these waters are released, just like most are in Indiana, Minnesota, and Canada.
I can fish 4 small muskie lakes in a day around home, and see maybe 3 or 4 other muskie boats. Many of these lakes and rivers see little or no real pressure. Unfortunately, most are under 500 acres, and are not suited for many reasons to support many muskies over 50", if ANY. I will wager there are nearly ZERO fish harvested off these waters, yet HMMMM, no really big muskies despite the fact the waters have been managed for Muskies for over 30 years. Does that mean they are poor lakes? Not to me. Lots of muskies, into the low 40" to mid 40" class, where they top out despite being into the upper teens or more in age. Not because of harvest, either, so don't even go there. Actually, there are many lakes JUST like that in Ontario, too.
I believe I covered the Minnesota issue. By the way, what IS the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Is it 50 or 52"? If not, why not?
What are the size limits on the Indiana lakes? Is there natural reproduction there as there is in most of the waters in Northern Wisconsin, or are most to all the muskies stocked there?
To clarify things a bit better, what the original poster was missing in the discussion is an understanding of Natural Selection and genetics, and what it would actually take to have the model proposed occur.
| |
| | |
| Wisconsin GETS it........they just dont have the lakes Minnesota does.
It's not a true comparison......enough of the Wis DNR sucks this and Wis muskyfisherman suck that....yadda yadda yadda.
I have a trailer in Minnesota and fish there much more now because I have seen much bigger fish there.....BUT, the smallest lake I am fishing is 3,500 acres, up to 16,000 acres on a regular basis............the average Wis lake I fish is a just a drop compared to these...much much more potential for them to thrive. | |
| | |
| Wisconsin does not get it. Period. I don't think enough people will ever get it to make the necessary changes.
For the last 100 years we've killed the large Muskies and let the small ones' go. It does remove the big fish genes from the population, and guess what - they don't come back. Catch and release & high size limits in Wisconsin will never help as even today - when fish hit 50 inches they get killed. I Live here. I watch it happen.
This alone would be similar to the commercial fishing study - BUT THEN WE MAKE IT WORSE.
We send the DNR to run off and take eggs from 34 inch muskies. Here is a fact for you - In NW Wisconsin's brood stock lake 2 in 2800 muskies caught make it to 50 inches. (From the Muskies inc historical logs) This is the lake we take our eggs from. If we take fish from this lake and stock them into another body of water why would we expect them to grow larger? Would your dog grow larger if you had a bigger yard? I'm a catch and release nut - but I'm starting to think that if a fish is 34" long and ready to spawn, we should remove it from the population.
I love it when Biologists do a study and fisherman disregard it. There was a similar study on Antlantic Silverside minnows, and the affects were mind boggling after only 4 generations. (This study was mentioned in a Sports Afield article 2 years ago and also in ESOX magazine but only from a write-in letter.) These magazines are SCARED to write about it. All you outdoor writers - I hold you responsible. Think about it. Write about it.
I'm probably going to make some people angry - BUT I'm angry too. I don't want to drive to Minnesota and fish. I want to stay home. I want to catch Big fish right here. I WANT MY KIDS TO CATCH BIG FISH RIGHT HERE.
Do not tell me that it has anything to do with the size of the lakes.
Let me put the size of the lake issue to rest: Lake Plantagenet (2500 acres) in Minneota vs. Lac Court Oreilles (5000 acres) in Wisconsin. Do some research on your own, don't just believe me or anyone for that matter - similar Lake types, with lac Court Oreilles being much larger. Where are there more Big fish being caught? No contest - Plantagenet. That should not be possible if lake size is so important. May be it's because they take eggs from 50"muskies and throw them in Plantagenet, where in Lac Court Oreilles, they are using eggs from 38 inchers. Wisconsin has the greatest collection of Muskie lakes in the world, we just need to do the right things.
I want to be clear on one other thing - I don't blame the DNR for how things are. But I do want to hold them responsible for making things better.
I do have a solution. And the DNR can do it, starting this spring.
We put a size limit on the Wisconsin DNR. No eggs taken from females under 50" and no Milt taken from males under 45". We stock only Muskies with the potential to grow big. I'm not convinced that the strain of Muskies makes a huge difference in how big Muskies will get. I believe that the Muskies in Wisconsin did grow big at one time, but we basically just killed them off. If the DNR tells us they can't net fish that big, the problem is bigger than I think it is.
I also think it's very important that we start a new brood stock lake using only eggs from very large fish - I'd like to say at least 52" for females. Then we put a Slot Size limit on the lake - only fish from 38" to 44" on the lake, PLUS the DNR should remove any female muskie under 42" if it is ready to spawn. In Minnesota and the Great Lakes female muskies do not typically come into spawn until they are bigger than 42". I think they should also remove smaller males. I think we can manufacture bigger fish, like we have manufactured smaller and smaller fish over the years. I believe this is how we get a new World Record.
It's up to the Muskie Fisherman to make it happen. Most importantly, we need to get the word out. Websites, Magazines etc. If you believe this would help - talk about it.
This is also imprtant in Minnesota - don't get complacent up there. Just a few tweaks to your DNR and you'll likely be catching fish a few inches longer too. It'll be scary.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The last post is a blanket statement and has some merit, but isn't the 'solution' either. There are several arguments I would make.
1) Taking spawn from a 50" fish doesn't gaurantee a thing as to how big the offspring, stocked in another system with different water chemistry, food chain, water temps, and more. Ther IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will. Way too many variables. Will every female hatched from a 50" fish grow to 50"? No.
2) The DNR here KNOWS the strain they are using to stock, and what that strain is capable of. Explain why roe stripped from a 43" fish that is 10 years old and at the peak of it's reproductive capacity won't reach 50"? I know the DNR stripped fish from Pelican many times over the years, and that lake has kicked out many 50" fish. Same with lake Tomahawk. the strain of fish stripped and stocked DOES make difference, but that difference is subject to the ecosystem and all the variables contained there.
3) There is much more to the lake size issue than acreage. Cover, habitat, food chain, chemistry, water temps and size of the spawning areas in the Spring, fertility, and so much more including successful access to the big fish by the angler.
4) A study about a saltwater population of fish under commercial fishing pressure is pretty diffucult to compare to a completely different ecosystem in fresh water and a type of fish that is positioned in the ecosystem in a totally different fashion, not to mention the angling pressure isn't even remotely comparable. I'm not 'ignoring' the work, I just feel it's a stretch to transfer that one study to a new management philosophy for muskies.
5) Would generations of dogs grow bigger if the bigger yard allowed for better foraging, better puppy health at birth and throughout early development and allowed for natural selection/competition to assist in making that so? Maybe. Absolute apples to oranges there. You feed, care for, and either allow or not allow the dog to breed, both male and female. Take that controlled environment into the wild and have food become sparse over continuous generations because of bad populations of prey animals, and the dogs might just grow smaller.
6) A female muskie will be ready to spawn at too soon in nearly every case for the idea that all under 42" should be destroyed. Here is a good place to start reading about the subject. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol04.html Here's another with a writer's perspective. http://www.fishontario.com/articles/world-record_muskie/
7) It's true that if 'every' fish that reaches 50" in a body of water is harvested, that there will be few 50" fish in that water. I doubt that is happening in most cases, but can be on some smaller or extremely heavily pressured waters in areas where CPR hasn't been brought to the front yet. If one wante to GUARANTEE no fish under 52" will be harvested, then that should be the limit if the fisheries folks feel the system will support it. I recently caught a couple in that class from a lake less than a mile from my house, which gets average pressure but produces a fair number of big girls every year because of the CPR ethic here in Oneida County pretty much 100% CPR and the system supports big muskies. The walleyes, though, do very poorly, because the prey they rely on is sparse.. That goes back to the education factor, not management. The DNR planted these fish in the late 80's and early 90's, and they are doing VERY well. CATCH AND RELEASE!! Some want that mandated for all waters here at over the capacity of that water, which makes little sense.The attempts to get the systems that match the models in the above mentioned articles and papers failed because it was rushed, there wasn't enough PR and educational work done with the public. We can and WILL get it done, if a bit more slowly and carefully so the public understands the project.
There is a huge reference out there in the scientific community that will get you the information you want about this issue. When I get back in off the road, I'll post another group of links on the 'net and get some book titles up.
Wisconsin gets it, alright, but we DO need to get the lakes capable of kicking out the big girls up to a 50" or even 52" limit. | |
| | |
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | This is a great thread, very interesting. Bob your comment about "biologists telling us something and people disregard it" could not be more true. I am a fisheries biologist working in Northeastern Oregon and in my business the running joke is "everyone is a biologist". If you have a problem with the electrical system in your home you probably call an electrician and acknowledge his professional recommendation. But if you have a concern with a particular fishery just ask any angler, he will tell you how to fix it and the heck with what the biologist tells you.
I have never caught a musky guys, here we don't have them but the management of fisheries whether it be for salmon or smallmouth have some similarities to draw upon. When we collect adult salmon in our rivers for broodstock we collect a percentage of the fish throughout the migrational period..so from say September 1 through October 31 for fall chinook. Beyond that we also include a wide spectrum of sizes in our sample. By doing so we are best representing the genetics that a "naturally spawning" population would include. The comment of choosing "only the large fish" for brood may not be the best choice for the long term health of the species. Keep in mind that we cannot improve upon a system that has worked and evolved for a particular species for thousands of years. A naturally spawning population of fish generally includes a wide range of sizes.
There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". Once you have found this water look very closely at the predator prey relationship, the ratio of prey species to predators, water temperatures and various other water chemistry parameters, lake form, juvenile survival, and angling pressure. Once these are understood you will likely have a far better understanding of what it takes to raise "big fish".
CPR can be a great thing for sure but is certainly not always the answer. When you release a predator back into the system you are also returning another "mouth to feed" and some lakes may very well be limited by the availability of food. Put one predator in a lake full of prey species and he is likely going to grow quite well. But as you continue to add predators to this same system at some point you will find fish fail to increase in size and number. Many of our more eutrophic systems here in Oregon have literally millions of crappie in them. When these fish are removed through heavy angling pressure subsequent years produce far larger fish.
On the flip side a lake with an over-population of prey species creates other problems. Juvenile musky/pike may be removed by larger pisciverous fish (crappie, perch, bluegill, etc.) at a rate that allows very few fish to survive to a size where they are no longer on the menu. If only 1 out of a 1000 juveniles survives to see 10" you can see how this alone would provide few fish with an opportunity of reaching 50" or more. Beyond that, fish are not different than any other species on this planet in that some of the population "get large" while others "stay small". Some fish are genetically set up to get big, others will never get big regardless of their environment. Some smaller lakes may be affected too by a small genetic pool to pull from and the introduction of outside genes and resultant "hybrid vigor" may prove useful.
If you think about it, many lakes go through "trends" where they produce big fish and then seem to lose them for a period of time. Most of these trends are a result of predator prey relationships, the coyote and rabbit scenario that has been playing out for millions of years.
In general slot limits are a good thing for many systems. Slots allow a certain number of fish to get large enough to prey on more abundant species, keeping them in check. At the same time they allow a part of the population to get large enough to reach a viable spawning age. And finally, some of the fish will by chance survive past the slot limit and become "trophy fish" allowing the angler to have a shot at a 50" toad.
Jed
www.bikinibaitcompany.com
Edited by RiverMan 10/16/2004 12:56 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually the comment was regarding when biologists do a study and anglers disregard it. I'm not one of those anglers, by the way. I was simply stating I felt the study on Cod doesn't necessarily correlate, and the concept that contemporary evolution is in play with the Wisconsin trophy Muskie population isn't based on or supported by the data available. Also, the CPR ethic we all want to spread encourages trophy release, not just smaller fish. There was a recent attempt by the DNR here to designate several lakes as 50" trophy only waters that failed due to the fact the public plain didn't understand the proposal. The public has a 'vote' in Wisconsin through the Conservation Congress, and can send a great proposal to the recycle bin in a hurry.
I agree with you many folks disagree with fisheries management because they are uninformed. My son works for the Wisconsin DNR and constantly is amazed what the 'locals' believe about the waters under study. I have a couple years study in the field as well, abandoned formally because of many reasons including the wage scale in Fisheries Management at the time. I continue to read, study, and learn as much as I can, despite the fact I chose a different field of endeavor. Whenever I run into a wall, I have a couple Fisheries Management buddies I can call to get straightened out. You'd be surprised how many folks visiting MuskieFIRST have a formal Fisheries, marine biology, or environmental science based education and are not practicing. It's a shame the folks who are so dedicated to the science and practicing management are not paid what the job is worth in so many states.
'There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". '
The links I posted do just that, and give away why I spend my vacation time fishing muskies where I do.  | |
| | |
|
I'd like to counter a few of the points made from above - hopefully in an effort to continue the discussion. I think we agree on most things, but I'm not OK with the number of large fish in Wisconsin. I think we can do much better. Before I start, I want to mention that I'm leaving the STRAIN of fish out of the discussion. I think we can do this with Wisconsin strain. (I also think it may be quicker and easier to use another strain, but this is mostly an issue of local genetics being affected by Fishing Pressure on smaller lakes.) There was a Huge set of JAWS found on the Chippewa Flowage a few years back I believe it was estimated at 56-58 inches and 17 years old. It's fish like these that we need to breed. We need to focus on capturing and breeding these large fish, instead of capturing the most eggs as cheaply as possible by heading off to Bone Lake to net 38 inchers. We have big fish here - let's use them.
1) I agree that taking eggs from a 50" fish does not guarantee that all of the offspring will grow to 50 inches. I am 100% sure that eggs from multiple 50 inch fish have a better chance to grow to 50 inches than eggs taken from multiple 40 inch fish. Would you be for or against using egg's from only Large fish? I'd love to be able to take age into account, but I don't know how you do that in the field.
THERE IS CERTAINLY a direct correlation between eggs from large fish producing large Muskies vs. Eggs from small fish producing small muskies. Lakes with Big Muskies continue to produce BIG Muskies, while lakes with all small muskies do not. At least proportionately speaking.
Let's remember that muskies that grow large fast will likely get harvested sooner and spawn less years than a muskie that reaches an ultimate size of 38 inhes and never get's harvested. I want us to offset that balance.
2. Between Item 2 in your post and the links you published, the data seems to say that most female muskies spawn at age 7 and 38 inches. Personally - I don't believe that any female musky spawning at age 7 & 38 inches long will ever grow to 50 inches. I may be wrong - but I'd like to see proof. I base my thoughts on data given to me by Minnesota DNR and Ontario MNR research done on Georgian Bay. Essentially the Females in Minnesota and Georgian Bay averabe aver 48 inches long, and there are very few females (0) under 43".
3. I agree 100%
4. The angling pressure on a 5oo acre lake is incredible when compared to fishing the ocean - even commercial fishing. I'd like to have a biologist tell me there is no merit to this. I've seen numbers that suggest on pressured waters in Wisconsin, close to 100% of the muskies in a given lake are caught each season. (Thank GOD for C&R) From those fish, we harvest the largest and let the smallest go.
On one hand it's suggested our lakes are too small, then we suggest a study done on the ocean had too much pressure. I'm convinced this study is right on.
I believe in 50 years the line " the lakes are too small" will be right up there with "Their teeth fall out in August".
I think we can show the world this in 10 years by stocking the right fish. I see no reason not to try.
#5 The dogs would grow bigger in the same yard if you only bred the largest of those dogs and sold off the smaller pups. They'd be smaller if you only the bred the runts and harvested the pick of the litter. What have we done for the last 100 years? Kill big fish and let small ones go.
We can breed bigger dogs, bigger tomatoes, bigger corn, but not fish?
#6 - I think I covered this one while I was rambling about number 2.
#7 - It's great that you released those large fish. It's exactly what we need and what most of us do. I also believe the facts are that in general:
1. Fisherman keep larger fish and let smaller fish go.
2. Smaller fish are more easily released successfully.
3. Fisherman target larger fish.
Because of these reasons I believe we need a management philosophy that focuses on the breeding and stocking of genetically large fish. The smaller fish will/can take care of themself. Our Laws make sure that we take care of the small fish. I will not accept any response that points to lack of acreage, forage, etc. until we take eggs from only large fish, and compare that to other lakes that get 2000 fingerlings taken from an action lake known to produce lots of small fish. If the fish in our new lake are not noticeably larger by age 10 (and likely much sooner) I'll agree to the lake size/forage argument.
We can do this.
If we keep doing things the way we have always done them, fishing will always be the same as it is now. If we do things smarter and better, things will get better - FAST.
I don't care what the environment is - Shaquille O'neal's kids are likely to be bigger than mine. | |
| | |
| More related to the original question on whether the study on Cod is relevant to the state of our Muskie fishing:
I'd like to reference the Compendium of Muskie angling History (2nd edition) starting on the botto of page 59, where a writer back in 1900 talks about the fish already running smaller. This after periods of huge harvest - some commercially, as other sections of the book talk about muskies being packed in barrels and shipped to Chicago. Some of these lakes mentioned as having huge fish back then are known as small fish lakes today (Too shallow, too small, too little forage, etc.)
If you have the Compendium - Read chapter 2 again, then think about the study on Cod in the ocean.
I believe the severe fishing pressure and harvest put on the smaller lakes years ago, had THE EXACT effect of the Cod study. Only it would happen much faster on bodies of water that are thousands of times smaller.
I do not blame today's fisherman or today's DNR personnel for the state of things. I think we all deserve better and can do better. I want Muskie fisherman to band together to get the DNR personnel what they need to make this work.
100 years ago fisherman did not have a clue about genetics - and either did the DNR. They threw back small fish thinking they all grow big. The DNR took eggs from small fish and thought they would grow big - they don't. We can right the wrongs of years past. | |
| | |
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | All 50" fish were once 38". | |
| | |
| Maybe Larry Ramsell can shed some light here. I heard form a good source that Larry was part of a study done on Muskies on the Chip. Evidently, the conclusion, or at least what seemed to be apparent was that, muskies on the Chip were taking forever and a day to reach even the low 40"s.
Is anyone aware of this study. Larry, perhaps you cold shed some light? | |
| | |
| Yes and again, there is no guarantee that taking large fish for brood will insure large offspring. Musky are not different than any other fish in that they have a range of water temperatures that promote maximum growth. The text I have (for Tiger Musky...sorry that's all we have out here but they are closely related) reports that "maximum growth occurs between 66 and 70 degrees F" , get outside this and you lose growth. Lakes lacking good food will not grow big fish either....to grow big a fish must eat, digest, eat, digest, and lakes lacking prey items will not grow big fish regardless of the genetics involved. The text goes on to mention that "growth of tiger musky in waters with spiny rayed fishes (perch, bluegill, etc.) is much slower than in waters with preferred soft-rayed forage (trout, suckers, shiners)". And "stocking tiger musky in waters with northern pike or musky may result in competition that leads to slower growth of all pike species". Juvenile survival goes down in lakes that lack an abundance of zooplankton. Juvenile survival also goes down when lakes lack an abundance of shoreline vegetation as small musky are highly cannibalistic. Winterkill occurs in lakes that have low dissolved oxygen during times of ice. The point being that there is a very long list of variables that decide how fast and how many musky will reach 50" and managing a lake for these fish is not an easy thing to do.
RM | |
| | |
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | Putting the right strains in the right lakes in the appropriate amounts IS the goal. But I do not see that as the problem. With Musky fishing growing at the rate it is and the D.N.R. getting hit with budget cuts, is that taking the resource in the right direction?. Less money for research,stocking and habitat protection coupled with angler harvest will need to be addressed. I think cpr morality is the highest its ever been,but thats in Musky circles. The average size Musky harvested in this state is only 37 inches long and I am sure its not Musky fishermen/women. It would be hard to believe we could not improve on this some. Our laws are going to be to liberal with these budget cuts and decreased stocking. the good times are right now and easy to see. Howie. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob
Answer:
The age of the fish stripped is not that hard to obtain through scale sampling and general knowledge about that water and it's Muskie populations. Yes, I would be opposed to stripping spawn from only 50" fish, as that wouldn't be a viable program even in waters where the 50" class of fish is large when compared to total population. The idea that the fish reached 50" strictly or even mostly because of genetics discounts environmental factors that can cause considerable differences year to year in growth rates in a single lake's population and substantial maximum growth differences in same sample year classes planted in different lakes. In short, I stand by the original concept that stripping big females doesn't mean one will get big females from stocked fish propagated from that effort in multiple lakes, impoundments, or rivers. In fact, the fish that actually reach that size might do so BECAUSE of environmental factors that favor the fish's genetics, which might not exist in the waters in which they are stocked. Look at Pewaukee, a near total put and take fishery. CPR and management has created a pretty good fishery that has produced a number of fish over 50" this year alone. The ONE true supertanker came out of that water after an extensive attempt to stock brown trout. Could the big fish and the brown trout have any cause/effect relationship? I don't know.
I would disagree with the idea that lakes producing big muskies do so because of the genetics alone, and the lakes producing small muskies do so for the same reason. The concept is simply incorrect. Also, your following statement implies that muskies from the lakes you are critical of mature more quickly, and do not have the genetic capacity to reach trophy size. How do you reach that conclusion? Also, there IS no 'strain' of Muskies that I am aware of that reaches a maximum of 38" as a female. By the way, the average length of a 7 year old female in Georgian Bay is 37.7", and the St. Lawrence average for a 7 year old is two inches longer. It is true that the growth rate at 7 years for a female muskie on some waters dictate the fish at viability will be 42" or more, but much more than genetics enters into that equasion.
I disagree that 100% of the available muskie population or anything close is captured on most waters, and can catagorically refute that idea on many northern Wisconsin lakes where creel data and fyke netting/boom shock data is available. Also, comparing a commercial fishing operation on saltwater that is HUGE, very concentrated due to the Cod's location, and extensive beyond most folks comprehension to sport fishing where catch and release is a clear and excercised option is very dicey. I still don't see a direct association on most Wisconsin waters to that article. Do we harvest most or all of the largest muskies? No. Many waters in fact show as much as 90% release rate due to CPR.
I mentioned a lake down the road from my house that sports a great population of 45" to 52" muskies from a stocking effort by the DNR. Fin clipping shows a direct link between the fish stocked and those in the 50" range today, they are one and the same. This is a 500 acre lake, well managed and well cared for by the local muskie anglers who have been accused here of 'not getting it'. There are several busy resorts on the lake as well, yet the overall release rate is excellent. Why does this lake support 50" fish and the SAME strain, stripped out of the same waters, that when stocked in another 500 acre lake here never seem to get past 45", despite the fact both lakes are fished by the same crowd and maintained similarly, and both have good habitat? It's the ecosystem itself, NOT the fish. By the way, both lakes support natural reproduction, successful enough to have great year classes available from the stocked generations.
Your statement number 5 totally disregards natural selection and all the associated elements effecting a population in the wild. The DNR can't 'breed' muskies successfully as you suggest, the undertaking would have to be MASSIVE, would be unbelievably expensive, and might not work in many waters anyway due to environment. I bet it would be a Fisheries Biologist's dream job to try, however!
Selective breeding is a controlled undertaking that doesn't allow ANY crossbreeding at all, so most lakes would have to be killed off completely to even begin the process. In short, your idea is noble, would probably work in a totally enclosed/controlled perfect environment (raising certain breeds of dogs, for example) at least short term if everything else was perfect.
By the way, commercial fishing for Muskies has been around in Canada for generations. Between 1837 and 1936, a total of 13,202,348 pounds of Muskies were harvested commercially in Ontario, and 2,888,045 pounds in Quebec. The practice has been severly curtailed, but the fish seem to be growing to an exceptional size despite the tremendous depletion during that time.
The last couple paragraphs are well intentioned I am sure, but what you are asking for isn't going to happen. It's simply not possible from so many standpoints it becomes a nice concept, but only that. There is strong evidence that the concept you are promotiong probably will not give you the results you seek. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | There is much more to MN Musky greatness than lake acreage. There are several small lakes over there putting out more 50" fish than WI does in a few years. Much of this has to do with the fact that these lakes are just reaching their prime, and the muskies had little or no competition,or angling pressure. It has been proven on many up and coming WI lakes even(won't mention them here, as some are my favorite places to fish), that the first few year classes of fish in the system, often reach magnificent growths. Eventually with pressure, competition, etc etc. it will taper off. MN also has a breed of 'Super' fish in the Mississippi river strain(or Leech lake strain as some call it), that WI just cannot compare to. MN used to stock a couple different strains of WI fish and they never reached the sizes(mostly length wise) that the leechers do, hence their cessation of WI fish stocking.
Edited by Reef Hawg 10/18/2004 8:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Where did the barred fish in Mille Lacs come from? there are some true monsters in that pond these days. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | <p> Mil lacs definately has the size which others talked about here, and it seems both strains can thrive there. Do you know when the last barred ones were stocked in mil lacs? Wasn't it the 60's?(not sure) Great to see the natural reproduction workeing well there. I do correct myself in the case of Vermillion as well where some of the WI fish that were put in there, became some true hawgs, and some of the longer ones caught out of there. I do know that the barred ones can attain the big sizes quickly too, as evidenced by some of the very young 4 footers we get here. The leech lake strain just showed even more promising results than the other strains that were tried. Unbeleivable that 50+"ers were showing up in 8-9 years on some waters. Even the test lake in WI where the leechers were stocked, put out fish to 54" in 11 years. WOW!!!!! That said, I still agree with higher limits on some WI waters, as evidenced by my own efforts to raise the limit on the WI river here(known trophy producing water). I feel that as long as some of the lakes with trophy potential are managed like the small fish factories down the road, WI lakes will not realize their full potential.</p><p /><p>By the way, are there any lakes currently on the table for size increase votes next spring? </p> | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Oh, genetics. Sure wish I knew more. What I do know is if you want small fast dogs to run field trials then you breed a small fast dog to another small fast dog and and keep going until you get what you desire. Same goes with raising hogs for market, you don't breed the fat ones to fat ones. Grade and yeild did away with that now you breed lean to lean, oh yea and throw in a fast growing gene while you are at it. Can't have that pig on the feed floor eating up profit. Point is while we don't know that a 38" inch fish can't grow big, we sure do know that a 50" fish already has and if you want big fish you breed big fish. Natural selection in the predator world only lets the biggest and meanest survive. Man has intervined and needs to help the cause a little. Doesn't mean everything that big fish throws is going to be big or have the potential it just means that you are tipping the scale in that direction. Do it enough times in a line breeding type of format and you can really up your odds. It doesn't take many generations to get the desired result. Tell you what made me smile last spring was hearing the state of Iowa had a 55" fish in the tank that they were stripping. Talk about genetic potential I like that type of potential. | |
| | |
| Here's a Wisconsin strain stocked Iowa Muskie. 53 incher. The best research I could come up with was it's year class was stocked from Wisconsin's Lake McKenzie stripping. Back in the eighties McKenzie was known for football shaped fish. The genetics are still here as have also caught McKenzie fish with similar proportions.(not as big as 53 however) Colors are very similar also.
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/19/2004 7:07 AM
Attachments
----------------
 muskie1.jpg (18KB - 399 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Haven't heard of any big fish out of Lake McKenzie in many many years. Could it be because it to is being stocked with eggs from 38" Bone Lake fish like many other NW Wisconsin lakes? Using Bone Lake as a brood stock lake is not a wise choice in my opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
The answer to that question is probably not, no. | |
| | |
| Since Big McKenzie is mentioned in this conversation, I feel compelled to post.
First, that IA fish doesn't really look like the fish in Big Mac.
Have had a family cabin on Big McKenzie for a little over 10 years now. The fishing was pretty darn good when we started there. Had a 50.5" in the boat, and lost a few in that class as well. It seemed like there was a fair number of mid 40ish fish around. Now I barely fish it ... it's an absolute joke of a muskie lake. That's a cold, hard fact.
In addition to the insane number of hours I've spent fishing it, I offer as evidence peices of a conversation I had with Larry Damman, the Spooner area fisheries manager.
I asked him about the impact of spearing.
Larry: "Since spearing began in 1985 the tribe harvest a total of 75 muskie from Big
McKenzie. They declare a muskie quota every year but some years they harvest
none and the highest harvest in one year was 13. Average is 3.9 annually. In
the early 80's the estimated annual angler harvest was 70 muskies."
I can't believe anglers don't have a huge impact on fish populations! If there had been a 50" limit in place in the 70's, I believe my family cabin would be on a first-rate muskie lake. But I'm not a fisheries manager and I could be dead wrong.
I asked Larry about five other (smaller) area lakes and asked him to name some densely populated lakes.
Larry: "All the lakes you mentioned probably have better muskie populations than Big Mckenzie. The best numbers lakes in the general area are Bone near Luck and Big Sissabagama near Stone lake."
I understand that McKenzie had a huge population of muskies in the 70's and 80's. I wasn't there for the golden years, but I definitely caught the tail end of the good fishing. I wish I had been more prepared/experienced for it, because it's gone now.
McKenzie receives about one fingerling per acre, every other year. That really doesn't seem that bad to me, and it's relatively on par with most MN lakes. But there's a 40" limit, and I think that hurts. I don't care how many people believe in catch and release ... there are always going to be people that don't. I also think that the genetics are a bit off. The MN/Ontario fish I catch don't just look different on their sides. They have relatively small heads and just plain look like they grow faster/bigger.
As an angler, I know there used to be a good number of med/big fish in the lake. I know there is a TON of forage. When I have spotted for walleyes in the spring, I've run into thousands of suckers on the sand. I have seen shiners (some big ones) and understand there to be some ciscoes in the lake. There are a gazillion stunted panfish and more northerns than I care to deal with. I don't understand why the lake can't support a better muskie population.
Bottom line is whether it's the stocking, the lake, the genetics, or the size limits, WI doesn't have what MN has. Apples to oranges is absolutely right. WI either can't or won't do what MN has done, and either way the muskie fishing in WI sucks in comparison.
John Nesse
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
If the answer is no, they are not Bone Lake fish, then where are they from? If you no for sure they are not from Bone Lake then where are they from? Please tell us so we can ask the DNR to quit using them.
Thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, the reason for the poor conditions there is probably not because the stocked fish come from Bone Lake. I am jot familiar with the Big McKenzie population, but do remember hearing about a problem over there a few years back. 'More Northerns than I care to deal with' might be a part of it. Angling pressure ( is that area a strong CPR area, or is it a put and take mentality?), forage, year class success stocking and natural reproduction, water quality and chemistry, and the list goes on, and on... I'll try to do some research when I get time (hahahaha) and find out what is the deal there. Hopefully there will be some recent fyke net data, perhaps some boom shocking as well.
I guess I can condense alot of what I said in posts here to this. Wide, sweeping management statements, ideas, and ultimately, techniques won't work for every system when considering the management of HUNDREDS of Muskie waters in a single state.
Pick a subject, there's WAY more to balancing a system and 'creating' a trophy fishery than just one item. Variables, variables. The devil is in the details. I can tell you this, the State of Wisconsin has a fine group of Fisheries Management folks. VERY fine. They are under some pretty severe budget restrictions and a system that allows the public at large to dictate management to a degree, and that's a big problem. But to say they 'don't get it' is an undeserved insult to a hard working, highly regarded group of scientists.
I ask again, what is the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Other Minnesota lakes an rivers? I honestly am not sure.
| |
| | |
Posts: 333
Location: menasha wi 54952 | Here is a link to the Minnesota 2004 fishing regulations
http://search.state.mn.us/dnr/query.html?qp=site%3Adnr.state.mn.us&...
Statewide 40" with special length limits listed. Also note that spearing is not allowed on many lakes. PERIOD
MR | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | A lot of people would still like to know where the eggs we are using are coming from. I looked on the Wi dnr site to get answers. Pulled up the stocking database because it is suppose to list the strain of fish used for stocking. I did not check every lake in the state but checked many of the more well known waters throughout northern Wi. For every lake I checked, and for every year the lake was stocked, in the column thats suppose to list the strain used, the word "unspecified" was there. Quite interesting I thought. Do they know? Do they not want us to know for some reason? Could it be that they have been mixing strains of fish for many years and don't want to reveal that? In the last couple years the dnr folks around my part of the state have been approached by a group of us asking if we could buy Wi strain fingerlings from the Mn muskie farm instead of raising them on our own and plant them in some of our lakes because we felt it would be more cost effective. The dnr was dead against it. Their reason was because they say that they do not want to mix strains of fish and damage the gene pool or something to that effect. I suspect that this has been happening all along anyway. Where is the proof? Does anybody know for sure where the eggs/fingerlings are coming from that are being planted in the lakes in your area? I have heard for many years that Bone Lake is being used for my part of the state. Putting Bone Lake fish in waters in the Chippewa water shed would be mixing strains in my book. Yet we were told by our local dnr fisheries manager that he would only allow planting of fish in our area that came from the chippewa water shed. They are spinning. It would be nice to get some clear answers that can be verified, proven and believed and from someone that can be trusted. Not sure thats possible. I don't like the idea of waters in my area being stocked with fingerlings that were raised from eggs stripped from fish that come from a lake that in the last 40 years, out of 2,878 fish registered to Muskies Inc., only 2 or (.069% of that toal) were 50". Now thats a sobering statistic if I ever saw one. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois |
From a source at teh WI DNR
"We currently use 2 muskellunge strains in our management program. The Great Lakes spotted strain is used on Green Bay/Lake Michigan and the Lake Winnebago system. We use "northern" strain fish throughout the rest of the state. These are wild-caught fish that are spawned and released each spring. The hatchery at Woodruff, which generally stocks waters in the northeast part of the state (and to the south), I believe collects eggs from the Rainbow Flowage, at least in recent years, but the waters vary from year to year. The hatchery at Spooner, which generally stocks waters in the northwest part of the state (and to the south), I believe most recently has been taking eggs from Bone Lake, but again, the waters vary from year to year".
| |
| | |
| ChadG and Lockjaw get it. Thanks guys.
I want to see not only where the eggs come from but how big the fish are when they are stripped. I cannot believe this info is not available. If not, we should request that the DNR start keeping these records.
Sworrall - you know, I agree with alot of what you say - except when you saying changing one factor won't help. There are probably THOUSANDS of variables on each lake. Changing one of these thousands of variables - Forage for instance - can have a huge impact.
What some of us are beginning to recognize is that Genes of individual fish do Matter. This is what many of these Biologist studies are showing. We can use this to right the wrongs that Man has done in the past.
I want to make this clear - I'm not saying that using eggs from a random 50 inch fish gaurantees that the offspring will be bigger than eggs taken from a random 38 incher. I'm not saying that all eggs taken from a 50 incher will grow to be 50 inches.
What I'm saying is we have a choice. We can take eggs from large fish or small fish. I believe that taking eggs from a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring than eggs from a 10 year old 38 inch fish.
The reason your "lake" has good fishing is that you already have big fish. These lakes will produce more big fish, you will have continual good fishing until someone harvests those big fish and releases all the 38 inchers. Nothing will have changed in regards to habitat, forage, etc. JUST The Size of the fish will have changed and you will make a new excuse.
I have lakes in NW wisconsin that have these Big fish in them too. I've noticed that the one's I fish are natural Muskie lakes, but don't have a history of muskie fishing pressure. I'm going to keep repeating this - IT's The FISH, not necessarily the strain.
As far as the DNR not being able to do it. I want to understand WHY. A Blanket statement - It's Ipossible and would be a dream job is unfair to Fisherman and Taxpayers. It is possible and it is their job if it will improve fishing.
Answer this: Why CAN'T we create a new brood stock lake using only LARGE MUSKIES?
We'll let you have the extra Bone Lake fish.
Folks - we can have bigger Muskies starting this spring - Let's make it happen.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
'The reason your "lake" has good fishing is that you already have big fish. These lakes will produce more big fish, you will have continual good fishing until someone harvests those big fish and releases all the 38 inchers. Nothing will have changed in regards to habitat, forage, etc. JUST The Size of the fish will have changed and you will make a new excuse.'
Not even close. The lake I refer to has the fish it has because of stocking efforts in a system that has all the right stuff at this point in time. That body of water has always supported a decent muskie population, but the stocking effort is what made it what it is now. You pick one statement to be critical of, and ignore the substance of the argument. Someone? Who might that be? And your premise also assumes no continuing management from the DNR, which isn't accurate, either. If the 38" females are released on that lake, creel and boom shocking data indicate they will be in the high 30's to low 40's the next year. That fish, as long as the food chain and water quality hold, will also make it to 50" or more if it is one of the few of ANY female representatives of a system's total population that will reach 50. Not every fish makes it to 50", obviously, even if the genetics are great. Nor will every offspring of that 50" fish.
Why is what you suggest impossible? Because you are promoting selective breeding, which requires an enclosed environment and destruction or removal of any specimen that would 'contaminate' the line, incredible research and a tremendous amount of time. You also are asking that only 50" plus fish are stripped, which wouldn't achieve what you seek anyway and would create a problem obtaining the spawn needed to handle the stocking efforts undertaken in this state every year. The expense would be incredible, and far outweigh the impact achieved, if any. You tell me; where would that occur, and how would enough spawn be gathered? What percentage of the total adult population of any good lake is 50 or better? How would we capture enough of these fish to accomplish the task and from where, and what good would it do anyway, from a scientific viewpoint? What about the influence of the genetics of the males involved? What you are suggesting is a lab experiment.
There ARE some lakes in Wisconsin we need to protect as 'trophy only' fisheries as an experiment to see what results we can achieve. The DNR and a group of strong willed muskie anglers tried that and the PUBLIC, those very same fishermen and taxpayers you are saying are owed your experimental management technique model, voted it down. Big time. It wasn't just resort owners and guides who voted no as posted by some ( that was unfair scapegoating, and was dead wrong), the vote was RESOUNDINGLY no. I guarantee an even more untested and scientifically unsupported technique will never fly.
That's why CPR, continuing education, expanding the warm water hatchery capacity in Wisconsin, expanding the budgets for our DNR, increasing size limits to 50" on selective waters and assisting in rearing and stocking efforts as private clubs do here make for a progressive, positive, and workable plan.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
As posted:
"We currently use 2 muskellunge strains in our management program. The Great Lakes spotted strain is used on Green Bay/Lake Michigan and the Lake Winnebago system. We use "northern" strain fish throughout the rest of the state. These are wild-caught fish that are spawned and released each spring. The hatchery at Woodruff, which generally stocks waters in the northeast part of the state (and to the south), I believe collects eggs from the Rainbow Flowage, at least in recent years, but the waters vary from year to year. The hatchery at Spooner, which generally stocks waters in the northwest part of the state (and to the south), I believe most recently has been taking eggs from Bone Lake, but again, the waters vary from year to year".
No conspiracies there.
mreiter,
Thanks. So the size limit in Minnesota is 40". Now let's try to establish the harvest over there. Anyone know the harvest data for Minnesota waters like Leech, Mille Lacs, and Cass?
Spearing is a federal issue involving treaties and civil rights defined by same and protected by a ruling from our own Supreme Court, not a state controlled issue here, so doesn't apply to the 'Wisconsin doesn't get it' theme. Obviously there is a huge impact on some waters like Pelican in Oneida County, and that impact has to be considered in the management stratgeies applied on waters heavily speared. Believe me, if the DNR could ban spearing, they would. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | I got my Muskies Inc. calander in the mail today. On one page it shows growth rates of muskies from 6 different lakes in north america. Lac Court Oreilles is one of them. This lake is advertised as, promoted as, and believed by many to be one of the premier trophy musky fisheries in Wi not to mention the world. It shows growth rates of muskies from 1 to 9 years for this lake. According to the data given it shows that a 9 year old musky from LCO will be only 36.4 inches long. This is what Wi considers a trophy lake that offers us and visitors from other states a great opportunity at a trophy fish? Boy, why would anyone ever go anywhere else?
I think many years ago LCO actually was a great trophy fishery. What happened? Bone lake fish maybe? Or are they using Tiger Cat Flowage fish now because they are easier to capture. Or Day lake fish, or Callahan fish. I think this lake has all the ingredients needed to produce trophy fish including a 50" size limit for at least 5 or 6 years now. Even the dnr says it has the right stuff to be a world class trophy musky fishery. So whats wrong? We need to be more creative and not so afraid to try new things to improve our trophy fishing. Man, even if we used LCO, supposedly one of the worlds best trophy musky lakes, to gets eggs from, a 10 year old fish from this lake is still going to be small. By the way, I am 100% in favor of the 50" size limit whether it helps or not because at least we tried something different for a change. We need to keep trying new things. | |
| | |
| Reading this whole thing with interest and have a few comments.
#1 Obviously a selective breeding program WOULD result in larger fish over a period of time. How long? How costly? But, if these fish were selected and larger fish genetics were isolated and cultured, yes, there would definitely be a breeding effect resulting in larger fish on the average. Fish genetic work that I have seen seems to indicate rather rapid responses to selection. You would as noted need a "clean" lake to use as a rearing pond for this bigger strain. How many of those are available? The selection and breeding would be pretty simple stuff.
The big question is, if you select for this growthier individual what exactly are you getting for your side orders? Need for forage, late maturing, more easily caught, early demise from old age, susceptibility to disease? You never really know until these large fish genetics are studied. You may be throwing out the baby(viable musky strain) with the bath water(small fish genetics). So there are potential risks for this type of program to be put in place on a large scale.
#2 The next question is, where do you go with these fish when you develop them? Until you have some clue as to what other things(fatal flaws) you might be selecting for, you probably DO NOT WANT THEM IN ANY WATERS THAT HAVE NATURAL REPRODUCTION. You do not want to risk losing a successful strain of musky already adapted to their native water. Do some research on west coast salmon strains and you will understand why you don't want to do this. However, any lake that is landlocked and has no native musky reproduction would be an excellent candidate for upgrading either through a controlled breeding program, OR uprgrading through strain selection(go with Leech lake, etc, larger growing fish).
There is no need to maintain a non native strain, non reproducing strain in any lake supported by stocking. Might as well grow the biggest musky possible in these waters. Any lake that has natural reproduction but was NOT a native lake to start with also could be considered for a strain, or genetic breeding up grade, if it were in a position that would not cause genetic pollution of the native strains that have proven successful.
#3 It would be good to know a complete history of WI stocking strains before everyone that might have some information, dies off(sorry to put it so bluntly but...). If my understanding is correct, the original stocking strains for the NW was Couderay strain fish. Of course they sat and watched over a number of years as the Couderay strain nearly went completely extinct due to northern pike pollution of the lake(had been no northerns at one time). In later years, they used fish from Chippewa flowage for eggs? Now this is where I wonder whether there is a rub or not. Didn't the shoepac strain, which never attained a large size, come from Callahan lake? Or am I confused on that? Isn't the Callahan lake strain, regardless, a bonafide runt strain? And if so, wouldn't there be genetic pollution downstream into the Chip, which for many years supplied a lot of eggs? Am I wrong on this take or is that the correct history and correct assignation of facts to Callahan muskies? If my take on the stocking history is correct there could very well be genetic problems with a large portion of the WI musky stock. This is exactly why you tread on shaky ground when you start mixing strains willy nilly as was often the way in the early days of fish management. Can anybody in the WI DNR actually state as fact which lakes still maintain a pure native strain to that body of water, that hasn't been genetically polluted by fish from other bodies of water?
#4 There are historic river populations that roamed over WI to a certain extent, with falls in some cases being the boundary for the range. I believe this was the case for northern pike in the Chippewa River at one time(since negated by inadvertent or intentional transplant depending who's story you might have heard). So some populations were isolated geographically by various features, but, the populations below these points should be a direct gradient with the Miss River strain and other river strains, if still pure. These fish should be stockable up to the point of historic population boundaries, though they will still suffer genetic pollution from above. In Ancient history this combination of isolated populations probably was a bonus for the down river population, having the isolated purer strains from upstream coming down and mingling with the more hetergenous downstream populations.
#5 We will probably never recover the strains that have been lost/polluted over time. Don't blame the DNR for that. We may be able to replace lower sporting value genetics with higher value(bigger size) if the body of water will basically be an isolated population. Breeding a bigger muskie is 100% doable, but is it really desirable, when opposed to potential disruption of genetically successful native strains? I don't think any fish managers want to lose native strains, of ANY species.
#6 Fisherman need to take a realistic view at times which goes against their druthers. I would like to have a lot of 50 inch muskies in all the waters I fish, and thats my druthers. Realistically, our state DNR has deigned musky as a put and take fishery of fairly low importance, and it is a high cost fishery per fish produced, and I am not talking about how much cash I lay out per measly inch of fish, it is costly to produce a fingerling of 9-12 inces for stocking. That is how it is for me.
In WI we have a multitude of lake and river choices that have musky in them. Many grow good numbers of quality fish from 40-47 inches, and provide excellent fishing opportunites EVEN THOUGH THE TOP END MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE to us as we would like. MN and Canada simply have bigger strains of musky. Leech lake fish ARE longer. That is a fact. They get longer in WI lakes too. But, those strains may never see many WI waters due to the genetics. We have to remember that our idea of genetics for musky is bigger is better. Mother nature does not always think that way. Sometimes smaller is better. Or Early maturation is better, or late maturation, or bigger heads, bigger eggs, different colorations, etc etc etc. are the basis on which selection is decided. We can't come into this thing and say hey, we want bigger muskies, lets change the genetic basis of the native population to get them bigger. That would be irresponsible.
#23 Cost. Cost. Value returned to a relatively small proportion of consumers, us, is high but we must remember that trophy musky fisherman are still a very small number of consumers. Walleye research may give many more consumers a return on DNR's limited funding, whether we like it or not. So this will probably remain the biggest barrier as we move into the future.
#31 WI musky fishing is still great, and if you DON'T LIKE IT, you need to go somewhere the fishing is crappy and get your perspective back. There are places that have bigger fish, and you can choose to go there, but WI is not a BAD musky place to go. If it is, please lord, throw me in that briar patch!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Thanks, sir. Excellent discussion, and very to the point. Cost, viability, end result, etc. Believe me, I'd love to have more 50" fish here at home. I'm still convinced that's possible with the 'trophy' only designated lake proposal. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | FSF
A couple of things regarding your post. In your post you said “There is no need to maintain a non native strain, non reproducing strain in any lake supported by stocking.” I agree that we should not waste money stocking non reproducing strains. The Wi DNR apparently disagrees with that because they stocked over 15,000 hybrid/tiger fingerlings in Wi. last year. This is a non reproducing strain. A waste of money in my opinion to stock a strain that has no chance what so ever of reproducing. As far as the non native strain goes. Mn went to stocking only the Leech Lake strain back in the mid eighties after doing some research. By doing this they were mixing strains because prior to that they had been stocking some of their lakes with Wi and Shoepack strains. Now they stock only the Leech strain. I would think that this would mean that they are stocking a non native strain in many of their waters. Now 20 years later look at the result. Its working and its working extremely well. Hard to deny that. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | As long as we are discussing the MN strains..does anyone have an opinion on what their preference is. In my humble opinion, the next MN State Record is not coming out of Leech Lake. The Leech strain does indeed seem to grow rapidly, but in general, they also tend to be very lean. Personally, I prefer whatever strain is in Mill Lacs...it appears to me that these fish have shown the potential to turn into pigs, and they are more attractive looking fish than the spotted strain. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | This article may answer your question about Mille Lacs. It does not come right out and say they are Leech Lake strain fish but this article gives me the impression they must be.
******************
Today, muskies inhabit 107 different lakes in Minnesota,” said Ron Payer, fisheries director for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “Sixty-three of these waters are the result of a stocking program that began in the1980s, matured in the ‘90s, and now provides some of the best muskie fishing anywhere in the lower 48 states.”
Stocking has generated quality muskie fishing in many central and northern Minnesota lakes. Lake Mille Lacs, for example, is a popular muskie fishing destination because of its short driving distance from the Twin Cities and reputation for large fish. The St. Louis River estuary, Big Detroit Lake, Lake Bemidji, and Lake Vermillion in far northeastern Minnesota also have solid muskie populations that are a result of stocking.
Minnesota’s rise as a muskie fishing mecca is rooted in research. Originally, muskies were native in about 40 of the state’s lakes and river systems. These included Cass, Leech and Woman lakes and portions of the Mississippi River. Size quality deteriorated as early as the 1920s in some muskie waters and did not increase for decades. The problem, now largely resolved through voluntary catch-and-release and length-limit regulations, was that anglers kept a significant percentage of large fish. Further, the DNR could not expand muskie fishing opportunities to new waters because crews were unable to catch spawning muskies for hatchery use. Fisheries crews did discover how to trap spawning Shoepack strain muskies in the 1950s, but that fish rarely grew more than 42 inches in length.
In 1979, Robert Strand, a DNR fisheries research biologist, placed radio transmitters in 15 large muskies in Leech Lake. Fourteen survived to the following spring. He tracked these fish by plane and boat. He ultimately determined where they spawned so that they could be captured and their eggs taken to start a hatchery program. Further research would confirm that the Leech Lake strain – also known as the Mississippi River strain – was superior to other strains for stocking because it possessed the highest potential to grow large fish.
“This is a classic example of fish management coming together,” Payer said. “We have more than doubled the number of muskie fishing lakes in Minnesota because researchers identified the egg source and the superior strain to stock. Hatchery managers have risen to the challenge of producing 30,000 to 35,000 quality fingerlings per year, and regional and area staff have identified appropriate lakes to stock based on ecological criteria and working with the local angling community. As a result, the opportunity to catch a quality or trophy muskie is within a short driving distance of most anglers.”
**********************
Mn was able to do it. Why can't Wi? Cost did not stop Mn from getting the job done. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | That would imply that the envirnment dictates the markings on a musky? Leech or Mississippi strain is Spotted while the fish in Mille Lacs are Barred, are they not? | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | The appearance of the fish definitely can change with the enviornment they are raised in. It also can change as the fish ages and grows. Catch a small fish from the chippewa flowage for example and it will show distinct markings or bars. Catch a larger fish from the same water and in most cases its markings are hard to make out or are even gone leaving the fish with a solid brownish or greenish color. Fish from Cass lake, large or small, show distinct spots. The same strain of fish from some other waters, large or small, do not. I've caught them. I have pictures that proves this. So appearance of the fish does not mean much to me as far as being a different strain or not. At least thats what I have observed. | |
| | |
| Shoepac Lake is a small landlocked lake in northern Mn. that the Mn. DNR thought they could use as a pure strain of Muskies to stock Mn. waters. Leech Lake was very difficult to use as the Muskies spawn offshore and are very difficult to catch in nets. The Shoepac strain ended up being a bust because the goldfish in a bigger bowl theory didn't work. Shoepacs remained small. Mn Muskie anglers fought the DNR to drop the Shoepac strain and helped fund studies to make sure Mn. used Leech Lake fish in stocking efforts. Mn. DNR listened and developed a strict policy to only stock the Leech Lake strain even though the Wis. strain had been successful in Mn. in many cases. This effort took many many years and much hard work and funds to get to the point we are now at in Mn.
I don't know if the Mn - Wis comparison is truely fair at this point. Granted the Mn. program is booming as of now, but time will tell if it continues to be successful as there are many variables that only time can show. Many boom lakes in the past have crashed after a period of time. In my mind the most encouraging factors in Mn are the low resistance to higher minimums and the CPR mentality of most Mn. Muskie anglers. (believe me, that took many many years to become the norm also.)
In my humble opinion Wi. Muskie anglers should focus (as Steve W has recommeded) on promoting higher minimums and test lakes in the state to prove to the general population that focus on a quality fishery over a 'put and take' mentality is to everyone's benefit. It will take time.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Wi. strain Muskies were stocked in Mille Lacs, Vermilion and others as the Leech Lake strain was being developed. It is now all Leech Lake fish being stocked but after the Shoepac strain was discontinued the first few year classes were Wi. and yes are the big striped ones we are seeing now. That's the way I heard it anyway.
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/21/2004 1:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Here is a link to the Mn DNR site and an article explaining much of the why and how Mn got to where its at today.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/marapr99/muskie.html
Reading it leaves me believing that the increase in large fish being caught in Mille Lacs today most likely are not Wi fish.
Here is link showing the stocking Vermilion has gotten since day one.
http://www.lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/stocking.html
With only 1 rather small stocking of Wi fish, again I have to believe that the large fish being caught in Vermilion today most likely are not Wi fish.
If the large fish being caught today in Mille Lacs and Vermilion actually were Wi fish, that would disprove the discoveries the Mn dnr made when doing research that showed the Leech Lake strain was best in both growth rates and succesful natural reproduction. This makes it very hard to believe they could be Wi fish. | |
| | |
| I have never caught or seen a barred Muskie in either Leech or Cass or surrounding waters. Only spotted ones.(Mississippi strain) Maybe others have but I haven't. By the Vermilion stocking record you produced, the (oldest) fish are Wis. If they are indeed Wis. fish it would be interesting to know where in Wis. they came from. Very nice genetics there for sure. The lake I regularly fish has been stocked since the 60's with only Wis. fish and they are all barred, as the pic of the 53 incher I previously posted on this thread shows. Have never caught or seen a spotted Muskie on this particular Wis. strain stocked lake.
SV
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/21/2004 3:53 PM
| |
| | |
| Some of these fish may be hybrid gradients from pre existing strains mixing with the introduced leech strain. This is another interesting avenue to pursue for giant fish genetics and may be more viable for stocked lakes than any other path. I don't think there has ever been a crossing F1 study on mixing strains but it might be a very promising field for giant fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | M.M.
All I can say is that I have pictures of larger fish I have caught from both Mn lakes with only the Leech Lake strain and Wi lakes with Wi strain fish and believe me, in a lot of cases you can not tell the difference. It seems to depend on where they were caught. I have shown many pictures to friends and they can not tell the difference either. When they are smaller you can tell, but the bigger they are the more they look the same, depending on where caught. After re-reading one of my previous posts I mistakenly gave the impression that you could not tell the difference when they are both small and large. I previuosly said "Fish from Cass lake, large or small, show distinct spots. The same strain of fish from some other waters, large or small, do not." After re-reading this I realize I mistakenly included smaller fish. I have been able to clearly see the spots in the smaller fish. But not the larger ones. Hope that makes sense. Regardless of what fish they are, the Wi dnr needs to step up like the Mn dnr did and try to find new ways to improve the situation here. Experiment a little. Higher size limits is not the only option out there. | |
| | |
| To continue this color thing, I have to agree that dark water fish from whatever strain are hard to distinguish. Definitely an envirormental thing. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
The DNR has done the same here in Wisconsin. There are Great Lakes strain muskies swiming in the waters in which they should do very well right here in Wisconsin, right now. Ask Shep! | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Yes I am aware of the great lakes strain being used in some waters in Wi. I think thats great. Its definitely good to see. But its pretty small in comparison to what Mn is doing. Hopefully its just the begining of more good things to come. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | http://www.vilas.org/03mmak.htm
26 Muskies no longer in Vilas County lakes. | |
| | |
| Sworrall
I don't believe that there would be much more cost involved in breeding Large Muskies than Breeding small fish.
The cost factor is at the hatcheries in personnel and feeding costs. The only difference is in netting the fish.
If we are not currently getting any large fish in nets - WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Please answer this question: Are we catching large fish in our DNR nets today?
If we are netting large fish, there is NO additional cost to selective breeding.
If we are not, we WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Continuing on, I do believe for a short time ther e will be slightly more costs to pursue large fish. I Know almost every Muskie Inc. club in the state would contribute to this effort both in time and money. I'd start writing check today.
Why do answer none of my questions? I do try to answer yours.
I ask you again: Which muskie will produce larger offspring - a 10 year old 38 inch female or a 10 year old 50 inch female? Please answer.
| |
| | |
| If we do "selective breeding as I'm suggesting, we will not affect the strains. We will take only large fish from NW Wisconsin in lake that are stocked out of the Spooner hatchery. Then we create a new Brood stock lake. We then use that lake as the source to stock all of NW Wisconsin - as we are doing today. By doing this we are really doing nothing diffrent other than isolating BIG FISH GENES and encouraging BIG FISH reproduction.
If this works and we get more BIG FISH, these fish should also be better breeders whose offspring are bigger and better survivors. If this follows through, we should need less stocking over time. With less stocking we can focus our $$$$ on habitat and potentially even stocking Forage fish, in lakes with poor forage. | |
| | |
| Sworral - we agree on the fact that not every Muskie grows to 50 inches. We also agree that good management can create good muskie fisheries - and we do that here in Wisconsin. I think the Wisconsin DNR has done a superb job in creating one of the greatest Muskie Fisheries anywhere. The amount of muskie lakes and rivers that are accessible from my house is incredible. ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. I believe the options for fishing Muskies are better than Ontario. I can fish deep clear lakes , shallow green lakes, rivers , flowages, etc. I can do this from a 20 foot Ranger or from a canoe. I thank the DNR for this.
Where we differ is that I think with a few minor tweaks (Based on the study by BIOLOGISTS at the beginning of this post) we can make a huge difference in the size of the fis. I think it can make a big difference in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky and anywhere the DNR stocks fish. My take on it is that you think no changes can help. So much for having an open Mind.
You seem to suggest that the size of Muskies is only related to it's environment. This is not the case. I believe the Wisconsin DNR put Tiger Cat Flowage Muskies into LCO to study growth rates. Fish taken from the smaller (I'm assuming smaller since I never caught one over 30 inches there) Tiger cat flowage females grew slower than the LCO fish. If any one can locate that study - please post it. (Yes - the DNR put Tiger Cat strain Muskies in LCO) They also put LCO fish in the Tiger Cat, which resulted in a good crop of larger fish at one point - even one 50 inch fish that I am aware of (On the Tiger Cat a 50 is beyond belief). The Minnesota study on Muskies also concluded that Fish from Leech Lake Females grow bigger than LCO fish and that LCO fish grow bigger than Shoepac. This also shows that THE FISH determine growth rates more so than the environment. At the same time I do believe the environment has "some" effect on growth rates. For this reason I'd suggest a brood stock lake should be a good environment for big fish as sworral suggests.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | FYI
From the horse's mouth....."The main sources for the musky we raise in Woodruff are from Big and Little Arbor Vitae (Vilas Co) and squirrel Lake (Oneida Co.)"
| |
| | |
| Is it possible to get the fish Size used for the Eggs and Milt from those lakes? I'm not sure that it'd prove anything, but I'd like to know.
Also - see attached website for more Scientific evidence of genetic evolution related to Large fish being kept and small fish being released. This happens in ANY environment.
http://archive.showmenews.com/2002/Jul/20020705News011.asp | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bob,
I will try and find out about the egg size.
You may want to check out "Tournament Fishing and sub 40" Muskies" post under General Discussions. | |
| | |
| http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5621/895?maxtoshow=&...
ltext=silverside&searchid=1098809490684_9778&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0
More info above. | |
| | |
| After reading the studies posted above I believe:
1. For over 100 years we have harvested the largest fish possible. The last 25 years we have Focused harvest on the Largest Muskies, while releasing the smallest. Similar to the Study.
2. I believe we have focused the egg & milt collection on the smaller Muskies rather than Larger fish. I believe we have used small nets on small lakes to catch small fish. (There are exceptions - I acknowlege this.)
Based on the above I feel we MUST now focus on Catching and breeding the largest Male and Female Muskies we can find in the state. We MUST create a brood stock Lake or Lakes to make efficient use of these breeders, and within these lakes we should use fin clips and MAXIMUM size limits to further enhance the genetic selection of large fish in these waters.
We need to start this in spring of 2005. Spread the word. | |
| | |
| Bob's second link didn't work, but I got the article another way. For those who couldn't access it, here it is:
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY:
Rapid Evolution Can Foil Even the Best-Laid Plans
Carl Zimmer*
By triggering bouts of natural selection, efforts to protect and manage
endangered species can have unintended--and unwelcome--consequences
Natural selection, once seen as a stately and imperceptible process, can be
speeded up to resemble a case of hyperactive jiggles. Over the past 20 years, as
evolutionary biologists have begun to study natural selection in the wild, they
have documented record-breaking changes in some populations of animals and
plants that occur in years--not centuries or millennia.
Now conservation biologists are beginning to take note. "The last year or two
have been the first time that people have really been hammering on this issue,"
says Andrew Hendry of McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Hendry is the
co-author of a recent paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that exhorts his
colleagues to think about the effects of rapid evolution when they draw up plans
to protect and manage species. Conservation biologists "have actually been
studying species that change right under their noses," adds Joel Brown of the
University of Illinois, Chicago. They ignore it at their peril, he wrote in a
recent paper in Biological Conservation, because conservation efforts can drive
evolution in unexpected ways, sometimes making a protected species maladapted to
its environment in just a few generations. But there's a plus as well: A better
understanding of rapid evolution may let conservation biologists harness its
powers to save species from extinction.
The clearest cases of rapid evolution are triggered by sudden changes, either
natural or anthropogenic, in a species' environment. On the Galapagos Islands,
for example, Darwin's finches evolve larger or smaller beaks as their food
supplies fluctuate with the climate. In Trinidad several years ago, scientists
triggered a burst of evolution by simply moving guppies from a pond with
predators to one without. After 11 years, evolution's mark was apparent: The
guppies took 10% longer to reach sexual maturity and as adults weighed 10% more
(Science, 28 March 1997, p. 1934).
A number of biologists now suspect that fisheries managers have been
inadvertently triggering similar bouts of rapid evolution. To keep stocks from
collapsing, managers often put a minimum size limit on catch, giving younger
fish a chance to breed before they are killed. Despite these efforts, the
average size of caught fish has been falling in recent decades in many
fisheries.
Studies in Europe and the United States strongly suggest that the strategy
selects for smaller individuals. The evolutionary advantages are clear: If fish
can become sexually mature while still small, they have more chance to reproduce
and are likely to pass down more of their genes. As a result, the population on
the whole gets smaller. Biologists don't yet know whether this trend threatens
the survival of the fish stocks, but fishers already know what it means to their
pocketbooks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pintsize. Captive breeding programs can drive salmon to lay smaller eggs--a
distinct disadvantage in the wild.
CREDIT: DANIEL HEATH/UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Norway, grayling in mountain lakes have long been protected by size limits.
Thrond Haugen of the University of Oslo and colleagues have found that after 6
decades, the fish reached adulthood when they were 25% smaller. Researchers at
the State University of New York, Stony Brook, have recreated such fishing
pressures in the lab. David Conover and colleagues raised thousands of Atlantic
silversides and harvested the biggest from each generation. In four generations,
the fish became genetically programmed to grow only half as large (Science, 5
July 2002, p. 94).
Conover says these results suggest that fisheries will suffer from low yields
for a long time even if managers remove catch sizes. Because the small size of
the fish is genetically programmed, only an intense evolutionary pressure can
reverse the trend. But natural selection in favor of larger sizes is far milder
than the intense pressure created by commercial fishing. "That could take
thousands of generations," says Conover. "There's no force that directs
evolution in the opposite direction that fishing does."
Some conservation biologists believe that captive breeding programs can also
backfire in the face of unanticipated evolution. In studies on wild and captive
chinook salmon, Daniel Heath of the University of Windsor in Ontario and
colleagues documented that females face an evolutionary tradeoff. On one hand,
it pays for a salmon to lay big eggs, because the extra energy she packs into
them helps the offspring survive after they hatch. But the bigger the eggs, the
fewer a salmon can lay. Captive breeding programs change this tradeoff, because
in the less stressful environment of a hatchery, salmon eggs can survive even if
they're small, and females that lay a lot of eggs are at an evolutionary
advantage. In studies at a British Columbia fish farm, Heath has found that
captive salmon have indeed become more prolific egg-layers; over just four
generations the eggs have become 25% smaller (Science, 14 March, p. 1738).
"You're looking at a phenomenal response," says Heath--one of !
the fastest rates of evolution ever recorded outside a lab. If these fish were
to be put back in the wild, Heath warns, their small eggs would be less likely
to survive to adult fish.
He believes the lessons from salmon apply to many other endangered species. "If
you grab the last few animals and you put them in a zoo to make sure they don't
die, you could potentially drive evolution of some trait that you don't expect,"
says Heath. If the animals were eventually released into the wild, "a loss of
fitness might mean the difference of survival and extinction. That's the scary
part."
Scary, but not hopeless, adds Hendry. He thinks captive breeding programs should
try to breed animals and plants in the same way farmers breed
crops--selectively, for certain traits. One way to do this, Hendry suggests, is
to regularly release a few captive-bred individuals--"selection probes," as some
researchers calls them--and see which survive. The biologists could then breed
the relatives of the survivors but not the less fit individuals. "It would be a
drastic shift in the way people thought about these things," says Hendry. But it
might save some species in the process. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
The studies you have posted all deal with fisheries and lab experiments under far more intense pressure than what we have here. The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age. The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish. If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other.
There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age.
Attachments
----------------
imag0004.jpg (9KB - 293 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok I just can’t stay out of this. I’m not a geneticist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I think Firstsixfeet’s first post, was one of the best on the thread.
I totally under stand the point Bob is trying to make. Use eggs from large females and the chances of producing larger off spring are BETTER, not guaranteed, just better.
I’m 6’4” if I have children have 100 kids, the odds are the average size of those kids will be above average.
If you take eggs from a 52” musky the odds are that the average size of the offspring will be larger than if you take eggs from a 40” musky. Now the 40” musky may have the potential to reach 52” and it may not. But we know for sure the 52” musky holds the genes to have larger than average babies.
The idea of selective breeding in a controlled environment isn’t a good one, because of the reasons FSF pointed out. But, if a way or money could be found to have the DNR strip eggs from larger females it would probably be worth the effort. At least we know the off spring would have the potential. With the limited budget the DNR is working with they just set nets and take eggs from the first females they catch. Once they have the number of eggs the need, they are done. They can’t spend a bunch of time culling, waiting to capture larger females. Maybe this would be a good place for some Musky clubs to spend their money. Give the DNR money to specifically spend more time stripping eggs from only above average musky.
This might actually be a relatively cheep way to try and increase the potential overall size of stocked fish.
What would make it easier for the DNR to find lakes with these big girls, selective 50” size limits on lakes with proven trophy potential. By the way this is also the absolute cheapist way to grow bigger fish. Cost the DNR and the State nothing. As the smallest population of sport fishermen, we need to look at that.
Had more thoughts, but was interrupted by work and lost them, can you believe that?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | again, from the horsee mouth....."There is a goal by the department to provide a wide range of angling opportunities statewide. Muskellunge are part of this and our wide range of regulations and stocking practices reflects this. Are we managing all waters for trophies? The answer is no. Some are managed as action waters, some for trophies, and others to suppress muskellunge numbers.
So is there a DNR theme to grow bigger muskies? Yes, on those specific few waters that have the potential to grow bigger fish. These are typically larger waters, not stocked, have abundant forage, and low density musky populations. The vote in the conservation congress two years ago on the 50 inch lakes points out that a majority of folks are not ready for this type of reg on a large number of waters. But, a third of those who did vote wanted this type of reg. As an agency that represents all the anglers of the state this points out that there is a significant demand out there right now for this type of management.
We currently have very little requirements on brood stock sources other than "Source of fish should be the same waterbody if possible or otherwise a basin stock should be used". This is the current policy we are following. I'm not aware of a hatchery program to produce fish with trophy genetics, but that would be a question you would have to pose to our hatchery staff.
A 1997 genetic survey of the fish populations of the state showed that there are distinct genetic populations around the state. They came up with 5 general genetic regions for muskellunge covering our state.
1. Mississippi River drainage
2. Lake Michigan Drainage
3. Upper Wisconsin River Drainage
4. Upper Flambeau-Chippewa
5. Lake Superior
So there are various strains out there, but stocking across drainage's for the last 100 years has muddied the dividing lines.
| |
| | |
| sworrall - 10/26/2004 11:59 PM
"The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age."
I don't believe the harvest of large fish is small. I did some research on the Muskies Inc. Website. I sampled 3 lakes - the Chip, LCO and Bone. The kill rate on 50" fish is 44%, 40% and 50% respectively. Considering that Muskies can and should live and spawn for an additional 15 years after reaching this size, this is tremendous pressure on the resource. Let's stop quoting 99% release as it does not apply to the large fish. These high kill rates are based on the most dedeicated C&R anglers, and do not count the average angler which would drive these kill rates much higher. I would have liked to quote the kill rates of 50" fish on the NE Wisconsin brood lakes of Squirrel and Big Arbor Vitae - but no MI member has ever registered one. (PROBLEM) The Kill rate on 45"+ fish on these lakes is 40% and 33% respectively - again for MI members only!!!! I do not believe that more than 2% of Big muskies die of old age. I believe that 90 % of small muskies die of old age after spawning their ENTIRE lives.
"The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish."
I believe we are taking most of the larger fish, and releasing 99% of the smaller fish. With 40% harvest on large fish, and many of these fish getting caught more than once - I'd call that intense harvest.
"If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other."
I don't know the full history of these lakes - so I can only speculate. Can we be sure that those big fish were "stocked", they likely were born from Large Muskies that were already in the lake. We have big Muskies in the Chip - I believe these are natural fish, I do not believe they come from Bone lake.
As for the lake where they don't grow big - I do not believe it's the "lake". I have many lakes like that near my home - then once every 10 years someone pops a 53" and kills it.
If it was the "lake". How do you account for that occasional monster from these lakes? I think it's that occasional good gene popping thru, or the occasional egg from a big fish that did get milked. Problem is in Squirrel Lake it's got a 40% chance of getting killed at age 8 and 45" after spawning once. If it get's caught again the next year at 46.5, chances are it's dead. It's weak little cousin however is now 33 inches and 11 years old, and will spread her genes for the NEXT 15 YEARS.
"There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? "
I do not believe the CPR on large fish is anywhere near what people want to believe. I have lots of data on this. I believe that for 150 years we have taken most of the big fish. I find numerous references to commercial muskie fishing in Northern Wisconsin 100 years ago - check the compendium, or Musky Country, among others. I believe that the Kill Kill Kll entality we had prior to 1980 had a huge affect on genetics. I believe the continued harvest of big fish 40%+ By MI data, combined with 99% release of small fish has made the problem worse.
"If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? "
I'm for total C&R. I'm for setting large size limits. I think we need to protect Large fish. I don't believe small fish need protection - although I would never harm one myself.
"If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age."
I think we should use those 52" fish for eggs. Those fish are good. I'm against taking eggs from 32" females (thyat may be 20 years old.) I feel we are altering genetics by killing 40% of the large fish and releasing 99% of small fish. I'm for only breeding large fish, because I believe this will help balance out the effects of harvesting large fish. I believe this is a necessary step until we can work to get size limits where we need them. I'm not saying we are not doing some good thing, I'm saying we can do things better. I want to start today. We will have bigger fish in 7 years if we do.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bob,
There have to be more 35+ pound live mounts hanging on the walls of WI pubs, tackle shops, resorts and homes, than any other place in North America. It is a constant reminder of what once was. It is also clear evidence of the probably close to 100% kill rate of fish this size prior to the 1980s. If what took place during that time was not a harvest of big fish genes then I don't know what was.
I couldn't agree with your what you said in your last post more. I want it today also, and I want it for my kids.
How the heck to we get there?
Sean
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Yes, we can be certain the fish were from a stocking program, and we can be sure the other lake doesn't produce the same quality fish despite the fact they were both stocked from the same base at the same time. The fish were fin clipped. I admire your energy, now let's see you get your ideas applied. The 'from the horses mouth' post says it all, reality. Some lakes are able to support a trophy fishery, some not. That's a fact, and insisting it isn't is raging against nature. No matter WHAT you do, if you try to manage some waters for trophies, you are wasting the resource. By the way, some actually promote selective harvest as a management tool. What would a slot limit do for you? Say, allow the harvest of 34" to 39" fish, protect the 40" to (pick a size) fish, then allow harvest of only whatever the size is in that system the fish reach when at the end of their lifespan? Or should we NEVER harvest any ANYWHERE and cease all efforts to stock lakes where the fish simply do not grow to the desired size?
Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain? I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any (I can only remember one) even though the crowd fishing there with us at the time was the Lindners, Portincaso, Latino, the McBride brothers, Jim Cairnes(pretty accomplished sticks from that era) so how the heck would the attached articles apply there?? How does one factor in the reality of Native American winter and spring harvest across the North which is NOT going to go away by ruling of the US Supreme Court? Things are not so simple, not by a long shot, and experiments are EXPENSIVE. Our DNR is so cash strapped, I can't even imagine that happening before they give a few folks a deserved raise. In Perfect, when our budget is all healed up, maybe we can get a few new warm water hatcheries which we desperately need, and see what the management folks think of an experiment like the one you propose.
I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Waters have had 'crashes' in walleye, muskie, pike, panfish, or other populations of fish, that happens due to about a hundred different variables, including overharvest of SMALLER fish, in fact ALL fish of any one description. To difintitvely associate any population with the articles attached here is a good and valid question, but does not definite cause/effect. Each and every system has to be examined individually because each and every system is different. Heck, look at the creel census figures over the years and try to apply what you are suggesting. Wide, sweeping generizations won't cut it with the folks who are managing the muskies in Wisconsin, and budget, social, political, biological, and all other forms of reality HAVE to be considered.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Also, my son does quite a bit of aging work with scale samples, I will ask him to produce a record, let alone a common occurence of a 16 year old 33" female sample and see what he can do. MI has good data, but the release/kill ratio you are discussingis only applicable to the TOTAL number of muskies in the system matching that size. What are those numbers? A ratio of personal choice on CPR is not a ratio of the total big fish in the system to total harvest of same from that year class. Waves on the water make the wind blow, go ahead and argue with that. Big waves, always big wind. No waves, no wind. Waves on the water make the wind blow. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | sworrall
You said “ I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.”
If what you say here about Pelican lake is true then please explain this to us.
If Pelican has more fish over 48” now than ever, then why has there only been 1 fish over 50” ever registered to muskies inc. from Pelican, which was back in 1995?
Why has the number of fish 40” or larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake steadily declined from 1991 until now?
If you look at the total number of fish 40” and larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake from 1991 until today you will find that:
59% were caught between 1991 and 1995.
30% were caught between 1996 and 2000.
11% were caught between 2001 and today.
Why has the number of fish 45” or larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake steadily declined from 1991 until now?
If you look at the total number of fish 45” and larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake from 1991 until today you will find that:
55% were caught between 91 and 95
27% were caught between 96 and 2000
18% were caught between 2001 and today
How can you say, “I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.”?????
I suspect you feel that the muskies inc. data is not credible because it does not support your own opinions as is pointed here with regards to Pelican Lake. Please show us or tell us where we can find the same data that you apparently have seen that supports your opinions and differs from the muskies inc. data shown here. | |
| | |
|
Interesting information on your two lakes - I've never seen a fin clipped fish on this side of Wisconsin, although I see them often in Minnesota. I'd love to understand why they are fin clipped and what information they get from doing this. Can you provide it? I do not dispute that different lakes will have different growth rates, but surely you can't dispute that different fish have different growth rates? By putting superior fish into poor quality lakes, we may get 45" instead of 40". In quality lakes we should get 57" instead of 52". I'm not sure where you stand on the big fish of the old days (world records and otherwise)
but when I go to Hayward, I see lot's of huge fish in the bars and museums. The lakes did not get any bigger - but the fish appear to be getting smaller. Or there are not as many big fish. I'm drawing the line at 53"
I like the Idea of slot limits - I like any idea that protects large fish. And I see nothing wrong with having lakes where fish can be harvested - even the large ones. I would like to see a network of lakes where the Biggest Baddest Muskies are protected and allowed to breed together. At the same time - I'm not going off the deep end - Action lakes are great too?
"Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain?"
I follow the Wisconsin river pretty closely - It does consistently give up big fish, no doubt. That would be one place I'd choose to net Big Muskies.
" I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any"
Thats because they used genetically inferior fish in Bone Lake from day 1. When you factor in Winter spearing of large fish - It just makes my case on breeding large fish even better. We've stopped the harvest about as much as we can - BUT IT"S STILL SIGNIFICANT ON THE BIG FISH. Since we have limited ability to stop the taking of big fish, we need to examine the other end of things - Creating big fish. What can we do to create more big fish? Breed them.
I still don't believe it would cost any more money. The expense is in raising the fish. If we have less money, we need to be more careful about the fish we are raising. I'd love to get into this subject deeper sometime. I need to take a few days and lay this whole thing out. Let's give the DNR a raise (well deserved) and then let's send the out to net some Big Muskies!!!!
I appreciate your examples - but am still convinced that all animals will resemble their parents.
I'll try to get back on some of these other things also. this is not a wide sweeping generalization - but a narrow focused way to get more big muskies.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
I guide the lake, sir. There are WAY fewer Muskies Inc folks there, just don't see many at all. I know of 3 over 50" this fall alone. You figure Muskies Inc represents the total muskie fishing public? I used to belong, but didn't register my fish much. I don't at all any more. I also fish the lake recreationally quite a bit.
What happened here was an invasive specie went nuts, the Red Rusty Crayfish. The weeds went quickly, and as a result, the fishing became tougher, and much of the out of the area pressure went somewhere where the fish were easier to find and boat. The ANGLERS WENT ELSEWHERE, NOT THE FISH. Also, Thiel's Lakeview Inn was run by a Muskie man, and when he sold, the bar became more of a hangout for non anglers, and the trailers that used to house muskie anglers were removed. Also, the Native Americans spear that lake, and many mistakenly think the lake was badly damaged. Another factor is the reduction of the number of resorts catering to the Muskie angler. Several closed in the late 80's to early nineties, selling the land to folks who built year round homes. Advice; be careful to apply only one source of anecdotal data to draw your conclusions, you will end up not considering VERY important information and data that might be pertinent.
I live here. I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's. I had three- 5 -fish- over- 42" days two summers ago fishing the 18' breakline, something I feel is pretty incredible anywhere. There are a couple pictures of 50" Pelican fish right here onsite, BTW.
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | sworrall
No I do not feel muskies inc represents the total muskie fishing public. Obviously it does not. But the muskies inc data does provide the largest sample size of CATCH data avaiable that people can evaluate that I am aware of. If the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data that you have seen tells a different story than the muskies inc. catch data tells for this time period, then why not post it here so we can all see for ourselves that the muskies inc. data is apparently misleading? | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | One other thing that has me a little confused here.
You just said "the anglers went elsewhere, not the fish."
But in a post just prior to this you said "I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Huh???? | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eau Claire weather got you crabby, sir?
The pressure on Pelican is intelligent, local for the most part for the last several years other than the Kevin Worrall Memorial tournament and the Hodag, and yes, intense.
Yes, I have looked into the creel, netting and stocking data on Pelican, and it supports my ideas about the lake. The lake is VERY healthy, just different from what it was due to the invasives and a shift in predator/prey relationships. It IS tougher to fish than it was, but the fish are there in numbers and size.
I didn't say MI data is misleading. YOU chose those words. I said you should be careful not to draw conclusions from ONLY a largely anecdotal source, and that you should investigate further before jumping all over other's comments. I backed up my comments with facts about the type of pressure on the lake.
I thought I was clear. By the way, I respect what you say and have tried to voice my differing point of view in a reasonable fashion. I would ask you to reciprocate. | |
| | |
| Mr. Worrall - I agree with Lockjaw that it'd be great to actually see the DNR data you mention, instead of just taking your word for it. In particular I'd like to see information on the size structure of the Muskies in Pelican.
At over 3500 acres - this is a lake that should compare favorably with what we see happening in Minnesota.
While I agree that Muskies Inc. data is not perfect, it is without a doubt the single largest source of information on what people are catching. You made the statement that you don't register fish, but this happens everywhere - not just Pelican Lake.
I'd have to agree with Lockjaw that you do seem pretty quick to dismiss any data that does not agree with your opinion. You have completely dismissed the studies by biologists on genetics, as you have dismissed the Kill rates and catch rates posted by myself and Lockjaw. Specifically the data pulled from MI records should be looked on as facts - and I believe this data gives a best case scenario for both Release rates and numbers of large fish. This is because I believe MI members are more likely to 1. Catch and 2. Release large fish.
After you dismiss all this information, you say things like: "I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's."
I don't mean to sound critical - but I'd like you to share this data with us, so that we can all make more informed decisions.
One other question? what is the biggest Muskie ever taken from Pelican Lake? and what year was it caught?
Over here we have a history of Big fish - all my lakes gave up their biggest fish before I was born. If they aren't getting bigger - they are getting smaller.
| |
| | |
| Yesterday I received a picture of a 5 year old Muskie that was 47.5 inches s long and 29.2 pounds. I would make the case that ALL female muskies would grow like this under my plan. (Oh my God - I sound like John Kerry)
If we assume that 30 % of the muskies in a given lake are female - 30 % of the Muskies should be this size or bigger. This is what I see every day on the lakes that I currently spend time on. (I do a lot of driving.)
This was on a small lake with limited forage and not known to produce numbers of fish over 50 inches or 30 pounds - but I do not follow the lake closely. THE FISH HAS GOOD GENES. In this case it just so happened to be a Leech Lake strain fish. I believe the fish is part of Project Green Gene in Illinois.
Please spare me any comments about them growing faster down in Illinois. Those fish grow unbelievably fast everywhere you put them. All truly big Muskies get to a large size fast. If a fish is 10 years ald and is not 45 inches, I believe it will NEVER get to 50 inches. In fact I would only breed female Muskies that have reached 50 inches by age 10. If you tell me it costs too much to net these fsih, I will tell you that we are netting the wrong fish, and we have a bigger problem. One that would require a different strain of fish to be stocked. I don't believe that is the case - YET! I do believe things are getting worse and not better. I think we can change that, and I think enough people are coming around that we will see change soon. I'm hoping that we'll be organized by the Conservation Congress hearings this spring.
I'm researching data on Big Wisconsin fish now to get an idea of age vs. length. I have a friend who's in school for Fish Biology (or something like that) who has been aging muskies with scale samples - he often finds fish that are 36 inches and 15 years old in NW Wisconsin. Releasing those fish, does not create bigger Muskies - it creates more small ones. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Wow Great Thread. Let the fisticuffs begin.
First my credibility is a degree in environmental science and biology, also a fettish with this very subject,GENTICS.
Steve I commend your reserch but your intuition is simply WRONG and VERY MUCH SO!
Bob you are right in almost everything you have said and I have had these same thoughts about a brood stock lake before reading this post. I'm not sure why you are posting anonymous.
1. holding all other compounding variables constant: LAKE SIZE is not the direct factor of fish size. PREY AVAILABILTY AND THE ENERGY TAKEN TO COSUME IS. big lakes allow the apex predator to consume more prey with less energy spent PERIOD. If you don't believe this READ A BOOK.
2. Steve with as much SCIENTIFIC information out there i'm not sure why you disregard genetics as much as you do. GENETICS ARE KEY TO HUGE FISH PERIOD. I feel no need to argue this point do your own reserch.
The key argument that is tuffling my feathers is your apparent disregard for the idea that using larger fish for breeding won't help. The last article about the leech lake strain speaks for itself. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS FISHERIES BIOLOGIST EXTRA EFFORT TO USE LARGER FISH WAS WRONG? I feel no need to argue this anymore either. The facts speak for themselves.
The main question here is why are fisheries biologist not selecting big fish for breading today? I'm not sure, but it is something that WE THE MUSKY COMMUNITY NEED TO BRING UP. Many biologist I know don't care about fish size, they are more concerned with the ecosystem itself which is fine, BUT CALL ME SELFISH BUT I WANT BIG FISH. The notion that selective breeding may cause increased chance of biological problems is a good question to bring up, but simply not the case.
My unltimate question for those in oppostion is HOW EXACLTY WILL THIS COST SO MUCH MORE MONEY??? this is the only factor which could prevent this from occuring.
-skippy
Edited by MuskieBum 10/31/2004 12:15 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Bob now I may finally disagree with something you said. LOL. Where are you comming up with this data for the 5 year old fish??
Also make sure you take water temp into consideration when doing your reserch. Metabolism rates are differant everywhere you go.
git er done
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieBum:
Here are all my comments in this thread:
'I don't think the commercial fishing model would apply here, and the idea that a genetic attribute could be eliminated in that fashion is in my opinion a stretch, anyway. Normally, a slot style limit is imposed to protect reproduction by making sure the fish in their reproductive prime remain in the system. Not enough of the total Muskie population from the waters that would support fish of that quality has EVER been harvested in Wisconsin to cause what you describe to happen. I think the numbers of big fish in Wisconsin waters has increased over the last twenty years due to CPR, and by a considerable amount. The reasons Wisconsin looks anemic when compared to Minnesota are several, including the introduction of Great Lakes strain muskies in BIG, fertile, Minnesota impoundments and lakes and the successful introduction of a couple strains in GIANT Lake Mille Lacs and other bodies of water. Great fisheries because of great management and because of the ecosystem involved.
Watch for the BIG water areas in Wisconsin the Great Lakes strain has been introduced, and watch what happens with the quality, it will be there. CPR philosophy is strong in Wisconsin, with most fish getting returned.
I think some of the systems here in Northern Wisconsin should be designated as trophy only, perhaps at 50", maybe even 52". Will that insure greater numbers of 50" class fish available? No one is sure. I for one would sure like to see it tested. '
''Steve W. lives in WI.....so take his opinion into consideration. WI just doesn't get it.
People still love to kill muskies up there. But the resort owners must not mind the drop in business from hard core musky fishermen.....because I know very few people who would travel to WI for a musky trip. The fishing is so much better in Minnesota, Canada, heck, even Indiana.'
My opinion isn't based on where I live. It's based on fact and information from the DNR Fisheries folks here and in other areas as well. It's based on reality instead of emotion, and you have taken it out of context and attacked me and other muskie anglers from Wisconsin without justification based on what; your decades long experience muskie angling and dedication to the preservation and expansion of the sport? I think not, your comments are as usual when you go off on a rant, based on rhetoric and your acidic personal opinion, but stated as fact. I take special exception to the comment 'People love to kill muskies up there' Bull. Absolute Bull. The release rate here is as good or better as many to most areas in the country, WITHOUT legislating it to be so. I DO know many folks who came here to fish muskies this year, and can't tell you of a single killed fish out of many, many caught. I don't have to defend my personal record, that speaks for itself, but I WILL defend the record of other Wisconsin Guides and Muskie anglers from garbage slinging like that. You are out of line. The debate over the 50" limit proposal (and the reasons it failed, straight from the DNR Fisheries manager in Madison) was discussed at length here, and I believe I made my position clear as did many of the other anglers from this State. Everyone here feels we will get Trophy Only designations passed on more waters that will support the management technique, and soon.
The Muskie fishing is better in Indiana??? I have about 200 muskie lakes within easy driving distance of my house. Many hold and give up fish in the 50" class every year. Most muskies caught from these waters are released, just like most are in Indiana, Minnesota, and Canada.
I can fish 4 small muskie lakes in a day around home, and see maybe 3 or 4 other muskie boats. Many of these lakes and rivers see little or no real pressure. Unfortunately, most are under 500 acres, and are not suited for many reasons to support many muskies over 50", if ANY. I will wager there are nearly ZERO fish harvested off these waters, yet HMMMM, no really big muskies despite the fact the waters have been managed for Muskies for over 30 years. Does that mean they are poor lakes? Not to me. Lots of muskies, into the low 40" to mid 40" class, where they top out despite being into the upper teens or more in age. Not because of harvest, either, so don't even go there. Actually, there are many lakes JUST like that in Ontario, too.
I believe I covered the Minnesota issue. By the way, what IS the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Is it 50 or 52"? If not, why not?
What are the size limits on the Indiana lakes? Is there natural reproduction there as there is in most of the waters in Northern Wisconsin, or are most to all the muskies stocked there?
To clarify things a bit better, what the original poster was missing in the discussion is an understanding of Natural Selection and genetics, and what it would actually take to have the model proposed occur.'
'
1) Taking spawn from a 50" fish doesn't gaurantee a thing as to how big the offspring, stocked in another system with different water chemistry, food chain, water temps, and more. Ther IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will. Way too many variables. Will every female hatched from a 50" fish grow to 50"? No.
2) The DNR here KNOWS the strain they are using to stock, and what that strain is capable of. Explain why roe stripped from a 43" fish that is 10 years old and at the peak of it's reproductive capacity won't reach 50"? I know the DNR stripped fish from Pelican many times over the years, and that lake has kicked out many 50" fish. Same with lake Tomahawk. the strain of fish stripped and stocked DOES make difference, but that difference is subject to the ecosystem and all the variables contained there.
3) There is much more to the lake size issue than acreage. Cover, habitat, food chain, chemistry, water temps and size of the spawning areas in the Spring, fertility, and so much more including successful access to the big fish by the angler.
4) A study about a saltwater population of fish under commercial fishing pressure is pretty diffucult to compare to a completely different ecosystem in fresh water and a type of fish that is positioned in the ecosystem in a totally different fashion, not to mention the angling pressure isn't even remotely comparable. I'm not 'ignoring' the work, I just feel it's a stretch to transfer that one study to a new management philosophy for muskies.
5) Would generations of dogs grow bigger if the bigger yard allowed for better foraging, better puppy health at birth and throughout early development and allowed for natural selection/competition to assist in making that so? Maybe. Absolute apples to oranges there. You feed, care for, and either allow or not allow the dog to breed, both male and female. Take that controlled environment into the wild and have food become sparse over continuous generations because of bad populations of prey animals, and the dogs might just grow smaller.
6) A female muskie will be ready to spawn at too soon in nearly every case for the idea that all under 42" should be destroyed. Here is a good place to start reading about the subject. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol04.html Here's another with a writer's perspective. http://www.fishontario.com/articles/world-record_muskie/
7) It's true that if 'every' fish that reaches 50" in a body of water is harvested, that there will be few 50" fish in that water. I doubt that is happening in most cases, but can be on some smaller or extremely heavily pressured waters in areas where CPR hasn't been brought to the front yet. If one wante to GUARANTEE no fish under 52" will be harvested, then that should be the limit if the fisheries folks feel the system will support it. I recently caught a couple in that class from a lake less than a mile from my house, which gets average pressure but produces a fair number of big girls every year because of the CPR ethic here in Oneida County pretty much 100% CPR and the system supports big muskies. The walleyes, though, do very poorly, because the prey they rely on is sparse.. That goes back to the education factor, not management. The DNR planted these fish in the late 80's and early 90's, and they are doing VERY well. CATCH AND RELEASE!! Some want that mandated for all waters here at over the capacity of that water, which makes little sense.The attempts to get the systems that match the models in the above mentioned articles and papers failed because it was rushed, there wasn't enough PR and educational work done with the public. We can and WILL get it done, if a bit more slowly and carefully so the public understands the project.
There is a huge reference out there in the scientific community that will get you the information you want about this issue. When I get back in off the road, I'll post another group of links on the 'net and get some book titles up.
Wisconsin gets it, alright, but we DO need to get the lakes capable of kicking out the big girls up to a 50" or even 52" limit.'
'Actually the comment was regarding when biologists do a study and anglers disregard it. I'm not one of those anglers, by the way. I was simply stating I felt the study on Cod doesn't necessarily correlate, and the concept that contemporary evolution is in play with the Wisconsin trophy Muskie population isn't based on or supported by the data available. Also, the CPR ethic we all want to spread encourages trophy release, not just smaller fish. There was a recent attempt by the DNR here to designate several lakes as 50" trophy only waters that failed due to the fact the public plain didn't understand the proposal. The public has a 'vote' in Wisconsin through the Conservation Congress, and can send a great proposal to the recycle bin in a hurry.
I agree with you many folks disagree with fisheries management because they are uninformed. My son works for the Wisconsin DNR and constantly is amazed what the 'locals' believe about the waters under study. I have a couple years study in the field as well, abandoned formally because of many reasons including the wage scale in Fisheries Management at the time. I continue to read, study, and learn as much as I can, despite the fact I chose a different field of endeavor. Whenever I run into a wall, I have a couple Fisheries Management buddies I can call to get straightened out. You'd be surprised how many folks visiting MuskieFIRST have a formal Fisheries, marine biology, or environmental science based education and are not practicing. It's a shame the folks who are so dedicated to the science and practicing management are not paid what the job is worth in so many states.
'There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". '
The links I posted do just that, and give away why I spend my vacation time fishing muskies where I do. '
Be careful to keep this in contect:
'The age of the fish stripped is not that hard to obtain through scale sampling and general knowledge about that water and it's Muskie populations. Yes, I would be opposed to stripping spawn from only 50" fish, as that wouldn't be a viable program even in waters where the 50" class of fish is large when compared to total population. The idea that the fish reached 50" strictly or even mostly because of genetics discounts environmental factors that can cause considerable differences year to year in growth rates in a single lake's population and substantial maximum growth differences in same sample year classes planted in different lakes. In short, I stand by the original concept that stripping big females doesn't mean one will get big females from stocked fish propagated from that effort in multiple lakes, impoundments, or rivers. In fact, the fish that actually reach that size might do so BECAUSE of environmental factors that favor the fish's genetics, which might not exist in the waters in which they are stocked. Look at Pewaukee, a near total put and take fishery. CPR and management has created a pretty good fishery that has produced a number of fish over 50" this year alone. The ONE true supertanker came out of that water after an extensive attempt to stock brown trout. Could the big fish and the brown trout have any cause/effect relationship? I don't know.
I would disagree with the idea that lakes producing big muskies do so because of the genetics alone, and the lakes producing small muskies do so for the same reason. The concept is simply incorrect. Also, your following statement implies that muskies from the lakes you are critical of mature more quickly, and do not have the genetic capacity to reach trophy size. How do you reach that conclusion? Also, there IS no 'strain' of Muskies that I am aware of that reaches a maximum of 38" as a female. By the way, the average length of a 7 year old female in Georgian Bay is 37.7", and the St. Lawrence average for a 7 year old is two inches longer. It is true that the growth rate at 7 years for a female muskie on some waters dictate the fish at viability will be 42" or more, but much more than genetics enters into that equasion.
I disagree that 100% of the available muskie population or anything close is captured on most waters, and can catagorically refute that idea on many northern Wisconsin lakes where creel data and fyke netting/boom shock data is available. Also, comparing a commercial fishing operation on saltwater that is HUGE, very concentrated due to the Cod's location, and extensive beyond most folks comprehension to sport fishing where catch and release is a clear and excercised option is very dicey. I still don't see a direct association on most Wisconsin waters to that article. Do we harvest most or all of the largest muskies? No. Many waters in fact show as much as 90% release rate due to CPR.
I mentioned a lake down the road from my house that sports a great population of 45" to 52" muskies from a stocking effort by the DNR. Fin clipping shows a direct link between the fish stocked and those in the 50" range today, they are one and the same. This is a 500 acre lake, well managed and well cared for by the local muskie anglers who have been accused here of 'not getting it'. There are several busy resorts on the lake as well, yet the overall release rate is excellent. Why does this lake support 50" fish and the SAME strain, stripped out of the same waters, that when stocked in another 500 acre lake here never seem to get past 45", despite the fact both lakes are fished by the same crowd and maintained similarly, and both have good habitat? It's the ecosystem itself, NOT the fish. By the way, both lakes support natural reproduction, successful enough to have great year classes available from the stocked generations.
Your statement number 5 totally disregards natural selection and all the associated elements effecting a population in the wild. The DNR can't 'breed' muskies successfully as you suggest, the undertaking would have to be MASSIVE, would be unbelievably expensive, and might not work in many waters anyway due to environment. I bet it would be a Fisheries Biologist's dream job to try, however!
Selective breeding is a controlled undertaking that doesn't allow ANY crossbreeding at all, so most lakes would have to be killed off completely to even begin the process. In short, your idea is noble, would probably work in a totally enclosed/controlled perfect environment (raising certain breeds of dogs, for example) at least short term if everything else was perfect.
By the way, commercial fishing for Muskies has been around in Canada for generations. Between 1837 and 1936, a total of 13,202,348 pounds of Muskies were harvested commercially in Ontario, and 2,888,045 pounds in Quebec. The practice has been severly curtailed, but the fish seem to be growing to an exceptional size despite the tremendous depletion during that time.
The last couple paragraphs are well intentioned I am sure, but what you are asking for isn't going to happen. It's simply not possible from so many standpoints it becomes a nice concept, but only that. There is strong evidence that the concept you are promotiong probably will not give you the results you seek.'
'Bob,
The studies you have posted all deal with fisheries and lab experiments under far more intense pressure than what we have here. The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age. The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish. If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other.
There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age.'
'Yes, we can be certain the fish were from a stocking program, and we can be sure the other lake doesn't produce the same quality fish despite the fact they were both stocked from the same base at the same time. The fish were fin clipped. I admire your energy, now let's see you get your ideas applied. The 'from the horses mouth' post says it all, reality. Some lakes are able to support a trophy fishery, some not. That's a fact, and insisting it isn't is raging against nature. No matter WHAT you do, if you try to manage some waters for trophies, you are wasting the resource. By the way, some actually promote selective harvest as a management tool. What would a slot limit do for you? Say, allow the harvest of 34" to 39" fish, protect the 40" to (pick a size) fish, then allow harvest of only whatever the size is in that system the fish reach when at the end of their lifespan? Or should we NEVER harvest any ANYWHERE and cease all efforts to stock lakes where the fish simply do not grow to the desired size?
Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain? I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any (I can only remember one) even though the crowd fishing there with us at the time was the Lindners, Portincaso, Latino, the McBride brothers, Jim Cairnes(pretty accomplished sticks from that era) so how the heck would the attached articles apply there?? How does one factor in the reality of Native American winter and spring harvest across the North which is NOT going to go away by ruling of the US Supreme Court? Things are not so simple, not by a long shot, and experiments are EXPENSIVE. Our DNR is so cash strapped, I can't even imagine that happening before they give a few folks a deserved raise. In Perfect, when our budget is all healed up, maybe we can get a few new warm water hatcheries which we desperately need, and see what the management folks think of an experiment like the one you propose.
I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Waters have had 'crashes' in walleye, muskie, pike, panfish, or other populations of fish, that happens due to about a hundred different variables, including overharvest of SMALLER fish, in fact ALL fish of any one description. To difintitvely associate any population with the articles attached here is a good and valid question, but does not definite cause/effect. Each and every system has to be examined individually because each and every system is different. Heck, look at the creel census figures over the years and try to apply what you are suggesting. Wide, sweeping generizations won't cut it with the folks who are managing the muskies in Wisconsin, and budget, social, political, biological, and all other forms of reality HAVE to be considered.
'Also, my son does quite a bit of aging work with scale samples, I will ask him to produce a record, let alone a common occurence of a 16 year old 33" female sample and see what he can do. MI has good data, but the release/kill ratio you are discussingis only applicable to the TOTAL number of muskies in the system matching that size. What are those numbers? A ratio of personal choice on CPR is not a ratio of the total big fish in the system to total harvest of same from that year class. Waves on the water make the wind blow, go ahead and argue with that. Big waves, always big wind. No waves, no wind. Waves on the water make the wind blow.'
'Lockjaw,
I guide the lake, sir. There are WAY fewer Muskies Inc folks there, just don't see many at all. I know of 3 over 50" this fall alone. You figure Muskies Inc represents the total muskie fishing public? I used to belong, but didn't register my fish much. I don't at all any more. I also fish the lake recreationally quite a bit.
What happened here was an invasive specie went nuts, the Red Rusty Crayfish. The weeds went quickly, and as a result, the fishing became tougher, and much of the out of the area pressure went somewhere where the fish were easier to find and boat. The ANGLERS WENT ELSEWHERE, NOT THE FISH. Also, Thiel's Lakeview Inn was run by a Muskie man, and when he sold, the bar became more of a hangout for non anglers, and the trailers that used to house muskie anglers were removed. Also, the Native Americans spear that lake, and many mistakenly think the lake was badly damaged. Another factor is the reduction of the number of resorts catering to the Muskie angler. Several closed in the late 80's to early nineties, selling the land to folks who built year round homes. Advice; be careful to apply only one source of anecdotal data to draw your conclusions, you will end up not considering VERY important information and data that might be pertinent.
I live here. I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's. I had three- 5 -fish- over- 42" days two summers ago fishing the 18' breakline, something I feel is pretty incredible anywhere. There are a couple pictures of 50" Pelican fish right here onsite, BTW. '
'Eau Claire weather got you crabby, sir?
The pressure on Pelican is intelligent, local for the most part for the last several years other than the Kevin Worrall Memorial tournament and the Hodag, and yes, intense.
Yes, I have looked into the creel, netting and stocking data on Pelican, and it supports my ideas about the lake. The lake is VERY healthy, just different from what it was due to the invasives and a shift in predator/prey relationships. It IS tougher to fish than it was, but the fish are there in numbers and size.
I didn't say MI data is misleading. YOU chose those words. I said you should be careful not to draw conclusions from ONLY a largely anecdotal source, and that you should investigate further before jumping all over other's comments. I backed up my comments with facts about the type of pressure on the lake.
I thought I was clear. By the way, I respect what you say and have tried to voice my differing point of view in a reasonable fashion. I would ask you to reciprocate.'
OK, that's what I had to say so far.
NEW POST IN RESPONSE TO MB:
Where did I say that big fish have to come from big lakes? In fact, I stated that I have a very small lake near my house that produces big fish in great numbers when compared to the total population in the lake and the lake size due to a stocking effort by the DNR. And where did I say that genetics have nothing to do with big fish? I never said either, far as I can remember.
I also didn't, don't, and never would 'disregard' genetics, I cautioned over and over again that simply introducing a 'good' genetic strain into any Wisconsin Lake will not necessarily produce 50" plus fish. I also stated that we HAVE some strains here with good genetics, and listed a couple examples including Lake George and Pelican and the differences between those lakes and others in the area that are similar in size but due to many factors including prey type and availability, do NOT produce large fish. I also mentioned that the DNR here is stocking Great Lakes strain where they feel the fish will do well. Would the Great Lakes strain produce more fish over 50" than the Arbor Vitae or Tomahawk stripped fish would when stocked in Spider Lake or the Moen Chain? Bob and Lockjaw claimed the lakes that didn't produce 50" class fish had to be stocked with an inferior strain, but they were actually stocked with the same fish as lakes producing big girls stocked with the same hatchery raised fish during the exact same timeframe. Since you're credentialed, I'll ask you this:
You said clearly that prey availability and energy spent to consume same is the key, not necessarliy lake size. If the lake or impoundment is large, you stated that also that big lakes allow for the top predators to access th. That is EXACTLY what I said, several times, mentioning water chemistry, and other variables as well, mand that is what I was referring to with the efforts in Minnesota on Mille Lacs, Leech, Cass, and like waters. If the lake IS constant with all other variables, what will happen if one introduces fish with excellent genetics into a system that has a poor forage base, type or numbers? Bob claimed that a lake as I just described should produce big muskies, and that it's the fish, not the lake. Is he correct? What of competition from other species, if the lake is as I just described? Is there not a big difference between lake and river characteristics and what any system can sustain for large fish?
I also did NOT say that using big fish for selective breeding won't help. I said, I thought pretty clearly, that using big fish for breeding will not guarantee big fish in the lake or river where they are stocked, and will stand by that statement. I also said that using only 50" fish to strip for spawn is not a viable concept , even in a brood stock lake because the number of fish required to get enough fry is too large vs potential availability to maintain the program the state undertakes for the Muskie fishery. Another point I tried to make is this:
If one has a good proven genetic base in a strain, why would one ONLY strip fish of trophy size? Wouldn't you agree that the genetic traits should be carried by the younger and prime fish of that proven population at say 44" in the same waters? Is there any literature out there that suggests that the viable fish from a good genetic strain will produce smaller offspring if stripped when 40", and larger if stripped when 48"?
Also, I questioned the some of the statements made in this thread because of this, now tell me I'm wrong and why:
If the strain used for stocking produces 50" to 54" fish in one system and only fish up to low 40's in another, what exactly is wrong with the genetics? Should that strain be 'killed off' and replaced with another? I only have 2 years education in environmental science and biology and that was in the 70's, but some things don't change all that much, I wouldn't think. I am only asking that all the points described here be considered in the reality of the economic, social, environmental, and biological reality we have here in Wisconsin today.
OK, you mention I get cranked up when 'someone doesn't agree with my point of view'. That isn't the issue, sir. My point of view or yours isn't the relevant factor here, it's the overall discussion and the points made by all involved, correct and incorrect, balanced against fact. I made the points I described pretty carefully, but none the less am (in my very humble opinion) falsely accused of a disregard for genetics, lack of understanding about forage/predator relationships and lake size, and more.
Much of the original argument of was taken out of original context of the discussion which was accelerated evolution being the reason for smaller fish in Wisconsin, which has an entirely different argument for lake size, and then applied to big fish stripped=big fish no matter the lake.
Should one be direct about being taken out of context, misquoted, or misrepresented?
You said;LAKE SIZE is not the direct factor of fish size.
Your point was to refute a concept you thought I had that a small lake wouldn't produce big fish. You obviously didn't read my posts about the big fish in the little lake a couple miles from my house.
Then you said, in the next sentense; PREY AVAILABILTY AND THE ENERGY TAKEN TO COSUME IS. big lakes allow the apex predator to consume more prey with less energy spent PERIOD.
I agree with you, and said nothing in any of my posts that would indicate I don't. It does, however, sound like a direct contradiction of you previous statement. I could, if I was inclined, argue with you about that, but I know what you meant and took it in context IE that a small lake can produce big fish if the predator/prey relationship is correct, but that big lakes, all other factors to remain constant, are advantaged because of same, as you stated in the quote above. You were attempting to indicate that I was incorrect and didn't understand lake size and trophy potential, but you had not read my posts carefully or you would have seen I already made those same points.
Then you said this; If you don't believe this READ A BOOK.
Hmmmm.
To answer the Pelican Lake question; the biggest I know of was caught a couple years ago and was 55". I have a 54, a 54.5, and 13 over 50 in my boat. Some of those fish were the strain that was stocked there. The lake was stocked heavily up to 1998.
Lake George and the Moen Chain were also stocked heavily using the same brood stock. George produces some really nice fish, and there's quite a few in that puddle. The Moen has a deserved reputation of rarely putting out a fish over 48" but has good numbers of low 40" fish. Why is that? Accelerated evolution? Bad genetics? MuskieBum, what do you think?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I agree that numbers lakes are a reality, and kinda like them, too. The fish that was 47.5 at 5 years, was that an Ontario fish?
Also, I asked around a bit, and found that 35" males at 10 years are not uncommon, but 35" females that age seem to be. What I'm told is that the fish that peak out at say 45" in a system are usually average age to growth ratio in the first few years unless there is an environmental anomoly, but do not then seem to grow as fast in the later years or ever reach 50 plus primarily because of environmental factors. Of COURSE genetics has a key role balanced with environment. My argument was never that genetics were not critical, my argument was mostly a series of questions and points as to why some systems kick out big fish and some don't from the SAME genetic sample.
Here are some stocking figures for the lakes I referenced at one point or another in the discussion.
I started guiding Pelican in 1974, guided full time from 1979 to 1989 and experienced the impact of the stocking which I still feel was fantastic for the fishery. I started guiding George in '85. I fished the Moen, but didn't guide it because I felt the system was primarily a numbers flowage. Oddly, records for Thompson ( a favorite of mine, low density, good quality, but a BIG fish of 50" is rare) are not available. The relevant stocking to todays trophies surviving from any of these is probably 1977 at the oldest to date, and from my understanding of the average age of the muskies here that would be pretty old.
George:
8217 since 1972.
Moen:
3820 since 1972
Pelican:
33826 since 1972 PLUS 100,000 fry in 1996.
Crescent:
11612
Boom Lake Flowage:
3874 10" plus, and 200000 fingerlings. Stocking there began in 1991. I've seen a marked increase in fish up to 48 myself, but that is my observation and is anecdotal. I've fished this water on and off since 1979.
Crescent seems to be putting out big fish as often now as it was in the 80's, as is Boom. Keep in mind Boom is part of the Wisconsin River system, too. Crescent receives big pressure with Native American winter spearing. Boom doesn't, nor do Moen, Pelican or George, don't know why. May be a water clarity issue.
I want to make myself clear, as a few folks have decided I am saying something I am NOT. I feel we have the genetics NOW and HERE in Wisconsin to develop new and continue to manage existing trophy fisheries. My opinion is some waters would support that effort, some will not. Those that won't are not worth the expense and effort, but definitely are worth managing for muskies in the context of the lake or river's ability to support a fishable population. Trophy anglers can just skip that water. The DNR promoted a list in concert with a group of anglers a couple years ago of waters THEY felt would support a trophy only fishery. The proposal was voted down ( great idea, letting the public manage the fisheries managers, sheesh), primarily due to a lack of knowledge and an even larger lack of proper promotion of the idea of and to the folks who voted against the proposal. The DNR here HAS stocked spotted muskies, and is doing so in waters they feel will support the strain and grow them huge. WHAT I DON'T AGREE WITH is the concept that all musiies should be raised from only 50" class stripped fish and that doing so will create a strain that will grow to 50" plus no matter where they are stocked. I stated I felt the development of a 'super strain' and successful manipulation of existing populations to successfully introduce those fish by our DNR would be very expensive, and probably not politically 'workable' right now. Keep in mind, we are not starting from scratch here, most of the waters that will support muskies already have a population. I also mentioned that simply introducing a super strain into a lake or river would not necessarily produce super tanker fish. I stand by that idea.
I also started my comments in this debate with the personal belief that accelerated evolution is not what is wrong with most muskie waters in the state of Wisconsin. I stand by that belief as well, but will be discussing the idea with the fisheries folks in Madison and Woodruff tomorrow to get their perspective.
OK, everyone, pile on...
| |
| | |
Posts: 236
|
Steve this is your quote that caused my earlier response.
"There IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will"
This statement is somewhat misleading and you can read it different ways. THERE IS A DEFINATE CORRELATION BETWEEN FISH REACHING 50" AND THIER OFFSPRING REACHING IT AS WELL. is it gauranteed? No, as you said. I now understand what you were saying but your theme for all the posts is very one sided to try to prove your ultimate point which is a point that I can not quite figure out yet. I think your point is defending WI fisheries programs and why WI doesn't produce big fish.
Are you saying WI lakes are too small to produce large numbers of big fish? There are plenty of lakes in WI that should produce super tankers yet dont. WHY? What happened to the absolute slobs that were caught in past generations? Your only defense to this question is to say that lake conditions have changed which is why there are no more HUGE fish caught in WI: Very weak argument.
There is only a very small amount of Individuals who possess this Saquile Oneil characteristic. It is possible that your lake by your house that produces big fish luckily was introduced with Saqs offspring. Get it? I'm trying to make this clear but I may be slaughtering it.
You can not simply put all stocked fish into one category in referencing the BIG stocked fish that have been caught. Maybe the Striped Mother was a 40" 6 year old female (Huge fish for its age, thus great genetics) who's offspring had great genetics thus great size. The other lake next to your house that you refer to, that doesn't produce big fish, was not necessarily stocked with the same genetic offspring even though they were the same strain.
all people in a family are not the same size so you can't say that randomly picking someone out of the family(which in fish, genetics vary to a much higher degree) will guarentee good genetics.
Steve could you explain why it would be impossible, in economical terms, to have one lake that was just stocked with Super Fish and only use this brood stock lake's best growing individuals for reproducing? (This question is intended to get answered because I honestly don't know)
I'm not trying to throw mud here, Just hoping to inform and learn.
| |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Steve why are you saying things like this.
"Keep in mind, we are not starting from scratch here, most of the waters that will support muskies already have a population. I also mentioned that simply introducing a super strain into a lake or river would not necessarily produce super tanker fish. I stand by that idea. "
Its too politcal of a statment. Just because it doesn't gurenteee it doesn't mean its not a VERY LIKELY Positive Possiblilty. INTRODUCING BETTER GENETIC FISH WILL PRODUCE BIGGER FISH PERIOD.
My goal is to produce better Musky fishing in WI, I'm not sure what your's is.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | "There IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will" I stand by that comment in the context of the argument at the time it was posted. Bob and Lockjaw were saying that if we strip only 50" fish, the offspring will all grow to 50" regardless of the waters in which they were stocked. No correlation in that context. Sure, in a perfect environment, there is, but that doesn't mean that a muskie that is 50" will produce ONLY adult females that are 50". Too many variables, and the male enters the equasion too. If you added 'possibly' to your second all caps statement, I'd agree 100%.
My argument is not at all one sided. I am simply stating that some lakes here DO put out big fish, and some do not. The stocking of those lakes was undertaken using 6 to 12" fish from the same hatchery, stripped from the same waters, and distributed through the stocking program here. Year class observations ( not single big fish) produce an AVERAGE year class female big fish catagory in some waters, yet not in others. What I'm trying to say is it isn't as simple to produce a trophy fishery as just stocking the 'right' fish, and that in may cases, the 'right' fish for one system may not be for another.
NO on the small lake question, I'm not saying that at all. Again, my example of Lake Goerge, a 500 acre lake that produces big girls because it is currently environmentally well suited to do so compared to a couple similar lakes that don't despite the fact they WERE stocked with the same strain, stripped from the same lakes, at the same time. So the basketball player anology doesn't fit logically. Same parents, same genetic sample raised the same year in the same hatchery from the same stripping of the same waters, yet one lake less than 3 miles from another similar lake produces big fish and two similar lakes do not.
The original subject here was accelerated evolution, by the way. The discussion accelerated and evolved faster than the fish, that's for sure!
I didn't say that a brood lake stocked with only genetically superior fish from say....Wabigoon, would be 'impossible' as in not biologically viable. I carefully qualified my statements with the reasons it probably won't happen anytime soon here, which are, not necessarily in order of previous posts:
1) Cost of running the program, probably at least two area managers and support staff to manage the project, acquiring the brood stock, designating a lake that will support the idea and getting that past those who live there. It would have to be a lake with no current muskie population and enough food existing for the muskies to do well, plus the availability for the fish to reproduce there, be relatively easily captured by Fyke net, etc.
2) OK, we get that done. How many adults can one raise from fry raised in a hatchery from this brood lake? Enough to stock hundreds of Wisconsin Muskie lakes with 12" fish? If we are talking about creating 'new' big fish waters, then that means we need to stock lakes that have NO muskies in them or that we stock lakes where natural reproduction doesn't occur; or that we somehow remove all the existing muskies in the lakes where we have natural reproduction to preserve the new strain from crossbreeding with the existing strian, which if it happened might actually produce a disaster. Just because a strain grows big doesn't mean it is suited well to compete and dominate the top predator spot any one system or another, quite the contrary. If we stock these fish in Pewaukee, they might not compete well with the Pike, existing population, etc. for the available forage, as an example. In other words, we don't even know how well this fish will adapt in many of our waters.
3) The State of Wisconsin doesn't have enough personnel, enough warm water hatchey facility ( I was a keynote after dinner speaker at a meeting of Natural Resources Fisheries Biologists not toooo awful long ago, and heard repeatedly about the need for more facilities, people, and money to properly manage the fisheries in the State), and enough money to start this program, much less bring it to reality. Budget cuts have already near gutted the DNR, Forestry, and other vital state organization's current ability to do much more than meet the status quo. Some rumor that the fisheries management here might cease to exist as we know it in the not too distant future if things don't get better soon. GOOOOO WISCONSIN ECONOMY!! New taxes on the Sportsman, maybe? Dedicated federal and state funds to create trophy muskie waters? Not too likely, I'm afraid. We are underfunded, and that's all there is to it.
As to the absolute slobs caught by earlier generations, that would be restricted to a few storied waters in the state, like the Chip. I think the fish caught there might have been as rare as hen's teeth even then. Was there a super strain that was lost completley to overharvest, or to a introduced strain better suited to dominate there? Maybe. Did the fishery crash due to any one of a host of variables like overharvest of a prey fish the muskies were reliant on? Maybe. I don't pretend to know. As far as Vilas and Oneida, and surrounding counties and big fish, the 'good old days' are right now. Look at Greg Bohn's 56.5, pretty nice fish! look at the pictures of the pigs from Vilas in the August/September/October picture contest. A 52" fish in the 50's was many times destined to be a 56" or even 60" by the time the story got into the 80's anyway. Now every fish picture is examined by sooo many folks it is either legit or blown out of the water right away.
Are the great lakes strain Muskies faster growing faster and do they get bigger than the barred if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL? I honestly think so, but Mille Lacs may just prove me to be wrong there.
By the way, I'm trying to do exacly what you stated in your last sentense myself!
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here you go, MuskieBum, from the Panel discussion including Scientists Hanson, Axon, Casselman, Haas, Schiavone, and Martin Smith from the Lakeland MI Chapter published in the book ' Managing Muskies', A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America :
Quote:
Wingate (1986) discussed past and present philosophies for muskkellunge management. Management goals generally fall within one of the following catagories:
1) preservation of a self-sustaining natural population
2) restoration ofa foremerly self sustaining natural population
3) managing a fishery for maximum recreational opportunity
4) increasing predator populations to control the abundance of a prey species
Under 1 and 2 a healthy, natural population is the primary concern, and angler use is allowed only to the extent as to not harm the resource. Management under catagory 3 will manipulate the maximise opportunityand stocking is considered an acceptable cost of doing business. 4 is merely a tool for managing other species, and hasn't worked well in many instances.'
End Quote
OK, part of the following discussion:
Quote;
'The Muskellunge has limited geographic distribution (Crossman 1978)and is maintained by supplemental stocking throughout much of it's range by stocking. (Ragan, et al, 1986, and Porter, 1977) It is therefore imperitive to preserve what is left of the 'wild' muskellunge resourse and not allow it to be available only as a domesticated fishery.
Most states/provinces manage muskellunge for 'trophy' sized fish.The definition of a trophy varies among anglers, depending on past experiences.While the anglers have the luxury of making personal definitions, managers neeed a clear biological definition of 'trophy management'.Three possible definitions for consideration are:
1) Management for maximum density of 30" fish
2) Management for a large percentage of individual fish to reach their potential ultimate sizes
3) Management to produce a world record size fish.
Management decisions under these definitions will differ greatly. For instance, under definition 3, genetic manipulation through selective breeding or bioengineering may be desirable, whereas, under definition 2, management will emphase maximum production within existing genetic constraints. Management for a high density may lead to reduced growth rates and would conflict with definition 2 and 3. Limited angling pressure in the past has allowed adequate management in the absence of a clear definition of the program goal; however, the future will not be so kind. Managers will need specific program objectives concerning the management philosophy as well as management goals regardint the desired density, size and age structure of populations.
RESEARCH NEEDS-Genetics-The subject of identification of genetic stocks of muskellunge has been of historical interest and is discussed by Crossman (l986). Despite this interest, little work has been done on stock identification and evaluation of stock characteristics until recently (Hanson et al. 1983, and Koppelman and Philipp 1986), and both need a great deal more study. Once identified, genetic diversity of self-sustaining populations needs to be preserved. The impact of stocking practices on the genetic diversity in natural populations is generally unknown. This problem needs attention, particularlily since the inability of hatcheries to handle large numbers of adults from many populations makes the muskellunge a candidate for inbreeding and inadvertent selective breeding.
Management agencies need to develop a policy for preservation of native stocks and their genetic suitability. Issues which should be addressed include documentation of present diversity, evaluation of the effect of management practices on diversity and identification of conditions under which selective breeding and genetic engineering should be considered. '
There's a good portion of the 'rub'. Introduction of a 'superior' strain's genetics into a system that already has a sustainable population of 'good' fish (Pelican Lake in Oneida County, for example) would probaly not be acceptable to most fisheries managers. The introduction of that same strain might create the scenario as described above: 'The impact of stocking practices on the genetic diversity in natural populations is generally unknown. This problem needs attention, particularlily since the inability of hatcheries to handle large numbers of adults from many populations makes the muskellunge a candidate for inbreeding and inadvertent selective breeding.'
Not to mention the additional strain already added to some lakes through supplemental stocking to date. The overall effect of adding another strain isn't known.
And, I still offer the point that some waters won't support a trophy muskie fishery and in fact don't now despite the fact a stocking that produced trophy fish in another lake produced only average muskies there. If indeed the Fisheries folks feel a lake has trophy potential, I'd be all for management towards that goal. If they feel the addition of say, the Great Lakes muskie, would be a benefit, I'd support that too, of course. That's exactly what was done in Green Bay, producing some pretty big fish so far. I have great hopes for the Winnebago system, too. MuskieBum, you asked what are my goals? To see the Muskie program in Wisconsin and across the country improved, and see the TOTAL management of both trophy quality fisheries and 'number' fisheries expanded. Same as most, I'd bet, but with at least a rudimentary acceptance of the political, social, and economic problems presented against achieving that goal as a resource today. First things first, let's get the 50" limit passed on 13 lakes in the North. According to Madison, we would know in as little as 5 years if that is working. Let's fund the study the effects of genetic manipulation in trophy muskie management and effects of inadvertant selective breeding and perhaps if applicable accelerated evolutionary pressures, and get more money designated to our fisheries departments. That might also do wonders for my sons job security.
All of us who are part of the Muskie world's social fabric also need to be keenly aware that not all others sharing the resources our Muskie waters represent understand or agree with our desired goals. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, those of us who would 'carry a torch' for change which will require adjustments for all who use the resource should do so with that firmly in mind. That might be called politics by some, to me it's social awareness.
Just the typo filled ramblings of an old muskie fanatic.
By the way, didn't the fisheries folks on the Great Lakes have a super strain of King Salmon stocked? How'd that go? Any monsters yet? That is a put and take fishery and the hybrid engineered superior King Salmon raised in a hatchery so it should by account of some arguments here, be a slam dunk. I have not heard what happened, anyone have that information?
I know the hybrid Bluegill work went very well, I've already experienced the success there by catching and eating a few. | |
| | |
| I'll register soon, I'm not a regular poster. My name is Bob Benson, I live in Chetek, Wisconsin. I've been spending most of my time fishing Minnesota - but I want to fish for Big Muskies in Misconsin.
"Bob now I may finally disagree with something you said. LOL. Where are you comming up with this data for the 5 year old fish??"
50 inch fish in 10 years is considered phenomenal growth rates. I've always heard this type of growth only happened in the south - like Kentucky. I've since found that it happens on a regular basis in Minnesota. I've also found cases of this in Wisconsin (example - 54 inches in 10 years in Wisconsin). This also happens in smaller lakes as well as larger lakes. I'm working to get more data here. If anyone has data please post it - I'm interested in the growth rates of large fish only. I'd like to compare the ages of 50 inch fish across regions.
I will contend that the largest fish are the first fish to be harvested, making later generations smaller - because we remove these fish first.
I am also coming to the conclusion that the supposed "First introduction" of Muskies into a body of water creates the largest fish with the following generations being smaller. This is also untrue. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe this is brought on by man harvesting the largest fish in the system leaving only smaller one's to breed. I'm watching this happen in Minesota now. The release ofall muskies is relatively high. What I see is many people keeping the largest fish. While release is 99% overall, 33% of the muskies I've heard over 54" have been harvested. (1 of 3) Some of this is secondhand information , and I know people will say this is a "small sample group". I say this a huge sample group for fish of that size and is representative of what happens everywhere.
| |
| | |
| Steve - I never stated or implied that all eggs taken from a 50" female will grow to 50 inches. (I didn't check this on the thread) What I'm trying to say is that eggs taken from a 50" female have a better chance of becoming 50" fish than eggs taken from a smaller female (say - 40") of the same or similar age. I feel we need to do this based on past and continued harvest of large fish. It only makes sense and can do no harm.
I will also dispute the fact that Lake and forage are the primary factor in growth rates. I base this on the study Minnesota DNR did in checking the growth of various strains. My interpretation of this study is that they stocked 4-5 different strains in a single body of water and got different growth rates for the different strains. If it was the lake and the forage - the growth would have been the same for all fish stocked. Feel free to correct me on this. Please chime in here you biology majors. I will agree that from the same group of eggs the lake and forage will have an effect on Size. But GENETICS come fist. If you stock a Shoepac muskie in Mille Lacs - will it grow to 50"??? Highly unlikely. Doesnt matter how much forage they have.
Give me a 55" female and a 48" male Muskie of ANY strain and i believe I can grow 50" muskies in any body of water in Wisconsin. What about all the 35" in those lakes now? They'll make a good forage base, for the fish I'll stock.
Questions for the Minnesota folks: Are there any lakes where the Leech fish fail to grow to lare sizes? I've got friends fishing small metro lakes and they seem to be encountering 50" fish on all of them.
| |
| | |
| Steve - you detailed the plan below it's a bunch of BS. Period. (sorry for stating that so strongly)
1) Cost of running the program, probably at least two area managers and support staff to manage the project, acquiring the brood stock, designating a lake that will support the idea and getting that past those who live there. It would have to be a lake with no current muskie population and enough food existing for the muskies to do well, plus the availability for the fish to reproduce there, be relatively easily captured by Fyke net, etc.
My Answer - we net the fish the same as we do today. No new personnel, just a new Brood lake.
2) OK, we get that done. How many adults can one raise from fry raised in a hatchery from this brood lake? Enough to stock hundreds of Wisconsin Muskie lakes with 12" fish? If we are talking about creating 'new' big fish waters, then that means we need to stock lakes that have NO muskies in them or that we stock lakes where natural reproduction doesn't occur; or that we somehow remove all the existing muskies in the lakes where we have natural reproduction to preserve the new strain from crossbreeding with the existing strian, which if it happened might actually produce a disaster. Just because a strain grows big doesn't mean it is suited well to compete and dominate the top predator spot any one system or another, quite the contrary. If we stock these fish in Pewaukee, they might not compete well with the Pike, existing population, etc. for the available forage, as an example. In other words, we don't even know how well this fish will adapt in many of our waters.
My reply - we use the same hatcherys as today. we leave the fish that are in the lakes alone. I'm not suggesting we get fish from, Leech, Wabigoon, or the great Lakes. (Although to be clear - I would not oppose it) I'm suggesting we only use the biggest fastest growing fish from our existing Wisconsin strain as Brood fish.
3) The State of Wisconsin doesn't have enough personnel, enough warm water hatchey facility ( I was a keynote after dinner speaker at a meeting of Natural Resources Fisheries Biologists not toooo awful long ago, and heard repeatedly about the need for more facilities, people, and money to properly manage the fisheries in the State), and enough money to start this program, much less bring it to reality. Budget cuts have already near gutted the DNR, Forestry, and other vital state organization's current ability to do much more than meet the status quo. Some rumor that the fisheries management here might cease to exist as we know it in the not too distant future if things don't get better soon. GOOOOO WISCONSIN ECONOMY!! New taxes on the Sportsman, maybe? Dedicated federal and state funds to create trophy muskie waters? Not too likely, I'm afraid. We are underfunded, and that's all there is to it.
My reply - We need to be smarter with our limited resources and budget. By taking eggs from the best fish available, we will be doing just that.
In Summary - there are two places we have a chance to affect our fisheries when we PUT fish in and when we TAKE them out.
I strongly feel we need to start focusing on the genetics at the beginning of the process. I'd love to see 58" size limits on trophy lakes - but it's not going to happen any time soon. I don't even feel it's necessary if we do the right things when we stock fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Thanks for the answers. OK, let me get this straight.
1) You are suggesting that Wisconsin strips spawn only from 'young' fish of trophy stature. Is that correct?
2) You suggest we have a brood lake to do this from. How does the state accomplish that? What lake? Where do the fish come from to stock this lake or does this lake already exist? What about the muskies already IN that lake, wouldn't they interbreed if we are to 'create' the strain were looking for? Which hatchery would raise the fish?
3) You are stating that a 1 in 3 kill ratio of the biggest fish caught by angling from any particular lake will cause accelerated evolution?
4) You feel that with the budget the DNR has today they could radically alter the muskie stocking program, and that the idea would be accepted by the CC and the area fish managers? That stripping spawn from one lake would give the state enough muskies to stock at the rate they do currently?
4) You feel Leech Lake strain would be successful anywhere they are stocked and grow to trophy sizes? Same applies to Wisconsin strains that grow fast and get big? Didn't some Illinois waters get stocked with that strain and the project failed? I remember something about that, any insight form someone familiar with what happened there?
4) You feel that forage, water quality, chemistry, and all the other environmental factors that make up the waters you would have the fish stocked in would not effect maximum size or growth rates? Or are you saying that all things equal no matter how infertile the system, that one strain from Northern Wisconsin will out do another and grow to trophy size?
5) You do not think that offspring from 50" fish would all reach 50". I stand corrected. How much of an effect would your plan actually have on the lake's total population assuming stockings of perhaps 1 fish per acre every other year that are added to the naturally reproducing population already in place? How would they differ? Should those fish that are not 'superior' and do NOT reach trophy size from the stocked fish be allowed to breed, and how would that be checked? How much a percentage of the adults stocked reaching trophy size is acceptable?
6) Are you suggesting that all fish are aged before stripping them for spawn?
7) Are you going to answer the continuous question that I asked:
Why does the same stocked fish, from the same lake, stripped during the same spring, raised at the same hatchery, grow to 50" in one lake, and only low 40" class in others?
8) Where are the biggest, fastest growing fish in Wisconsin? What lakes should we use for stripping spawn? What strain are these fish, and how do they differ genetically from fish in 'other' areas? Shoepac aside, that one is out of the discussion for obvious reasons and is a Minnesota strain anyway.
9) How many muskies do you suppose the Wisconsin DNR stocks per year?
OK, that will do for questions for now.
Answers:
We BOTH agree with some Wisconsin fisheries folks that there should be lakes in Wisconsin that are trophy only or at least managed for trophy fish. I'd like to see 54", but we couldn't pass FIFTY on LIMITED water, for cripes sake. I won't ignore the social and political reality here, and I'm baffled why you think you can. THE 50" PROPOSAL CAN PASS, but it will take a temendous amount of PR work.
The Wisconsin State budget stinks. Money is really tight. What I was saying and am saying is that your proposal for a new brood stock lake if one follows the parameters you laid out from the beginning for management practices of 'trophy only' muskies would cost extra money. I have contacted three biologists from the state and will report back with what I'm told.
FSF said it well. Re-read his post, it's pretty well presented, in my opinion.
No problem with the BS comment, but your answers didn't explain why my ideas were BS, they simply offered a different perspective with little information as to how it would be executed and attain what you are looking for. I'll refrain from calling your ideas BS if you will refrain from caling mine BS, deal?
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | What we need is a cost benefit analysis to see if Bob’s idea is worth while. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Steve’s point is that it wouldn’t be.
It will cost more money to strip eggs from large females only. It is unrealistic to age them first, but getting eggs from only large females would be a possibility. But how much time and effort is required to get eggs from large females only. Big muskies are few and far between and whether we are trying to catch them hook and line or with a net they are harder to catch.
I can see Bobs point of trying to saturate the gene pool of stocked fish with fish that have big fish potential. It makes sense and I don’t think you would need to do it in a perfectly controlled environment just get those big fish genes out there in the lakes. If you stock 1 fish per acre for 10 years and those fish all have big fish potential it’s better than stocking 1 fish per acre with some of them not carrying that propensity for bigness. Also all the offspring of those fish would also carry that propensity. I don’t see a down side of that other than the initial cost of stripping.
One source I have says adult muskies carry between 22,000 and 180,000 eggs. That means one big fish is like getting over 8 smaller ones. When they do get the big ones in the net, they do save some time by having to strip less fish for the same amount of eggs. Now remember at the time of stripping, age is not known. So a young 42” female may have the big fish potential while an old 42” fish of the same size may not. But it’s pretty obvious that a 50” fish has the potential, though after aging it may be found that 50” fish is 30 years old and the hatchery just got 180,000+/- eggs with the slow growing genes.
There is no perfect way to do this, but the best way would be to develop some high density trophy waters and use those waters as brood stock lakes. Maybe the high limit could be applied to these lakes to protect the brood stock, like Mn does it. Of course the waters would need to have the make up to be able to sustain a high density trophy fishery. When this is establish please line me up at the landing.
But really to get this going all that needs to be done is establish these lakes with high limits. If they take off like everyone says they will, it would be a no brainer for the DNR to start netting these lakes for stripping. By doing this Bobs plan could maybe be implemented without any additional cost. The key is ESTABLISHING these lakes.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just finished a conversation with the fisheries people in Madison. Here's a synopsis:
Q) Are there several strains of muskies planted in Wisconsin waters, and if so, what are they?
A) We stock the northern strain in all waters except Green Bay and the Winnebago system. Those fish are Great Lake strain and are obtained from lake St. Claire. Winnebago is being managed to reintroduce a muskie population there.
Q) Why are spotted fish not stocked in inland waters? Wouldn't we get larger fish as a result?
A) We have a policy to keep the strain in inland waters seperate. There is nothing wrong with the genetics of the fish we are stocking in inland waters. Most of the waters managed for muskies that have trophy potential are not producing trophy fish because of harvest. Many of the larger fish are harvested before they can reach trophy size. Lakes where catch and release is doing well are producing big fish. Some waters are not managed for trophies, and are not well suited to produce big fish. Q) I like those lakes, I call them 'numbers lakes'.A) Yes, one lake I fish has great numbers but very rarely produces a muskie trophy sized, but I catch as many as 5 muskies a day. Some lakes are not at all well suited to support large muskies, but we continue to manage them for muskies anyway.
Q) There is a strong desire by some of us to see trophy management with a 50" size limit on appropriate Wisconsin waters. I felt the poposal two years ago was pushed through to the Spring hearings before the public was informed well. Is there going to be a continuing effort to promote and develop 'trophy waters' in Wisconsin?
A) Yes. We have made some headway with public support in the North and Northwest and locally as well.
Q) There is a discussion now online about accelerated evolution. Do you feel that there is an effect on the Wisconsin muskie population from overharvest of large fish?
A) No. Of course, in any fisheries management program there's a danger of overharvest of the fish that grow the fastest, as they reach large size more rapidly. This scenario much easier to develop in the lab than in the field. We are very aware of the biology there, and do manage the fishery to avoid it. Our fisheries managers make sure that we acquire spawn from varying systems, size and age groups, generally assuring good genetic traits. We do not feel the muskie population is in any danger of experiencing this.
Q) Some here feel if we just stocked our waters with a different and better strain we would see immediate benefits and larger fish. What do you think of that idea, perhaps using Leech Lake strain for example?
A) We tried that in a few systems, and had very poor success. Our resident fish are well adapted to our State waters, but the others we tried were not and didn't do very well. We have excellent potential with the fish we have.
Q) Do we need another source for good fish to stock, another brood lake for example?
A) We have very good genetics in our resident population. We need to continue to encourage Catch and Release on waters where there is trophy potential. The muskie fishing overall is better now than it has been in decades. The 'good old days of Muskie fishing' in Wisconsin are now and into the future.
Tomorrow I am interviewing the top Wisconsin Muskellunge manager if I can get through to him and will post the conversation. | |
| | |
| sworrall - 11/1/2004 2:26 PM
Bob,
Thanks for the answers. OK, let me get this straight.
1) You are suggesting that Wisconsin strips spawn only from 'young' fish of trophy stature. Is that correct?
Reply - Close. I'd say fish that are above the typical growth curve. I'm stting the bar at 50" and 10 years old. 55inchers of any age will be milked. Realistically, I'd suggest starting immediately, no females under 45" be milked, and no males under 37". This should be done whether or not we have a new brood stock lake, but the 45" and 37" size are too small for the "super brood lake".
2) You suggest we have a brood lake to do this from. How does the state accomplish that? What lake? Where do the fish come from to stock this lake or does this lake already exist? What about the muskies already IN that lake, wouldn't they interbreed if we are to 'create' the strain were looking for? Which hatchery would raise the fish?
Reply: We have many lakes to choose from. Over here I like the Chetek chain and Long Lake north of here. Both lakes with no muskies - or virtually none. This is probably the biggest hurdle - politically. I think we should choose alake with very few or no muskies. The fish will come from BIG Muskies netted from Grindstone Lake, Chippewa Flowage, LCO, Wisconsin River, Pelican Lake, etc. I will accept DNR input if they don't want to cross fish from the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages. We will use the same hatchery as we are using now for the bone lake fish. Same in NE Wisconsin if we have to divide it by drainage.
3) You are stating that a 1 in 3 kill ratio of the biggest fish caught by angling from any particular lake will cause accelerated evolution?
From small Lakes - Yes without a doubt. From large lakes - Yes with only a little doubt. If we do have 99% release, the harvest rate on fish with good Genes is 33 Times higher than the fish with small genes. MY ANSWER TO THIS IS YES!!!!!!
4) You feel that with the budget the DNR has today they could radically alter the muskie stocking program, and that the idea would be accepted by the CC and the area fish managers? That stripping spawn from one lake would give the state enough muskies to stock at the rate they do currently?
Reply: If the DNR is catching large fish today, I don't feel there will be any add'l cost. Personally I feel they are not catching large fish today. For that reason they will need to tweak their current netting program and this will be the only change in costs. I feel that they will need larger nets. I also believe MI clubs will band together and build/buy these nets if requested. I believe that they will need to net different lakes than Bone -but they already net lakes like Grindstone etc. already. If they need assistance in checking nets, I suggest they ask MI clubs for assistance. There will be no change in costs after eggs/milt are gathered. NONE. My understandin is that the biggest cost is raising the fish not netting them.
4) You feel Leech Lake strain would be successful anywhere they are stocked and grow to trophy sizes? Same applies to Wisconsin strains that grow fast and get big? Didn't some Illinois waters get stocked with that strain and the project failed? I remember something about that, any insight form someone familiar with what happened there?
Reply I'd prefer to stay out of the strain discussion - Let me say that if we are taking eggs from 37" Leech fish that are the same age as 37" Wisconsin fish, I believe they will end up at the same size. The 5 year old 47.5 inch fish was grown in Illinois and was from Leech stock. I thinl it would be easier to take Leech or Great Lakes fish, but I think we can achieve the same results - and eventually better by singling out the largets fish of ANY strain.
4) You feel that forage, water quality, chemistry, and all the other environmental factors that make up the waters you would have the fish stocked in would not effect maximum size or growth rates? Or are you saying that all things equal no matter how infertile the system, that one strain from Northern Wisconsin will out do another and grow to trophy size?
Reply - I feel that forage and the environmental factors are secondary to genetics. I believe that a fish with 55" genes will grow to 57" in Mille LACs with unlimited forage and 53" in the Tiger cat Flowage where food is sparse. These fish will differ more in weight than in length. If you believe the World records, I'd say that Wisconsin is the best strain. If you don't believe the records, I still say there were way more 52" plus fish in the old days. I'm saying I don't care - we'll get bigger fish either way.
5) You do not think that offspring from 50" fish would all reach 50". I stand corrected. How much of an effect would your plan actually have on the lake's total population assuming stockings of perhaps 1 fish per acre every other year that are added to the naturally reproducing population already in place? How would they differ? Should those fish that are not 'superior' and do NOT reach trophy size from the stocked fish be allowed to breed, and how would that be checked? How much a percentage of the adults stocked reaching trophy size is acceptable?
Reply - this will depend on the natural reproduction in the individual lakes. You credit a lot of your big fish to DNR stocking. I truly believe thaat you will be catching, more big fish in 6 years. I truly believe that 10 years after we start this I will never need to fish in Minnesota again. We cannot control breeding other than in our "brood lake".
I believe 100% of the female muskie that is stocked from the eggs of a 10 year old 50 inch female will reach 50 inches by age 20 - regardless of where we stock them. This should be our goal.
6) Are you suggesting that all fish are aged before stripping them for spawn?
reply: If it is possible - yes. absolutely. If not we need to focus on the largest fish. I could ramble on about Isolating, the fat and stupid genes too, but that is best done over a few beers.
7) Are you going to answer the continuous question that I asked:
Why does the same stocked fish, from the same lake, stripped during the same spring, raised at the same hatchery, grow to 50" in one lake, and only low 40" class in others?
reply) tough question. It'd be easier if we had no big fish in WI, but we do. Too many variables to say for sure, but with better fish stocked you will be asking why they grow to 57" in one lake and only low 50" in the other.
8) Where are the biggest, fastest growing fish in Wisconsin? What lakes should we use for stripping spawn? What strain are these fish, and how do they differ genetically from fish in 'other' areas? Shoepac aside, that one is out of the discussion for obvious reasons and is a Minnesota strain anyway.
Reply) I've seen evidence of large fast growing fish in the Chip (the "Jaws" were from a 58" fish that was around 15 years old. if I remember right). Certainly the 50" lakes in Haywardare good places to start. The Wisconsin river stands out as well.
9) How many muskies do you suppose the Wisconsin DNR stocks per year?
Reply) don't know. But I don't think we need more muskies. Just Bigger Muskies. Minnesota and Ontario need bigger Muskies too. I'll state this again- places like Eagle Lake, LOTW, Wabigoon and Lac Seul had the biggest harvest of the biggest Muskies in the early days - and the biggest fish never came back(to the extent they were there before harvest. I know some people like to say that all the big fish from the old days were "bogus". I'm starting to be convinced that this is not the case.
Back on the topic - I'm seeing no change here in the numbers of fish stocked - the only change is the fish we take the eggs from. If we have budget issues (and I'm sure we do) all this becomes more important, not less. Bigger fish are better breeders(Uh-Oh that's a whole different can of worms) and stocking better fish will let us rely less on stocking.
OK, that will do for questions for now.
Answers:
We BOTH agree with some Wisconsin fisheries folks that there should be lakes in Wisconsin that are trophy only or at least managed for trophy fish. I'd like to see 54", but we couldn't pass FIFTY on LIMITED water, for cripes sake. I won't ignore the social and political reality here, and I'm baffled why you think you can. THE 50" PROPOSAL CAN PASS, but it will take a temendous amount of PR work.
Reply) The political troubles are why we should pursue selective breeding - no one will care if we change how we get our eggs.
The Wisconsin State budget stinks. Money is really tight. What I was saying and am saying is that your proposal for a new brood stock lake if one follows the parameters you laid out from the beginning for management practices of 'trophy only' muskies would cost extra money. I have contacted three biologists from the state and will report back with what I'm told.
Reply) Please provide details on costs. I can't deal with "It would cost too much." That's what drew the "BS" remark. Finding the Brood stock lake is the hardest thing.
FSF said it well. Re-read his post, it's pretty well presented, in my opinion.
I'll go back and look.
No problem with the BS comment, but your answers didn't explain why my ideas were BS, they simply offered a different perspective with little information as to how it would be executed and attain what you are looking for. I'll refrain from calling your ideas BS if you will refrain from caling mine BS, deal?
;)
Reply - I agree, I appreciate the debate as it helps to fine-tune my argument. | |
| | |
| Steve - I really appreciate the info from the DNR. I do object to some of the responses. Regarding genetic evolution as easy to create in a Lab??? It happens in the ATLANTIC OCEAN!!!!!!! And quickly.
As far as their trial of others strains - I'd love to debate that one, but won't do it on a website. maybe we can hook up and talk to the DNR about this sometime. I think you may be surprised. Can you get any information on the size structure of the Great Lakes Muskies in the brood lake over there? Let's compare those to Bone Lake fish.
You need to balance the questions better. Asking the same questions, get the same answers. These guy's work for the government so they give politically correct answers.
Please ask these questions of each DNR guy you talk to:
1. Do all muskies in the same lake exhibit the same growth rate?
2. Do you feel that eggs from a 10 year old 50 inch female will produce larger offspring (as adults) than a 10 year old 40 inch female?
3. Which of these two fish is more likely to get harvested and will contribute to the gene pool for a shorter period of time?
| |
| | |
| Steve - please note that the DNR did not answer your question about whether stocking Spotted Muskies will produce larger Muskies. (politics)
It also seems as though they feel harvest of large fish is a real problem. But then they state that there is no effect? Interesting.....but I don't buy it.
Also - they suggest that they currently take spawn from varying age groups? Do they age them in the field today?
Do they take records of the different sizes, sytems and Age groups as they state? Can I see those records? If they don't take records - How DO They Know This? Do they assume big fish are old and all small fish are young like we did in the 1920's?
Yes, I always have more questions - and again I appreciate your answers. THANKS!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks, sir. A preliminary response, before I run all this past the gentleman I intend to interview tomorrow. We'll see how close I am to the mark, I guess!
a)
1) You are suggesting that Wisconsin strips spawn only from 'young' fish of trophy stature. Is that correct?
Reply - Close. I'd say fish that are above the typical growth curve. I'm stting the bar at 50" and 10 years old. 55inchers of any age will be milked. Realistically, I'd suggest starting immediately, no females under 45" be milked, and no males under 37". This should be done whether or not we have a new brood stock lake, but the 45" and 37" size are too small for the "super brood lake".
Question) Where is the DNR to find the fish you seek? How does the DNR identify the fish which is above the average gorwth curve? How does the DNR age the fish on the spot? Are you saying that a viable 44" fish from water that produces 50" plus fish through natural reproduction is not going to pass those genetic traits on? If you are saying that, please provide some sort of existibng scientific literature that will support that idea.
b)
2) You suggest we have a brood lake to do this from. How does the state accomplish that? What lake? Where do the fish come from to stock this lake or does this lake already exist? What about the muskies already IN that lake, wouldn't they interbreed if we are to 'create' the strain were looking for? Which hatchery would raise the fish?
Reply: We have many lakes to choose from. Over here I like the Chetek chain and Long Lake north of here. Both lakes with no muskies - or virtually none. This is probably the biggest hurdle - politically. I think we should choose alake with very few or no muskies. The fish will come from BIG Muskies netted from Grindstone Lake, Chippewa Flowage, LCO, Wisconsin River, Pelican Lake, etc. I will accept DNR input if they don't want to cross fish from the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages. We will use the same hatchery as we are using now for the bone lake fish. Same in NE Wisconsin if we have to divide it by drainage.
Q) Why are the lakes you have mentioned not currently managed for Muskies?
Q) It takes more than one facility and way more than one source of spawn to meet current management goals, how would you provide a large enough supply from one hatchery and only fish 45" or larger?
c)
3) You are stating that a 1 in 3 kill ratio of the biggest fish caught by angling from any particular lake will cause accelerated evolution?
From small Lakes - Yes without a doubt. From large lakes - Yes with only a little doubt. If we do have 99% release, the harvest rate on fish with good Genes is 33 Times higher than the fish with small genes. MY ANSWER TO THIS IS YES!!!!!!
Answer) The DNR folks I spoke to today are very aware of the concept, but do not feel what you are saying is at all accurate. I'll go with their assessment at this point. Maybe the States lead Muskie manager will shed new light on this subject tomorrow or Wednesday.
d)
4) You feel that with the budget the DNR has today they could radically alter the muskie stocking program, and that the idea would be accepted by the CC and the area fish managers? That stripping spawn from one lake would give the state enough muskies to stock at the rate they do currently?
Reply: If the DNR is catching large fish today, I don't feel there will be any add'l cost. Personally I feel they are not catching large fish today. For that reason they will need to tweak their current netting program and this will be the only change in costs. I feel that they will need larger nets. I also believe MI clubs will band together and build/buy these nets if requested. I believe that they will need to net different lakes than Bone -but they already net lakes like Grindstone etc. already. If they need assistance in checking nets, I suggest they ask MI clubs for assistance. There will be no change in costs after eggs/milt are gathered. NONE. My understandin is that the biggest cost is raising the fish not netting them.
Q) Why would the net need to be larger? Fyke nets employ a 'lead' that is placed in the water out from the net like a fence. The muskies contact and then swim along the lead through a series of 'funnels' into the last bag on the net. Some actually get 'trapped' in the first. The net size doesn't have anything to do with the size or quality of the fish captured, to my knowledge. I'm absolutely certain the DNR will not allow just anyone to strip muskies, or work on a netting crew. I'm also absolutely certain that the DNR IS netting, stripping, and raising muskies from large fish, just not exclusively so. Why is that a bad thing to do?
e)
4) You feel that forage, water quality, chemistry, and all the other environmental factors that make up the waters you would have the fish stocked in would not effect maximum size or growth rates? Or are you saying that all things equal no matter how infertile the system, that one strain from Northern Wisconsin will out do another and grow to trophy size?
Reply - I feel that forage and the environmental factors are secondary to genetics. I believe that a fish with 55" genes will grow to 57" in Mille LACs with unlimited forage and 53" in the Tiger cat Flowage where food is sparse. These fish will differ more in weight than in length. If you believe the World records, I'd say that Wisconsin is the best strain. If you don't believe the records, I still say there were way more 52" plus fish in the old days. I'm saying I don't care - we'll get bigger fish either way.
The fisheries folks I talked to today spoke more of harvest VS CPR to grow big fish where they can be grown, and that some systems plane will not support big fish, or produce fish over 48" much less 53". The statement was 'There is nothing wrong with the genetics of the fish we are stocking today'. They tried Leech Lake fish, and those attemts to have a population successfully 'take' failed here. OK, that one seems to be setteled.
f)
5) You do not think that offspring from 50" fish would all reach 50". I stand corrected. How much of an effect would your plan actually have on the lake's total population assuming stockings of perhaps 1 fish per acre every other year that are added to the naturally reproducing population already in place? How would they differ? Should those fish that are not 'superior' and do NOT reach trophy size from the stocked fish be allowed to breed, and how would that be checked? How much a percentage of the adults stocked reaching trophy size is acceptable?
Reply - this will depend on the natural reproduction in the individual lakes. You credit a lot of your big fish to DNR stocking. I truly believe thaat you will be catching, more big fish in 6 years. I truly believe that 10 years after we start this I will never need to fish in Minnesota again. We cannot control breeding other than in our "brood lake".
I believe 100% of the female muskie that is stocked from the eggs of a 10 year old 50 inch female will reach 50 inches by age 20 - regardless of where we stock them. This should be our goal.
Q) So you are saying that our lakes should all be 'put and take'only? there's no way to stop the inbreeding of fish already in the stocked system, and natural selection may work against your superfish in some systems. What about those points?
f)
6) Are you suggesting that all fish are aged before stripping them for spawn?
reply: If it is possible - yes. absolutely. If not we need to focus on the largest fish. I could ramble on about Isolating, the fat and stupid genes too, but that is best done over a few beers.
Q) Fat and stupid genes? Talking mammals here, I presume. I am assured that aging the fish on the boat at the time they are being stripped would not be possible. I'll check this with the Biologist tomorrow or Wednesday.
g)
7) Are you going to answer the continuous question that I asked:
Why does the same stocked fish, from the same lake, stripped during the same spring, raised at the same hatchery, grow to 50" in one lake, and only low 40" class in others?
reply) tough question. It'd be easier if we had no big fish in WI, but we do. Too many variables to say for sure, but with better fish stocked you will be asking why they grow to 57" in one lake and only low 50" in the other.
Comment: I am absolutely certain this isn't going to be proven to be fact. If I'm wrong, I'll owe you a steak dinner! I'm betting I'm not.
h)
8) Where are the biggest, fastest growing fish in Wisconsin? What lakes should we use for stripping spawn? What strain are these fish, and how do they differ genetically from fish in 'other' areas? Shoepac aside, that one is out of the discussion for obvious reasons and is a Minnesota strain anyway.
Reply) I've seen evidence of large fast growing fish in the Chip (the "Jaws" were from a 58" fish that was around 15 years old. if I remember right). Certainly the 50" lakes in Hayward are good places to start. The Wisconsin river stands out as well.
Q) Why are there no fish caught in the Chip like the one the 'jaws' were recovered from? Where are they, why are they not fyke netted or caught or shocked?
i)
We BOTH agree with some Wisconsin fisheries folks that there should be lakes in Wisconsin that are trophy only or at least managed for trophy fish. I'd like to see 54", but we couldn't pass FIFTY on LIMITED water, for cripes sake. I won't ignore the social and political reality here, and I'm baffled why you think you can. THE 50" PROPOSAL CAN PASS, but it will take a temendous amount of PR work.
Reply) The political troubles are why we should pursue selective breeding - no one will care if we change how we get our eggs
Q) If the limit is not raised to over 50", and the fish you stock are harvested in a 1 to 3 ratio (I disagree, we'll see what the lead biologist thinks), by your own claim this entire project will collapse due to accelerated evolution and natural selection. You had BETTER be ready for tremendous resistance and a very rough road with the Conservation Congress to educate the general public as to why we need to do ANYTHING other than what we are doing. How long does it normally take to get a proposal from the public on the Conservation Congress ballot? First things first, get the limit on trophy waters to 50" maybe?
OK, last:
FSF said it well. Re-read his post, it's pretty well presented, in my opinion.
Comment: Yup. Answers most of the direct concerns pretty well.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Steve - please note that the DNR did not answer your question about whether stocking Spotted Muskies will produce larger Muskies. (politics)
It also seems as though they feel harvest of large fish is a real problem. But then they state that there is no effect? Interesting.....but I don't buy it.
Also - they suggest that they currently take spawn from varying age groups? Do they age them in the field today?
Do they take records of the different sizes, sytems and Age groups as they state? Can I see those records? If they don't take records - How DO They Know This? Do they assume big fish are old and all small fish are young like we did in the 1920's?
Yes, I always have more questions - and again I appreciate your answers. THANKS!!!!!
1) Yes they did. He clearly said that they tried the Leech Lake strain and that the attempts failed.
2)Actually, he said that they were aware of the biology behind accelerated evolution and take the necessary steps to guarantee genetic stability in the stocking and management programs. He did say he felt there was no evolutionary acceleration in the Wisconsin Muskie fishery. They are aware of it, manage to be certain it isn't an issue, and the management folks are comfortable that it isn't.
3) They age the fish using scales taken during sampling and stripping. They also do the same in the fyke net sampling and boom shocking sampling that have to do with population estimates, and can correlate the data. I don't know where that data is kept, but it is important to the overall management program, I'm sure. More tomorrow when I talk to the biologist from up here. | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
No. I am not crabby. If there is one thing I do not like about internet message boards its this. Too many times, too many people interpret or perceive comments in the wrong way. We have all done it at times. Its way too easy to get a negative feeling from a comment from someone when you can't talk verbally or eye to eye and especially if there is a difference of opinions. I just wanted you to either post or tell us where we could see the data you were refering to is all. No hard feelings here. I think this is one of the most important topics ever discussed on this site. The bottom line is that I am very interested in it and only want the same as the rest of us want. Better fishing, larger fish, and more of them. I'm sure we would agree on that. Bob has some very good ideas here. Its something I think we should really take a honest look at. A different strategy for stocking Wi waters could turn out to be beneficial to everyone including the money strapped DNR. We can't be so fast to just toss it aside because of the challenges that will arise. Not everything we want comes easy. Getting 50" size limits on selected waters in Wi is evidence of this. My god, if we can send people into outer space I don't understand why an idea like this should be looked upon as unrealistic and not even be considered. This is exactly the kind of thing we need and should be looking in to. New, fresh, creative and different ideas on how we can improve the muskie fishing in Wi. There has to be a better way of doing things than what we are currently doing to get the results we want and we should never quit trying to come up with better ideas.
____
I'm still Nuts about muskie fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please ask these questions of each DNR guy you talk to:
1. Do all muskies in the same lake exhibit the same growth rate?
2. Do you feel that eggs from a 10 year old 50 inch female will produce larger offspring (as adults) than a 10 year old 40 inch female?
3. Which of these two fish is more likely to get harvested and will contribute to the gene pool for a shorter period of time?
1) I'll ask the question, but the answer is obvious. No. I'm pretty sure there isn't any organism that consistent in the fish world.
2) I'll ask that question, but perhaps you're assuming the DNR can age the fish while stripping them. I am pretty sure they can't, it's done later using scale samples from each group of fish, as I understand things.
3) The biologist answered that question today I think, but I'll ask again tomorrow. Now I have a question for you. If the limit is set at 50" on that lake after you introduce your super strain fish, wouldn't BOTH fish contribute equally and perhaps forever to the pool? if the limit ISN'T set at 50" or better, and accelerated evolution is in play as you feel it is, wouldn't the introduction of a class of fish that ENCOURAGES harvest make the problem worse?Does natural selection always favor the biggest, fastest growing critter?
This is the most fun I've had in weeks. It's fun to exercise the old grey matter. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
Agreed and I apologize, I WAS crabby.
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
Likewise | |
| | |
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | I am glad to see that this discussion is back to being civil. I don't think they actually were out of line but were begining to be perceived that way.
This is way to interesting and important of a topic to have it turn south and run the risk of being pulled. Bob brings up some interesting subjects that I think deserve more investigation. I have to admit that I know Bob and we have discussed some of these ideas before but not at great length.. I can assure you though that Bob has nothing but the best intentions. He is a stand up guy who wants nothing more than to have the greatest fisheries we can have.
I would encourage more people from this board to add to the discussion. There are some great fisherman here who have fished all over the country in different systems. Please add your thoughts.
| |
| | |
| The only thing my limited knowledge can contribute to this discussion is the boom/crash scenario in lakes. As discussed before an example is in the late 70's and early 80's Big and Mid McKenzie was in a boom era. The DNR stripped fish in Mid every spring because I watched them a couple of times. I have not fished there for many years because of a living location change but it sounds as if they have crashed. The fish in these lakes during the boom were very impressive. I didn't kill fish even back then but I caught a 48 incher on Big one fall that is still the heaviest 48 inch I have ever caught. (I had a picture but can't find it)The fish from the McKenzies were stocked in the lake I now fish (very pleasant coincdence) These fish are so big for their length that I have learned to automatically subtract 2 inches from estimated lengths because they have such a big girth it throws guessamates off. I caught a 53 incher on the stocked lake and it DID have the exact same markings of the 48 inch out of Big McKenzie. Should I be worried that my stocked lake may crash like McKenzie did??????? Yes I am. Don't really know if I should be because I don't understand if the genetics cause the crash or if it is the system. Wish I did know however. | |
| | |
| Steve - I did some homework. For the record:
I can find no information related to poor success of other strains of fish. All information I can find points to other strains of fish growing faster and larger in Wisconsin than the Wisconsin strains do.
Do you or the DNR have evidence to refute this? Please provide if you do.
I did not want to take this discussion into strains of fish, but I don't want to let some of the previous dismissals of other strains pass. The DNR has told me what they tell you, but their own data tells another story. I will not take the DNR's word on any of this - I want facts.
| |
| | |
| sworrall - 11/1/2004 8:25 PM
"Now I have a question for you. If the limit is set at 50" on that lake after you introduce your super strain fish, wouldn't BOTH fish contribute equally and perhaps forever to the pool? if the limit ISN'T set at 50" or better, and accelerated evolution is in play as you feel it is, wouldn't the introduction of a class of fish that ENCOURAGES harvest make the problem worse?Does natural selection always favor the biggest, fastest growing critter?"
Steve - I Won't be able to get to everything but:
Steve - it was actually you that lead me to believe we could age fish in the field. If we can't, let's just use big fish. I still believe we can age fish in the field.
I'm glad to see we won't need new nets - I'm stating there will be no additional costs. I see questions, but if we are using the same hatcheries and producing the same number of fish (I'm ok with less fish) there should be no additional costs. We will use these fish everywhere. there is no reason not to.
When we stock muskies taken from large fish they will be able to breed with the "smaller muskies" that are in that lake - that is true. I believe we are just evening the playing field because small muskies are harvested less than big ones. More big fish will likely encourage more harvest. Let's get more big fish as we work on the harvest issues - I'm sure we are both OK with that.
I will say that if the DNR believes there is an overabundance of Muskies in any given lake, I feel they should have a maximum size limit and encourage harvest of fish in the 30-40 inch range. The BIG FISH MUST STAY. In some lakes - I would like to see a "genetic cleansing" of small fish. This may be going off the deep end, and would not be something I'd reccomend unless the selective breeding concept is proven to work in the field. Then I think it should be expanded to other species as well as possibly removing small unwanted breeders.
| |
| | |
| I'm looking for evidence of Lakes where Leech or Great Lakes strain muskies have been stocked, but rarely exceed the low 40 inch range. I cannot find such lakes. I know there are lakes with Shoepac strain that do this, but can't find evidence of Leech or great lakes fish doing this. Surely there must have been a stocking in a lake without suitable forage at least once.
Minnesota DNR - please help!!! Thanks.
| |
| | |
| MuskieMachinery - Big Mckenzie has a history of Big fish. Don't know what could have caused a collapse. your post sent me to the compendium where I see a picture of a 57 inch 60 pounder caught out of season. a few pages later I see a picture of a 55 pounder from Hunter Lake (126 acres 17 feet deep, 5 ft mean depth.) I assume Hunter is now full of 34" fish - WHAT HAPPENED???????
The whole area around Big Mac has a history of big fish (Lake 26, yellow River, etc.).....If your fish came from Big Mac a while ago, I'd try to prevent fish from anywhere else being stocked in there.
Funny - The DNR say's we should not expect to have muskies like these in Wisconsin. I say we SHOULD EXPECT NOTHING LESS!!!!!!
If we keep doing the same thing year after year, we will get the same results year after year.
Folks - you all need to go re-read the compendium with an open mind on the genetics issue. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Keep your shorts on. I'm interviewing the leading experts as rapidly as I can get to them, including Minnesota. You'll get facts, probably more than you want. PLEASE quit implying that the DNR here in Wisconsin is somehow not being truthful or is intentionally misleading us. I've found nothing to suggest that yet, in fact everyone I've talked to has been very forthcoming. More to come, patience, dude. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's keep this conversation moderate and acquire the facts as rapidly as possible so we all can make an accurate value judgement.
This is a great subject. We'll see what the experts say very soon. | |
| | |
Posts: 1189
Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | 'There is nothing wrong with the genetics of the fish we are stocking today'. They tried Leech Lake fish, and those attemts to have a population successfully 'take' failed here.
Curios about this comment.
Wasnt Lake Nancy a success??
I cant remember the county but it's up in the Trego/Minong area, stocked with Leech Strain, opened to a musky season in 1997 (??)......thought growth rates were very positive.....??
Why didnt Lake Nancy "take" with Leech lake Strain fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | The DNR seems consistent in their view that 'big fish' genetics still exist in WI waters. If this is the case, then this is very good news. Could we get the DNR to be a bit more specific? Could they give us some observations? If the genetics still exist, then I don't think that we should bring in new genetics. We need to make sure that we preserve these genetics going forward as well with, along some of the idesa coming from Bob, spread these genetics to prospective WI waters.
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Like I said before. The DNR does not think in the same terms as we do. This is there job, not there passion and addiction. They really don't care whether a fish is 48" or 52". Steve they were very politically correct in your first interview, as they should be.
Do you actually think they would say that WI has poor genetics and isn't capaple of producing huge fish??? wake up here.
Steve,I commend your reserch into this, but interview someone who's job isn't tied into his statements. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I AM interviewing the top muskie managers across the ENTIRE muskie world over the next couple months. We'll see what they agree on, and on what they differ.
I'll get the facts and post them here. This has become a personal project for me for the winter months.
I am hoping to get a few of the fisheries managers online for a chat, which I MIGHT get done if folks don't trash them out of hand in advance.
By the way, Bum, these folks work in a field that requires a substantial educational background managing a difficult resource under less than ideal circumstances, and make less than a manager at a big box store in many cases. Be careful who you bash here, please.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sean61s,
Big fish do swim in Wisconsin waters, just not in the numbers we would like. I am asking the right questions, and will find out what there is we as sortsmen can actually do to improve the situation.
A couple years ago, Greg Bohn caught a 56.5, pretty nice fish. I got one last year from a 500 acre lake that weighed 39#, pretty nice fish. There's a bunch of 50's right here onsite from Wisconsin, two or three from Pewaukee alone.
I'll find out what the DNR thinks and why, and what they are trying to get done to improve the big fish population. I know of two things right now:
Stocking the Great Lakes Strain in selected waters.
Continuing to recommend and support larger size limits on select waters.
We'll see what else they have to say. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve,
In your upcoming conversations with the DNR and others, could you please ask them:
1) What is there view on ‘slot limits’ for muskys?
2) In order to get the increased size limits passed, what needs to be done?
a) Would a signed petition speed up the process of getting this back on the ballot?
b) Can ‘out of state ‘ musky hunters have a voice in this mater?
c) What mistakes were made last time around?
Actually, so that you do not spend allot of your time and effort, and in the end, fail to ask specific questions that many of us may have, why not compile a list form users of this message board and others?
Good luck,
Sean
| |
| | |
| Steve,
If you want REAL answers try to find professors who teach icthyology or retired Fisheries Biologist who indeed have a muskie addiction.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieBum, I am doing exactly that. I'll ask the questions guys.
As for the question about size limits, I asked those directly after the proposal was voted down. I called local and Madison DNR folks the next day.The DNR fisheries people I spoke with supported the proposal. The Conservation Congress vote, in most areas, didn't. The PUBLIC voted down our recent best clear chance to protect our trophy muskie waters in Wisconsin. Not the DNR, the PUBLIC. Everyone wanted to point at guides and resorts, but in actual fact, those folks were there, but were not there in enough force to project a majority. What happened was the others there who were NOT resort/Chamber of Commerce/guides against the proposal/etc listened to the commentary and voted no. In the opinion of all the DNR folks I talked to, the proposal had good merit, and could pass with the proper PR/education/promotional efforts and the required time efforts like that require were applied. I personally agree.
Regulations here are tough to change, even when those who manage the resource agree the change would be positive. In order to get the public to agree to a change on waters they use everyday, we need to carefully educate folks to the benefits to the area resulting from the regulations change.
I've always scratched my head at the Conservation Congress idea. Biologists are biologists because they spent an immense amount of time studying the subject. It somehow has always seemed ridiculous to me that the 'public' should dictate management practices based on 'tradition'. My opinion, just that. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Steve, I'll agree with that | |
| | |
| God I love this thread!!!!!!!!!!!
Many of the arguements made here for the case to improve the fishery I made 3 years ago when I started to push for slot limits. I was going to stay out of this one as I have been there with most of you and I have been there with some people from the D.N.R..
The D.N.R. will tell you its too expensive to just go after bigger fish to milk.
But they would not need as many spawners . They also told me big fish are too hard handle. How they can say that one is beyond me. They will say a slot limit is hard to enforce. I know as I've asked befor.
Now the other thing they will tell you is a slot limit won't work as the musky is a low density fish. Thats exactly why it will work and why it should be implanted with the program of milking older and bigger fish. YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE BEST OF YOUR GENE POOL!!!!!!!!Regardless if it 10 fish in the lake or 1000.
I have said all along that what the slot will do is to protect our bigger fish. You know the ones you say the eggs should come from. However to eventually get a better population of these bigger fish you need to remove some of the smaller ones(SLOT LIMIT).
Bob benson and firstsixfeet had two great post here. I was called all kinds of names when I brought this up years ago. Got nasty calls and emails. I hope you are beginning to see why I was opposed to just a 50 inch limit on many lakes. It would not help much at all and would just keep us on the same path we are on now. We need changes and this is a conversation about it. Bob Benson, Fred hirch,Larry Ramsell and I sat down and talked about this at length.
If your not willing to go out on the limb and try something new your stuck right where we are. A good program with the fisheries and and a slot limit will achieve the goal of bigger fish. If the fish milked are used to stock they came from you'd not uset the strain in that water also if thats what your worried about. Its unfortunate but the muskie strains in wisconsin are very messed up allready We have some great lakes and we have lakes with big fish fish and the chance to improve them is there in front of you. You have to push the D.N.R. for these changes.
My last ? for you. What woke some of you up? My god when the 50 inch proposal was to be voted on I had a young guide from the hayward are tell me genetics had nothing to do with it. Now it seems we are all talking about the gene pool. I know this thread was not about slot limits but its such a valuable tool to use with an enhanced program as discussed. Please don't make this thread about slot limits as it allready enough to follow if we stay genetics
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Don,
I started the thread.
My wife and I did our annual Georgian Bay trip a while back with Jodi Mills. Our home lake is Big Sand Lake outside of Phelps, WI, but we know that the giants we are looking for in Georgian Bay, for the most part, do not exist anymore in WI.
Jodi and I started talking about the claims of Louis Spray. We also talked about some of the conclusions that Ramsell had made on size and age of fish on the Chippawa Flowage.
When I returned from the trip, I emailed Jodi, and stated that, technically, if giant musky Genetics are indeed gone from WI., then you could throw out the arguement, "If Spray caught them, why hasn't anyone else since?"
A day or so later, a freind of mine sent me an article on how we are altering the genetics in Cod by keeping only the large fish. I posted that article, and this thread has been off to the races ever since.
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
| What kind of slot limits would you suggests? I'm not sure killing an 8 year old 42" fish is that great of an idea? Killing a 4 year old spike horn is but we have no idea what genetics are in a fish without knowings its age. Kareem Abdul Jabar was once only 5' tall at some point it his life.
Let Em All Go and Milk The Biggest Fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Here is some stuff to think about. Some good examples of why myself and many others feel something must be done very soon to improve our trophy fisheries in WI so this state is competitive and can influence us from travelling out of state for a respectable shot at a trophy fish. I would much rather stay and fish right here in WI if we had opportunities like MN has. But we do not.
This information is based on the last 20 years of Muskies Inc. data on fish over 50” from WI & MN.
In the last 20 years a total of 599 fish over 50” were registered from WI & MN.
20% of them were caught in WI.
80% of them were caught in MN.
In the last 10 years a total of 531 fish over 50” were registered from WI & MN.
15% of them were caught in WI.
85% of them were caught in MN.
In the last 5 years a total of 416 fish over 50” were registered from WI & MN.
11% of them were caught in WI.
89% of them were caught in MN.
In 2003 a total of 124 fish over 50” were registered between WI & MN.
4% were caught in WI.
96% were caught in MN.
In the last 5 years the average number of fish over 50" registered per year in WI was 9.
In the last 5 years the average number of fish over 50" registered per year in MN was 74!
In 1985 WI and MN each registered a total of 1 fish over 50”.
In 2003 WI registered a total of 5 fish over 50”, an increase of 400% over its total in 1985. Not too bad.
In 2003 MN registered a total of 119 fish over 50”, an increase of 11,800% over its total in 1985! Amazing!
In the 10 year period from 1986 - 1995 a total of 89 fish over 50” were registered between WI & MN.
57% were caught in WI.
43% were caught in MN.
In the 5 year period from 1996 - 2003 a total of 503 fish over 50” were registered between WI & MN.
13% were caught in WI.
87% were caught in MN.
MN has registered more 50” fish than WI in 15 of the last 20 years.
MN has registered more 50” fish than WI in all 10 of the last 10 years.
There were 479 fish over 50” registered from MN in the last 20 years.
77% of those were caught in just the last 5 years!
There were 120 fish over 50” registered from WI in the last 20 years.
38% of those were caught in the last 5 years.
The first fish over 50” ever registered from Lake Vermilion, MN was in June of 1998.
There was a total of 3 fish over 50” registered from Lake Vermilion, MN in 1998.
The was a total of 8 fish over 50” registered from the entire state of WI in 1998.
Lake Vermilion, MN has a total of 109 fish over 50” registered since 1998.
The entire state of WI has a total of 53 fish over 50“ registered since 1998.
Lake Vermilion, MN has more 50” fish registered than the entire state of WI in all 3 of the last 3 years.
In 2001 Lake Vermilion, MN registered more fish over 50” than the entire state of WI by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
Lake Vermilion 13
Wisconsin 7.
In 2002 Lake Vermilion, MN again registered more fish over 50” than the entire state of WI and this time by more than a 2 to 1 margin.
Lake Vermilion 29
Wisconsin 14.
In 2003 Lake Vermilion, MN again registered more fish over 50” than the entire state of WI and this time by more than a 3 to 1 margin.
Lake Vermilion 18
Wisconsin 5.
So far in 2004 Lake Vermilion, MN has registered more fish over 50” than the entire state of WI by more than a 4 to 1 margin!
Lake Vermilion 37
Wisconsin 9
Muskies Inc. stats may not be 100% accurate in showing exactly what the differences are between WI & MN or why there is such a difference but these stats definitely give many of us a pretty good idea of whats actually happening out there. I don’t care how many fish go unreported in WI, how many acres Lake Vermilion is, how deep it is, how much or what kind of forage it has, how little pressure it gets, how much stocking it gets, when the stocking began, and all the other excuses people come up with for why it is as good as it is compared to WI. If one single lake in MN can out produce the entire state of WI as convincingly as this and more convincingly with each passing year, then WI needs to try something different from what we are doing now or we can only expect this kind of thing to continue.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Lockjaw,
Wow. You're right, it would be had to adjust those figures to even get them close to MN.
I think, to simplify everything, we should ask...."What is the downside to reestablishing a natural resource back to where it once was?". Once the majority can agree that the answer to that question is, none, then we can figure out how to get it done.
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Been thinking (dangerous) on this a little bit. Take a look at all the big fish that the Musky Nut boys are pulling out of Big Lake. Long and towards the skinny side. Now look at the Mille Lacs and Vermillion fish., definitely a difference in the girths. This is where the genetic pre-disposition took affect. The genetic make up let the fish get long but the forage base did not put on the girth, in the case of the Big Lake fish. Supposedly the same strain of fish stocked from a Brood lake that has some large specimens in it. Now another case, the pond I fish in Iowa has a few fish in it that are 47” to 49” with sightings of a couple that may be larger. The stocking of pure muskies on this lake started 14 years ago. I would put the weights of these fish against any, inch for inch. Again last spring the Iowa DNR was stripping a couple fish over the magic 50” mark. I don’t know where Iowa got its first muskies from but I like the end result so far. Again genetics has a impact on any individuals size. We need to control what we can and genetics can be controlled if the effort is made. And you don’t have to get all scientific with it, breed the best with the best and the rest will take care of itself. I don’t think Wisconsin needs Leech Lake fish, it just needs to use the best the state has to offer and going to a dink factory for eggs ain’t gonna get r done. | |
| | |
| Let me preface this post by stating I'm very upset and do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm trying to keep my emotions out of this, but it is a struggle. I kept trying to soften some of the statements below - but I feel we need to be very blunt on this topic. As soon as I read any statements from the DNR I see the same responses from the DNR to the same questions they are always asked - The DNR is a government organization. They have to play politics. They have to follow and support "policy". Making waves pursuing massive changes would likely kill one's career in the DNR. The data reflecting a need for change, and the possible effects of a change in Muskie Management philosophy is staggering. (The actual data provided on many of the posts above show this beyond any doubt - in my mind.) I'm getting old, I don't have 10 years to talk about this, I want change now.
If we want change - we the Muskie Fisherman need to take responsibility in making it happen. The DNR is equipped to manage fisheries for everyone, they are not equipped to lobby for change in managing one particular fish to grow to larger sizes. The DNR is a tough position, by stating we can do something better, they may have to admit they were doing something wrong. By suggesting changes, they'd be suggesting more money is required to make these changes. That is not something bosses like to hear. We are discussing a political change that will happen only if we make ourselves heard. We need to rely on each other and not the DNR to make this change in philosophy happen. I want to make this clear - I have the highest respect for the DNR personnel. I think as individuals , they do everything in their power to make all of our Fisheries better. I think they do a wonderful job at managing all of our fisheries. Some of the decisions that have to be made our not within their power - I believe this is one of them.
OK now my "real" post:
Steve - I don't mean to say that the DNR is INTENTIONALLY misleading us. I do think data can be used to get any results you want to show, and I do believe there was a desired objective (failure) when the DNR analyzed Leech fish. I definitely believe that nothing will get done if we leave it to the DNR alone. In previous posts you talked about the "failure" of Leech fish. Failure is your word, and the DNR stated similar when you interviwed them. I'm sure there were things in the Leech fish study that did not go well, but If you call things a failure without stating data like a 54.75 inch fish in 12 years from a 700 acre lake with a mean depth of 11 feet and no forage, I'd say you are misleading us. If you fail to mention that young of the year muskies in 1993 (1.33 yoy per mile) was near the state average (1.47 yoy/mile) with only two year classes of Muskies breeding, when compared to lakes with 20 year classes of Muskies breeding, I'd say you are misleading us. If you fail to mention that Leech strain fish grew faster in Wisconsin than they do in Leech Lake, I'd say you are mis-leading us. I'm not saying that anything was "perfect" but anything less than "mixed results" is taking a leap of faith - that Biologists are not supposed to do. Why did they do this? Did they have something they wanted to (or had to) prove? Folks - we need to open the eyes of the whole Muskie fishing community to these issues and not just take blanket statements like "failure" as fact. It's funny how the DNR will say you can't tell anything from just one lake and one stocking - BUT THEN THEY DO JUST THAT. And they expect US to accept it.
I'll state again that I think we can do this with Wisconsin strain muskies, by choosing the right individuals and we don't need to get into using different strains.
Bottom line is - WE CANNOT LEAVE THIS TO THE DNR. I really believe they need our help in doing the right things because of the politics involved.
We need to use any and all means to put enough pressure on the DNR, we need to organize as a group (Fishermen, Tackle shops, resorts, guides, etc.) and make this happen. This will be the greatest change in Muskie fishing since Catch and Release. I'm looking forward to spending more time on this once the lakes freeze.
I refuse to believe that the random milking of Muskies as we started doing in the 1800's is the best way of choosing Muskies to breed. Stocking fish is the one piece of Muskie Management that we can slant towards producing more big fish, and we have not used it to our advantage. I'd say our choice of Brood fish causes as much harm as the harvest of Big fish. We need to work on both Stocking the right fish and controlling harvest of the "right" fish. The Harvest end will be difficult, while the stocing piece should be easy. We can do it better. I'll say again the DNR has done a fantastic job of creating possibly the best Muskie fishery (for numbers) in the world here in Wisconsin. We can make it a better fishery for big fish - we have to stand up and make it known that we can do this and that we want to do this.
In the next couple of weeks I hope to start organizing a push on this top prior to the Conservation Congress meetings, and prior to the next round of spawn taking. You all will be invited to participate in this push. The DNR will be invited as well, we need them on our side. I believe they are on our side. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'M misleading you? I reported on ONE interview, and am working on many others. You might find a statement in another that is more detailed on the Leech fish, give this a chance.
I am a realist. There is MUCH more to this issue than a bunch of us deciding we as Muskie 'activists' can manage the Muskie resource in Wisconsin in a more acceptable fashion to all involved than the geneticists and fisheries managers, political representatives, and general public. If things in Wisconsin were so easy to change that we need only to 'push' as a group with the support of the Fisheries folks, we would have about 13 lakes here in the North with a 50" size limit. We don't.
Heck, even the direct threat of spread of a very serious disease didn't stop our lawmakers from over ruling the DNR ban on feeding and baiting deer. Reality is, Indeed, a bitch.
Can we push an agenda if we alienate those who will have a say in the final decision? I WILL play 'devil's advocate' here to encourage positive debate, it's my 'job'.
I am willing to ask for official interviews with the folks who are the decision makers, scientists, and politicians to ascertain what is possible here in Wisconsin to improve overall trophy potential, and how we might take a concept like Bob's and get at least some of the basic structure applied if it is indeed a workable idea.
Keep in mind, MuskieFIRST represents a fairly large community of Muskie anglers and official requests from MuskieFIRST for an interview to one of our Madison politicians might get a few doors open that otherwise might not be.
I'm not going to agree with ideas here out of hand, I'm going to investigate to the best of my ability what's fact and what's not, what's possible and what's not and post the results of the interviews and information sources. Then we know what we need to do to encourage a successful trophy management philosophy and practice in Wisconsin, which I believe is everyone's goal here. | |
| | |
| Steve - you passed off the Leech study as fact without checking any research. I stand by my misleading comments 100%. I have the DNR research papers in front of me, and have also discussed it with the DNR in person. I will not discuss strains here again, as it will only be detrimental to this discussion which is (in my mind)the effects of harvest on fish and whether we can reverse this by selective breeding.
Agree on not alienating the DNR. However, I'm not going to accept "we need 10 years of studying this" as an answer. I want to start this this spring. We need to work with the DNR to make this happen.
More Facts:
From a Wi DNR study " Effects of a 40-inch minimum size limit on Muskellunge in Wisconsin"
The number of Years it takes for a female Musky to reach 40" in the 15 lakes in the study is 11.5 years.
Bone lake (high poulation and limited forage) was the fastest at 9.9 years, while Lac Court Oreilles (Low population and Cisco forage) is 12.9 years. I'd make the case that none of the fish in this study have the genetic capability to reach 50 inches. If we aren't getting close to 50 inches in 10 years, we have the wrong fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Sean,
They are working on clearing my land to build on as I type. I'll be 10 minutes from you, I am on St. louis road just out of phelps. Maybe this spring we can get together and discuss this as we fish.
The slot I propose would be 40 to 50 have to go back.34 to 40 is is open to harvest if someone cares to take one. We have to have some harvest to make it work well.
If you don't weed out some of the smaller ones that will never get big they will just continue to produce small fish.
Whats good about this is your not affecting the strain by change or intro of other starins, You're improving the quality of the fish through those allready present. Thats if your worried about the strain.
Guys remember the strains of fish in wisconsin are allreadt what we would call mutts. The strain have been diluted in different ways. However I've seen some awfully big mutts in the waters of wisconsin.
9 50 inch fish a year caught in wisconsin, I doubt that!. For the last 6 years I have had reports of more then that given to me for my radio show every year. These reports come from all over the state. Its not as many as minnesota but for sure more then 9.
I agree with Bob its up to us to pressure the D.N.R. for change. There are politics involved in this. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Let your voice be heard.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Don,
I am normally up in the spring for a couple of weekends...I stay at the Big Sand Lake Club. I would love to get out on the water and discuss.
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Don
I agree that surely there are more than 9 50" fish caught in WI each year on average. But I also believe there were more than 119 50" fish caught in MN last year too. In fact I know there were. And there will be many more this year I would bet. WI is not the only state that has fish that do not get reported to muskies inc. In my opinion the muskies inc. data provides a fair comparison and relatively accurate assessment of the status of our musky fisheries. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Wrong. I checked the research, and asked the question directly to the fisheries people in Madison. I didn't 'pass off' anything, sir. I saw the same figures you did, and maybe some more, no idea. I actually was under the impression the Leech fish were a strong candidate for many waters here. Fact is, the stocking they undertook in Green Bay and Winnebago are fish from Lake St. Claire, not Leech. The Madison folks were pretty clear that the Leech fish were not the strain they would choose. I'll be talking to the team leader for the state the end of this month and will ask him why as well to assist in clarifying the issue.
'Q) Some here feel if we just stocked our waters with a different and better strain we would see immediate benefits and larger fish. What do you think of that idea, perhaps using Leech Lake strain for example?
A) We tried that in a few systems, and had very poor success. Our resident fish are well adapted to our State waters, but the others we tried were not and didn't do very well.'
I'll ask that question with the gentleman I am interviewing this month and see if he agrees with or can clarify that general statement. The Madison contact also made a couple statements about Minnesota fisheries and the Leech Lake strain I am trying to clarify. Soon as I can, I'll post what I find out. Until then, I suggest you quit swinging at me, I want big fish in Wisconsin as badly as you.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve and Bob,
Guys...we really need both of you working on this together. Bob, Steve is obviuosly very well connected. Why not take advantage of this? It would be fruitless, in my opinion, to try and make a push, by yourself. Steve, Bob clearly has strong opinions, an appreciation for 'fact' and a hell of alot of energy!
I, for one, would feel very good about the prospect for change, if I knew that the two of you were working together on this.
Is there any chance of this happening?
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure is! We already are, actually. We might have differing viewpoints on HOW to get this done, but we both want the same thing. The best way to ferret out who thinks what is a discussion like this. I'm pretty sure Bob knows I'm on the side of more large muskies in Wisconsin.
I AM a realist. I've been involved in 'movements' like this and know exactly how difficult it can be forwarding an unpopular or little publicised agenda to the rest of the sportsmen in the State. Believe me, our fisheries people WANT better trophy muskie management here. If we can assist them in achieving that goal, we all win. There is, I have been trying to point out, a big difference between 'assistance' and 'demands'. Just my opinion, but it's easier to forward an agenda with a very organized and serious "How might we as a group help you achieve this goal, sirs?' than a 'Listen here, you people, we want THIS, and NOW!' JUST my opinion.
I meet with the 'Team Leader' for the Muskie management in this area right after deer season. I'm very much looking forward to the conversation with him. He's an excellent reputation and is more than willing to discuss muskie management with MuskieFIRST.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Why don't you bring Bob along with you so that he can see first hand how the process works? Also, it would give him a chance to get his questions asked, avoiding a potential, "you should have asked this...you should have said this, etc.," scenario. Just a thought. But that is more of what I meant when I said,."I, for one, would feel very good about the prospect for change, if I knew that the two of you were working together on this".
Just a thought!
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Steve, been there, talked to so many people till I got blue in the face. Untill we can show that the musky clubs will kick in money for a project like this or get a $5.00 musky stamp as Florida did for bass we won't get far. In Florida the $5.00 is earmarked for a certain project. We need that here.
As the saying goes.............. MONEY TALKS B___S___ walks. We as anglers will have to help foot the bill to get anything done soon.
And not to promote another site but some good replies to this genetic thing at musky hunter also
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| I'd love to work with Steve on this, and feel we already are. We all need to work together on this.
Steve, I don't mean to be "swinging" at you. Things look differently when you type them in. Sometimes the wording looks angry, but I just want to get across how strongly I feel about this. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but this get's my blood boiling. We've had folks going over to the DNR for years, with no change in the status quo. I'm not sure we are doing any better job of selecting fish for stocking than we were in 1900.
Steve, I'd like to see some data on the great lakes strain they have used in Wisconsin. Stocking data, netting data, growth rates, lake size, survival,etc. Certainly it must be available?
I have the data on the Wisonsin Leech experiment. I do not believe it is a failure. I do not believe any reasonable person can come to that conclusion.
Leech fish or Great Lakes Fish - Great!!!! Big Wisconsin strain fish - Great!!!!!
No more Bone Lake Fish. Bone is an awesome fishery - but not for big fish. | |
| | |
| Folks - I posted a similar thread on the Musky Hunter website to get a broader opinion. We want EVERYONE in on this. I'm open to better ideas, but I'm still haven't seen a reason not to try selective breeding.
Interesting post on the other site aboiut a MN broodlake, where they: 1. Had lots of big fish and a high size limit (48"). 2. Killed Lots of fish over 48". 3. 12 years later have few fish over 48".
GENETIC EVOLUTION IN PROGRESS!!!!!! It happens in Wisconsin, Minnesota, The Atlantic Ocean and in Small tanks. It happens and cannot be ignored any longer.
When do we start doing something different? What do we do to get heard? How do we organize? Post your thoughts.....
I think we can do this for a couple of reasons:
1. It makes sense.
2. Muskie Anglers are more willing to contribute than any other group of anglers.
3. Muskie anglers also seem to have more interest in their own effects on the resource.
4. There is no reason not to do this.
| |
| | |
| Steve - I pulled the quote below from the following website. It sums up my feelings perfectly.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993731
The danger is that fisheries managers remain unaware of the initial plenty, and come to see this degraded state as normal. Because numbers remain relatively stable, they may even regard the fishery as healthy when it is in fact a mere shadow of its former self.
| |
| | |
| Steve - for the record the biologists below echo points that both of us have been making. They stress "breeding selectively" as a key.
Below is from the following website- and from the Field and stream article "23 pound bass". Please read - the evidence is overwhelming.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/fishing/freshwater/articl...
Making the Monster
“We’re operating under the premise that we can create the conditions for that record to be broken,” says fisheries director Durocher. “Here in Texas, people think big.”
Indeed, Texas has been on the leading edge of the attempt to create that record, pouring resources into trophy research and management. Scientists there and in other states say research convinces them the record is going to be broken. It all has to do with population dynamics, genetics, and regulations.
Fisheries managers know that super-big fish, like super-big humans, are rarities, genetic blips in the population. Call it the Shaquille O’Neal rule. Humans seldom grow taller than 6 feet, but every once in a while, one like Shaq comes along, pushing past 7 feet and putting on more than 350 pounds of muscle. His size, scientists point out, is simply a happy coincidence of nature and opportunity.
“Shaq had two things going for him. He was born with the rare genetic potential to grow very large, and he was raised in an environment where he could reach that potential,” says Gary Garrett, Ph.D., who heads a program trying to produce large, hungry bass for Texas Parks and Wildlife. “Both points are very important and apply to fish as well. A bass can have the Florida gene, but if it isn’t in the right environment where it can reach its full potential, then it won’t reach that large size.”
This superbass would actually be a female (males don’t attain that size) and probably be somewhere between 7 and 9 years of age but possibly as old as 20. Only a tiny fraction of any bass population lives past 5 years, but most that do typically reach their peak size and vitality between 7 and 9 years, researchers say.
Fisheries experts are confident they have been providing two of these keys: Sound management of reservoirs has developed huge forage bases for those bass and provided healthy water.
Their weakness, Durocher says, has been in providing the safety factor. It’s a weakness embedded in a twist of irony. Regulations allowing small fish to become large may actually have had the net impact of producing populations of smaller-growing fish.
“For most of the we’ve had regulations that encouraged people to take the big fish out of the water,” says Durocher. “We have minimum sizes and slot limits, all aimed at allowing fish to grow to a large size—but then we harvest them, which means we remove fish with the genetic trait to grow large. “Over the years we were removing two desirable genetic traits from the population. We were taking out the fish that grew fast and struck aggressively. And we were leaving fish that were slower growers and less likely to strike.”
Durocher and other scientists theorize that those regulations, over time, have probably damaged the potential for many lakes to produce large bass—even those stocked with Floridas.
But in that bad news lies the information that convinces scientists like Durocher that the record will be produced.
“We can fix those problems,” says Durocher. “We need to continue to selectively breed for the biggest fish in our hatcheries to get those genes into the population. And we need to change regulations to reduce fishing pressure overall and to allow these fast-growing fish to remain in the water.”
“We can definitely manage to increase the odds,” says Durocher. “That’s why I say the record can be produced, if it’s not already out there. And if it is, we have a pretty good picture of where it might be.”
| |
| | |
| My friend and neighbor, Larry Ramsell, suggested that I view this string and possibly offer a comment or two. I was a fishery biologist (10 years), supervisor (13 years), and statewide Musky Program Advisor (~5 years while supervising) for the Missouri Dept. of Conservation. Currently I supervise fishery management for the Wisconsin DNR in the 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin (Ashland, Iron, Sawyer, Price, Rusk, and Taylor counties). My office is in Hayward, and I am thrilled to now have a hand in managing some famous musky waters like the Chippewa Flowage.
It's always good to see so many people passionately committed to improving fishery conservation. I don't have all the answers, and I do not specialize in genetics; but I'll share a couple perspectives on the issue of muskellunge genetics and the role it may play in muskellunge management, based upon my contact with people who know far more than me.
Clearly there are a handful of genetically identifiable strains of muskellunge that look, behave, and perform differently from one another. But the geneticists tell us that genetic diversity within this ancient taxon is quite low compared with other fish species. In other words, past attempts to identify muskellunge genes that vary in their expression from fish to fish or population to population (polymorphic gene loci) have met with little success relative to other species of fish. Something about these fish has allowed them to survive the Millennia in North America without a great deal of variation in their genetic material. What are the implications of this observation?
First, without the high genetic variability found in many other species that we humans have bred in captivity for generations (dogs and hogs, for example), the expectation that we might be able to selectively breed muskellunge for large ultimate size is pretty optimistic. It would be similarly optimistic to think that we could selectively breed them for fast growth, disease resistance, high survival, high reproductive capacity, and any number of other "performance characteristics." I'm not saying it can't be done, because we don't know enough to conclude that. I'm just saying that other strategies for improving musky populations look far more promising at this point in time.
Second, even if we COULD selectively breed muskellunge to promote large ultimate size, such a strategy would be focused on only one of SEVERAL performance characteristics that may be important in determining the overall quality of musky fisheries. As an example, what if our hypothetical superfish did not reproduce frequently or prolifically because all its energy was diverted into the growth of somatic tissue? Might that result in even greater dependency on stocking, even in aquatic ecosystems with good spawning habitat? What if the breeding of this hypothetical superfish also affected its vulnerability to angling? What if the superfish displayed a preference for cooler water or different modes of hunting prey than most of today's muskellunge to an extent that few anglers would ever encounter them, let alone catch them? (I actually suspect this may be a factor in the reduced vulnerability of some of the largest muskellunge in high-pressure Wisconsin lakes today.) My point is, we know so little about muskellunge genetics, that focusing on one performance character alone, even if we could, would be dangerous because we might adversely affect other aspects of performance that would decrease the overall quality of musky fishing. It is far more important that we try to maintain enough genetic variability in our hatchery brood fish to avoid decreasing the genetic diversity of stocked populations already characterized by low genetic diversity. This means we need to take eggs and milt from a substantial number of fish. They can't all be over 50 inches long.
Maybe we should stop focusing our hopes on a sexy silver bullet (stocking fish with superior genetics) and start looking at what we CAN do based upon existing knowledge. One thing everyone can do is STOP fishing with single-hook live-bait rigs. A musky that swallows a sucker with a single hook, even if released after capture, may very well be a dead musky a few days later. Biologists have documented horrific abdominal abcesses caused by such wounds, and we are certain that many fish don't survive them. Will we have to legislate a restriction on single-hook live-bait rigs? I'd rather not, but for high-pressure waters where trophy muskellunge are both possible to produce and desired by a majority of stakeholders, a more protective live-bait law (favoring quick-strike rigs) may be necessary.
Another thing we can do is support more research and experimental management. One of the contributors here hit the nail on the head when he said the state agencies are underfunded to perform this work. I am shocked at how few biologists are employed by the Wisconsin DNR per acre of managed water compared with Missouri where I worked for 23 years. Wisconsin biologists are some of the best in the business, but their workload is overwhelming. This year Wisconsin had its first general license fee increase in over 6 years, but it was only half what was requested and did not amount to the cost of a single 4" Rapala lure. Legislators must hear from their constituents if this is to change.
Here in the Upper Chippewa Basin, we are going to try some new approaches in the near future. We have a well-known 1,006-acre musky lake near Park Falls (Butternut Lake) that currently has so many adult muskellunge (estimated 1.02 per acre) that their condition factor and growth rate has declined over the years, resulting in a low average size of only 33 inches currently. Butternut historically produced fish over 50 inches long, and can do so again if we get the density down to a more reasonable 0.2-0.3 adult per acre and protect some larger fish. The current statewide minimum length limit (34 inches) is counter-productive, protecting over-abundant and small, slow-growing fish. High natural recruitment continues to occur and contribute to the imbalance. Our proposal, to appear in a fishery management plan within the next week or two, will be to physically transfer 500 adult muskellunge (28-40 inches long) from Butternut Lake to another lake in the basin that currently has low density but excellent growth potential. After the removal, we hope to implement a 40- to 50-inch slot length limit on muskellunge at Butternut Lake -- the first such regulation in Wisconsin -- in order to ultimately achieve our objectives of 0.2-0.3 adult muskellunge per acre and 25-50% of all 20-inch and larger fish over 40 inches long. Success will hinge upon getting the funding to net, tag, and transfer the fish, and we will need angler and lake association support for the new regulation. If you live in Wisconsin, I will appreciate your support if and when this proposal reaches the spring hearings of the Conservation Congress. If you do support us, please remember that a slot length limit is not the answer everywhere, and that we're not doing it to protect the best spawners. Even the small, skinny muskies in Butternut today are producing too many young. Many lakes will still be managed best under some type of minimum length limit.
Obviously we cannot afford to handle every fish community imbalance with a manual transfer of fish. We just don't have the time and personnel to do so routinely. But the Butternut Lake situation affords us a unique opportunity to learn what may be possible with a dramatic shift in density and size structure of muskellunge, and we stand to learn a lot about the receiving water (not yet selected) and the performance of transferred fish that were growing slowly when overcrowded, but are suddenly exposed to bigger water and more prey. It might even shed some light on the relative importance of genetics versus environment. Support us if you can, and stay tuned. | |
| | |
| Dave,
Thanks for commenting I appreciate and RESPECT your opinion.
The one thing we all have in common is we'd support the DNR in any way possible to better our Muskie fishery. Some of us do not support the status quo. If you want support for more research and experimental Management - JUST ASK!!!!! Ask Muskie fisherman and Muskies Inc Clubs for assistance and support. We'll find a way to make it happen, Just don't ask us to wait for 25 years while you study it, if we can do things better today.
A few questions and comments:
Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring(as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish?
My basic thought is that we protect small fish under size limits and they get to breed every year. these fish contribute to the gene pool naturally every year until they die of natural causes. Harvest of Large fish (greater than 50") is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin. These fish do not get to reproduce as they are DEAD. If not for man these fish would live for many years producing 4-5 times as many eggs each year as their smaller counterparts. So in order to maintain genetic Diversity and allow for what would most likely occur in nature - we must breed large fish.
If there is very little genetic difference between Muskies, and we cannot selectively breed for larger size, than why do we get larger faster growing Muskies by choosing a Leech fish vs. Shoepac? Or by choosing a Wisconsin River fish vs one from the tiger cat flowage? Aren't we just choosing larger fish and getting larger offspring as a result?
Also I'm having a hard time believing that milking healthy 50 inch fish for eggs is going to cause any harm to the fishery. I doubt these fish are more likely to spread disease than one taken from an overpopulated and possibly stunted population (Bone Lake). Just the fact that these large fish produce more eggs than a 38 inch female of the same age has to be a good thing.
Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners? Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of large fish having "trouble" spawning for one particular season, but I'd suggest that there are small and average size fish that this happens to - but they don't get harvested or looked at by biologists. If large fish are poor spawners, Minnesota is on verge of a population collapse!!!!!
I'd agree we need genetic diversity and that "numbers" of fish should be used from various sources. Can't we use numbers of "large" fish? How low do we need to shrink the minimum size to get enough "numbers" of Muskies.
Couldn't the problem with Butternut Lake be that we've introduced a genetic variation of a Muskie that Grows slow, but reproduces well at an early age and a small size? That would be compounded by the fact that we protect those fish and Harvest the ones that grow fast? Isn't it possible that man has helped these smaller fish outcompete the large natural fish that used to prowl this lake?(Think twice before you move those fish.)
And Lastly, if Muskie density & forage are the key to growth rates, why does it take 12.9 years for the average female Muskie to reach 40 inches in Lac Court Oreilles. (A low density fishery with good forage) Data taken from the study "Effects of a 40 inch Min length on Muskellunge in Wisconsin".
Thanks,
Bob Benson | |
| | |
| Dave,
Thanks for commenting I appreciate and RESPECT your opinion.
The one thing we all have in common is we'd support the DNR in any way possible to better our Muskie fishery. Some of us do not support the status quo. If you want support for more research and experimental Management - JUST ASK!!!!! Ask Muskie fisherman and Muskies Inc Clubs for assistance and support. We'll find a way to make it happen, Just don't ask us to wait for 25 years while you study it, if we can do things better today.
A few questions and comments:
Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring(as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish?
My basic thought is that we protect small fish under size limits and they get to breed every year. these fish contribute to the gene pool naturally every year until they die of natural causes. Harvest of Large fish (greater than 50") is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin. These fish do not get to reproduce as they are DEAD. If not for man these fish would live for many years producing 4-5 times as many eggs each year as their smaller counterparts. So in order to maintain genetic Diversity and allow for what would most likely occur in nature - we must breed large fish.
If there is very little genetic difference between Muskies, and we cannot selectively breed for larger size, than why do we get larger faster growing Muskies by choosing a Leech fish vs. Shoepac? Or by choosing a Wisconsin River fish vs one from the tiger cat flowage? Aren't we just choosing larger fish and getting larger offspring as a result?
Also I'm having a hard time believing that milking healthy 50 inch fish for eggs is going to cause any harm to the fishery. I doubt these fish are more likely to spread disease than one taken from an overpopulated and possibly stunted population (Bone Lake). Just the fact that these large fish produce more eggs than a 38 inch female of the same age has to be a good thing.
Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners? Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of large fish having "trouble" spawning for one particular season, but I'd suggest that there are small and average size fish that this happens to - but they don't get harvested or looked at by biologists. If large fish are poor spawners, Minnesota is on verge of a population collapse!!!!!
I'd agree we need genetic diversity and that "numbers" of fish should be used from various sources. Can't we use numbers of "large" fish? How low do we need to shrink the minimum size to get enough "numbers" of Muskies.
Couldn't the problem with Butternut Lake be that we've introduced a genetic variation of a Muskie that Grows slow, but reproduces well at an early age and a small size? That would be compounded by the fact that we protect those fish and Harvest the ones that grow fast? Isn't it possible that man has helped these smaller fish outcompete the large natural fish that used to prowl this lake?(Think twice before you move those fish.)
And Lastly, if Muskie density & forage are the key to growth rates, why does it take 12.9 years for the average female Muskie to reach 40 inches in Lac Court Oreilles. (A low density fishery with good forage) Data taken from the study "Effects of a 40 inch Min length on Muskellunge in Wisconsin".
Thanks,
Bob Benson | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Bob, when you said “Harvest of Large fish greater than 50" is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin”, you were pretty much right on the money according to the M.I. Data I looked through not too long ago for our part of the state. NW WI.
% of fish 50” and larger harvested from Sawyer Co. & all of NW WI.
Sawyer Co 48%
All of N.W. Wisconsin 52%
% of fish 50” and larger harvested from some of WI’s most popular trophy waters according to M.I. Data.
Pewaukee 30%
Lac Court Oreilles 40%
Chippewa Flowage 44%
Tomahawk 50%
Lac Vieux Desert 50%
North Twin 50%
Trout 50%
Holcombe 60%
Namekagon 67%
Round Lake (Sawyer Co.) 100%
Pike Lake Chain 100%
You have to wonder just how much worse the harvest rate really is if you could include everyone and not just the M.I. members who are probably the most likely people to release these 50” fish!
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Guys I read Mr. Neuswangers commentary in another publication about slot limits. Now I read his message here at at musky hunter. I think he pretty well has backed up my reasons for slot limits being our answer to a better,healthier and more trophy abundant musky fishery. I was glad to read where he thought slot limits would be a good thing to try. I hope I've not spoken for him as I mean not to. Its certainly what I gathered from his writing.
Its time we really take a good loo at the slot limit thing and get on some lakes so we can see that it will work. We need to get behind this as another proposal for a 50 inch limit will fail. The slot limit proposal would have a great chance to pass.
Its time now to do something and let the d.n.r know as musky anglers we would suppor a slot limit.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| Don - agreed. I've got one more fishing trip before this get's my full attention.
LockJaw - I compiled some Interesting Data on growth rates of BIG (and one very small) Muskies in different states:
(Note: these fish were taken from MuskyHunter magazine. I tried to take all fish but may have missed some. I did not manipulate this dat to prove any points.)
Wisconsin
Chippewa Flowage - 50.5" inches 11 years old.
Pewaukee Lake - 53" 48 lb 9 oz 13 years old
51.5" 19 years old
Muskie Jaws - 58" 15 years old
27.3 inches 14 years old (Female) Mud Callahan lake
Minnesota
55" 50 lb muskie 14 years old.
54.5" 42 lb Musky 14 years old.
Kentucky
53" 44lb 9 years old
54.5" 44lb 13 yeas old
Illinois
51 inch 14 years old (Storey lake)
Ontario (G-Bay)
55.5 inches 17 years old
Ken Obriens 65lb Muskie (I believe 56.5 inches) was 30 years old.
Another interesting fact:
Largest Muskie netted in Bone Lake:
1964 - 54 inches
1995 - 46 inches
and yet another interesting "fact":
Leech Lake fish and Great lakes fish had the same growth rate at age 6 when stocked in inland Wisconsin lakes. This rate is considerably faster than Wis average according to Wis DNR (see MuskyHunter March 96).
CONCLUSION
When looking at the fish listed above, it looks like BIG fish in Wisconsin exhibit the same growth rates as those in Georgian Bay and in Minnesota lakes like Leech, Cass and Bemidji. The difference is the smaller slow growing fish like the 14 year old 27 inch female which also inhabit Wisconsin lakes and Rivers. That particular fish is protected from harvest by law in every lake in Wisconsin. It spawns every year. All of the bigger fish were harvested, and big fish continue to be harvested 50% of the time they are caught - they never spawn again. The DNR estimates that fish in Pewaukee are caught on average twice a year, which leaves little chance that any big fish can survive the year they hit 50". Many other lakes face the same situation - Quality fish are harvested and removed from the gene pool, while smaller slow growing runts are protected and even bred by the DNR.
Some of you feel that it is IMPORTANT to cross breed these smaller slow growing fish (that are protected by law) with the larger fast growing fish and spread them across all the waters in our state. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!!!!! I want this stopped immediately. Why do we not stock only the fish we want? Musky Fisherman need to stand up and be heard.
I also found information stating that Bigger fish are better Breeders (including a Letter from Ramsell who witnessed Steve Albers 57" fish had thousands of viable eggs as well Ken Obriens fish having 850,000 eggs.) I understand concerns about "what if big fish are poor breeders"? What if these bigger fish produce big fish offspring and are better breeders? wouldn't this be better for the fishery?
Bigger better breeding fish with more eggs.....I like it. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Some of you feel that it is IMPORTANT to cross breed these smaller slow growing fish (that are protected by law) with the larger fast growing fish and spread them across all the waters in our state. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!!!!! I want this stopped immediately. Why do we not stock only the fish we want? Musky Fisherman need to stand up and be heard.'
You will unsderstand when we're done, I hope, as all of us should when all the facts are presented. The fisheries management and biologist interviews begin next week.
Bob, who is 'we'? Since when does one angler or any one minority group of anglers decide management strategies? Your comment that you 'want this stopped' is perhaps an accurate personal statement, but isn't likely to get much cooperation or attention. Let's hear out the fisheries folks from every state; I'll get the interviews and post the reports here.
Listening has it's rewards, sometimes. | |
| | |
| The boys down south know a heck of a lot more than we do. The Bass fishing industry is incredibly more advanced than musky. Why are they only breading big fish?? They don't seem to concerned about keeping these so called important genes possesed by small fish in the gene pool.
enlighten me. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskie Bum,
I'll let the fisheries folks from across the country enlighten you. I don't read anything here about small fish genetics being protected. Why the negative tone? We're all on the same side here. | |
| | |
| By randomly selecting fish for breading you are doing just that, protecting the small fish genetics in the gene pool. Its not a negative tone, it is simply the truth. I'm simply asking a question. Why do fisheries biologist in the south only use large fish for breading??
If the obvious truth which emerges from my question is negative, so be it. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Are you referring to the article about the bass in the impoundments in Texas? Read more. Alot more. Look into California, Oklahoma, etc. Also, this is experimental and not yet a proven practice as I read it. Looks very promising, for sure. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Steve,
I'm not refering to any one any article in general. Its something that the south is doing. What are you refering to when you say " read more"? Cool Thread. | |
| | |
| Check out the article in the FEB 92 Muskie Magazine. The article is based on a presentation be two WI DNR personnel at the Woodruff hatchery who were involved with the trophy lake study in Wisconsin.
It states:
Previous studies have shown that:
A: 7% of muskies are over 40" (that's not a lot)
B: Anglers catch the fastest growing fish Probably because they feed more
C: Slow growers live to spawn. Over the years this causes the fish to be smaller
D: Larger spawning fish are more efficient reproducers
The article also talks about GENETIC DEFECTS that do not allow fish to grow large.
I know I've made some statements that sounded negative towards the DNR, but I do believe they understand what is happening out there. I believe the DNR will work with us if we make our feelings known. We need to shoot high here. We cannot ask for more 50 inch fish , we need to demand fish approaching 60 inches. We have had these in the past, we can have them again. We need to re-align Muskie Fisherman away from total C&R and towards a focus on the largest best breeding fish we can find. We need to use every tool we have available to us including Selective Breeding & Slot limits. Once we have bigger better breeding fish, we can go back to C&R as the main management tool.
We need top these BS excuses about lake size and forage and even harvest. We can do this, but we need to make ourselves heard.
| |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Bob (BBenson) please shoot me an email so i can ask you a question
[email protected] | |
| | |
| Bob, it's about time that I respond to your questions. Work is so crazy at the moment that I had to wait for a quiet weekend morning, but what better thing to do than "talk muskies" on a snowy Sunday morning?
YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS: "Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring (as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish?"
MY RESPONSE: I don't know. I don't think ANYBODY knows. It depends on a number of factors, like strain, the other parent, the chance manner in which genes from both parents combine during fertilization, environmental conditions for the offspring, prey availability to the offspring, and the life/learning experiences of each individual offspring. For the sake of simplicity, let's take the example of two parental fish of the same strain in the same lake. Maybe they are both large and have grown relatively fast. Maybe they are both small and have grown relatively slow. Maybe one is large and one is small (often the case with extreme sexual dimorphism in growth of muskellunge). In all cases, I would expect their offspring to exhibit a considerably wide range of potential in growth rate, ultimate size, and other performance characters, but a range that is characteristic of that strain. So, on average, the progeny of Leech Lake strain fish in Minnesota lakes are going to grow faster and get bigger than the progeny of Shoepack strain fish in Minnesota lakes, regardless of how fast their individual parents have grown or how big they were when they spawned. That much we know. Beyond that it gets HIGHLY speculative.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "If there is very little genetic difference between Muskies, and we cannot selectively breed for larger size, than why do we get larger faster growing Muskies by choosing a Leech fish vs. Shoepac? Or by choosing a Wisconsin River fish vs one from the tiger cat flowage? Aren't we just choosing larger fish and getting larger offspring as a result?"
MY RESPONSE: I need to make a subtle distinction here, Bob. I did not mean to imply that there is little genetic difference between muskellunge. What I mean is that this species exhibits low genetic variability compared with other species, as exhibited by a relatively low incidence of known polymorphic gene loci. That may have important implications, but clearly there are genetic differences between strains, such as Leech Lake and Shoepack. One need not "pull their genes down" to see that. Also, I am not certain that we cannot breed for larger ultimate size. It may be possible over time, within strains, to select for individuals that grow faster and get bigger. But in doing so, we must be EXTREMELY careful not to DE-SELECT for other performance characteristics, such as physiological and behavioral traits that would allow such fish to pass their genes along to the next generation, naturally, in ecosystems to which they are adapted. If the fast-growing fish we breed do not spawn successfully, or are so aggressive that they get caught too easily or undergo high release mortality, what will we have gained? We would do well to remember the lesson of Florida largemouth bass in the lower Midwest. Some thought we could have 10-20 pound largemouths there, too, if the fishery biologists would only "wake up" and start stocking the "superior" Florida strain fish there. Experiments in Illinois and Missouri revealed, however, that Florida strain fish grew only slightly faster in the lower Midwest than their northern counterparts, and their reproductive survival was almost nil. The Florida strain bass could not be sustained outside its native range. Biologists took the Florida strain out of the environment to which it was best adapted based upon ONE performance characteristic (growth rate and ultimate size), and they tried to make it work in the lower Midwest where environmental conditions were different. It did not work. This is called tampering. Fishery biologists have learned some hard lessons about tampering. Hopefully we are not as likely to repeat such mistakes in the future.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners?"
MY RESPONSE: No, although each indivivual female seems to have an optimal age for viable egg production, beyond which viability goes down. Of course, we must always remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There IS evidence that large fish are EARLY spawners. So, if the only fish spawning in a population are big, and if environmental conditions are poor early in the spring in successive years, we could have multiple year-class failures that would not have occurred if a greater variety of sizes of fish (particularly females) had spawned at different times and temperatures.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "I'd agree we need genetic diversity and that 'numbers' of fish should be used from various sources. Can't we use numbers of 'large' fish?"
MY RESPONSE: We may be able to improve our broodstock selection methods somewhat. We must take a sufficient number of fish to minimize the risk of "inbreeding" of course, which means we will have to use some smaller fish that may be small only because they are young, not inferior. I think we should also strive to INCLUDE some very large fish among those being used for hatchery production. That happens sometimes, by chance, but not all the time, and that's where we might improve. Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not a hatchery manager trying to pull all this together in a very narrow window in time on a shoestring budget. I'm a fishery management supervisor who gets to have grand ideas, then hope we have people with the ability to actually implement them in the absence of adequate people and time
YOUR FINAL QUESTION WAS: "Couldn't the problem with Butternut Lake be that we've introduced a genetic variation of a Muskie that Grows slow, but reproduces well at an early age and a small size? That would be compounded by the fact that we protect those fish and Harvest the ones that grow fast? Isn't it possible that man has helped these smaller fish outcompete the large natural fish that used to prowl this lake? (Think twice before you move those fish.)"
MY RESPONSE: It is remotely possible that Butternut Lake muskellunge population have undergone what we call "outbreeding depression" by the introduction of genes from another strain that does not grow as fast or get as big. I will be surprised if that's the case, because such effects are unlikely to occur after only one or two ramdom stocking events; but I must admit it is a possibility, and that is why I have asked Dr. Brian Sloss to analyze the Butternut Lake fish for me this spring at his Conservation Genetics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Dr. Sloss will be able to tell me if these fish differ significantly from fish in other populations of the Upper Chippewa Basin. We will not transfer fish from Butternut until we have an answer to that question. You probably have a very good point regarding the regulatory protection of abundant, small, slow-growing fish at Butternut under the statewide minimum length limit of 34 inches. Most males in Butternut are "taking forever" to exceed 34 inches. Given their high density, they probably cannibalize their young and therefore decrease the probability of survival of new recruits, including females that have the potential to grow much larger than males. It's this decreased "turnover rate" that may exacerbate the poor population structure in Butternut Lake by retarding the rate at which new females enter the adult population. By removing some small fish (mostly old males) physically by fyke net, encouraging some angler harvest of remaining males, and protecting some fish (mostly females) in the 40-45 inch range, we may be able to turn things around at Butternut. This all assumes that genetics is not the significant problem that you fear.
You've raised good questions, Bob. I hope my answers will shed a little light and help us to form a group perspective that will lead to progress in musky management. --Dave | |
| | |
| Dave,
I appreciate your opinions, But I disagree with almost everthing you have said. Good arguments create new ideas, so hopefully we will learn from each other.
Genetics is Huge, Period!
Read previous post for more info. | |
| | |
| I am a fishery biologist, and for the past 2.5 years have been Wisconsin DNR's supervisor of fisheries management in the Upper Chippewa Basin. This post by Muskiebum offends me more than just about anything I've ever read. To think, imply, or bluntly state as Muskiebum has, that DNR biologists are not PASSIONATE about creating quality fishing reflects a complete misunderstanding of what motivates people in my profession, and it's just plain mean. When I was a field fishery supervisor in Missouri, our Fisheries Chief at the time, Norm Stucky, challenged us to come up with a simple, catchy slogan that reflected how we really feel about our business. I submitted the following: "QUALITY FISHING: OUR MISSION... OUR PASSION." A committee of my peers decided THAT slogan best summarized how we feel about our work. Today, in the Central Office Headquarters of the Fisheries Division of the Missouri Department of Conservation in Jefferson City, that statement hangs over the entry door in large, bold letters, to remind all who pass of our dedication and commitment. Question my tactics if you must. Question my training if you think you've had better. But DON'T question my commitment and my PASSION to create and sustain quality fishing. I think I speak for most of my colleagues who did not not go to college 4-8 years just so they could struggle along on a $30-50K annual salary. They did it... WE did it... because we love the sport of fishing and want to make it better. If you don't understand THAT, Muskiebum, your opinions on just about everything are HIGHLY suspect.
Muskiebum got one thing right, though. We are not ADDICTED to muskies. So people who care about walleyes, bass, bluegills, crappies, trout, pike, sturgeon, etc. can breathe a little sigh of relief. We care about ALL fish and the quality of fishing for ALL anglers, young and old. As long as I have a hand in managing Wisconsin fisheries, we will strive to offer a BALANCED program that makes the best use of our limited time and resources.
To Sworrall, Don Pfeiffer and others who have consistently demonstrated respect for DNR biologists' motives and knowledge in this forum, and who continue to seek to understand the truth: Please know that it's people like you who keep me going to work every morning with the energy and commitment to do good things for muskies and all the other aquatic critters in our charge. Ignorant and mean-spirited remarks like those made by Muskiebum will not deter me from my mission.... my PASSION. But I could not let them go without comment. | |
| | |
| Dave,
Smile and relax, I said I disagree with some of your statements, isn't that what our country is all about? I'll comment on your post when I have more time.
I LOVE THIS THREAD, RELAX AND LETS LEARN FROM EACH OTHER | |
| | |
| I was not replying to your message #137035 above, which was civil in tone.
I was replying to your offensive message of 11/3/04 at 7:27 p.m. (#123846). In that message, you said:
"Like I said before. The DNR does not think in the same terms as we do. This is there job, not there passion and addiction. They really don't care whether a fish is 48" or 52". Steve they were very politically correct in your first interview, as they should be. Do you actually think they would say that WI has poor genetics and isn't capaple of producing huge fish??? wake up here. Steve, I commend your reserch into this, but interview someone who's job isn't tied into his statements."
If you are going to make statements like this, you are going to be held accountable for them. It is difficult to "relax" when your motives, knowledge, judgement, and integrity are under unfair attack. I won't allow myself, my biologists, or my colleagues to be insulted like this without response. Best way to get me to relax is to maintain a civil discourse based upon mutual respect. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I have to say that I do not have the background education that the experts do, but the education I did receive in college(UWSP College of Natural Resources) taught me genetics play a big role in structure of offspring. I may be missing something here, but a 36" musky may have the ability to spawn and create offspring that will reach 50". This is really a no brainer. The possibility remains that this fish will not ever attain those sizes, and could still produce offspring that may or may not. Now, if a 50" musky spawns, isn't there a better chance that this fish has everything(including genes) going for it to produce more 50"ers? If there were more 50"ers swimming in a lake, couldn't we assume that genes from these fish would have a better chance of calling for bigger size in offspring than say, a 42"er from Squirrel lake that came from a 40"er that came from a 36 that came from a 41 that came from a 33???
That said, I also fish Butternut lake, and do not really agree that the size structure is poor simply due to overpopulation. Could it be argued the other way around? I don't really feel that the lake is overpopulated in the first place, but I am confident in our biologists findings. I feel the size structure has suffered out there over the years, but seeing 5-7 boats on an October day all dragging single hook rigged suckers could play a role in that.. I have seen as much harvest from that lake as any that I have witnessed. There are some very large fish in there, but they were far more abundant before the maases of meat draggers showed up. I was taken there as a child by a guy who was guided on the lake by a guide from NE WI. Guides from all over the state were heading to that lake in the day as some huge fish were being caught. We did well on large fish up until just a few years ago, and still see an occasional good one. I know from experience that pressure has increased tremendously out there in the last 10 years, and really from 1995-1998 it was unbeleivable the amount of musky pressure that came to that lake. Pressure is one thing, but the number of people using kill rigs out there was amazing. Those were just the people that I saw. I am sure there were/are more. If this would stop, I believe things will change. Could it be too late? Not sure, but it is hard to believe that a lake with such great size structure historically, became overpopulated overnight without human assistance........
Hopefully your research will turn up some answers. Please keep us informed as time goes on.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 11:36 PM
| |
| | |
| My (muskiebum responses will be Capitalized)
YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS: "Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring (as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish?"
MY RESPONSE: I don't know. I don't think ANYBODY knows. It depends on a number of factors, like strain, the other parent, the chance manner in which genes from both parents combine during fertilization, environmental conditions for the offspring, prey availability to the offspring, and the life/learning experiences of each individual offspring.
I MUST DISAGREE,
COMBINING HOLOGOUS CHROMSOMES DURING MEIOSIS WITH BOTH PARENTS POSSESING SUPERIOR GROWTH ABILITY WILL PRODUCE A PHENOTYPE WHICH RESEMBLES THE CHARATERISTIC OF THE GENE(ASSUMING ALL OTHER EXTRINSIC FACTORS ARE EQUAL). IF BOTH PARENTS HAVE THE SAME GENOTYPE (BIG GENETICS) THE OFFSPRING WILL HAVE THAT, RECOMBINATION WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY IF BOTH CHROMOSOMES ARE HOMOZYGOUS.
Dave: "Also, I am not certain that we cannot breed for larger ultimate size. It may be possible over time, within strains, to select for individuals that grow faster and get bigger. But in doing so, we must be EXTREMELY careful not to DE-SELECT for other performance characteristics, such as physiological and behavioral traits that would allow such fish to pass their genes along to the next generation, naturally, in ecosystems to which they are adapted. If the fast-growing fish we breed do not spawn successfully, or are so aggressive that they get caught too easily or undergo high release mortality, what will we have gained? We would do well to remember the lesson of Florida largemouth bass in the lower Midwest. Some thought we could have 10-20 pound largemouths there, too, if the fishery biologists would only "wake up" and start stocking the "superior" Florida strain fish there. Experiments in Illinois and Missouri revealed, however, that Florida strain fish grew only slightly faster in the lower Midwest than their northern counterparts, and their reproductive survival was almost nil. The Florida strain bass could not be sustained outside its native range.:
LARGE INDIVIDUAL IN A CERTAIN STRAIN WILL HAVE THE SAME GENETIC VARIABLITY THROUGHOUT THE REST OF ITS GENOME. JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS 7' TALL DOES NOT NECCESSARILY MEAN THEY WILL BE BLOND, BLUE EYES, OR HAVE CANCER. THE FLORIDA STRAIN DOES NOT APPLY HERE, BECAUSE DIFFERANT STRAINS ARE COMPLETLEY DIFFERANT THAN VARIABILITY WITHIN THE SAME STRAIN. MY SIMPLE QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY DO FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IN THE SOUTH ONLY SELECT 15LB FEMALE BASS FOR BREADING?? ALSO THE MALO FISH (BIGGESST MUSKY EVER CAUGHT FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW) WAS DOCUMENTED TO HAVE 850,000 EGGS COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE FEMALE WHICH HAS 250,000. JUST AN OBERSAVTION
MY RESPONSE: It is remotely possible that Butternut Lake muskellunge population have undergone what we call "outbreeding depression" by the introduction of genes from another strain that does not grow as fast or get as big. I will be surprised if that's the case, because such effects are unlikely to occur after only one or two ramdom stocking events; but I must admit it is a possibility, and that is why I have asked Dr. Brian Sloss to analyze the Butternut Lake fish for me this spring at his Conservation Genetics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Dr. Sloss will be able to tell me if these fish differ significantly from fish in other populations of the Upper Chippewa Basin. We will not transfer fish from Butternut until we have an answer to that question.
GREAT IDEA, I COMMEND THIS EFFORT. LET US KNOW HOW THE RESULTS TURN OUT. I ALSO STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STAMENT, IF I WERE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST AND I WAS CHECKING HOOP NETS FOR CARP MILT AND EGGS I WOULD NOT CARE WHETHER THE FISH IS 22" OR 24". IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLETLETY OBSESSED WITH SOMETHING YOU WON'T TAKE THE EXTRA EFFORT TO DO IT, PERIOD. SMALLER FISH ARE EASIER TO HANDLE, IT TAKES LESS TIME TO USE WHATEVER SIZE IS IN THE NET. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE NOT A GOOD FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. IT TAKES EXTRA EFFORT TO DUE RESERCH, AGE SAMPLES, AND USE GOOD GENETICS.
I TELL IT LIKE IT IS, IF IT OFFENDS PEOPLE I'M SORRY FOR THE TRUTH.
"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense". -churchill
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskiebum,
' I ALSO STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STAMENT, IF I WERE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST AND I WAS CHECKING HOOP NETS FOR CARP MILT AND EGGS I WOULD NOT CARE WHETHER THE FISH IS 22" OR 24". IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLETLETY OBSESSED WITH SOMETHING YOU WON'T TAKE THE EXTRA EFFORT TO DO IT, PERIOD. SMALLER FISH ARE EASIER TO HANDLE, IT TAKES LESS TIME TO USE WHATEVER SIZE IS IN THE NET. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE NOT A GOOD FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. IT TAKES EXTRA EFFORT TO DUE RESERCH, AGE SAMPLES, AND USE GOOD GENETICS.'
I strongly suggest a Dale Carnegie course.
Totally uncalled for, and the reason most folks in Dave's position avoid Message Board conversations like we are having here like the plague. I truly appreciate Dave's answers, and hope sincerly that he will continue to add to the factual base here.
To your response:
In number one you are discussing selective breeding where the genetic makeup of both parents is known (documented) and can be selected, the environment can be controlled, and the term selective breeding actually applies; am I correct? We covered this before; pretty conclusively, I thought. How would you achieve that here in Wisconsin if natural reproduction is any part of the goal? Kill every single muskie in State waters supporting natural reproduction and restock with your super strain? Please explain to me why the Muskies stocked years ago using a standard strain (stocked in Wisconsin regularly) in a small lake down the road from my house are VERY large in general, and getting bigger every day? What about the variables Dave mentioned? What about the variable you mention? '(ASSUMING ALL OTHER EXTRINSIC FACTORS ARE EQUAL)'.
I must ask, are you one of the gentlemen involved in the discussion with the WI DNR who asked for the Milwaukee Chapter's support a week ago? If so, I need to forward this conversation to the Chapter and ask if the Club really wants to support an effort that is at least partly based in negativity and alienation. Yes, I am a member. If your answer is no, then that's a relief.
Another observation:
Your comments are your opinion, not by default the 'truth'. Dale Carnegie, sir. Insult doesn't command credibility.
I believe your comment about the fisheries folks and largemouth bass in the south are reflective of an article about what amounts to an experiment that is underway, I read the same piece. Are you saying the fisheries depts. in EVERY southern state select only 15# fish for breeding and stocking in ALL waters?
Dave,
Please accept my apologies as Publisher here at MuskieFIRST for the negative tone from Muskiebum. I believe it is his passion for the sport and perhaps misguided but well intended energy that causes commentary like that, not anything actually designed to insult your hard work or that of your peers. My son works for the Woodruff DNR and reacted the same way to some of the more insensitive comments here. | |
| | |
| I'm not sure where I insulted anyone? I simply said that I disagreed with some opinions and I said that the average biologist does not care if a walleye is 22" or 24" or a Musky is 48" or 50" when selecting for breeding(is this an insult?)
If I were a biologist I wouldn't care to accomadate for the rare crazy catfisherman(we musky fisherman are a bit crazy) who wanted me to only selectively choose big catfish for breeding. This does not mean I'm not an excellent biologist, It simply means that I have differant motives at stake such as acomplish the job in time. Am I wrong here?
If there will be no more discussion or replys with data then there will be no learning involved.
I was hoping to have a civil exchange of ideas and opinions. This will be my last post here I covered everything I could, I never intended to insult anyone or anything. I just want to discuss factual data and tests done to learn more. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Bum,
Wish I knew who you were, so we could talk some time. Feel free to email. It is refreshing to have someone come forward with and share ideas that so many of us here agree with(beleive me, I have 3 musky dudes looking over my shoulder right now giving you the thumbs up). Though fairly well educated, I have not the knowledge or background obviously that you do. I hope our managers can, before I am an old stinky dude(as opposed to a young stinky dude) see it that way( definately not saying everything or even most things they do is wrong so please hold off on the ridicule). I've been talking to our local biologist, and he is really very supportive with many of our efforts here as a club, and does see some of the very things you talk about, though I think he cannot always tell me what he personnally feels. He manages Petenwell flowage, a system that should be putting out 50"ers like there is no tommorrow and is not. Huh, wonder why??? Too warm? No, smaller warmer lakes down south put out far more bigger fish. it is simply the fish. I raise these things in our ponds, stock them, and fish for them. I love the fact that a 45-47" fish here is built bigger than anywhere else that I fish, including Green Bay. I do not love the fact that on only one occasion in 15 years of musky fishing this water, have I seen a fish that I honestly feel was over 50. I saw 13 in MN this year on water I'd consider marginal compared to the flowage. I hang with a group of pretty good musky men. There have been 1 hookup/capture, and 2 other sightings in 7 years of fishing the flowage of legit 50's. These are Bone Lake 'mutts' we are stocking here, not native WI river fish. Wish like heck they were, but as a club that raises fish, we will take what we can get. The argument that MN fish are just peaking, no competition, not stablized yet, etc. sounds pretty good, and does hold some water for sure. I have felt the same thing about some of those lakes and I do not think that some of them will continue to pump the 50's out with the regularity they have been forever. However, Petenwell should then be pumping out 50's wide open should it not? It actually mimics the stocking levels, start dates, and fishing pressure of many of the lakes in MN. Warmer yes, but not excessive. More forage per acre than Green Bay itself, huge expanses of open water, and very little angler harvest for the most part(less angler harvest than much of the rest of the WI river where the new 45" size limit really should help). HMM. I say bring on the Miss. strain to the river here. I am sure they were here at one time.... They would be much more at home here, than what is being stocked in my opinion. Geez, WI and MN are separated by a river. A river that is as much ours as theirs, and is the name sake of one of the only strains of muskies that has not been made into heinz 57 through years of cross breeding etc. What the heck is the big deal ehh???? Get the dang things over here already!!! I feel they 'belong' in some of these waters as much as many of the waters currently stocked over there for sure.
Side note. Didn't Nancy lake pump out a 54" fish in 9 years?
Try this. Put a few Miss. strain fish into Butternut. Study that. Maybe I'll get lucky and one or two will slip into the Flambeau(another system that I love to fish, but littered with the Bone stockers. That system would have been best left alone years ago-another opinion of course-, when there were still natives residing in it. Tough to say if anything is left of the native structure there. Luckily stocking has ceased on it for the most part and things could come back on their own, but maybe the damage has already been done).
side note: Please disregard the last paragraph here. Trying to lighten things up some. I'm outta here!!!!
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 12:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As it happenns many times, it isn't necessarily what is said, it is how. If one want facts and data one might ask for it specifically; we may just be able to get answers from the Managers watching this thread. Guys, Dave isn't the only Fisheries Biologist watching this. He WAS one of a couple kind enough to post. I haven't talked to ONE biologist yet from any area who accepts the stance that the issue of Trophy Management in Wisconsin can be simply 'fixed' by selective breeding. The issue is far more complex, and involves factors those who seem to be demanding 'simple and immediate change' continue to wave off with "I don't agree with you" even after the subject has been presented as it IS and is then opened for questions and continued conversation. When one or more of a group of working scientists who have dedicated their life work to fisheries management are good enough to answer questions here, they expect the same courtesies the rest of us would expect as the discussion progresses. Please read Dave's response and if you have questions, ask him. I hope he will find it in his heart to continue to provide some information here.
There are a few of us actively working over the next two years to gather all the information we can by working with the fisheries departments of several states to get the information Bum and Reef Hawg are seeking. The end goal is to assist the DNR in implementing the very programs the Fisheries folks WANT to see put into place in Wisconsin for Trophy Water management. We need those lines of communication open and clear, and that won't be the case if those folks feel the effort is conforntational in nature.
Reef Hawg, the motivation here is to make progress and do what we can as sportsmen to forward the concept of Trophy Muskie management in Wisconsin. I talked to my son last night about this issue, and he restated that the fisheries managers here would like nothing more than to implement a series of tasks that would lead to trophy waters here including but not limited to size limits on some waters of 50" or more. We can help them achieve those goals as sportsmen if we work carefully within the existing system. If one's motivation is to 'change the system' in an activist manner, that energy will do nothing more than potentially alienate the scientists, politicians, and the public even if successful (which is VERY unlikely), still leaving the actual functions needed for trophy management here in Wisconsin untended. I for one would rather see that energy plaecd in a venue that will ACHIEVE our goals.
Perhaps I should be a bit more blunt. I respect and admire MuskieBum's desire to see better trophy opportunities here in Wisconsin. I respect and definitely admire Reef Hawg's hard work now and in the past to achieve those same goals. I ALSO respect and admire those who are working in the Fisheries Management arena in Wisconsin. As laymen, we can read all we wish, 'study up' on the subject, but as a friend said last night as I pondered posting an answer " Just because one can read a medical Journal, one doesn't then become a doctor." All who wish to achieve the above goals should be addressing the Fisheries people as allies, not foes. Amazingly, Dave's post does exactly that; treating the questions from us 'laymen' with respect and answering them as best as is possible in a few paragraphs in the spirit of fair discussion.
| |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Reef,
Preach on my brethren.
9 yr old 54"? must be the forage | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Who stocked that fish in Nancy? Why was that program undertaken? Was it a 'Mississippi River' fish, a Leech lake strain, or was it Lake St. Claire? Where else were fish like that one stocked, when, and why were they selected? Are there other waters on the docket for potential stocking with that lineage? | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Thanks for the reply Steve. I don't ever intend to be a foe to our managers. If one talked to our local one, he would state that he and I chat often and hae excellent repoire(sp). We do not always agree either. Do we have to? I sure hope not, and neither would he. I do feel, that if enough people feel strongly about something we should state them(he applauds our ideas and sifts through them as any manager should and has the right to). We are just airing things out here, and I would hope Dave knows I admire and respect his work, and research. I am just offering that we explore more and do continued research this issue, before simply concluding it will not work(different strain possibilities). We have alot of Muskellunge waters here in WI. I see no reason why we cannot conduct continued research on stocking strains of fish known to reach admirable sizes, while also raising size limits on waters with an already, known, good gene pool and size structure potential. I am young yet, and know things can get better for me, but I feel we can make things better for guys like my father who is in his late 50's. Now is the time.
The Nancy Lake fish were/are Mississippi strain(the same as Leech). I don't know of any more stocking of them in WI(oops, don't mean to answer for you Dave, please correct if wrong). Wish I was hearing of some more.....Dave??
The fish in Green Bay are from St. Claire, though also Riverine Muskies.
That said, the Mississippi(Leech) strain is a riverine strain. Dave, wouldn't this strain be as, or maybe more suitable for stocking into the lower WI river here, as well as the St. Croix river basin, as what is currently being stocked?
One more question. Is the 50" size limit improving things on lakes like Grindstone and LCO? I know it has been in place for several years. Interested to hear how surveys are going on those waters.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 10:02 AM
| |
| | |
| Bum,
I have difficulty reading your several posts, without sensing the antagonism and self righteousness contained within. It seems that the further the discussion progresses the more vehement you get, and it becomes a question of you being right and the biologists being wrong. Knowing the biologist's education and background, and also knowing that they have access to a diversity of information that I am not familiar with and haven't seen, I am kinda sorta strongly leaning their way on this. I have delved into a lot of this stuff, genetic selection, natural selection, fatal genes, line breeding, environmental selection, out crossing and genetic defects quite a bit, driven by my own interest and also need to know over the years, and I think you are jumping to more than one conclusion here. Also your speculation on what they are willing or unwilling to do with their nets is rather absurd and rather myopic. The cost and efficiency of trying to get the specific large specimens you request they use for breeding stock is something that obviously doesn't occur to you. As Dave clearly stated, it is one thing to sit in an office and envision a grand scheme, and quite another to place the manpower and equipment neccessary to make it happen. Quite frankly the manpower and equipment MAY NOT EVEN EXIST for what many of us would like to see happen. That is the way it is in real life, unfortunately for all of us.
I also have a lot of difficulty respecting the intellectual capacity of ANY individual who repeatedly misspells RESEARCH, when talking about science. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | firstsixfeet,
very nice...voice your disapproval of Bum's tone and then insult his intellectual capacity over a typo! As to the cost issue...what is your point? ...."Quite frankly the manpower and equipment MAY NOT EVEN EXIST..." okay, so I guess we should just sit back at let be? Wouldn't it make more sense to formulate a plan that would improve upon the current state of WI Musky waters, and then see what the cost would be? I have to think that there are a few WI musky anglers out there that would be willing to purchase a musky stamp if they thought it would help them get back what they once had. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| I just want to discuss facts, nothing more. Sorry if my written words are misunderstood as being angry. I'm just stating facts. The only reason I'm posting is to hopefully learn more. No one knows it all. I'd love to hear someone misproove something I've said. FSF, prove me wrong, I don't want opinions. Can we not disagree on things?
Lets hear some Facts. Data. Research. This is science.
My motive is simple, repare the damage we've done over the last 100 years to most incredible organism on earth.
Like I state in all my post this thread Rocks Smile
Edited by MuskieBum 3/3/2005 10:54 AM
| |
| | |
| One could make the case that Wisconsin has been selectively breeding small fish from small lakes for the past 100 years. Is that a good thing?
When comparing costs, let's also compare the costs of netting large fish for 2 weeks vs. the costs of Tens of Millions of dollars in tourism (lodging, gas, food, guides, tackle etc.) leaving to go elsewhere.
To be fair to the DNR - just a few good men face the task of managing thousands of lakes for many different species with many different user types expecting different experiences. It's a tough job, but to think things could not be done in a better way is unreasonable. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, I don't think so. That argument is exactly what was addressed in Dave's comments, at least on a general basis. It also doesn't hold water on a lake by lake example by example basis, some seem to support your premise and an equally compelling number seem to directly refute it.
Take an example of a samll lake in the Rhinelander area. VERY limited harvest, excellent stocking program, and a great population of really big fish that got big in a respectable timeframe. I got a fish that was nearly 40# there year before last, and lost another right in front of another Rhinelander Muskie League competitor on a jump this summer that was a real hog. I got a couple there near 50" in the last couple of years, and one well over. I fish it maybe 5 times a year. (Work sucks!!) Is there a problem with the genetics in that water? My opinion is no. Are the fish in that water the same fish stocked in other waters here in Oneida and Vilas? Yes, they are. So why is there a strong representative sample of trophy fish in that water, and not other waters stocked at the same time with the same strain?
One biologist I spoke to had a comment I must admit seems to make sense. If the fish gets harvested at 48" as so many do here in Wisconsin, it's likely that it wont get to 53".
FSF has several well taken points, as well.
As to his comment about the spelling issue I think he wasn't suggesting that anyone's intellectual capacity was lacking; he was suggesting that if one wishes to argue scientific applicatiion with another scientist, one needs present the argument well. | |
| | |
| guest - 3/3/2005 11:08 AM
One could make the case that Wisconsin has been selectively breeding small fish from small lakes for the past 100 years. Is that a good thing?
When comparing costs, let's also compare the costs of netting large fish for 2 weeks vs. the costs of Tens of Millions of dollars in tourism (lodging, gas, food, guides, tackle etc.) leaving to go elsewhere.
To be fair to the DNR - just a few good men face the task of managing thousands of lakes for many different species with many different user types expecting different experiences. It's a tough job, but to think things could not be done in a better way is unreasonable.
Guest, it is an interesting idea, and hey it might be possible, and might be arguable. Why, Bum himself referred to the "breading" program going on in the south with big bass. I wonder if that is the same as the "breading" program going on with muskies in WI(a possiblity Sworrall raises), or something else entirely, LOL?
You need to be very careful what statements you make here. What if the DNR, upon appraising their programs, felt things COULD be done in a better way, and that way would include phasing out muskie research and a bare bones stocking/hatchery program? I am not in favor of that, but I think it is an error to start assuming that the DNR has in some way screwed up the fishing, or to automatically assume that improving the size profile of WI muskys is something that is easy to do or ? even desirable.
I see reference to hoping to return to what we once had for a fishery in WI.
The fishery I ONCE HAD in the Chippewa Flowage in the 70's, was one that held a 40 inch fish rare enough that it's location would be kept a secret lest another angler get in there and catch him, hardly the case nowadays, simply a lot more 40 inch fish than the old days. The case you make for tens of millions of dollars of tourism money? Sounds good on paper, tough one to document, if you actually can, that would be the kind of thing that would turn some heads in the legislature. Hard to convince me though, since I see increasing pressure every year, everywhere I fish. The department looks at so much budget for hatchery programs, and it is very clear and documentable they can save money by being efficient when gathering eggs. They get absolutely NO return to their budget by increasing tourism due to musky fishing. However if you can prove that such a relationship exists, I AM ALMOST CERTAIN THE LEGISLATURE WOULD BE PRESSURED TO KICK IN SOME EXTRA FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE GENERALLY DEPRESSED NORTHERN ECONOMY, and the economic multipliers of such numbers, tens of millions, would surely recompense the state for the paltry investment. Ever been to a budget meeting for ANY governmental or bureaucratic organization? See how fast pie in the sky gets tabled, when compared to saving $0.02 per gallon of gas for the fleet. Point being, unless something can be documented in a clear fashion, it will not be acted upon. I would also suggest that unless a decline in musky size and some kind of definition of why comes about, don't expect a lot of action on this. Support the research going on in Butternut. Encourage more research from the universities, this is the kind of thing that can be the basis of a doctoral thesis. Encourage ANY fishery management interest, in this problem, or that we perceive a problem to exist. Don't antagonize anyone that can possibly help roll your ball in the direction you want it to go, because there aren't very many people out there capable of helping you roll your ball-and it behooves you to keep them as allies, and not to try and score points against them in public forums, or try and start your ball rolling from a stance that THEY SCREWED IT UP TO START WITH("they" probably didn't have any input on the original direction). | |
| | |
| BTW I am the "guest" quoting and replying to guest above, forgot to log or sign. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | fsf, I'd suggest doing the same that was asked of a few of us. Let the expert answer our questions before imposing ridicule. I'd like my post with my questions above not lost in the wolf pack predatory posts here. Lets all add something of our own, or ask a question of the experts.
The chip argument you make holds little if any water. We are not talking about an increase in 40" fish here. We don't seem to have a problem with 40" fish being present. In fact in some cases, there seems to be too many of them in that size class. I have no doubt you findings are true on 'YOUR' water. I'd be willing to bet that it has been awhile since a 50, 60lb or 70lb fish has been caught on the Chip. though hasn't it? I am sure alot of this has to do with harvest, and we will patiently wait to see what the increased size limit will do out there(though not raised enough in my opinion). If any water should be a model for success with higher limits, the Chip. should be it, should it not? We should see improvements very soon out there.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 8:30 PM
| |
| | |
| Mr Worrall & firstsixfeet - please read the below and then expalin to us again that we are mistaiken. (FSF - I misspelled a couple of words so that you can insult me - insults are fine on this board as long as you agree with the moderators)
Another reason why it's total BUNK when somebody takes a muskie that they THINK is past it's prime spawning age:
In a scientific double whammy, researchers report that fishing pressure is causing fish to evolve to smaller sizes, just as new studies show that larger fish are critical to sustaining populations. In species such as Pacific rockfish, the big, old females not only produce exponentially more eggs than younger, smaller females, but their hearty larvae have a far greater chance of survival. Keeping these big fish in the water increases the chances of strong population numbers in the next generation which is paramount to the recovery of overfished stocks.
Representing three fisheries science sessions from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting, Steve Berkeley of UC Santa Cruz, Larry Crowder of Duke University, Andy Rosenberg of the University of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and Jeremy Jackson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography highlight the latest advances in genetics, biology, and evolutionary science that point to new strategies for maintaining fisheries.
As a former leader in the National Marine Fisheries Service, Andy Rosenberg has faced the difficult realities of implementing new fisheries policies. "Over the last ten years the management struggle has been to begin to bring massive overexploitation under control, and that struggle has had some success but rebuilding fish-stocks is another matter," says Rosenberg.
Old Fish Never Retire
Fishing disproportionately removes older fish - which are larger and more highly prized. In fact, management often seeks to shift fishing pressure to these older fish in an effort to let younger, fast growing fish reach spawning age.
Researchers have long known that older fish produce exponentially more larvae. A 50 cm Boccacio rockfish, for example, will produce nearly 200,000 larvae, while an 80 cm fish will produce ten times that - nearly 2 million. These larvae are released into harsh ocean conditions without parental care. For fish, spawning is like entering the lottery, and the older, larger fish have many more lottery tickets. "For northern cod, only one in a million make it to age three," says Jeff Hutchings of Dalhousie University. Similarly, for many species of Pacific rockfish, only a tiny fraction of mothers about one in a thousand - succeed in contributing to the next generation of fish, according to Daniel Gomez-Uchida of Oregon State University.
But scientists only recently discovered that the larvae of old fish also have better odds of survival. Berkeley started investigating this advantage after observing Pacific rockfish spawning patterns. He noticed that older females spawned early in the season. And when he looked at the next generation of fish, there were years when most of them had birthdates corresponding with these early spawning events. He wondered whether it was just the timing of release that mattered, or whether the older mothers were somehow giving their offspring a leg-up in life.
"I was astounded when I got the results," says Berkeley. "I suspected some difference, but not the overwhelming difference that we saw survival rates were nearly three times higher, and growth rates were 3.5 times faster for larvae from older mothers."
Berkeley's team discovered that older mothers produce larvae with a larger oil globule, a sack lunch packed by mom that the baby fish relies on if faced with starvation. Early spawning can also give the larvae a boost when it coincides with peaks in zooplankton. By removing the big, old fish, we lose the benefits of their fecundity and superior larvae, and we also shorten the spawning season all of which reduce the chances of a robust cohort of recruits the next year.
"Without the oldest females," says Larry Crowder of Duke University, "populations lose their best hope for the success of future generations - the resiliency that can compensate for overfishing."
"Rockfish can live to be 100 years old," says Berkeley. "People understand that you can cut down a 100 year old tree in five minutes, but that it takes 100 years to grow a new one. Old fish are the same way, they accumulate over decades, even centuries, and in a flash they're gone we can remove them much faster than they can rebuild."
Evolution in Our Lifetimes
Having fewer and smaller fish may not bother the average consumer just yet, but creates a "Darwinian debt" for future generations. Researchers say that the evolutionary effect of fishing has been a blind spot for managers overlooked, downplayed, ignored because of the complexity, or just not on the radar screen. "The truly worrisome aspect is that repairing evolutionary damage is vastly more difficult than causing it," says Ulf Dieckmann. "The debt we build up is increasing at a sky-high interest rate."
While many think of evolution as a slow, historical process, research by Jeff Hutchings (Dalhousie University), David Conover (Stony Brook University), Mikko Heino (Institute of Marine Research in Norway), Ulf Dieckmann (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria) and others shows that by taking out the big fish, we are actually driving selection for smaller fish that mature earlier. Studies show fishing pressures can significantly change the genetic composition of fish populations in as little as 20 to 50 years.
"We see it in the models, in the lab, and in the real world ? smaller fish and fewer of them," says Heino, a co-organizer of one of the AAAS fisheries sessions. "Since these changes are genetic," adds Hutchings, "they are not readily reversible we'll be stuck with them for a long time. No one wants that fishermen or conservationists."
Scientists now have evidence that the age of sexual maturation in several populations of cod has been reduced by a quarter, and for plaice (a type of flatfish) nearly a third. "These examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg," says Heino. "We've detected fisheries-induced evolution in almost every species we've studied."
"Resource managers and decision-makers need to be aware that fishing can cause genetic changes - changes to characteristics that are vitally important to the continuity of the population," says Hutchings.
Overfishing Can Reach A Point of No Return
Cod off the coast of Newfoundland - once one of the largest populations in the world has suffered a 99% decline since the 1960s. Hutchings latest work shows that the changes in size and age at maturity caused by just 30-50 years of fishing have reduced the chance of cod's recovery by 25-30%. Hutching's findings confirm the importance of keeping old fish in the sea and may explain the failure of closures to bring about a rebound in the cod population.
Researchers suspect that this evolutionary change is happening with other stocks too. "We have this belief, that we can knock down fish populations to exceedingly low levels and they can bounce back rapidly," says Hutchings. "Not to say that it can't happen. But little or no recovery appears to be the general pattern. Unfortunately, it appears to be the exception that drives policy."
Genetic and ecological studies led by Ralph Larson of San Francisco State University point to an additional problem with current management. Larson's work shows that simply keeping enough spawners in the sea isn't enough to prevent populations from crashing ? first you need the big fish, but you also need big fish throughout their geographic range. Each year only a subset of rockfish spawn successfully, and it's impossible to predict where these "winners" will be from year to year. "If we want to have more consistent levels of replenishment from year to year rather than a boom and bust cycle we have to protect spawners throughout their range," he says.
Solutions
While the scientists acknowledge that there is no quick and easy way to integrate the true complexity of fish population dynamics into management, they all point to the need to preserve large, old fish and maintain the balance of age classes in the population.
"If the new studies are widely applicable to other species, then it isn't a question of doing a better job, it is a question of doing a different job. The old management tools will not work to protect age structure or genetic diversity, or prevent local depletions we'll have to use new tools to achieve new objectives," says Berkeley.
Crowder calls for new strategies that address cumulative impacts on fish populations and protect entire segments of struggling populations. "We have to move toward true ecosystem based management," he explains. "Commercial and recreational fishing have reduced top predators to a remnant of their former abundances, but pollution and nutrients from the land also drive fish, crabs, and shrimp to suboptimal habitat, making it even harder for these populations to recover it's in fact a triple whammy."
One approach consistent with ecosystem-based management is ocean zoning. "Some areas might be totally protected, some closed seasonally, some open to commercial fishing, some only open for recreational fishing and so on," says Berkeley. "As far as protecting age structure and maintaining big old fish, I can't come up with anything better than a marine reserve-type approach where you protect a segment of the population from fishing. There may be other approaches that would work, but I think we know enough to get a good start on a network of marine reserves."
We have been ingenious enough to figure out how to overexploit a very big ocean. We must now be ingenious enough to figure out how to deal with the complexity and regain our lost resources.
OK - it's me again now. who's going to be the first to dismiss all the Biologists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science ? my guess would be FSF or sworral (as he did on the 2nd post of this very thread), but something tells me its going to be Slamr hitting me with a reprimand!!! LOL!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dismiss, no, but apply to the Muskie population in Wisconsin as this is written? I'd question a direct correlation, Bob. This article deals with commercial and recreational overfishing of an ENTIRE saltwater population and the resulting crashes in population and potential genetic effects. Are you saying that this is what is happening here in Wisconsin in EVERY single lake and river? What sort of numbers do you feel are harvested VS the entire Muskie population? What percentage of the large fish in Wisconsin on an average body of water are harvested, and is there a direct provable correlation to the percentage of big fish /total population in any given lake or river and the average size of the fish today? Are Rockfish and Cod managed in the same manner as muskies? How do you explain the lake I continually refer to, a case which you and others I have asked to explain simply ignore? Are you referring to the commercial harvest in Ontario in the early days of Muskie angling, or is that not part of your research? Was the effect of an early massive commercial harvest of Muskies on now popular Canadian waters what you intended to refer to in the posted piece? What about Native American Spearing and the effects on the population here, and how would that effect the management strategies you are suggesting?
I didn't, as you have suggested, 'dismiss all the Biologists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science'. I questioned YOUR application of the described problems and suggested solutions for a completely different specie of fish under completely different types of pressure on a completely different body of water. Are you trying to tell me this has happened to the entire Muskie population in every lake, river, and impoundment in Wisconsin? What about the lakes where the fish are STOCKED only, like Pewaukee, where a number of them in a couple year classes are turning up over 50" lately, and like several other STOCKED only lakes that support numbers, but no real size? AGAIN, why is it the little lake near me here is kicking out Pigs from the same genetic stock?
Slamr doesn't moderate this board much, I do. I objected to the direct insinuation that our DNR fisheries folks are lazy, unmotivated, and only interested in keeping their jobs. That actually angered me, too. BUT, I asked the gentleman from the DNR to forgive some of our sometimes not-too-well-thought-out-passionate rhetoric. I read the entire thread again, later explaining for those who are not well versed in debate style argument that I felt FSF was trying to make a point; if a layman wants to debate with and directly refute a working scientist in the public arena, he/she'd better do so carefully, checking the post for weak sentence structure, bad spelling, or other items that will form an opinion from those who are reading the debate including one's opponent. It's ESPECIALLY important one checks for proper presentation of argument and support of said argument with facts.
In debate and friendly disagreement it's even more important one resists the urge to over-exaggerate. That will cost you, as exaggeration costs credibility.
I also understand FSF's sense of humor; it is VERY dry. He frequently beats the pants off his opponent in debate style, presentation and addressing the facts, and that has a tendency to cause some caustic response. He has taken me down a notch or two over the years, and every single time I deserved it. So did his latest target, in my humble opinion. It's apparent MuskieBum took it all in stride, trying to clarify his position and restating his objectives in a tone that will draw far less critical commentary. Score a few points for MB.
'How to Win Friends and Influence people.' | |
| | |
| sometimes i find summarizing helps me to think about things.
help me out if i get some of your points wrong...
the idea has been presented that the current genetics of the majority of fish stocked in WI are depleted, favoring fish which grow faster and reproduce sooner and do not reach as great of ultimate sizes.
it is proposed that this may be a result of a combination of harvesting of trophy fish thus removing them from the reproduction pool (based on both MInc data and anecdotal evidence), and the use of undersized early spawners by fisheries workers.
there is research which supports the idea that taking the biggest fish from the population can impact the gene pool reletively quickly.
the conclusion of this is that stock should be taken from only the biggest fish, attempting to select for those features in future generations.
another perspective presents evidence that fish from the same/current stocking sources are performing differentially in different waters, achieving trophy proportions in some lakes and not in other waters. the fact that numbers of trophy fish are showing up in stocked waters is evidence of genetic variability still being present and points to environmental factors as a more significant causal factor.
the conclusion of this is that attempting to take stock from trophy-size fish is cost prohibitive and unnecessary considering the results being gained in the right environments from the current stock sources.
did i get that about right?
here are my humble thoughts:
1. the idea that removing the biggest fish from the population is a bad thing for the gene pool is obvious.
- however, where's the evidence that this is widely occurring? i think the Muskies Inc numbers quoted are suspect at best, particularly because of the timespan which they cover and the nature of self-report. many MI members don't report catches whether kept or released - especially trophies, and most anglers are not MI members. it might be the best we have, but it isn't good enough to "prove" the taking of trophy fish to the degree presented.
- the research on the ocean fisheries is compelling - and a clarion call to us to pay attention to what we're doing with the muskie resource; however, the scale is very different and although the concept is applicable i don't see the evidence that the same thing is occurring here.
- my personal belief is that most trophies are caught by skilled muskie fishermen who practice CPR. anecdotes about the walleye guy who takes home a huge fish are a) anecdotal and b) rare.
- i also am starting to be convinced that the idea of a slot limit on muskies is not heresy. protect every fish over a certain size and allow some of the aggressive underachievers to be taken? imho, not that many people harvest muskies anyway so this might be both a biologically sound and politically acceptable compromise to getting complete catch and release on the biggest fish.
2. the selection of undersized fish to provide stock source has the potential to negatively impact the gene pool by overselecting smaller fast growing early spawners.
- likewise, i think the selection of only very large older fish runs the same risk - overspecializing the population of fish and creating a risk of a genetically inferior population: suspect to disease, or unable to adapt to environmental changes.
- my personal belief is that the sources for stock should be monitored for variation. taken from multiple lakes, and taken from fish of multiple sizes. not all small easily milked fish, but not all trophies either. keeping the genetic variability robust keeps all factors present in the population and allows the fish to speciate once they are within a given body of water to match the conditions within that water. some lakes would select for fast growers, some lakes would select for trophies. but it's all got to be there in the "pool" if the state-wide variability in environments is to be allowed for.
my $.02, hopefully it came across as intended: curious and interested in discussion.
on a side note: i've had the good fortune to talk with the two major participants/debaters in this thread.
i've found Bob Benson (Bob, i'm a friend of Andy Mork) and Steve Worrall both to be generous - i lost my personal best at boatside in Bob's boat and Steve shares his house with anyone. in talking to them i found them both thoughtful and passionate and equally willing to call a spade a spade. no good guys/bad guys here - all good muskie guys who have made me a better fisherman and added to my enjoyment of the sport. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Steve,
I never commented on your lake because I have no idea of the history of it. That is awsome that you scored a big fish, Im jealous, but 3 big fish does not conclusivley prove anything to me(maybe theres more, im not sure). Its possible to shoot a big buck on public land but for my money I'd go up to the northwoods of Canada, I think this is fairly obvious by now? A monk named Mendel figured it out growing peas many moons ago.
Does the lake have native fish?
When was it stocked, How often, how old was the fish you caught. What brood stock did they use?
Also Steve, The last article stated that killing big fish over successesive generations cause smaller fish in the gene pool. How can you say this does not apply to WI musky over the last 100 years?
Lambeu, good sumerization. One problem though. Its good to keep genetic variability, but if the fish used for fertilization already have inferior genes due to harvist in the past, then you are actually causing less variablity. Your using genes that have been unintentionally degraded. This hurts the gene pool, this hurts the entire ecosystem. Another thing that should be discussed is the importance of the "Apex Predator" for the success of the entire system. This a huge concern for those ecologist out there.
That was a very interesting last article, great info. Thanks for sharing
Edited by MuskieBum 3/3/2005 10:18 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MB,
Exactly, and you don't know the 'history' of hundreds of other managed Muskie waters elsewhere in the state. To speculate and postulate and then come to what amounts to a rock solid 'conclusion' on how all should be managed by reading some material on theoretical accelerated evolution in heavily overfished stocks ( commercial fishing coupled with sport fishing) in cod and rockfish popualtions is a leap. Then to suggest the Fisheries folks who work with the actual data every day are not up to speed is REALLY a leap. One hell of a leap. Do you think these folks don't talk to each other State to State? How would our DNR reach the conclusion the Great Lakes strain from Lake St. Claire is best bet for Winnebago and Bay of Green Bay instead of the other available pools?
A fisheries biologist manager comes aboard and posts an educated, scientifically backed, studied response to this current 'popular controversy', and he's dismissed out of hand by laymen who claim to have the facts as a result of reading alot. That's a bit irritating to me, and I bet alot more than a bit irritating to him. The discussion goes from selective breeding to accelerated evolution and back to selective breeding with alot of 'genitics' talk that frankly is based in the same assumtions I mention in my first paragraph here. When the difficulty and risks are mentioned, the response from some of the anglers here is , " No, you're wrong, just do this and our Muskies will be larger." I'm sorry, but I'll take the conversations with the fisheries folks to heart befrore I accept as indisputable fact the postings of an avid but overall just muskie angler who of course means well, but doesn't have the education or background to demand anything of ANY fisheries department, here or anywhere. I can read for hours, months, and days, but running a nuclear reactor will still be out of my expertise, and THAT's easier than managing muskies in the diverse waters we have in Wisconsin.
To my 'small lake':
I'm obviously not talking just 3 fish, I couldn't have contacted that many in the short time I have on that water every year if the year class that was stocked didn't have excellent growth characteristics. Point is there are many nice fish from that stocking effort, and some real hogs, too. Yes, there is limited natural reproduction there, but the big fish I have caught are clipped, and are probably stocked fish. The lake also has produced natural hybrids in the 52" 38# range, I actually had one at my shop a number of years back from this water. Rare, yes, but why there and not Thompson or the Moen's Chain? A friend of mine took a 48 out of Moen's with me a year back, and many said it was the largest they had heard of recently. I fish that water as often as my little favorite Hog Pen, and see NO fish in the 50" plus catagory. According to the theory presented by some, this situation is impossible. I'm sure you've heard my Waves On the Water Make the WInd Blow examples of deabte in fishing, look at all of this through that lens.
Yes, the article did state that killing big fish had the effect you mention. I asked several questions that were designed to actually ANSWER your question here. The article defines fisheries that were overfished to collapse. Near ALL the large fish were commercially taken on a repeated basis over several decades. Near ALL. Name a lake or river in Wisconsin where that has happened. Sure, if the average harvested fish is 48", then there wont be a bunch of fish making it to 54"where the ecosystem allows. But if the fish make it to 48 or 49", and are available for stripping and natural reproduction up to that point, then how much does the model in the article apply? You tell me.
The DNR wants to implement a 50" or more size limit on a few lakes to PROVE that the trophy potential will grow. The Public voted it down, because the activists who forced the vote through the Conservation Congress knew not enough about politics and public relations, period. We would have won that one if the time was taken to step back, inform and educate, and take out the public's fear of the unknown. Beligerent behavior won't get support anywhere. Insulting ( general statement, not directed at you personally) the DNR, Chambers of Commerce, and Guides in Wisconsin will NOT gain you support. I don't care WHO is behind the effort, if the main thrust is beligerent and confrontational, unwilling to entertain public scrutiny and debate, it will fail. Prove me wrong.
How about the fact TONS of muskies were harvested commercially on Canadian waters in the early days of Muskie angling, yet those waters produce some of the biggest muskies caught today. That makes absolutely no sense if the premise in the article and the genetics claims are correct. Then comes the claim that the genetics are ruined, but good old Pelican produces big fish every year, my little lake produces big fish, and there are more examples. If what is claimed about the genetics of the stocked fish is true, WHY are the fish in this lake doing so well? Should be impossible, right?
What about the spearing issue? Lage muskies targeted every year and many many taken, could THAT have something to do with the state of our Muskie population here in the North? Every 48 or 50 speared is one that won't get any larger. This is a reality, isn't going to change anytime soon, and cannot be simply understated or ignored, or blamed on ANYONE but our governing forefathers. Is there hope on that horizon? Yes. Glifwc does way more than most know, and someday, just maybe, we can close the gap between the Tribes and the State and Sport fishermen and resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction. Just maybe.
Lambeau, well siad. I play 'devil's advocate' alot, and some folks just don't see that. I don't know Bob, don't know MB, don't know FSF. I have to do what EVERYONE has to reading this thread and form impressions based on what's said, and that's what I've been trying to impress on all. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Lambeau. Taking fish from multiple lakes is actually the wrong thing to do, unless taking them from the lake they are stocking. Since we screwed up 100 years ago, creating mutts(or mixed) here in WI, it won't be noticed as much, but the whole point of WI not wanting to stock Mississippi fish into more waters is their fear of contaminating and already contaminated(mixed) stock really. Taking fish from multiple lakes would only admit to this already known mixing. We want to see the diversity in our lakes that is still there. if you have fished many northern WI lakes, you notice some of the subtle nuances of different fish from different bodies of water. I have photo albums full of pictures depicting the greatness that is WI muskellunge diversity over the state. When glaciation dissappeared and lakes separated, fish took on unique characteristics in their own sytems. Some of this is still evident, and my friend Chuck Schauer sat up till wee hours one night talking about different lakes, chains, how certain ones appear to be different(shapes, colorations, and patterns), and how sad it is that this is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I understand that the DNR cannot stock each water from its own brood however, and am not asking that it happen.
I feel that trying to experiment with an untarnished strain that was once known to exist in WI(Mississippi) is worth looking at. Simple as that. Again, success was had at the only lake in WI where it was tried, and wide spread success is being had right now in MN with it. Taking some of these fish and seeing what they can do in a body of water like Petenwell(which more likely had remnants of those fish, than the northern WI river drainage strain before paper mill pollution took all types out of the central WI region), would really show us all in black and white what can happen. As I stated earlier, the fish in Pete(a lake that exhibits growth of every other species to trophy size range and beyond) are just not getting up to the desired sizes, period. I am saying that on lakes that are totally dependant on stocking for their populations to exist, and ones that were created to be Muskellunge waters from waters that never had the species, what do we have to lose? Those fish are no more theirs(MN) than ours in my opinion. It is proven that they were once here!!
Steve, I totally agree with you on the Canada thing, though genetics does play a huge role there. You actually answered your own statement and agreed that keeping a strain pure is a great thing. The great thing about Ontario, especially places like LOTW, and Goon etc, is that muskies have never been stocked there, taking out any possibility of tarnishing the genetics that exist as has happened in WI through mixing over the years. I feel I have a valid argument in that certain races(I know I probably cannot use that terminology scientifically) or mini strains existed withing our muskies here in WI. They were not all the same!!!!! Just as all human races and types do not grow to be 7' tall. Some races never get to be 5' tall. certain Muskellunge will never be 50" long no matter where you put them. This is why I argue against the Bone Lake fish that are raised in NW WI. They just do not grow to the large proportions that fish from other systems do, even if put into those systems. Yes, they do grow larger in some cases than they do in Bone(Petenwell), but are still not attaining the max size, like some fish which naturally existed in other waters such as the Chip. St. Croix, WI River, Flambeau, and the list goes on. I feel a poor representative has been chosen(Bone Lake muskies) for carrying the torch to each lake on the Western half of the state.
TAKE THE POWER BACK!!!!
I feel many arguments here have been 'well said'. Though it is easier to say when we agree with that person ehh?
It is late at night. Don't scold me if my grammar is not perfect...LOL.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 10:06 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please explain the 'mutts' concept. Address the fish stocked from the Woodruff operation and explain which strain they are, where that strain originated, and how it 'varies' from Pelican Lake to Tomahawk, for example. Please also explain what happened in 1905 or in that era that you are referring to. Also, explain how taking spawn for several lakes in an area from fish of the same strain admits to already known contamination; that statement can be interpreted a couple ways. And please explain why the fish from that strain can and do get quite large in many waters here.
The Canadian example was addressing the accelerated evolution claim. I'd like to point out that the examples listed, cod and rockfish, are also not 'stocked' from any other gene pool. If indeed the posted story applies to muskies as suggested many times then I'd like an explanation why that scenario didn't happen because of the commercial harvest in Canadian waters, and how it would happen here on Lake Thompson, for example.
I'll return to another example, Mille Lacs. What strain are the barred muskies there? Paul Hartman had a two fish mid fifty inch day there last fall, and both were that strain. Where did those fish come from, what hatchery, which strain? Canada. OK, why do the barred fish vary so much from water to water there. Growth rates, average maximum size, appearance, all vary even in areas of LOTW, connected water where the fish can and do move freely about. How about the lakes that are numbers lakes there, where a 45" fish is a big specimen? What's the dynamic there? No stocking, very little pressure, almost zero harvest and small fish. Why?
Let's talk walleyes in Castle Rock and Petenwell. What about upstream, say Boom Lake and the flowage there, why are the numbers so much worse up here, and the size smaller? Genetics? Accelerated evolution?
A deer example was added earlier. Why do QDMs work in establishing a trophy buck population in areas that otherwise do not support big racks? Same genetics and same concept, just a much shorter lifespan and faster results, right?
The bottom line on the Great Lakes fish, if I might take this there, is some would like to see spotted muskies stocked in the waters here in the north, and feel that would cure all of the ills we have discussed in this thread to date. Am I correct? If I am, please explain which strain would exhibit dominance in say, Tomahawk, what the effect of any possible interbreeding might be (wouldn't that be a 'mutt'?) and what growth, reproduction, and other characteristics they might display long haul? What are the risks/benefits?
To the selective breeding idea, if the fish from Pelican are the same strain as from George, please explain why using only large fish for stripping would do anything at all? The genetics are not held individually in selected 50" females and not in their 44" younger counterparts, are they? What about the other parent, do we also select only very large males? And WHY are there big females, in the trophy catagory, present in fishable numbers in one 500 acre lake and not in another just 3 miles away, stocked from the same strain? Are we saying the genetics of a 39# fish from Lake George are better than the genetics from a 23# Moen Chain fish?
How many waters in Wisconsin had a natural population of muskies before man arrived? How many of the good muskie lakes we have now did our DNR stock from scratch? What strain was used, from what waters, and what other strains were introduced into that stocking program? | |
| | |
| I do need to clarify that I am not trying to take shots at other posters like Bum here, just pointing out that his course of action may not result in any kind of desirable outcome. And this is a written forum, typos are normal, but repeated misspellings say something to your audience you might want to avoid.
Bum may be right about every point he makes, but there is no chain of evidence or relationships that prove any of his statements. Slot limits and musky genetics and brood stock are interesting topics on which I hold some strong opinions. Research may indeed prove my opinions wrong. That will be ok by me.
I do view these assumptions as NOT proved and needing research.
#1 That WI has mutts.
#2 That WI has polluted its breeding stock in some damaging way for the whole fishery
#3 That strains of musky that grow bigger are in any way superior to the strains used to stock WI water at this time.
#4 That foreign strains would neccessarily survive and prosper throughout WI waters.
#5 That foreign strains would result in greater musky poundage, (I have no particular love for long skinny muskies).
#6 That selecting for size of breeders will result in bigger muskies that have favorable survival traits, or that the same would not concentrate possible undesirable traits in future generations..
#7 That salt water/salmon/minnow studies translate to musky directly in a usable manner other than suggestion?
#8 That stocking hybrid muskie strain crosses (Leech with WI) would be a desirable method of maximizing size in lakes that do not threaten gene pollution(and this is one of my own possible agendas)
#9 That all waters can or once did grow huge musky.
#10 That historically, there were all these huge fish swimming around, and this is a case often put forth by proponents of change but historically there were NEVER large numbers of the biggest fish available, not original thought from me but documented by many. Chip is certainly a case in point on the rarity of big fish. How many well documented 50 lb fish from the chip?
#11 That fishing encounters over time have accurately been taken in to the mortality of potential trophy fish. Realizing the rarity of these fish in any base population and then hoping for them to survive possible multiple encounters over time and water temperature conditions it becomes tough to actually state with conviction that these fish are NOT biting the dust early, so to speak.
#12 That the current boom on big fish in MN will hold out in the face of passing time. Hope it does, but may be a temporary condition right now that will not be so startling in another decade.
#13 That fishing predation over the last century impacted ultimate size in any significant manner. Might have, but not proven, I would think more likely impact was that aggressive specimens were taken out of the population, an idea also not proven. Not neccessarily two traits that are connected to maximum size. It should be remembered that historically the heaviest kill of musky did not sort big ones from small ones, since at one time almost all musky that were over legal size got knocked. | |
| | |
Posts: 236
| Steve Do you think it would possible to set up chats with fisheries biologists. That would be cool.
Edited by MuskieBum 3/4/2005 10:39 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Maybe. I can try, but we'll have a job convincing them that it's a Q&A, not a shooting match. I'll see what I can do. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I agree. Strong language here, and continuous one upping gets us nowhere that is for sure. Contamination...bad word choice for sure. Some mixing over years, yes. Never mentioned Lake tomahawk or any northern lake for that matter. My friend Chuck has multiple big fish encounters there per season on Tom, and I have been lucky to be a part of a few true WI knee shaking adventures out there myself. I love that lake the way it is!!! I am really looking only at waters I am familiar with and work hard to stock each year, most importantly the WI river here, the water that my friend Don Kempen began the rehabilitation process on in 1980, when stocking began(would be no muskies in some of these stretches save for Dons efforts to restock in early 80's after treatment plants were put into place on paper mill outfalls, so thanks Don if you are reading). I think it is scary how much it could possibly improve...................... The 45" size limit is the first thing that will help and I am heartwarmed that it has passed, allowing the fish there now, to attain their max size.
With that I'm OUTTA HEAH. No need for the antis to come around and see us, the people most passionate about protecting our sport, and the fish in our state, arguing amongst ourselves.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 11:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg,
Because we are discussing this and seeking a balance point based in reality, it's a fight? I disagree. This is a process, not an event. It takes time and debate to reach consensus, and takes active involvement from those who care about the issues to begin making headway. I will ask questions because that is my job here, I will challenge because I have ALWAYS challenged the concepts surrounding our sport that are based on emotion and not supported by facts or good logic. I will do my best to assist in moving the discussion forward, and ask those dedicated to helping improve Muskie angling trophy potential to stay engaged. Too many times activists quit the 'fight' if things get sticky, or decide to act unilaterally counting on one or two 'personalities' to force a political or extreme agenda. That ALWAYS fails.
In my experience when the debate heats up, and facts allowing for realistic goals are made available as a result, THAT is when progress begins. SO many times the fact that this point in any serious discussion is the toughest gives many an excuse to quit, which is EXACTLY why we fail. Facts, cooperation instead of confrontation, and a bunch of elbow grease will eventually result in a better future for Muskies everywhere. Stay with this, please sir, we need folks like you willing to work hard towards progress and assist those who work so hard to maintain a good fishery here in Wisconsin. It isn't that we disagree amongst our peers as to the goals so much as the method of reaching them. Would you not agree that reaching those goals, even if not as lofty as those one begins a crusade with, is everyone's desire?
The process you see here isn't 'one upping', it's a serious debate in search for the facts. That evolution is healthy, and when held out in the open, and honest endeavor. Hang the Anti's, they are not relevant to this discussion. | |
| | |
| Sworrall, I just re-read this entire thread as of today's date -- March 6, 2005. First, I want to thank you and others who have done your best to maintain a civil and respectful discussion backed with factual information and honest appraisals of what we know and what we do not know. As I said before, it's folks like you who keep me engaged here, along with my lifelong fascination with muskellunge. Don't worry about a few thoughtless comments discouraging me or my colleagues. We care too much to be sidelined by unfair criticism, but I won't wear a "Kick Me" sign on my back either. Hence my earlier response to MuskieBum. I know the vast majority of anglers are good folks who mean well, including him. In my view, the BAD GUYS are in western Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Indonesia -- not pitching bucktails over weed bars on crisp September mornings. I only wish I had more time to help the good guys understand what is known and what is not, so we could all be on the same page regarding research and management priorities.
As I reviewed the thread, I noticed that you asked about Nancy Lake. It is outside my management jurisdiction, but I have inquired about it. I don't have all the specific details, but Nancy Lake previously had no muskellunge and was stocked with Leech Lake fish many years ago. They grew fast and got big in this small lake. Frequent sightings and catches of fish up to and exceeding 50 inches have been reported, but with dwindling frequency of late. We have seen little evidence of natural reproduction since their introduction, but don't know if that is because Nancy Lake is not conducive to muskellunge recruitment in general, or if it's because the Leech Lake strain is not as well adapted to the Nancy Lake environment as a local strain might have been. We just don't know. Another stocking project was undertaken on Shell Lake several years ago, where Lac Courte Oreilles strain muskies were stocked into an ecosystem that harbored only a rare musky previously. As in Nancy Lake, those LCO fish grew fast, got big (up to and exceeding 50 inches), and then were harvested pretty heavily as anglers "caught on" to the sudden availability of large fish. I think we have natural reproduction of muskellunge in Shell Lake today, but we would have to ask my colleagues in Spooner to what extent. They manage the lake.
Many folks here have wondered what they can do... what WE can do... as a musky fishing community, to further advance our knowledge and begin taking advantage of advances in our understanding of fish genetics. I am pleased to report that we are standing on the threshhold of an era of enlightened management, thanks in large part to the initiative and determination of two scientists at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Dr. Michael Bozek is Leader of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit there. Mike had the vision to hire, as his Assistant Unit Leader, Dr. Brian Sloss, who specializes in fish genetics. With Mike's encouragement and assistance in creatively patching together funding from a variety of sources, Brian has assembled the equipment and supplies needed to create Wisconsin's first full-blown Conservation Genetics Laboratory on campus. As I understand it, with some funding from organized musky anglers and others, Brian contracted with a lab in California to create a "library" so to speak, of ~50 microsatellite DNA markers -- the latest technology in genetic stock characterization. Armed with this library of reference markers, Brian is now prepared to begin analyzing the DNA of muskellunge from various stocks of interest in an attempt to define similarities and differences, and to eventually delineate those stocks. If organized musky anglers and others will fund Brian's work and take advantage of his lab's capabilities, we will know in a few short years (2-4) much of what we need to know to manage our stocks and our hatchery propagation system more effectively than ever before. We will likely be able to answer at least some of the questions regarding stock purity. We will still be a long way from knowing which genes govern individual physiological processes important to reproduction, growth and behavior. But we will at least be able identify fish of similar genetic composition so that we do not continue to inadvertently (or intentionally in the case of those who promote stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Wisconsin) mix stocks at the risk of causing outbreeding depression.
Dr. Steven Covey wrote in his book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." We are on the threshhold of understanding. Let's all work together to acquire this vital knowledge before we make more well-intentioned mistakes based upon only those things we can readily observe (i.e., lots of big muskies being reported in Minnesota currently). Let's resist the temptation to attribute causes to effects in the absence of sufficient data to draw conclusions. I have worked in Wisconsin for less than 3 years, but I can assure Wisconsin anglers that they have had some of the best fishery scientists in the country working on problems like this. And that's saying a lot for a guy who cut his professional teeth in Missouri, which arguably had the best conservation program in the country.
By the way (Steve, is it?), is there any way we could encourage folks to identify themselves by name here? I think it would promote the kind of civil discussion we both endorse if folks could not hide to some extent behind a veil of anonymity. Just a thought... | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Yes. it's Steve.
I'm delighted to see your post! I'm looking to open a dialog between us laymen and the DNR that will identify the needs of each management area defined by the DNR staff and anglers from that area, and what the sportsmen and women in those areas can do to assist you and your peers get the work done you feel will help us all reach a goal of better Muskie angling in Wisconsin.
We have formed a group of dedicated anglers with that goal in mind. Some of the top sticks in the State have pledged support, and are dedicated to 'find a way' to work in support of the DNR to accomplish whatever is possible. Please feel free to call me at 715.362.1760 to talk about the work Dr. Bozek and Dr. Sloss will be undertaking, and what we might be able to do to assist. | |
| | |
| Dave,
I wonder if anyone has researched muskie egg fertilization and possible tracts to increase female production, a method which would automatically give a jump in average size to any stocked population. With what is known about sex selection and fertilization it would seem a much less costly and probably easier road to travel than genetic evaluation and research and lake studies. If no one has done this, I am somewhat amazed. Just seems like a very promising and fruitful area for a big return on the research dollar. | |
| | |
| Firstsixfeet,
Thank you, you made my arguement stronger for slot limits. Its been said that stacking will help create a lake with tons of mutts in it. You even say they exist. I have not said much on this anymore with hopes that Dave N, would comment here on slots here. There is not much doubt that they would certainly help. Again this does not have to be on all lakes but certainly should be established on some now, why wait and let more damage be done to the musky fishery. This is a solution that is practical and cost is what (NOT MUCH).
Your thoughts on slots would be appreciated Dave,thank you.
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| Don, as with almost every fish species, I think slot length limits can and should be one of many tools considered when determining how best to achieve specific objectives in musky management. Certainly, the jury is out regarding the applicability of this tool for a species that naturally exhibits low reproduction (survival to age 1) and low recruitment (survival to a size that begins to contribute to the fishery). Slot length limits generally have been used in high-recruitment situations for bass, walleye, and other fish where overabundant small fish have grown slowly and exhibited high natural mortality before achieving a desirable length. That particular problem is exacerbated by anglers harvesting the few fastest-growing fish that happen to "break out of the pack" and exceed whatever minimum length limit may be in effect at the time, if any. Slot limits work best in situations where anglers harvest a significant number of fish smaller than they might have been inclined to harvest otherwise, and when they comply with the requirement to release the fastest-growing fish that, with reduced competition for prey, break OUT of the pack and enter the protected length zone.
We do have a few musky populations that I would describe as "high-recruitment" populations by musky standards, even though muskellunge reproduction and recruitment everywhere pales in comparison with recruitment of bass, walleye, and other species that are not "top predators" in the food chain. Those high-recruitment musky populations might benefit from the thinning of small fish below some protected size range, but ONLY if the stated OBJECTIVES for that water include a lower density and higher size structure than exists currently. We must allow for the possibility that anglers may actually want SOME waters to be "numbers" lakes -- perhaps where they can take a kid fishing for the first time and have a reasonable chance of encountering at least a small musky. All strategies (including regulations) must be viewed in light of the objectives (desired outcomes) we are trying to achieve for a particular body of water.
There is one possible application for muskellunge slot limits, though, that does not involve the typical "high-recruitment" model. We may be able to manipulate the sex ratio of muskellunge by imposing slot length limits that increase the period of angler harvest vulnerability for males relative to females. The natural sex ratio in the wild varies considerably but seems to average about 3 males per female. In moderate- to high-density muskellunge populations, adult muskies may be the most significant predators upon their own young. Theoretically, an appropriately selected protected length range could protect most females after a brief period (2-3 years?) of "running the gauntlet" through the open-harvest lengths, while leaving male muskellunge vulnerable to harvest for 6-10 years, simply because they tend to grow so much more slowly than females. If anglers could be persuaded to actually keep a few of the smaller muskies (biased toward males), it may increase the probability of recruitment of new, young fish -- male AND female. Thus, we would be increasing what aquatic ecologists call the TURNOVER RATIO in the population. By thinning the small, old males, we might increase the chances of adding new, faster-growing females to the population. That's the theoretical construct, anyway.
Now, that said, we must proceed with caution into the world of musky slot limits, because it has only been in the last couple decades that anglers have adopted the strong catch-and-release ethic that exists today. Conceivably (though not terribly likely in my opinion), opening up harvest to small muskies while protecting mid-size muskies could lead to overharvest of all fish before they ever reach the protected length range, resulting in the kind of over-fished populations we had in the 1960s and 1970s. The trick would be to generate just enough harvest of slower-growing males to keep the turnover ratio healthy and keep pumping females into the adult population. It all boils down to angler cooperation in harvesting a few fish, compliance in releasing the protected-range fish, and a wise selection of the protected length range in light of each water's capability to grow muskellunge. I'm fairly certain it would not be a good tool to use on low-density waters. And I would hesitate to try it anyplace where the angling clientele may be inclined and able to overharvest sub-slot fish. But there may be waters where this strategy would help to achieve some objectives for better size structure.
I am approaching this cautiously by first considering a voluntary slot length limit for one of the lakes we manage in the Upper Chippewa Basin of Wisconsin. Butternut Lake is a 1,000-acre musky lake with good potential to produce big fish, but the density currently is VERY high (over 1 adult per acre), suppressing condition and growth rate of adult muskellunge. In a management plan soon to be released, we are proposing to physically remove and transfer half the adult musky population, leaving a still moderately high density of 0.5 adult musky per acre. Then we will try to decrease the minimum length limit from 34 to 28 inches, while "imposing" a VOLUNTARY slot limit of 40-45 inches. This seems like a logical first step to testing the waters, so to speak, on slot length limits for muskellunge. If Butternut Lake anglers will harvest some thin, slow-growing males 28-40 inches long, and if folks will COMPLY with the VOLUNTARY slot limit (40-45 inches) that will be posted at boat landings and advertised in the area, we MAY be able to shift the size structure upward to achieve our management plan objectives. It will be interesting to see if we can get all the support needed to make this happen.
Good questions, guys. I saw the question about altering the sex ratio genetically, too. I am not aware of any previous attempts to do so, but it's an intriguing idea to stock mostly females (if we could create batches of sex-biased fish) in lakes where the fishery is totally dependent upon stocking. I would be reluctant to do so in lakes with natural reproduction, where we must assume there is some adaptive significance to having more males than females for purposes of successful natural reproduction. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Dave,
You brought up a key word…volunteer. The WI DNR never mandated ‘Catch and Release’, but over the last 10 yr or so, it has really taken hold. Unfortunately, many of us believe that too many smaller fish have indeed been released while many larger fish have not. But, nevertheless, our fisheries have certainly benefited from this practice. Yet, many feel that the WI musky fishery has really crashed in the last 5 –6 years. Catch and Release, plain and simple, is not enough to counter the other negative forces working against our fishery.
Recently, I asked a Vilas County guide of 25 years, what his thoughts were on the current state of the WI musky fishery. With his name omitted, below are his thoughts….
“sean...good morning !!....i do have a few ideas on the matter of restoring our muskies....ok..first we need to change our thinking about keeping and killing these fish...only regulations will do this....trust me..ppl are not releasing the big ones!...i see it everyday....we need no kill from 40 inches and up...we need to put a ban on sucker fishing!!...we need barbless hooks only on all musky tackle!!...we need to limit tournaments...or eliminate them!!....and we need an aggressive stocking program to get the ball rolling again...i think we have done enough surveys and studies to tell us, things are not as they should be....the musky fishery has crashed in the last 5 or 6 six years....every one has loved these fish to death...so this is what i would recommend...any or all of my suggestions must be addressed or we will continue a downward trend...there is enough data available to compare earlier fish populations with today’s...these are hard pills to swallow but believe me, if we don’t address them, we will never see the big fishery we once did!!....ahhhhh...as for the 40 inch size limit on all lakes... we can remove fish if they become overly dominate by netting and put them into lakes that need more....soooo...there you have it!!!!....25 years on the water...I just say it like it is.....see ya..
followed by…
sean...thanks for the reply!!...i guess im old fashioned...but i think tournaments are the wrong reason to teach kids about fishing....the musky deserves more than a prize to show it off....we need to slow down...fishing and tournaments don’t mix....that’s how i feel anyhow...we are up to our eyebrows in fast paced fishing....lets just fish for the love of it....maybe some of us don’t belong musky fisherman....maybe im the one who shouldn’t fish for them....i don’t know...haaaa ...everyone wants a picesc of the action ....just not enough pieces left to do it....see ya sean .....ps...someone once said to me...so many fisherman...we all have to accept less....maybe that’s it!!....#*^@ i don’t know.....keep up the good work though ok....take care
All the above, straight from the heart of someone who has been living on a Vilas County lake, and guiding as a profession for 25 years. Folks, if we don’t take note to what is being said here, well, we are just plain ignorant. In summary, these are basically his suggestions:
1) No Kill 40” and above
2) Ban on sucker fishing
3) Barbless hooks
4) Limit or eliminate Tourneys
5) An aggressive stocking program
Like he said, “these are hard pills to swallow”.
Back to the key word in your post, VOLUNTEER. Without passing new laws, I believe we need to volunteer to, No Kill under 40”, we need to volunteer to not sucker fish, and to use barbless hooks.
As to the Tourneys…I think that in order to hold a tourney on a body of water, a permit should be required from the DNR, and the number of permits should be extremely limited based on factors determined by them.
There is plenty of good discussion taking place concerning stocking…it sounds as if the DNR is seriously reevaluating their programs.
I was hesitant to share the thoughts of my Vilas County Guide friend, but I couldn’t keep his thoughts to myself. I have read them over and over again…I know in my heart, he is right.
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
| Don Pfeiffer - 3/8/2005 3:56 PM
Firstsixfeet,
Thank you, you made my arguement stronger for slot limits. Its been said that stacking will help create a lake with tons of mutts in it. You even say they exist. I have not said much on this anymore with hopes that Dave N, would comment here on slots here. There is not much doubt that they would certainly help. Again this does not have to be on all lakes but certainly should be established on some now, why wait and let more damage be done to the musky fishery. This is a solution that is practical and cost is what (NOT MUCH).
Your thoughts on slots would be appreciated Dave,thank you.
[/Don Pfeiffer quote]
Don,
We have discussed your "zany" theories on slot limits previously in a couple of different forums. You need to read and comprehend my 13 points that I think are NOT proven above and needing research. I have noted that it seems the Callahan lake fish are genetically a small strain, whether or not that is true I don't know. Whether or not WI has created mutts, I don't know and state the same above. I really do not want to restart the discussion with you on slot limits, and hopefully Dave's comments might finally put to rest some of your ideas. I do not feel that you present well in a written forum and if you want to continue to pursue your personal goal of implementing slot limits on WI waters, you should find someone else to present the information and make your argument in the written forum.
Anyone that gets the idea that I am in any way shape or form in favor of slot limits, please be advised I am in STRONG OPPOSITION TO SLOT LIMITS and have stated my case against them in several threads and on two different boards before this. (This seems to be a repeated tactic to try and confuse the issue though. )
I am not against limited study of the issue but feel it should be VERY limited due to the confusing message it transmits to the rest of the fishing public, including muskie fisherman that are not following discussions like this on internet chat boards, and forums.
I hope this clarifies my exact position in relation to slot limits, in case Don's post has confused anyone.
| |
| | |
| Dave N
My interest in changing sex ratios springs from the known facts about fertilization which would indicate that sex ratios might actually very susceptible to artificial influence. The known facts indicate variations in life expectancy of sperm, influences of ph, and chemicals on their motility and actual fertilization, other studies suggest a temperature influence sex ratios of offspring. Also there is research showing variations in speed for the sperm.
It would seem like a promising idea to study this. If sex ratio could be influenced by something as simple as a chemical, or physical filter, or perhaps timing of the actual mixing of sperm and eggs, perhaps holding sperm longer to influence the actual male to female sperm ratio? Lots of paths to study this and very possibly a cheap, and useful method to increase the ratio of female to male.
I also believe that purposefully crossing strains for waters supported by stocking only, would be a viable research topic, for bigger muskies.
Also couldn't the eggs be studied in small lots and then put into a blender to get a quick read on the sex ratio of the batch? No need to grow any out until there was some indication of a good path to influencing sex. It would make the research much faster and cheaper I think. When a promising path shows itself a batch could be grown out in the hatchery and lake environment to make sure there were not flaws in the process or problems with a high number of females in the environment.
BTW I am curious if anyone has studied the ratio or theorized on why it might be as highly male as it is. Would this be an adaption by the species to help protect the young on the spawning ground. Anectdotal evidence would suggest that the male muskies arrive early and stay late in the spawning area, would this behaviour be a selection to keep the spawning grounds relatively free of small predators while the eggs and larvae "lifted off" so to speak? Or might the female need that many bumps to release eggs adequately?(no indication that this would be the case but I am not well versed in musky spawning behaviour, though I am sure some are). It seems doubtful that females would need multiple males for ripening phermones.
Also, in wild populations, unpredated by Man, it would seem that female male ratios would be more in line than the 3-1 suggested since the females should actually act as a predator on the smaller males in the population, or would the predation be on such a minor scale as to be meaningless? | |
| | |
| larger females produce lots of eggs, but limited genetic diversity since it's from fewer sources.
lots of males means lots of genetic diversity fertilizing those eggs.
in nature, diversity equals survival.
| |
| | |
| Lambeau the three things you mention are all sort of yes and no propositions.
Not sure there would be any need for a 3-1 ratio from a diversity standpoint. | |
| | |
| Dave,
Thank you for the reply. I feel you have said what I have been that it could work on some lakes. I never said all lakes as some seem to think.
My question for you is this why not make the slot on butternut 40 to 50? That would only protect so many more bigger fish. I am glad your working on this and I am confident it will work.
Next question is that with slow recruitment is it not that much more important to protect the bigger fish from harvest?
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
| i assume you've got it accurate when you say 3-to-1 ratio, males to females.
what's the source of that ratio? why is it that way?
i think it's prudent to answer that question before trying to play with it.
the idea of changing the chemical or enviromental factors during egg development to skew things towards females, in order to stock fish with bigger growth potential, is interesting and creative.
has this been tried elsewhere? what were the results?
a concern that i have is the issue of energy being diverted into sexual development rather than growth, the idea that early recruitment = smaller adult fish sizes.
what happens in this area when the gender mix changes? do the females mature early in order to reproduce sooner and correct the imbalance?
i don't know, and i'm not suggesting it happens, i'm just raising questions that i hope someone here knows the answers to...? | |
| | |
| Dave stated above that this would only be feasible in lakes supported primarily or entirely by stocking, which would be where I would expect it to be employed, if it was feasible. Same as muskyxmusky crosses or any other genetic or stocking strategy that might upset a successful, reproducing native strain. The native strains are part of the reason that any change in broodstock, or unusual manmade strategys, would be suspect in many waters in WI. MN had relatively few native musky waters, and most of the recent success stories are populations established by stocking, thus it didn't matter which stock the managers chose, it would not be displacing native strains. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Harvest number VS acres of musky water would suggest that there is very little chance that true WI native strains even exist. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The strain we have in Oneida county waters is sound, imho. I'd have no problem seeing that stocked anywhere. The work underway to add GL muskies to the stocking programs some places and continue in others will bear interesting results. | |
| | |
Posts: 46
| Has this new page entered the conversation yet? http://www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org/
John_Nesse | |
| | |
Location: Menasha, WI | WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just spent about an hour on that site. Some vey interesting data. It sounds like this group(WMRP) really has there stuff together. | |
| | |
| Holy waaah. There it is!! Any more rebuttles?
The sicketst thing about it is all the refrences from the 70's. Thats 35 years ago. Maybe it's time we do something.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure. In any 'scientific' undertaking, careful controls are set in place to keep bias out of any conclusion reached. That didn't happen in this case. In this case, the data was compiled and published with the EXPRESSED goal of proving a point; in fact, the conclusion of the undertaking was pointed out right here in this thread before the data was published. For that reason and many others, the data, all the assumed conclusions, and the application of the data to the proposed programs needs be carefully reviewed, and not just by laymen. I will try my best to get the opinion of fisheries managers all across the country to the conclusions reached by this group.
I hope, I REALLY do, that making Wisconsin's fishery the very best in the country is as easy as this group says. If it indeed is, and careful diplomacy is followed, the future is indeed brighter than I could hope. | |
| | |
| John:
See the "Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air...." thread in the general discussion section. I don't see much reason to split the discussion between two different parts of this board.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 46
| Larry,
I was referred to this thread by a friend, and he also told me about the WMR site. I posted because it seemed relevant here, but I didn't check elsewhere. My sincere apologies for splitting it up.
Steve,
I haven't spent much time looking at this thread or the WMR site so I don't have an opinion on the validity of the content. But I think you're forgetting the "hypothesis" part of the scientific method in your last post.
I don't follow these discussion boards much. If anyone wants to be sure I see their response to this post, please email me at [email protected].
John_Nesse
(edited to correct a typo)
Edited by 12345 3/22/2005 2:40 PM
| |
| | |
| I'm not surprised by your answer Steve. The MN Study of strains, before selecting the leech lake strain, was an incredibly pursasive study. Are you saying the MN Fisheries Biologist did not know what they were doing??
I'm a bit confused. | |
| | |
| There is a good article in the latest copy of M.H. magazine detailing the MN DNR muskie stocking program that was changed in 1982 to provide anglers the trophy fish they deserve and have now today. It is credited for providing the finest trophy muskie fishery anywhere south of Canada. I recomend that everyone read this article and understand what it says.
EJohnson | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bum,
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's a heck of alot more to implementing the Restoration Group's equasion in Wisconsin than just accepting as fact the work done in Minnesota, wouldn't you agree?
I was making a point, Bum and Nesse. If a hypothesis and subsequent conclusions are forwarded to a scientific community and argued publically with the expressed intent to FORCE acceptance in an effort to command immediate change in practice, it must be PATIENTLY labeled as such and PATIENTLY presented against a background of controls, accepting opposing hypothesis and scientific scrutiny and continuing respectful debate. Anyone want to argue that? I for one am darned happy that this issue is being so carefully examined. Has a tendency to bring the facts to the surface, something the Restoration group does not have reason to object to.
Allow me to elaborate:
from the website;
'STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Before we delve into the details of the problems with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries, we would like to say that we have attempted to work quietly and diplomatically behind the scenes with Wisconsin DNR and Governor Doyle’s Administration in an effort to allow them to do the right thing to put the Wisconsin Musky Program back on the right track. Unfortunately, they have not been cooperative.
(Hmmm, wonder why??? Let's see, a few months so far. In political terms, that's seconds)
And:
' Some of the more cynical members of our group predicted that the Wisconsin DNR, which is faced with huge budget cuts and the elimination of positions will not take this problem seriously, rather they will see this problem as nothing more than an opportunity to save the DNR positions that are proposed for elimination. By applying for federal grants to study this problem, the WDNR can circumvent the State budget cuts and use federal funding for a re-hashed study of musky genetics with the ulterior motive to use much of the study money to save the staff positions that would have been eliminated. We hoped that the more cynical members of our group were wrong, but it seems that their predictions may have some credibility.'
(Sure to win friends at the State level)
'We have heard that the Wisconsin DNR now plans a genetic study of the differences between the strains of muskies. First of all the study they are hoping to get funding for has already been done by the Minnesota DNR. They have a copies of the genetics studies that have already been done. To spend taxpayer dollars on a studies that have already been done is, at the very least, wasteful.'
OK, then EVERYTHING we need to know about muskie genetics before embarking on a totally new management strategy is now known? Can anyone name a scientific study of any kind that was forwarded, proven out, disproven, or otherwise scrutinized by additional or supplemental study? What if a couple actual scientists disagree with the restoration group, shouldn't that carry as much weight, or should those folks be dismissed out of hand?? Why should I, as an interested Wisconsin angler, totally dismiss the opinions of the opposing viewpoint without examining their position?? Am I to assume that this group is absolutely, without any queston right about every single aspect of their platform, and question NOTHING??
'We had high hopes for the Doyle Administration to be receptive to fixing the problem with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries. With tens of thousands of musky fishermen of voting age living in Wisconsin, we expected a more positive response from top WDNR officials other than the "we are going to do what we have been doing" response we got. Some members of our group have wondered whether Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Scott Walker and Mark Green would be any more receptive to fixing the problem with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries than the Doyle Administration has been, thus far?'
Isn't that a poorly veiled threat? Sounds like one to me. Doesn't anyone here recognize how small a minority Muskie anglers are when compared to the total voting public? If I was an official in the DNR at the initial meetings and read this statement, I'd dismiss this group out of hand permanently, but hey, that's me! Is that what has happened so far? You tell me. Basically, this statement, as read, in context, suggests that the folks this group met with are...what?? You tell me. Great diplomacy, guys, you will win the hearts and souls of those you are trying to influence that way, for sure. I happen to think most of what the Restoration group wants done has some serious merit. It's a shame they have chosen this route to get past what amounts to an initial stated objection.
'Unfortunately, that meeting turned out to be nothing more than the DNR dusting off the same old excuses for the declining trophy musky fishery in Wisconsin, give lip service to our concerns (Click Here to see "meeting addendum-part of the Restoration Project document elsewhere on this site) for their current stocking practices (Click Here to see "stocking practices" document elsewhere on this site), and say that they were going to "stock as usual" this year.
The Restoration Team has just learned that the DNR "review" and "plan," scheduled for public consumption in "August or September" of this year, is nothing more than a "smoke screen" to continue doing "stocking business as usual," while implementing in 2006, a multi-lake "study" of different strains of muskellunge, while apparently failing to address the "broodstock" issue as alluded to by Secretary Hassett in his letter regarding the February 22nd meeting.'
OK, folks. Let's hear from some people who work with the State, some folks who have a political science background, and maybe even some folks who have worked within the structure of the existing state government. What do you think of what was said by the restoration group, and what effect do you think it will have on the DNR and the Governor's office? What would your response be if you were of the opposing viewpoint?
| |
| | |
| See the "Stunning new findings" thread in the "general discussion" section for new information...more to come!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | FYI
"Stunning New Findings" is under Muskie Research, not General Discussion. | |
| | |
| In a scientific double whammy, researchers report that fishing pressure is causing fish to evolve to smaller sizes, just as new studies show that larger fish are critical to sustaining populations. In species such as Pacific rockfish, the big, old females not only produce exponentially more eggs than younger, smaller females, but their hearty larvae have a far greater chance of survival. Keeping these big fish in the water increases the chances of strong population numbers in the next generation which is paramount to the recovery of overfished stocks.
Representing three fisheries science sessions from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting, Steve Berkeley of UC Santa Cruz, Larry Crowder of Duke University, Andy Rosenberg of the University of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and Jeremy Jackson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography highlight the latest advances in genetics, biology, and evolutionary science that point to new strategies for maintaining fisheries.
As a former leader in the National Marine Fisheries Service, Andy Rosenberg has faced the difficult realities of implementing new fisheries policies. "Over the last ten years the management struggle has been to begin to bring massive overexploitation under control, and that struggle has had some success but rebuilding fish-stocks is another matter," says Rosenberg.
Old Fish Never Retire
Fishing disproportionately removes older fish - which are larger and more highly prized. In fact, management often seeks to shift fishing pressure to these older fish in an effort to let younger, fast growing fish reach spawning age.
Researchers have long known that older fish produce exponentially more larvae. A 50 cm Boccacio rockfish, for example, will produce nearly 200,000 larvae, while an 80 cm fish will produce ten times that - nearly 2 million. These larvae are released into harsh ocean conditions without parental care. For fish, spawning is like entering the lottery, and the older, larger fish have many more lottery tickets. "For northern cod, only one in a million make it to age three," says Jeff Hutchings of Dalhousie University. Similarly, for many species of Pacific rockfish, only a tiny fraction of mothers about one in a thousand - succeed in contributing to the next generation of fish, according to Daniel Gomez-Uchida of Oregon State University.
But scientists only recently discovered that the larvae of old fish also have better odds of survival. Berkeley started investigating this advantage after observing Pacific rockfish spawning patterns. He noticed that older females spawned early in the season. And when he looked at the next generation of fish, there were years when most of them had birthdates corresponding with these early spawning events. He wondered whether it was just the timing of release that mattered, or whether the older mothers were somehow giving their offspring a leg-up in life.
"I was astounded when I got the results," says Berkeley. "I suspected some difference, but not the overwhelming difference that we saw survival rates were nearly three times higher, and growth rates were 3.5 times faster for larvae from older mothers."
Berkeley's team discovered that older mothers produce larvae with a larger oil globule, a sack lunch packed by mom that the baby fish relies on if faced with starvation. Early spawning can also give the larvae a boost when it coincides with peaks in zooplankton. By removing the big, old fish, we lose the benefits of their fecundity and superior larvae, and we also shorten the spawning season all of which reduce the chances of a robust cohort of recruits the next year.
"Without the oldest females," says Larry Crowder of Duke University, "populations lose their best hope for the success of future generations - the resiliency that can compensate for overfishing."
"Rockfish can live to be 100 years old," says Berkeley. "People understand that you can cut down a 100 year old tree in five minutes, but that it takes 100 years to grow a new one. Old fish are the same way, they accumulate over decades, even centuries, and in a flash they're gone we can remove them much faster than they can rebuild."
Evolution in Our Lifetimes
Having fewer and smaller fish may not bother the average consumer just yet, but creates a "Darwinian debt" for future generations. Researchers say that the evolutionary effect of fishing has been a blind spot for managers overlooked, downplayed, ignored because of the complexity, or just not on the radar screen. "The truly worrisome aspect is that repairing evolutionary damage is vastly more difficult than causing it," says Ulf Dieckmann. "The debt we build up is increasing at a sky-high interest rate."
While many think of evolution as a slow, historical process, research by Jeff Hutchings (Dalhousie University), David Conover (Stony Brook University), Mikko Heino (Institute of Marine Research in Norway), Ulf Dieckmann (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria) and others shows that by taking out the big fish, we are actually driving selection for smaller fish that mature earlier. Studies show fishing pressures can significantly change the genetic composition of fish populations in as little as 20 to 50 years.
"We see it in the models, in the lab, and in the real world ? smaller fish and fewer of them," says Heino, a co-organizer of one of the AAAS fisheries sessions. "Since these changes are genetic," adds Hutchings, "they are not readily reversible we'll be stuck with them for a long time. No one wants that fishermen or conservationists."
Scientists now have evidence that the age of sexual maturation in several populations of cod has been reduced by a quarter, and for plaice (a type of flatfish) nearly a third. "These examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg," says Heino. "We've detected fisheries-induced evolution in almost every species we've studied."
"Resource managers and decision-makers need to be aware that fishing can cause genetic changes - changes to characteristics that are vitally important to the continuity of the population," says Hutchings.
Overfishing Can Reach A Point of No Return
Cod off the coast of Newfoundland - once one of the largest populations in the world has suffered a 99% decline since the 1960s. Hutchings latest work shows that the changes in size and age at maturity caused by just 30-50 years of fishing have reduced the chance of cod's recovery by 25-30%. Hutching's findings confirm the importance of keeping old fish in the sea and may explain the failure of closures to bring about a rebound in the cod population.
Researchers suspect that this evolutionary change is happening with other stocks too. "We have this belief, that we can knock down fish populations to exceedingly low levels and they can bounce back rapidly," says Hutchings. "Not to say that it can't happen. But little or no recovery appears to be the general pattern. Unfortunately, it appears to be the exception that drives policy."
Genetic and ecological studies led by Ralph Larson of San Francisco State University point to an additional problem with current management. Larson's work shows that simply keeping enough spawners in the sea isn't enough to prevent populations from crashing ? first you need the big fish, but you also need big fish throughout their geographic range. Each year only a subset of rockfish spawn successfully, and it's impossible to predict where these "winners" will be from year to year. "If we want to have more consistent levels of replenishment from year to year rather than a boom and bust cycle we have to protect spawners throughout their range," he says.
Solutions
While the scientists acknowledge that there is no quick and easy way to integrate the true complexity of fish population dynamics into management, they all point to the need to preserve large, old fish and maintain the balance of age classes in the population.
"If the new studies are widely applicable to other species, then it isn't a question of doing a better job, it is a question of doing a different job. The old management tools will not work to protect age structure or genetic diversity, or prevent local depletions we'll have to use new tools to achieve new objectives," says Berkeley.
Crowder calls for new strategies that address cumulative impacts on fish populations and protect entire segments of struggling populations. "We have to move toward true ecosystem based management," he explains. "Commercial and recreational fishing have reduced top predators to a remnant of their former abundances, but pollution and nutrients from the land also drive fish, crabs, and shrimp to suboptimal habitat, making it even harder for these populations to recover it's in fact a triple whammy."
One approach consistent with ecosystem-based management is ocean zoning. "Some areas might be totally protected, some closed seasonally, some open to commercial fishing, some only open for recreational fishing and so on," says Berkeley. "As far as protecting age structure and maintaining big old fish, I can't come up with anything better than a marine reserve-type approach where you protect a segment of the population from fishing. There may be other approaches that would work, but I think we know enough to get a good start on a network of marine reserves."
We have been ingenious enough to figure out how to overexploit a very big ocean. We must now be ingenious enough to figure out how to deal with the complexity and regain our lost resources. | |
| | |
| This is in response to sworralls post of 3/23/05 - asking to hear from someone who works for the State. I am a DNR fish biologist, a member of the Musky committee and was an attendee at the February committee meeting at which the WMRP team gave their presentation. I have been following much of the discussion in this forum and several others - all very interesting.
I will not elaborate alot - but just wanted to say THANK YOU. Your comments were excellent and you hit many nails on the head. Keep up the honest and rational critiquing of the 'it's the fish' proposal. We all realize that genetics play a part, but forage, musky density and angler harvest may be much larger factors in this issue. | |
| | |
| Dear nameless DNR Guest,.....whom ever you are
A few questions for you if you would be so kind to please answer for us.
1) Why no name? I find this very interesting to say the least.
2) Please tell us when the WDNR muskie committee was formed?
3) Please tell us how many times the WDNR's muskie committee members have actually met with each other to discuss WI muskie management before the WMRP enlightned the DNR about the WI muskellunge fishery and its damaging stocking history and practices?
4) Please tell us specifically what plans, if any, were already in the works by the WDNR muskie committee to better the WI trophy muskellunge fishery prior to the WMRP's meeting in Madison and the meeting with the WMRP and the WDNR muskie committee in Stevens Point?
5) In April 1997 a "Genetic analyses of Fish Species in the Upper Midwest" was performed and the findings of this study were submitted to both the MDNR and WDNR. The findings of this study confirm what has been previously suspected by the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team. PLease tell us why the Wisconsin DNR completely ignores this study as related to Muskellunge but not Walleyes?
6) Doesn't the plan suggested by the WMRP actually represent what is suddenly being done within the Wisconsin walleye management program after the findings of this study were submitted to the WDNR?
7) Please tell us why after the findings of this study were submitted to the WDNR, the WDNR now suddenly stocks lakes that lie within the Great Lakes drainage with Great lakes strain walleyes but not great lakes strain muskies? Why is this not being done with Muskies as the WMRP has suggested?
8) Please tell us why after the findings of this study were submitted to the WDNR, the WDNR now suddenly stock waters that lie within the Mississippi drainage with mississippi strain walleyes but not mississippi strain muskies? Why is this not being done with Muskies as the WMRP has suggested?
9) The "its the fish" proposal by the MDNR to change its muskie management program worked to better the fisheries there. Why can't it work here?
The WMRP and others here trust that our DNR would not choose to keep any secrets from the public and we are patiently waiting for answers from the WDNR to these very important and legitimate questions.
| |
| | |
| Dear nameless DNR guest
We are still waiting for answers to the questions posted above.
Please respond. | |
| | |
| HEy EJ,
I've been watching this alot too. If I was any DNR anyone I wouldn't respond to ANYTHING you ask. Being pushy and rude won't get you answers or maybe any support. You ever work for the National Enquirer? | |
| | |
| S.M.
Fair enough. I do understand that he/they might be reluctant to repond to me even though these are pefectly legitimate and fair questions to ask. So I have an idea.
Lets have someone who is neutral on this issue ask instead. How about you ask? If they have no beef with you, then I would think there would be no reason for them not to respond. Correct?
| |
| | |
| Summer Muskie,
The DNR dodging basic questions from the people isn't going to gain much support either.
We all know they are watching....why won't they answer?
Bob | |
| |
|
