|
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | OK....first...I don't want this to get into a B@tch session on the short comings of the WI DNR. But what I do want to share with you is a perspective I got last weekend from the WI DNR, which was very refreshing.
Scott Hassett (Sec. of the WI DNR) and Scott Stewart (South region fisheries expert) were gracious enough to come to the Capital City Muskies Inc school and talk about the state of our muskie populations and their plans moving forward.
First, a little background (from my perspective)
Scott Stewart is a member of our club and is a key person, if not THEE person at the DNR that has made the Madison Chain the great fishery it has become...this guy is as passionate about these fish as we are. And, in discussions about moving foward he is very progressive and is right on line (in my mind) for making our fisheries the best they can be.
Scott Hassett has been involved with the club long before he was Sec. of the WI DNR. He too is very passionate about muskie fishing and is an avid row troller. Scott came into office I think this last year. If there ever was a person in the WI DNR that is looking out to make WI muskie fishing the best it can be, he is it.
I didn't take notes, though I wish I had, so what I have below are a few take-aways I got...and not direct quotes....
Mr. Hassett spoke about making changes in the stocking program. He spoke about wanting to investigate the Leech Lake/great lakes strains for potential use in WI inland waters. He said there is a list of lakes already the DNR are concidering putting the leechers into. However, it is important first to understand the impact before moving forward with just stocking these fish state wide. Scott Stewart felt we could have some genetic understanding between the differences, I think he said by next year. Scott Stewart spoke about the potential to get private groups involved with raising fry to increase the production. He said the Aquaculture group in WI is actually quite large and they have shown interest in getting involved....this is just one option he has brought up (though I thought it was very interesting and exciting!). Mr. Stewart shared some very interesting info on the current status of the fishery...and it is very strong. However, he agrees we need to definately do something about the higher end fish. Both gentleman were VERY interested in taking the next steps to take WI to the next level for trophy size fish. The importance that they both stress is they want to make sure it is the RIGHT steps. Mr. Stewart went on to talk about the potential dangers involved with moving to fast and not understanding the fish and genetics/adaption before making a decision. This guy knows muskies and is a fisheries expert...and is who I would look to to give me a straight skinny on what is right.
Recently there has been a big push from some individuals to do some quick, drastic changes to the stocking policy in WI this year. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that there needs to be some changes made. And Scott and Scott spoke to this last sat. This "REVAMP" group of people have some good ideas and definately have passion. Unfortunately, the group has not been the most diplomatic (to say the least) in trying to get their changes implemented. Scott and Scott really didn't talk about this group, but being on the board for our club I have read all correspondances since the "revamp" group has send these, I think, to several muskies inc. And this friction coming from the group is ANTI-PRODUCTIVE in trying to get things done.
I guess what I want people here to take away is this.
If there ever were the right people in the DNR to take WI to the next level for muskie fishing it is now. I know we have all had issues with how things have been done in the past, but I am here to tell you these guys are passionate and want a lot of the same things we want....just they want to make sure it is the RIGHT decision. Have faith, and lets progessively work with the DNR to help accomplish the goals of improving the muskie fishery here in WI.
But lets be realistic. It does take time to change things in our buerocratic system (both Scott and Scott said even they can get frustrated at times...but its the process). It takes time to run some studies to confirm or direct changes. Yes speed is important. But so is getting things right. I think we will see some changes this year to get the ball rolling...and I bet next year even bigger steps. If I had to bet I would say in the next few years we will really see the changes start to gain in size and momentum.
Have faith, be supportive, and listen to what the EXPERTS have to say about whats right.....This is a critical time....we have the right people in place to foster changes...we have a system that needs changes....we have a passionate collective of muskie fishing folks in formed groups and as a general public that want changes....lets not fight among ourselves...patience....faith...and support...
and lets give MN a run for their money!
Cory
p.s. Again...these are my opinions...I hope I didn't take anything out of context from either Mr. Hassett or Mr. Stewart....
| |
| | |
| Thanks Cory, that is great to hear. The WDNR needs to do what is best for the fishery long term, and they need to lead the charge with science based rationale. It sounds like the pieces are in place for that to happen.  | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Totally agree...science based...and the great news is they WANT to change things for the better!! This is NOT the "things are fine the way they are and we are not changing a thing" mentality I think a lot in the muskie world thinks the DNR has, they want to improve the top end fishery like we do!
Heck Scott Stewart was pushing to get the 50 inch size limit for the madison chain but the club talked him into the 45 because we felt it would have a higher likelyhood of passing...
I personally am fired up!
Cory | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Excellent Post Cory.
Did they talk about at all about how they would try to impliment any of the changes?
It seems like so much of the science based decisions from our very own DNR get trampled on by the CC and the general public.
Grass, | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I like what you have said they said. Very encouraging. However, being screwed over by what many state folks have said (yes, very much including elected officials, but not limited to) I have taken a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance, when it comes to state officials. I truely hope that they are honest, because, honestly, I would like to see Muskys in pretty much every body of water in this state. | |
| | |
| Cory,
While I agree that something should be done, the DNR is much to blame for why things need to be done in the first place. I have read some of the documents from the said 'group' you referred to, and feel that it was a very well written and studied proposal. Though I agree with you that the group is a bit of a radical, it is because of them that the two individuals you speak of, are getting things in gear in my opinion. The idea of putting Mississippi strain fish into certain lakes, was the science based idea of the said 'group' you refered to. While the group may be doing things awkwardly in terms of harsh communications as you said you observed, it was in fact they, that openned the DNR's eyes to many of the things they were/are doing wrong that need to be fixed, and offered some biologically sound ideas to improve certain aspects of it. Studies have been done already on the Mississippi strain in WI and they were a success, though brushed off by Madison for reasons unknown. The study in Lake Nancy showed muskies growing up to 54" in 10 years, naturrally reproducing, and nearly sustaining a population in the lake. There has been no natural reproduction coming from fish stocked in waters similar to Nancy with Bone lake fish from the local hatchery there, so the fact that a strain was found to be able to do so, in waters that were once deemed not capable of sustaining natural reproduction, is very uplifting. I am very happy to see that the Scotts are onboard with this, but really, the studies have been done. Lets get to work!! there are waters in NW WI that once held Miss strain fish, that should be refreshed with them again, including the St. Croix river(which MN stocks with Miss. fish and WI stocks with Bone Lake fish). The waters in southern WI that are sustained now by stocking, and rivers that fluctuate creating the need for a fish that spawns deeper like the Miss. fish, will also be prime candidates for immediate approval. i'd say leave the rest alone. NE WI seems to be doing fine as far as strain/genetics issues go, and size limit regs should take care of things up there.
Bill T. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory, good news, and exactly what I have heard.
I don't for a second buy the idea that 'radical' (or for that matter, rude) communication or behavior will or has done a #*^@ed thing for the Muskie program in Wisconsion, nor will it, in my VERY humble opinion.
I'm for working together with the DNR, assisting with raising the necessary funds through action groups, and assisting in the process of education it will take to improve the 'general muskie atmosphere' in the state. We have the best collective opportunities we have had in a very long time to get inprovements set in place. Maybe with cooperation and understanding of the issues, we can move pretty rapidly toward our goals.
| |
| | |
| Bill-
I read all of the documents put forth from the "group" and agree they have some good points and SOME science based info. with a good amount of educated theories thrown in. Educated theories don't make it facts, however. I don't agree that this group got the DNR to open their eyes, since I know they have been looking at some of this stuff before the documents etc ever came out. Now I suspect it definately helped bring it to "front of mind". However, I think the approach, and the subsequent follow ups could have used a lot more tact in my opinion and probably had a NEGATIVE impact on trying to get done what the "group" wanted to get done. People don't like to be bullied around....especially the goverment.
I have "listened" to both sides of the science issue. I think the DNR is taking the right steps to assure that the future of our muskie fishery is improved (yes we would all like this to move faster..but its goverment)......I rather them take the time to make sure its its right before jumping head first without FULLY understanding.
I don't think anyone will argue that the past practices probably were not the best practices. But at the time this was not known.
To the comment earlier, "yeah I will believe it when I see it," I agree, but I am optimistic!
I definately think a little PR from the DNR on thier plans, once established, would help gain a lot of support in the muskie community.
Of course, these are just my opinions....
Cory
| |
| | |
| Folks,
I'd like to object to the idea that the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration
Project is a radical or rude group. We have tried to work quietly behind
the scenes with the DNR since January to no avail. We have offered to
assist the DNR with money and manpower to do the right things but are
continually pushed away. Other than one single e-mail after the DNR invited
us to a meeting on Feb 22nd, while having no intentions on working with us,
we have treated the DNR with nothing but courtesy and respect. That meeting
ended with the DNR informing us that they will continue to stock Bone Lake
mutts and "Oehmcke strain" (Actual DNR term) Muskies into the Great Lakes
and St. Croix river drainages as they see fit - with no concern to the
native genetic stocks that inhabit those drainages. This did upset us
greatly and we responded accordingly with an e-mail meant to get their
attention. On that day it became apparent that we take our Muskie Fishery
more seriously than the Wisconsin DNR does!
We do appreciate Scott Hassett arranging a meeting with the DNR, although
we wish that he had attended to assure the DNR was taking our concerns
seriously. I'm also happy that Scot Stewart is working with the Capitol
City Chapter on the Madison chain. Scot was one of the few people at the
DNR to take us seriously, and the Madison chain should benefit from his
work. Joe Kurz has also been working with the 1st Wisconsin chapter to
bring Large Growing Muskie strains to Lake Wissota. I really hope that
the DNR managers in other areas will listen and work with their local Muskie
anglers. Most importantly the DNR in Madison needs to change. Token lakes
stocked with large growing fish will not fix the problems we have. It is vital that the
DNR hierarchy in Madison allow the hatcheries to work together with Muskie
clubs to assist in raising large growing Muskie strains. It is the people’s hatchery
after all. I feel we tried as hard as possible to work with the DNR on this and I
am proud of that. Our work will continue.
The Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project feels that Wisconsin has
the ability to have the greatest trophy Muskellunge Resource in North
America and we are proud to be taking a leadership role in the changes you
are starting to hear about, but there is much work left to be done. All of us must let
the Wisconsin DNR know that we will no longer allow them to ignore the changes and
research done in other areas that are PROVEN to improve trophy Muskie fisheries.
Minnesota made their changes overnight and are reaping the benefits today,
we would like to do the same. Our children deserve that all the right changes
be made immediately. We blame no one for past mistakes, but feel from this day
forward those in charge need to be held accountable for their decisions. The Project
Team desires changes in our Muskie Program, not more DNR studies on fish that do
not grow large. Continuing to do the same things will only yield the same results.
For those that have supported us over the past few months, we sincerely
appreciate it, and look forward to that support continuing. For those of us who have
not seen our research, it is available at www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
This will be my last post here,
Thanks!
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
| It's not what you want, Bob. its how you've approached your goal. I think you would get alot more support if you wouldn't insist it's 'My way or the highway!' I watched the whole genetics thread, and saw what was said there. Much you said makes sense, but much waht others including sworrall and first six feet said also made sense. Then a scientist posts, REALLY makes sense, and he gets basically insulted by supporters of your methodology.
I saw a post suggesting Dale Carnegie. That was a suggestion I would also say is a good idea, not in a negative way at all. I AM a scientist, and can tell you I'd be insulted with the rhetoric from some post here, but still be willing to listen.
So that was your last post here; why? Because folks disagree how YOU demand what amounts to a public trust be managed? You would never make it in politics, that's for sure. The musies in this state belong to us all. Get used to folks disagreeing with you and engage the public, instead of alienating.
Or not. Your choice. The study will go on, new stocking efforts will occur, and our muskie fishery will improve as a result.
MAYBE....Channel your efforts into what is possible in the environment we have at this moment, looking towards advancement in the near future.
Either way, I like what I read by Cpainter. | |
| | |
| Any person that has any bit of passion about the musky fisherery in Wisconsin should be thankful and grateful for what these gentlemen have done. You can take all the information about over harvesting and slot limits and throw them out the window. If the muskies don't grow big, it doesn't matter. If the muskies grew big, we would still be getting fish in the state waters that will reach the sizes they are talking about. As a person that primarily grew up fishing for muskies in Wisconsin, I am upset that we do not have the size of fish that Minnesota, Canada, etc. has. Just about every person I know that has fished Wisconsin and caught muskies has caught a bigger fish in another state or province than they did in Wisconsin. Don't you think it would be nice to catch those fish in our state?
Everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them, but think of this in a realistic manner. Read their website and let all the "FACTS" they have from the Wisconsin DNR research and all the "FACTS" they have from all the fish registered from Muskie Inc. and you tell yourself it's ok. Our state needs help in a serious way and these gentlemen, whether you think they have done this in a rude or an aggressive manner, should be commended for what they are doing! Good luck gentleman. | |
| | |
| I have read the documents this group has put out and talked with some of them on this and while I'm not too sure that thier forceful approach was the best thing I also believe that the DNR gave them little choice in how to approach this and still hopefully get something done? Yes they may have gotten very agressive and forcefull on this but I grew up in rural America and still believe that at times you do need to take the redneck SOB approach to get things done and get people to listen up. That's just the way it is unfortunately!
As to studying it more, it has already been done and redone by neighboring states all around us. Are we supposed to believe that that river between MN and WI is some kind of magical barrier? One which changes all rules of fish management from one side to the other. As much of the water in both MN and WI is all ultimately related to the upper Mississippi drainage is it not likely that these were all the same fish with the exception of a few waters where they evolved to a smaller fish? At least before we started "managing" fisheries was in high likelyhood pretty much the same fish, So if this is the case why not put some of those fish, aka, the Mississippi or Leech lake strain back into at the very least some of our waters? Whether you agree or not you can not deny that we are in fact doing the wrong thing when we stock unknow and mixed strain fish into waters that could negatively affect waters that have and are being stocked with the Mississippi strain fish. Waters that are in the St Croix drainage and St Louis Drianage are 2 such examples! Way way to much evidence here that what we are doing is wrong, so do we do somethiong about it or continue doing business as normal? If so maybe we need to adopt the shorter version of musky as official as it is shorter and let MN have the longer version muskie to go along with thier longer fish!
I all seriousness though, it is a tough call as to what may be best but for sure doing nothing is not the way to go and like I said, much or the research has already been done on the Leechers by MN so why not use that info and go from there rather than redoing it all again? I know there is some talk here about putting Leechers into some lakes on the stocking list, great idea but where will this leave the rest of the state as all these listed waters are in the central and southern part of the state. Don't you think that if and when it succeeds in those waters and if nothing changes say in Vilas, Onieda, and Sawyer counties that it will have a very negative effect on the economy and tourism all accross the northern part of the state? Probably would as I just find it hard to believe that a lot of anglers would drive past waters producing bigger fish to get to waters that may not be as good????? If we are going down this road should we not have waters with those fish distributed all accross WI where applicable??
Lots of issues here but for sure doing nothing will get us nowhere and maybe we should work with MN and thier data and go from there instead of trying to re invent the wheel again?
Just some thoughts from someone who is not involved but watching what is going on and definately has a vested interest in seeing the very best from our fisheries in WI. | |
| | |
| This question is for Mr. Painter and others,
How long do you want to wait for our musky fishing to start improving in our state? Maybe five years? Ten years? 20 years? Or should I ask, are you happy with the size of the muskies in the state of Wisconsin as it stands right now? I am not happy with the quality of our fishery. If we do our so called research and take our time with this issue we will probably still be in the same situation we are in now ten years from now. Then if something does get accomplished, it will be another 10 years until the fishery starts to blossom. I understand that the DNR has done a lot for the fishery in Wisconsin, but being careful to do the right thing would be a hypocritical statement. The DNR did not do the right thing and that is why we are having this discussion. Our state has suffered because of there mistakes. It is time for them to correct it and move on.
Mr. Painter, I respect your opinions and your comments regarding this matter, but the idea of sitting back and letting our bureacratic officials take their time and do their job just doesn't cut it for me. I want Wisconsin to be the fishery it used to be, not what it is now.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | SO what is the answer? Did you get the response you were looking for? If not, was the answer an agressive and uncooperative response, or continuing efforts to positively advance the concepts you are after? I have no problem with advancing the management in the state as a cooperative effort between the DNR and the anglers here. There are realities that have to be dealt with, and those wil NOT be set aside for a couple angry anglers, no matter the data compiled. Rage at the sky, or work within the system cooperatively for change. Whatever works for you, I guess, but reality is a son of a gun.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Sure a heck of a lot of "guests" out there.....
I am NOT sitting back and letting the gov move slowly along....actually quite the opposite. I have gotten a lot more involved in this effort then I thought I ever would.
And Bob I would say there are very few folks out there with the passion you have....however, it at times can be funnelled in a more constructive manner. Harness that passion with a big dose of understanding, tact and patiences and results would come. I am not attacking you Bob or your group....I admire a ton of work that you guys have pulled together....so don't take it as I am....but maybe a little criticism.
I don't think the DNR (and now this is my opinion) disagrees with everything your group is saying at all Bob. I know they question some of the theories etc....But being a scientist via Education and my job, I question everything. So there is nothing wrong with them not agreeing with everything.
Bottom line...the DNR wants to improve the top end fishery.....bottom line....a large group of folks want to improve the top end fishery.....funny....but I think this is the same goal????
The question is how we get there and how fast.
I want them to get it right....they are the experts....we can give some wonderful help and suggestions as we work together (which by the way IS happening here in Madison). But strong arming and demanding has never worked...except for communism....of course we see how well that has gone over in History....
There are ways to "help" move things along with the DNR...Giving them a reason to want to work together is a start.
Work as a common team instead of bickering amongsts ourselves sure would get us there faster in my mind....
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | The idea of stocking Leech lake strain muskies greatly concerns me. I wrote an article on it nobody would publish (not suprised) talking about past musky management methods and what the future MAY hold. Years ago Leech lake strain muskies were stocked in Mud/Callahan in northern Wisconsin. After 17 years many of the fish failed to reach 30". Spatial isolation plays a role as musky sub species are genetically pre disposed to live in certain environs. It also speaks about how heavy stocking in naturally reproducting waters like in central Wisconsin you may see a change of genetics over time with harvest of natural fish and success of stocked fish. People keep talking about Wisconsin being second rate to Minnesota. It is important to compare apples to apples in water size and forage base, two of the most important parts of growing trophy muskies. That is why Georgian, LOTW, Eagle, Leech, Chippewa and others produce giant fish, not pine pond and little lake. I am not saying that one or another person is wrong. I just think it important to completly look at all of the factors as every detail of musky management must be perfect to create world class fisheries. Lets hope the funds can be found to give each lake the individual attention it needs to be successful. Our bioloigists are good at what they do, its just road blocks like funds and public opinion that get in their way at times. I just thank God we have the quality fisheries we do! | |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | 8inchcrank
Sorry but I just have to correct you on this. Leech Lake muskies WERE NOT stocked in Mud/Callahan EVER! You are completely mistaken on that.
If you look at lakes in WI and compare them to lakes in MN of the same size and with the same type or even what most people would consider worse forage, the lakes in MN still out produce the WI lakes hands down for large 50"+ fish. Thats a fact! | |
| | |
| I look at this from a different perspective.. As a business person first and a angler/sportsman second.
A guide needs something in addition to their ability to teach and entertain to help draw clients, they need a quality resource as well, one that offers a realistic expectation to the client to be able to catch large fish on a consistent basis. There needs to be quality along with quantity.
To the best of my knowledge both Chad Cain and Greg Thomas, two of today's more popular higher profile names in the business, tried to make a go of it in northern WI as guides during the summer months when it was too warm for them in their southern home water. They struggled to the point of leaving WI for MN, both are now enjoying very successful careers in MN. What was the difference..? The quality of the resource they are doing business in. I also know other WI guides and resort owners in popular areas who are consistently loosing business to neighboring resources.
Ask youself these questions.
How many of you (unless you own vacation property in WI) even consider Wisconsin as a destination point for you fishing vacation? If yes, is it because of the fishery resource or is it for another reason? The many polls over the past few years on this board, where to get your next 50, world record potential, etc.etc.etc. tells the story...
Many people I know, myself included, who used to travel to WI destinations for the musky fishing no longer even include WI waters in their options a place to go for long weekends or vacations.
I am not a scientist by trade, but the work done and the information compiled and summarized by the Restoration Team sure seems to make sense. As an angler I have personally seen the quality of the fish that have come from the few locations where "spotties" have been stocked in WI.
No doubt working as a team and in conjuction with the DNR is the best way to procede. But I also believe that all too often in government agencies holding people accountable for job performance is something that is severly lacking. Public scrutinty is also a tough thing to deal with and no matter what, the DNR will always be criticized for their action or inaction.
It seems the problem is known and acknowledged, it seems logical that after reading and re-reading several times the information put forth by the Restoration Team that the answer seems to be in stocking the Mississippi strain of muskie. Do I personally think WI should change all 700+ bodies of water that currently hold musky, no I don't. But I do think that taking a significant percentage (20% in my opinion) in a state wide study for the next five years would certainly give us a good scientific idea as to whether or not changing strains of fish stocked is on the right track. And then decisions could be made based on results to enlarge or downsize the program. In five years the female Mississippi strain fish should be in the 38-42 inch range if the information I've read is correct. If studies show that growth rates are following the patterns established in neighboring resources then there is no reason to believe that in the next five years the trend won't continue and WI should see the same benefits that MN is currently seeing. If it doesn't work, then let the DNR go back to stocking slow growing, small maturing fish and we can all keep driving to neighboring resources for our leisure time.
Again, I look at it from two points, business person first and sportsman second. No doubt private industry moves quicker than government, but it doesnt' always have to be that way. At a time when the DNR is criticized due to deer heard counts, too many turkey/not enough turkey, too many wolves/not enough wolves, etc. etc. This sure seems like an opportunity to do something positive to put WI back on the map as a leader in trophy fish management.
I've got one more question for you... hypothetically. I recently asked a WI DNR biologist how many different known strains of walleye there were in WI? His answer to me...Five. I just wonder if in the course of good intent, trying to meet budgets, establishing fish hatery production methods for quantity of production (not thinking about how big they grow), if maybe, just maybe....the same thing could have happened to much of the walleye fishery as it has the musky fishery. Maybe those 11-13 inchers are mature adults...? The stocking of slow growing short maturing musky and maybe walleye? Things that make you go hmmmm.
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
Respect the other persons opinion and position, come to a mutual agreement, and move forward steadily toward a better tomorrow. | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Mark I couldn't agree with you more, on several points.
You mentioned doing a study for 5 years with say 20% of lakes and determine if its successful. Scott Hassett actually said, as an option, he would like to see something like that, and he wasn't talking 5 years from now either. I don't think they are throwing out all the info the gruoup has brought before them. I know they want to be darn sure its the right thing to do. I don't think any of us would want to do anything that isn't right. There is a lot of science out there to explain several points...but there is also some questions that HAVEN'T been fully addressed according to the DNR. Scott Stewart rattled a couple off to me and they made perfect sense. So the fact that they don't just grab the info given to them and run wild doing as the group says I think is scientific responsibility.
Give them a brief peroid of time to get a couple answers (which I know for a fact they are in the process of going after) and let them come back with what they suggest. I am sure it won't be right in line with all the restoration group wants....but I hope it is right in line with what will give WI the direction it needs, not just for short term but for long term as well....
Oh and Mark...I think the economic reasons you mentioned IS playing a part...I know a lot of cash is flowing over the border....I have a place up north in Oneida county but am looking at making a trip over to MN this fall...
ooops....have to run to church!!
Cory
Edited by C.Painter 3/20/2005 10:13 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Mark on most of his points. The problem comes with resolution. The State of Wisconsin IS already stocking Great Lake strain in several bodies of water. They intend to do more of the same. I am excited to see what is in the future plans, am excited about the lakes that have already been stocked, and am looking forward to working as a group with our state officails to encourage more of the same.
My point is and will be that many are WAY too quick to be overly critical and overly simplistic in their analysis of the issues. I will rely on the scientists here, not laymen even as dedicated as we are. I have spoken to many of the folks involved, and there IS a movement underway to improve our fishery. The QUICKEST way to ensure communication is limited or poor between us as anglers and the folks we NEED to cooperate with is to continue the confrontational stance taken to date. A group of anglers formed about 3 months ago that will be working hard to identify issues from each zone in the state, and work with the DNR assisting in fund raising, cooperative efforts to improve public education, and forward the tropy Muskie water mentality. Let me know by emailing me at [email protected] if you want to assist! | |
| | |
| Having read this thread several times, I see a few points that are missed or lost. First, and most important economically, is what is any of the ongoing restoration of Great Lakes fish OR the supposedly "proposed" plan doing or going to do for the more economically depressed northern portion of the state, the upper third where 99+% of the native muskie range is. From what I have read and heard, absolutely nothing.
Second, what does the DNR plan to do about past and proposed current stocking practices that are just plain wrong, especially those affecting the entire Great Lakes system affecting many other states and two provinces of Canada? To date there has been nothing forthcoming from the DNR that indicates any change, and based on what they have said to date, it will be business as usual, at least for this stocking season. Is this proper?
Last, a few here have constatly taken the "messenger," the Restoration Team, to task for one occurance of supposed un-diplomatic communication with the DNR. Folks, don't concentrate on killing the messenger, but rather LOOK AT THE MESSAGE! The Restoration Team has consistently made it clear from the start that they did not wish to point any fingers at INADVERTENT errors of the past, but that now that these wrongs have been discovered and pointed out, the folks now in charge have a responsibility to acknowledge same and do something about it, rather than perpetuate it.
Sincerely,
A concerned, affected, Businessman and muskie angler. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest:
The Restoration team is, as far as I am aware, comprised of a group of concerned anglers. Am I correct?
What are you referring to with the Great Lakes stocking that is 'just plain wrong', the stocking of Lake St. Claire fish in the waters of Green Bay? Are you saying that Lake Michigan or Superior were once something of note in the Muskie catagory? What ARE you saying?
What, exactly, does this group want? What ARE their demands? I will say this, so far the communication from the Restoration Team with those who question the groups ideas, motives, background, or agenda here on this board has been a bit 'rough' if I might point that out. If the communication with others is as 'short' as it has been here, then you can hardly expect anything but the questions and comments received so far.
Is the Restoration group presenting itself as representing all muskie anglers in the State, or if it's a sort of PAC or activist group with a contained agenda? Either way, if they are demanding immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are, and what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals.
I have a suggestion, and I'm serious about this. If you are a member of this group, talk to the rest of the group and ask them to acquire some help with PR. There are plenty of folks willing to assist in acquiring improvement in the Muskie program here in Wisconsin; acquire the services of one or more anglers with a good PR background to help put forth the agenda you wish to have implemented.
IMHO, the 50" proposal failed here for reasons that could present a learning experience for those trying to get something done here in Wisconsin. The model used for that effort failed miserably. 'Because we said so' is a pretty poor PR baseline for folks who either don't have all the facts, might have some you do not, or are otherwise at odds with your efforts.
If the Restoration group wants the program they have in mind implemented, they need to win the hearts and minds of the DNR and the public. This, for lack of better analogy, will be a process, not an event.
Just my editorial opinion.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | sworrall, Larry Ramsell (aka guest) says if the DNR stocks muskies (at pressent time they get their broad stock from Bone Lake) into waters that they are able to reach the Great Lakes, it will "poison" the gene pool. They are saying that if the DNR ever decides to stock Great Lakes Strain into that system, there could be cross breeding, dilluting the strain. The Restoration Team wants (or should I say DEMANDS) the DNR to cease any effort(s) that may cause this.
The muskies stocked into the waters of Green Bay (from Long Lake) are from the St Mary's River in MI, I'm not sure if that is a direct strain from Lake St Claire or not. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes, the fish stocked in Green Bay and the Winnebago system are from the Lake St Claire strain.
'Demands' that, do they?
The restoration group undoubtedly are to a degree misunderstanding my position on this. I ( and many folks I've talked to over the last several years about this issue) support strongly a move toward stronger trophy muskie management here in Wisconsin. I am delighted that many of the anglers here in the state have taken a proactive position. That's a good thing.
As has been said, there are portions of the proposed changes that seem to make sense. There are also objections from the WORKING SCIENTISTS who are going to be instrumental in moving any improved Trophy Muskie Management effort forward that seem to make sense. One thing for sure, no matter HOW sure this group is of the position they have yet to prove it out, and obviously haven't achieved a 'common ground' status with the powers that be at the DNR. That's how the process works, and everyone involved should know that.
As I posted earlier, the 50" proposal failed IMHO becasue it was implemented following a similar model. Where there was a grass roots, cooperative effort that was NOT confrontational, progress was made. Where the 'because I said so' model was employed, we got our ass handed to us. In the real world of debate and politics, finance, budgets, and restraints, social mores and traditions; even if absolutely correct, a minority position of 'because we said so' just usually don't get it done.
| |
| | |
Location: Middleton, WI | Good discussion here. These are just my opinons & questions today based on reviewing the above messages.
Extensive references and source documentation have been identified and have been relied upon (at least in-part) in formulating positions and perspectives. I believe that comments have been made that this has been studied before and in essence the time for studies is behind us, we need to move forward immediately, etc... I may be wrong, but I believe that one of the references was completed in 1901 (initially- it may have been updated), another in 1934 (it too may have been updated) and numerous ones in the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, a number of newspaper articles and magazine articles were referenced in 2000 and more recently. As an angler and one interested in sound natural resource/public policy, I have no way to judge if the research cited is useful, contemporary, relevant and right on the mark. Is it possible that this information might be somewhat dated and stale? I'm just wondering. The reason I bring this up is I have noticed in the last year that in several cases the medical profession has admited their errors and have taken a 180 -(diametrically opposed) view on several long established practices e.g., Hormone replacement therapy, arthritic pain relievers and Vitamin E supplements. Just a few months ago these were highly recommended by doctors - but just recently the medical profession has reversed themselves on these. This very recent reversal is based on millions of dollars of research which impacts human lives of potentially millions of people.
Now when one thinks about very-tight University & DNR budgets, research and scientific information involving genetics, unique fish strains, complications from various environmental conditions-e.g., acid rain, mercury concentrations, impact of urban development and other impacts - one might wonder - has a sufficient amount of resources been focused explicitly and recently on this issue of Muskie genetics & strains in todays environment? If so, great. As a lay person, I'm wondering that since we just witnessed the medical profession admitting they were 180 degrees, flat out wrong - based on some very, very fresh research (including peer review, internal diagreements and discussions by researchers, etc.) - do the fisheries studies and references that we have access to, hold-up? Are they comprehensive, valid, reliable and sufficient? As was suggested by Cory in an earlier message, it does seem like a prudent, reasonable first step would be to get a fresh, comprehensive & thorough analysis done using various strains of fish with a sound methodological approach using the latest technology e.g., PIT identifiers - bar codes, modeling, high-tech transponders/digital recorders, etc., to get a fresh look at this. This would create a delay and put up a time barrier. It may protect the fisheries from down-side risks.
It would interesting to have high-timers i.e., long-experienced fisheries biologists/researchers - natural resource professionals, describe what they believe would be useful to investigate, should such a comprehensive study be done.
Thanks MuskieFirst for hosting this discussion. I appreciate the views of all the participants.
| |
| | |
| Allow me to speak for myself. No "guest" name or anon. "board name" as many like to post behind. I will be happy to engage in dialog as time permits, but first let me say that several posts here were apparently made without first reading and understanding what has been compiled on the Restoration Team's web site (www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org). Some posts carry forth only partial or incorrect information. We realize that most do not have access to the hundreds of documents that were referenced, nor the hundreds of hours of time it takes to read them all. The "FAQ" page there is an additional source of Q & A's that clarify many points made in the documents presented. Having said that, let me continue.
Muskie nut: Regarding your statement: "if the DNR stocks muskies (at pressent time they get their broad stock from Bone Lake) into waters that they are able to reach the Great Lakes, it will "poison" the gene pool. They are saying that if the DNR ever decides to stock Great Lakes Strain into that system, there could be cross breeding, dilluting the strain. The Restoration Team wants (or should I say DEMANDS) the DNR to cease any effort(s) that may cause this."
The DNR stocks DOES stock Great Lakes drainage lakes with the "documented" small growing strains of muskies used in both the Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries. It is not a matter of "if." In addition, the Spooner hatchery stocks HAVE been stocked DIRECTLY into Lake Superior, 2500 (two-thousand five hundred) as recently as 2003! This not only endangers the stocks there and in Michigan/Ontario's St. Mary's River (naturally producing strains of Great Lakes muskies), but has the potential over time to affect Wisconsin's Green Bay Restoration of Great Lakes strain muskies. Additionally, again over time, these stockings, against all solid genetic principals, could affect Great Lake stocks throughout the Great Lakes and the two great fisheries of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. We do not feel that "demanding" that this practice be stopped is unreasonable.
Mr. Worrall: "The Restoration team is, as far as I am aware, comprised of a group of concerned anglers. Am I correct?"
YES!
As for: "What, exactly, does this group want? What ARE their demands? I will say this, so far the communication from the Restoration Team with those who question the groups ideas, motives, background, or agenda here on this board has been a bit 'rough' if I might point that out. If the communication with others is as 'short' as it has been here, then you can hardly expect anything but the questions and comments received so far."
This question is adequately answered in our Project documents found at the aforementioned Restoration Team's web site. No need to belabor them here unless you feel you need further clarification. Should that be the case after reading or re-reading those documents, please let me know.
We thank you for pointing out that we may have been a "bit rough." Please understand that this is borne of a great passion and frustration after putting this very complex "puzzle" together and then being basically ignored by the DNR. We worked "very hard" and trying to keep this "behind the scenes" and keeping it off of the Internet for over 10 weeks...no small feat in this time of instant communication. Our goal, as was stated very frequently to the DNR, was NOT to point fingers, but rather identify the problems and "obvious" ways to fix them, rather than continue doing "business as usual." Good, sound business practice dictates that if something is found to be a mistake, to contine doing the same thing is merely compounding and adding to the problems. We find it interesting that at the State Musky Committee meeting with the DNR and State musky club Representatives, almost all there agreed that the Great Lakes stocking practices were good and should be looked into, but at the end of the meeting the highest ranking DNR person there stated that change could/would not be undertaken and that they would continue to stock as usual. We found that "position" unacceptable.
As for: "Is the Restoration group presenting itself as representing all muskie anglers in the State, or if it's a sort of PAC or activist group with a contained agenda? Either way, if they are demanding immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are, and what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals."
We do NOT claim to be "representing all muskie anglers in the State," but have recieved the support of all of the organized musky clubs in the state. As for knowing what the "immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are," again, I refer you to our web site, where they are clearly outlined.
We too would like to know "what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals." NOW. At the State meeting, they had NO disagreement with any of our "options" other than egg availabilty for Great Lakes stain muskies (they DO have access to plenty, albeit not in the "diversity" they would like to see, but THAT factor isn't preventing them from proceeding with the great restoration in Green Bay and the Winnebago system), as well as divesity that "may" not be available from the remaining Leech Lake strain muskies left in Nancy Lake. As we have pointed out, and have checked on again subsequently, Mississippi River strain muskie eggs ARE available from a multitude of sources for use in the St. Croix and Mississippi River drainages in Wisconsin. The DNR chose to not consider those options and again, stated that it would be "business as usual" with the continued PROVEN small stain stocks from the Bone Lake brood stock. We find this too, unacceptable and wrong.
As for your: "I have a suggestion, and I'm serious about this. If you are a member of this group, talk to the rest of the group and ask them to acquire some help with PR. There are plenty of folks willing to assist in acquiring improvement in the Muskie program here in Wisconsin; acquire the services of one or more anglers with a good PR background to help put forth the agenda you wish to have implemented."
Attacking the "messenger," even though you feel we have been "politically incorrect," does not address the ISSUES. We will attempt (as I hope I have done here) to follow your suggestion to work on our "PR" presentation. We do not wish to be confrontational. We haven't from the start. We WANTED to work with our DNR and make THEM look good. We have offered money and manpower to help with the depressed DNR budget. We are NOT doing this for personal gain. Personally I am getting to the age that suggested changes will not benefit me. I am doing it because I feel that it is the right thing to do!
As for: "If the Restoration group wants the program they have in mind implemented, they need to win the hearts and minds of the DNR and the public. This, for lack of better analogy, will be a process, not an event."
You are correct! We hope and trust that your readers will appreciate our "passion" as well as our "frustration." We realistically, are "too close" to the "puzzle" and are dealing with the realization that everyone just cannot know the data as thoroughly as we do. When one concentrates strictly on the "picture" that our research painted, and not how it has at time been delivered, the bottom line is the same. CHANGE must happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later for the benefit of the State's Tourism Industry and the "estimated" 360,000 anglers (DNR numbers) that persue Wisconsin;s valued STATE FISH!
Thank you for your "editorial opinion."
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramselll
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
| |
| | |
| Correction: The last WDNR stocking of Bone Lake stock muskies into Lake Superior was the fall of 2004, not 2003...Larry | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Larry-
Thank you for taking the time out to comment.
I don't know, but if I had to guess I bet most folks reading the boards are frustrated, in one sense or another, of the current stocking practices. And I think most would admire the amount of work your group has put forth. And I honestly understand your frustration.
BUT, I think you are significantly playing down the affects of HOW the message is delievered. Steve talked about working on the PR, and I am happy to see you say that you are willing to have the group look into such areas. Personally, if I was the DNR I would be digging in my heels as well if I was, and I will use the term"bullied" around. I think this is a great cause, I may not totally agree with EVERYTHING the group is saying but I think a large portion of the info is pretty right on.
I guess why I originally posted this email is two fold.
1. I seriously wanted people to know that I feel times are going to change and I think the right people are in the DNR to make this happen.
2. In a round about way, suggest to the Musky Restoration Group to take a step back, swallow hard....and proceed in a MUCH kinder, gentler way, maybe even a little appologetic. I have to think the DNR is at least LOOKING at the info they are given....but forcing the issue, in the matter done recently, will not get it moving in the right direction.
SO as a personal request I would like to have the group put a little more weight as to HOW the message is being delievered, because I personally want to see results as well.
Cory
Edited by C.Painter 3/21/2005 8:28 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | The WI Musky Fishery is clearly at a crossroads. Do we really need more studies do confirm what we already know? The beauty of the current situation lies within the simplicity of it. The state of MN took educated gamble years ago and hit pay dirt, by stocking Leech Strain muskies. The state of WI has been afforded the luxury of being able to sit back and monitor the results Unfortunately; they don’t appear to have taken notice! Only through the efforts of Bob Benson and Larry Ramsell has the WIDNR seriously taken a look at what is readily available on the MNDNR website. Given the success in MN, what exactly is stopping the WIDNR from implementing the same program?! What is the downside of upping the number of lakes stocked with spotted muskies? The WIDNR, I believe is so afraid of being wrong that they seem intent on doing nothing. So, it is up to the people of WI to take the gamble and ask the DNR to make a change. From the WMRP web site…
“The beauty of having Minnesota to reference is that our waters lie within the same Mississippi river drainage, at approximately the same latitude. We aren't talking about bringing Muskies from Florida or the Arctic Circle. We know if we stock the pure Mississippi River strain and Wisconsin strains into lakes at the same time, the Mississippi River strain grows larger. We know that when we stock Mississippi River strain Muskies into lakes containing existing Wisconsin strains, that the Mississippi River strain grows faster. We believe we should monitor the progress/changes, but the anglers of Wisconsin deserve changes now and should not have to wait until after another 10-year study to begin real change. Our children deserve nothing less than this.”
Let’s not get hung up on this and drag it on for years. MN has done us a great service…let’s swallow our pride and run with their results. What is the risk in doing so? That we hurt the ‘native strain’? Folks, read what is available on the WMRP site and you will see that due to stocking practices and harvest numbers, a ‘native strain’ most likely does not exist anymore!
Larry Ramsell, Bob Benson and company…. I applaud you for having the gumption to stand up for what you believe is right. In addition to the thousands of hours spent on research, you then went through the correct channels at the WIDNR giving them every chance to make changes. You were even willing to give them all of the credit for the research you did.
Now it is up to the people to take an educated gamble. Pressure your local WIDNR rep for change.
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Sean I disagree about what we already know. The restoration group said they THINK or BELIEVE the Leecher/Miss. strain was the strain that was in WI early on. We don't know that...at least I don't think we do...
The one study I am hearing rumors of is one to study the genetics all through WI. As Bob mentioned we THINK the leech lake/Mississippi strain is the one that was originally in WI. I would think this WI genetic study would answer that.
I am not a fisheries biologist....but for argument sake. Lets say the Leechers are NOT the native strain that was in Northern WI. Maybe the genetics show that the fish living in the WI river best represent what was and should be in WI. Would we then support capturing this strain fish and using it for stocking purposes over the Leechers??? Would this be more of the RIGHT thing to do versus what we want to do?? I guess we really don't know this answer yet...
I know there is an arguement for the St. Croix area fish (and I agree) but I through this out as a "what if" for other parts of the state. Yes MN did some great work....BUT, no one can say right now that they have scientific data that shows leechers were once the strain in all of the original WI waters....
I guess I want the DNR to do what they think is right...not what WE think is right. They need to do something though...and I think they will/are. Again, optimistic.
I pray this does move along at a nice clip and doesn't get sucked into the goverment vortex...But we as fisherman can either help...or hinder that progress, depending on how we funnel our efforts.
I will be mad as anyone if this sits and fizzles for the next 5 years...but if over the next 5 years we make some big steps in some key areas I would be happy.....
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Cory,
The premise of the WMRP is not that Leech Strain Muskies were indeed the native WI strain. Their premise is that Leech Strain muskies would indeed grow considerably faster, reach larger size and potentially reproduce far better than the mixed strain muskies that we are left with. A few things to consider:
1) 50 pound great lake (spotted) strain muskies have been caught in Green Bay. These fish have been stocked by the WDNR. (If the WDNR were to net WI River fish, would you reccomend that they then discontinue stocking Leech/Great Lake strain even though they are seeing 50 pound fish?)
2) The 'Lake Nancy' project which stocked Leech Lake Strain muskies in a northern WI lake grew bigger muskies than whatever strain was present in the lake, with better natural reproduction to boot.
3) The largest musky ever documented in Vilas County, was out of North Twin Lake and was a spotty! There is no record of WDNR stocking of spotties in North Twin.
Yes the WDNR could attempt to net giant WI River muskies and stock from their eggs. Would this be better than stocking Leech/Great Lake strain? Yes, in that we would end up with big fish genetics that have a good chanceof being 'native', but, No, in that this process is simply not nearly as feasible (cost,, man hours, etc) as simply inceasing the number of lakes stocked with Leech/Great Lake strain. In addition, if the WDNR takes the WI River netting path, get ready for years of nothing getting done. This netting process will only give them execuses...$, man houres, etc....why nothing is happening. Why not do both? Net WI river fish AND increase spotted stocking?
Sean
| |
| | |
| Cory:
The DNR in its "Muskellunge Management Update" October 2004, as well as scientists and geneticitists in other many other research papers, all know that our "original" stocks of muskellunge in the Mississippi River drainages (Chippewa River, Flambeau River, Wisconsin River, etc.) came from the Mississippi River. Yes, evolution over thousands of years evolved some different strains, including the very important differences at the center of this project, those that spawn and grow small and those that spawn twice and grow large. A most recent and very large genetic published in 1997, found exactly what we have been contending; the current genetic stocks in Wisconsin waters is what man (DNR) has "created" over the past 130 years of stocking activity. There are NO known proven "pure" stocks of muskellunge left in Wisconsin, and the few remaing "reminants" from the larger strains are nearly extinct. The is no need for yet another study to confirm what has already been done. That the DNR is using pure strain Great Lakes fish for the Green Bay Restoration program shows that they know what is right there, why not the rest of the state?
No, the "Leechers," as you put it, are not themselves the "native strain" that was in Northern Wisconsin, but it IS the ONLY "PURE-NATIVE" MISSISSIPPI RIVER STRAIN OF MUSKIES LEFT ON THE PLANT from the ancesteral stocks of long ago!!
Having said that, the first two options we considered with regard to obtaining eggs for the hatchery and developing new brood stock lakes, was to do extensive netting, taking eggs and milt from only large captured muskies, to at least be fairly sure that the "gene pool" is there from the larger growing Wisconsin fish, thereby giving the DNR the opportunity to return to propagating the best of the best. These options were discounted.
Wouldn't the Chippewa Flowage, Lac Court Oreilles or Grindstone lakes in the western side of the state and some sections of the Wisconsin River, the Lac Du Flambeau chain or some others of the lakes in the eastern part of the state formerly known to produce large, trophy class muskies, be a great place to do such selective egg taking? We thought so.
Cory, the DNR has been doing "what they think is right" for well over 100 years...but it hasn't been unfortunately. As we have pointed out over and over, we are pointing no fingers at the hard working, dedicated DNR personel of the past that did what they had to do at the time with the knowledge that they had available. While it saved our musky fisheries from near total collapse, unfortunately it also has affected our trophy waters and our native stocks of large growing muskies. It can, as Minnesota has done, be "fixed."
Please keep in mind, that the current folks in the state at the top are up for re-election in the next year and a half. Will this administration do what is right...now, or will it fall to the following administrations?
To hinder the process, would be to support "business as usual." To ask for change is what is necessary to return to the top musky destination in the US, and make our STATE FISH proud! We feel it is clear how muskie anglers should "funnel our efforts."
Musky regards,
Larry Ramsell
WMRP Team
| |
| | |
|
2) The 'Lake Nancy' project which stocked Leech Lake Strain muskies in a northern WI lake grew bigger muskies than whatever strain was present in the lake, with better natural reproduction to boot.
this is NOT an attack, just for clarification purposes: that statement is categorically untrue.
please be careful what you put out there as "facts"!!! the internet is a powerful medium that quickly spreads half-truths. if you're going to make strong statements, please be sure to get your information from the original sources yourself rather than assuming that what you read on the internet is accurate.
Nancy Lake did NOT have muskies present prior to being stocked with Leech strain. it was a lake overrun with stunted northern pike, and the project meant to study if Leech strain muskies would successfully reproduce (since they do so in deeper water than Wisconsin fish) in the presence of northern pike. they managed to do so in 4 of 6 years, pretty good results when compared to Wisconsin fish more broadly.
the stated purpose and conclusion form the project was to "assess survival, growth, and natural reproduction...Muskellunge performance in Nancy Lake was difficult to assess because no muskellunge were present prior to it's introduction. Hence, there was no evidence to suggest that Leech Lake muskellunge would perform better than Wisconsin muskellunge in Wisconsin waters." (from RR175)
the conclusion quoted above is technically true; however, the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
to my way of thinking, they should stock some Wisconsin muskellunge into Nancy Lake at the same rate (3 times, every 3 years) they stocked Leech Lake strain and do some comparative analysis of growth and reproduction relative to the Leech fish results. do that with 10 more study lakes at the same time and THAT would tell us something.
it's an obvious next step if we're interested in "proving" the issue by scientifically sound research models conducted in Wisconsin waters. (although i'll give a nod to the position of some who assert that this research was already in done in Minnesota in waters that are significantly similar.) | |
| | |
| Sean:
Just a point of clarification. Prior to Leech Lake muskies being stocked in Nancy Lake, there were no muskies present, just a large population of stunted pike. We felt one of the most amazing results of that "experiement" was natural reproduction despite low muskie densities and potential pike predation. In nearly every non-native lake that Bone Lake progeny has been stocked into, there has been no natural reproduction.
Since this lack of natural reproduction is the case too with Lac Court Oreilles, the original Spooner hatchery brood stock lake, and the lake that was used to "create" the Bone Lake broodstock, we wonder if the "mixing" that took place in LCO since "at least" 1933 (documented, and likely back into the 1800's), and the total use of the known small growing strain of muskies from Big Spider Lake for the entire hatchery year class in 1956, and stocked into both brood stock lakes, as well as all of the lakes stocked from the Spooner hatchery that year, has had the singular or combined effect of rendering that stock basically sterile, thereby creating a situation of "put and take" fisheries where ever they are used! It certainly makes one question the continued use of the Spooner hatchery brood stock for any lake.
The use of the "Oehmcke strain" (DNR terminology) of muskies being used in the Woodruff hatchery, too is troublesome. The 1982 genetic study sponsored by the Wisconsin DNR, Minnesota DNR and Muskie's, Inc., and done by Post et al., UW Stevens Point, found that the primary brood stock lake muskies for that hatchery, from Squirrel Lake and lakes developed from Squirrel Lake stock, are genetically the same as the Shoepac strain of muskies that Minnesota had been using in their hatchery system for over 30 years. During those years that Minnesota and Wisconsin were both using these small strain muskies for stocking, the sizes of fish caught were very similar. Since Minnesota changed to the larger growing Mississippi River strain, the results have been fantastic! Check out the catch stats and graphs on the WMRP web page: www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org to get a very clear picture of what I am saying. It is incontrovertable, despite the limitations of available catch data in both states. These stats are derived from the largest muskie catch data base in existence.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
WMRP Team | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Lambeau,
I stand corrected, thank you. As you correctly stated there were no muskies present in Nancy Lake.
I think that your statement..." although i'll give a nod to the position of some who assert that this research was already done in Minnesota in waters that are significantly similar", really makes a great point. The research has been done and the results are in...50 pound spotties are being caught in MN that are app 12 yrs of age.
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Larry,
Thanks for the clarification on Nancy Lake, as well as the additional information and evidnece of documented growth rates, Leech VS Bone Lake/LCO/Oehmcke, etc...
I really believe that your research is finally giving the people of WI a choice. We can stay the course and watch our musky fishery continue to crash, with documantation showing that we have 20 yr old fish swimming in our waters that will never reach 40"s, or we can mirror what MN has done, and see 30 pound fish within 6 yrs and 50 pound fish within 12 yrs.
Giant muskies used to be a WI natural resource. Lets get it back!
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I respect your work, and have always admired your involvement in many muskie projects over the years, so believe me, this is not a personal issue. If I hear that one more time, you'll make me have to drive over there and buy you a couple cups of coffee!! I have the same passion as you, the same ideals and the same goals. Perhaps I just see a different and in my opinion far more productive path available. You freely admit your tactics to date have not acquired even the least hoped for results. You admonish others for continuing behavior that doesn't acquire results, so it would seem logical to apply that concept to the presentation of your group's platform.
I will ask for moderate behavior where I see extreme or radical behavior possibly hinder the best chance ever for us to acquire improvement in our trophy Muskie management strategies State wide. No matter who the 'messenger'is, if he or she is confrontational, the message will be lost or flat out ignored. If you are certain presenting the described platform is right, how can you possibly condone presenting it in a way that has proven to fail here in Wisconsin? Such was the more carefully worded basis of my last post. I do understand the passion, I share it.
A question. Please pick an Oneida County Muskie lake (Perhaps Pelican? Maybe the Moen Chain?), and give us the plan on what should be done. I read the Mississippi basin and Great Lakes suggested actions on your website, and agree with some and disagree with some of the premises.
Larry, I guess my background has me looking at the same ideas, facts and potential goals a bit differently than your group might, but with the same end game in mind. As I said, a process, not an event.
Now...
Some specific questions.
I and a friend have captured two fish recently from a lake stocked with the fish from the Woodruff hatchery. Both were fin clipped and by the markings, stocked fish. One was about 40# and about 52" in August, the other about 35# and 51" or so in July and two years earlier, definitely NOT the same fish. I have seen numerous others in that class in this lake, when considered for it's size of approximately 500 acres. I believe that I am catching fish there from the 1987, 1989, 1991,1996 and later stockings, and have seen fish there well into the mid 50" class. I know of one old hybrid harvested that was 37# and 53" from that water. I really don't think I want ANYTHING done with that water right now. The lake has natural reproduction, and sustains a fair population of Muskies as a result. What's RIGHT here that's creating these fish? I have been told, and tend to believe, it's lack of harvest of those fish when they reach 48".
Conversely, what is WRONG with other similar types and sizes of water here stocked with the same fish at the same time, producing fish into the 48" and 30# class a few years back from same year or similar year stockings, but few if any now?
What about Pelican Lake? I have fished that very hard since the very early 70's and see the population of fish in and above the 50" class growing, not declining despite intense spearing pressure. Yes, red rusty infestation and other factors made the water harder to fish, and feel I am fishing a mix of stocked and natural fish, due to the markings. Over the years, I have caught and released about a dozen there over 50". In my VERY humble opinion, the fishing there is better now, by a long shot, than it was in 1973. The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain. The stocked fish seem to do a bit better. As I understand it, the strain from Woodruff exhibits excellent length to girth ratio characteristics, in other words, FAT fish. Let's assume that water is a target for stocking spotted muskies. What happens when those fish are stocked? The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right? Would not the very same crossbreeding concerns exist? Does this mean we have to kill off the populations here, and restock with the Great Lakes Strain?
Here's the data on Pelican:
Fish_Stocking_Report_County
Fish_Stocking_Report_by_Species
WDNR_BIOLOGY_WDB_PUBLIC.PUBLIC_STOCKING_SUMMARIES3 - Fish_Stocking_Report_County
Parameters
STOCKED_CNTY_NAME Parameter 1 ONEIDA
Data
COUNTY
ONEIDA
WATERBODY NAME
ALDRIDGE LALLEQUASH SPRINGSBASS LBEAR LBEARSKIN CRBEARSKIN LBERGMAN CRBIG CARR LBIG CARR LAKEBIG FORK LBIG LBIG ST GERMAIN LBIG STONE LBIRCH LBIRD LBOLGER LBOOM LBOOTH CRBOOTH LBOX LBROWN CRBUCKSKIN CRBUCKSKIN LBURROWS LCAMP FIFTEEN SPRINGSCAMP SIX CRCARROL LCHAIN LCLEAR LCRESCENT LCROOKED LCUNARD LDAM LDEER LDIAMOND LDOROTHY LE HORSEHEAD LECHO LEMMA LFALL CRFLANNERY LFOURMILE LFOURTH LFRANKLIN LGEORGE LGILMORE LGOODYEAR LGUDEGAST CRHANCOCK LHASBROOK LHAWK LHEMLOCK LHODSTRADT LHORSEHEAD LINDIAN LISLAND LJENNIE WEBBER LJULIA LKATHAN LKATHERINE LKAUBASHINE CRKAWAGUESAGA LL AIDENNL CREEKL JULIAL NOKOMISL THOMPSONLANGLEY CRLITTLE BASS LLITTLE BEARSKIN LLITTLE FORK LLITTLE SOMO RLITTLE TOMAHAWK LLONE STONE LLONG LLOWER KAUBASHINE LMADELINE LMANSON LMAPLE LMARGARET LMARION LMCCORMICK LMEDICINE LMERCER CRMERCER LMID LMILDRED LMINOCQUA LMINOCQUA THOROUGHFAREMOEN LMOSQUITO LMUSKELLUNGE LMUSKIE LN NOKOMIS LN TWO LNOISY CROELHAFEN CRONEIDA LOSCAR-JENNY LPELICAN LPERCH LPICKEREL LPIER LPLANTING GROUND LRAINBOW FLRANGE LINE LRHINELANDER FLRICE R FLROCKY RUN SPRINGSROUND LS TWO LSAND LSCOTT CRSEVENMILE LSEVENTEEN CRSHISHEBOGAMA LSHIVERING SANDS CRSKUNK LSPIDER LSPIRIT LSQUASH LSQUASH LAKESQUAW CRSQUAW LSQUIRREL LSTARKS CRSTARKS FLSTARKS SPRINGSTELLA LSTONE LSUGAR CAMP CRSUNDAY LSUNSET LSURESHOT LSWAMP CRSWEENEY LTHIRD LTHUNDER CRTHUNDER LTOM DOYLE LTOMAHAWK LTOMAHAWK THOROUGHFARETOWNLINE LTURTLE LTWO SISTERS LUN CRUN DITCHUN LUN SPRINGVENUS LVIRGIN LW HORSEHEAD LWHITEFISH LWILDWOOD LWILLOW FLWILLOW LWILLOW R
LEGAL DESC AND LOCAL NAME
T35N R10E S11 -
REPORT CREATED
MAR 21, 2005 - 08:09 PM
YEAR
SPECIES
STRAIN
AGE CLASS
AVG LENGTH (INCHES)
NUMBER FISH STOCKED
1 1972 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 21,600
2 1972 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 5.0 25,000
3 1974 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 7.0 2,250
4 1974 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 600
5 1975 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 20,000
6 1976 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,395
7 1976 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 20,000
8 1977 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,369
9 1980 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 8.0 2,500
10 1981 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 890
11 1982 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,600
12 1982 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 900
13 1984 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,032
14 1984 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 154
15 1984 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FRY 1.0 3,000,000
16 1985 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 2,500
17 1986 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,176
18 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,500
19 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,000
20 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 210
21 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,000
22 1991 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.0 1,750
23 1992 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,500
24 1993 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.4 2,500
25 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.8 2,500
26 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FRY .5 100,000
27 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.0 1,250
28 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.7 1,250
| |
| | |
| Mr. Worrall:
Thank you for the compliment.
While I don't believe that we "...freely admit your (our) tactics to date have not acquired even the least hoped for results...," you have made your points and they have been taken. While there is a lot more to the instance that ruffled a few feathers than you are aware of, there is no point in belaboring it further, so we shall move forward.
You state: "A question. Please pick an Oneida County Muskie lake (Perhaps Pelican? Maybe the Moen Chain?), and give us the plan on what should be done. I read the Mississippi basin and Great Lakes suggested actions on your website, and agree with some and disagree with some of the premises."
Rather than being a question, it is a lake specific issue that would take a bit of time to research and define. I will however, touch on the "drainage" issues in a moment, but first a couple of questions for you regarding Pelican.
I see from the stocking data you have provided that stocking was discontinued there in 1998. I have been told that the Pelican Lake Association, with your involvement, got the DNR to discontinue the stocking. Is this information accurate? If so, could you please explain the reason?
The "drainage" in Wisconsin are a fascinating study. There are several locations throughout the muskie range where you can stand in one drainage and practically throw a rock to another. Interesting too are the two swamp locations that feed to distinctly different drainage, one going south and the other north!
When we discuss drainage with regard to our Project proposal's, we must look at a couple of factors. First, since man's intervention and damming of the northern drainage, is there still the possibility of muskies stocked in drainage waters that have the potential to escape and move downstream? A good example of this type of movement is a muskie that was tagged in Big MacKenzie Lake in western Wisconsin. This fish navigated some very small streams, and over time made its way all the way to the St. Croix River, where it was recaptured! Another consideration must be what egress would be available in the case of a 100 year flood, such as what happened in the Mississippi River in recent memory when entire towns were flooded.
On to your "Now...Some specific questions." Your scenario below provides the barest minimum of information, so a few questions will arise and a few suppositions will have to be made for any answer:
"I and a friend have captured two fish recently from a lake stocked with the fish from the Woodruff hatchery. Both were fin clipped and by the markings, stocked fish. One was about 40# and about 52" in August, the other about 35# and 51" or so in July and two years earlier, definitely NOT the same fish. I have seen numerous others in that class in this lake, when considered for it's size of approximately 500 acres. I believe that I am catching fish there from the 1987, 1989, 1991,1996 and later stockings, and have seen fish there well into the mid 50" class. I know of one old hybrid harvested that was 37# and 53" from that water. I really don't think I want ANYTHING done with that water right now. The lake has natural reproduction, and sustains a fair population of Muskies as a result. What's RIGHT here that's creating these fish? I have been told, and tend to believe, it's lack of harvest of those fish when they reach 48"."
First, was a check made to see that the fish stocked in Lake X were fin clipped? Only in special circumstances do they spend the time and manpower to fin clip stocked fish. You state that the two nice fish mentioned were "NOT" the same fish. On what basis do you make this claim? Were the fish tagged as well? "Seeing" numerous others in that lake, as you state, is merely anecdotal, as there would be no way that you could tell if you were indeed seeing multiple fish or the same fish or few fish often.
You state, and I have no reason to dispute, that you have seen fish there "well into the mid 50" class." What you have not said, is whether or not this is a native muskie lake, whether it is a seepage or drainage lake, nor what drainage if a drainage lake. Since Lake X is obviously maintained by stocking, whether native or not, it falls into the "must stock to maintain" category.
To answer what I believe to be the heart of your question without waiting for additional information from you, I will proceed from both native and non-native standpoints and assume it to be a drainage lake:
"IF" Lake X is a native drainage muskie lake, and since pike are obviously present (based upon your "hybrid" comment), I submit that even though it has been determined that this lake must be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, there is a very distinct possibility that there is a remnant stock of native-large strain muskellunge still at large in Lake X. Enough to self-maintain a small population of large fish, such as still the case in Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward. What may not be being realized in these two examples is, that the continued overstocking with mostly small strain hatchery fish is bringing both lakes closer and closer to the brink of extinction of the large stain muskies there!
"IF" Lake X is a non-native muskie lake, and has been "created" by hatchery stocking, the first question I would want answered is "when" was it created? This too could have a great bearing on what fish stocks/strains are present. There was a least one occurrence during the '60's when the eggs taken for the Woodruff hatchery were from large strain fish in one of the "former" brood fish lakes. That year, the average size of the females stripped for eggs was 44.5 inches vs. the "normal" average of 33.5 inches! With the known history of reproductive success of the large strain muskies in non-native lakes, it is conceivable that if some of that stocking years fish got into Lake X, "it" could be basically the same as a remnant native large strain stock and account for your occasional giant from there.
While based on the limited information given the above examples must be considered hypothetical, that are based on solid information. Now on to your next question:
"Conversely, what is WRONG with other similar types and sizes of water here stocked with the same fish at the same time, producing fish into the 48" and 30# class a few years back from same year or similar year stockings, but few if any now?"
Here again, you ask a question with the barest of details. One could come up with many valid reasons for the scenario you pose, but all are but educated guesses at this point. The foremost thought that comes to mind for your scenario would be that these "similar" waters may not have "always" been stocked with the same fish at the same time, and they may have missed the large strain stocking and/or they weren't native muskie lakes and Lake X is. That is about as far afield as I care to go with no information to pull from. On to Pelican Lake:
Continuing: "What about Pelican Lake? I have fished that very hard since the very early 70's and see the population of fish in and above the 50" class growing, not declining despite intense spearing pressure. Yes, red rusty infestation and other factors made the water harder to fish, and feel I am fishing a mix of stocked and natural fish, due to the markings."
While anecdotal, I respect your ability to discern stocked fish from fish natural or native to Pelican. I too, can make the same determination on one of my favorite lakes, even though a biologist was hard put to understand how I (we) could/can do that since he "couldn't." It is merely a matter of time on the water and knowing your fish. As for the population of big fish growing despite spearing, one could make a couple of quick conclusion hypothesis. First is catch and release. This must be factored in. Second could be the discontinuation of stocking of small strain fish from the Woodruff hatchery system, allowing the remnant native-large strain to again begin to dominate. Since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake (via the Wisconsin River), it is very easy to conclude that the native strain of muskies in Pelican Lake are indeed the Mississippi River strain.
Continuing: "Over the years, I have caught and released about a dozen there over 50". In my VERY humble opinion, the fishing there is better now, by a long shot, than it was in 1973. The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain."
Based on your limited data information, I would say that the "native strain" in Pelican has about the average growth rate for Mississippi River strain muskies:
Continuing: "The stocked fish seem to do a bit better. As I understand it, the strain from Woodruff exhibits excellent length to girth ratio characteristics, in other words, FAT fish."
Define "a bit better." While the Woodruff fish may exhibit "excellent length to girth ratio characteristics" that does not necessarily equate to "better" fish. Quite the contrary may be the case. Again, since I am working with very limited information, I will have to make a few assumptions. Both the large and small strains of muskies show good growth at small sizes. It is at the point of earlier maturation of the small strains that things change. The small strains begin putting on girth as their reproductive mechanism's kicks into gear. The larger stains continue length growth without putting on girth until mature and reproductive mechanism kick in. One big mistake that happens when length/girth comparisons are made at the same length dimensions, is that this type of measurement does not take AGE into consideration. In every study we could find that had information for length and girth at the SAME AGE, the Mississippi River strain muskies out performed (were larger than) every other strain!
Continuing: "Let's assume that water (Pelican) is a target for stocking spotted muskies. What happens when those fish are stocked?"
First, since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake, we will figure by "spotted muskies" you mean Mississippi River strain spots vs. the spots of the Great Lakes strain. Most importantly to anglers, is that they will grow FAST, and will get big over a short time span; approximately 46" average for males and 53 to 54 inches for females. More importantly, since they are basically a native fish for that lake, they should adapt quite well, including natural reproduction.
Continuing: "The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right?"
EXACTLY, and the MAJOR points we have been trying to make in our Restoration documents! By using the "native" Mississippi River strain of muskies, any emigree's down into the Wisconsin River and eventually the Mississippi River, will be right a home and no threat to the native populations in any waters along the way. While I don't agree that the term "poisoning" is the proper word to use, "mixing" of the large and small growing strains defiantly is. In this case, no problem. And yes, this consideration should and must be given to "EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today," at least those waters that are drainage waters. Landlocked seepage lakes are another matter completely.
Continuing: "Would not the very same crossbreeding concerns exist?"
YES. If a lake contains a "native population" of small stain (allopatric) muskellunge AND has never been stocked and doesn't now have pike, but must be maintained by stocking, it should recieve only small strain stocking...ideally from eggs taken from that very lake and returned there to take maximum advantage of the "evolved" genetics there. Unfortunately, few or none of these situations exist. Usually these types of lakes must be maintained by stocking due to an invasion by pike, either introduced by man or due to some other unknown factor. Conversely, if a drainage lake is a lake that "originally" had the large growing stain as the native fish, it is irresponsible to overstock or continue to overstock them with the small hatchery strains. Again, this is the Major focus of our Project proposals.
Continuing: "Does this mean we have to kill off the populations here, and restock with the Great Lakes Strain?"
By "here" I'll assume we are again talking about Pelican. There is no reason to "kill off" the population there, and NO, restocking with the "Great Lakes Strain" would NOT be the proper strain to use, rather, as indicated above, the Mississippi River strain should be used IF any further stocking is to be done there. Ir-regardless of the past stocking practices using small stain fish, IF stocking were deemed necessary there, the Mississippi River strain will survive and once again become dominant, as has been the case in the native Mississippi River strain lakes in Minnesota.
As we have noted, this is an extremely complicated "puzzle." It is only by reviewing and understanding the 130 history of propagation and stocking in Wisconsin that this "puzzle" can be put together, and the "picture" that it paints can began to be understood.
I trust that this treatise answers most of your questions and concerns.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| After breakfast and coffee, I came to the realization that while we have been discussing "strains" throughout, we haven't really defined what the strain differences basically are and why they are important. Allow me to elucidate:
We have had little discussion on the great importance and distinction between the large and small growing strains of muskellunge. There is a very important difference between them. In the State Musky Committee meeting, after I had put up a slide showing the ovaries of a large strain-multiple spawner, one of the geneticist's present, stated that the "multiple spawning" trait of the large growing "sympatric" (co-exists naturally with pike) strain of muskellunge is an "evolutionary novelty." We agree. It is this "novelty" that is SO important in the large strains reproductive strategy of producing up to 850,000 eggs (documented), requiring larger body growth. This "novelty" by the way, exists in EVERY POPULATION OF NATURAL, SYMPATRIC MUSKELLUNGE STOCK IN NORTH AMERICA!
Part of this larger muskellunge strains reproductive strategy also includes spawning in deeper water in their native environment, as well as spawning at higher water temperatures, allowing co-existence with pike.
The smaller, "pike-like" strains of allopatric muskellunge (evolved and exist(ed) in water absent of pike) have a reproductive strategy that is much closer to that of a pike; single spawning, inshore, and at colder water temperatures. It is these traits that get it into trouble when pike are introduced into their environment. Many studies have documented how muskies loose out when pike are introduced into allopatric muskie lakes. A good example is Pine Lake, Wisconsin. When pike invaded that body of water after a dam broke, pike have become the vastly dominant predator species there and muskies are nearly wiped out.
It is these factors that have management ramifications as to which is the best strain to stock in waters that must be stocked to maintain a viable fishery or create new and/or better opportunities. Obviously, any muskie lake, native or otherwise, that gets/needs stocking, would best be served with the large growing strain of muskellunge that is able to co-exist with pike if pike are present, whether natural or introduced. Non-native muskie lakes without pike would still be best served with the larger growing strain, as it can provide a proven trophy potential fishery that the anglers want and that will also benefit tourism. A win/win situation!
I hope this clairfies the "strain" differences.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| wow. THANK YOU to Mr. Worrall and Mr. Ramsell.
this is the kind of professional question/answer discourse that you just can't find anywhere else. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'First, since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake, we will figure by "spotted muskies" you mean Mississippi River strain spots vs. the spots of the Great Lakes strain. Most importantly to anglers, is that they will grow FAST, and will get big over a short time span; approximately 46" average for males and 53 to 54 inches for females. More importantly, since they are basically a native fish for that lake, they should adapt quite well, including natural reproduction.
Continuing: "The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right?"'
My point is that Pelican has been stocked for many years, heavily, and by both the DNR and many Muskie clubs. The strain that was stocked since 1972 has been primarily from Woodruff, I believe. There seems to be a healthy population of big fish, and in fact the lake is doing better IMHO than it was in 1973. Are the big fish there 53" n the average? No. So now we want to introduce Mississippi strain to a lake that has reasonable natural reproduction and has been stocked with fish from the Woodruff hatchery for over 30 years. The premise that Mississippi strain will easily adapt without problem because they are basically native makes some sense, but what about the large population of muskies already there, and cross breeding concerns? Will not the fish now there interact, crossbreed, compete?
The Lake X example is, by design to this conversation, another Mississippi Watershed Drainage lake. Interestingly, I have fished this water very hard for over 30 years, and until the stocking I mentioned, a Muskie over 45" was an absolute HOG. Now there is a good population of good fish, and the year classes correspond with the stocking done.
How do I know the fish were not the same one? The smaller of the two had several distinct scars, which the larger did not have, including a jaw deformity from a previous capture. How am I sure I am seeing more than one or two true trophies there? Because I have seen several in one day, different locations on the lake, within a 2 hour window. Is it possible this lake was stocked in the 60's? I don't have that answer yet, but will. What I do know is the year classes stocked there are doing very, very well. Would this lake be a candidate for the Mississippi strain? Maybe, but I'd hate to see that happen. The fish in that water are heavy, and exhibit excellent growth throughout their lifespan.
The other lake mentioned is NOT a drainage lake and was, to my knowledge, a lake where the current muskie population was established by stocking, again by design to this conversation. Stocking there continues. The year classes stocked in the very early (1972) time frame produced some very big fish there; I saw several harvested in the mid 80's there that were 52 to 54". As angling pressure increased, the number of large fish decreased. This lake is heavily speared including Winter spearing, and angling pressure is way heavier than on Lake X. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Excellent discussion and very informative.
I have some follow up relating to Steve’s questions hopefully Larry can offer an opinion.
Still using Pelican as an example if Mississippi Strain where stocked there would they inter breed with the small strain if the small strain spawns more like pike and the Miss. Strain spawns in deeper warmer water. Wouldn’t any genetic mixing only occur between already common fish which should be a plus.
Also I thought it was stated earlier that the small strain being used as brood stock for Woodruff was basically a sterile breed, if so how is the natural reproduction occurring on Pelican and in Steve’s Lake X explained. It can’t all be from remnant natural fish, can it?
Steve I think I have heard you say, you believe that the largest fish you are seeing in pelican are remnant naturals. If this is the case wouldn’t a stocking practice that used genetically similar fish as brood stock be a good thing. I believe the same thing is happening in the Wisconsin River, you can obviously tell the natural fish compared to the stocked fish.
Rather than being totally radical, could brood stock be developed from Wisconsin River fish as opposed to Mississippi fish. I believe they could be genetically similar, but it would be much easier to convince the local people that the big fish in Pelican Lake, The Moen Chain, The Three Lakes Chain, Lac Vieux Desert, and the Eagle River Chain (Yes big fish are caught here every once and a while, they usually look like river fish), all have common ancestry with Wisconsin River fish. The truly big fish from all the above fisheries usually look very similar.
One more question, are Mississippi Strain musky harder to capture for milking than the fish currently being used? Deeper, later, spawners I could see this being a concern of the WDNR, though it shouldn’t be from a management perspective.
And to answer one of Larry’s questions, from what I have heard through my dad who lives on Pelican is that stocking was halted because the lake association petitioned the DNR to do so because they felt there was enough musky eating all the perch and walleye as it was. I don’t know if Steve was involved or not with other more scientific reasons, the above is the word around the lake.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Just to add to the discussion the attached pics are from the Wisconsin river.
These fish where caught a couple day apart in November from the same type of structure. At the time the different marking on the two fish where puzzling. I have since come the conclusion that one fish was a stocked fish the other was most likely natural. The “Bronze Back” is the common color of fish over 45" from the Wisconsin River this fish was right at 45, the other was 41. Both where dinning fine on the plentiful forage in the River.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Attachments
----------------
 MR 1999-11-09 45b.JPG (27KB - 293 downloads)
MR 1999-11-13 41b.JPG (30KB - 289 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | WOW....must say this has been an interesting threat as Mike pointed out.
Steve, thanks for some thought provoking comments. Larry, thanks for the very informative posts.
For the record I am NOT against WHAT your group is striving for by any means. I understand the brick walls you have run into and the frustrations that have build over time. Keep up the good work of getting people involved to bring WI to the level it should be. Sometimes working with the goverment requires one to have the patiences of the Pope!! Lets just hope (again I am being the optimist) that the Pope won't be needed to get to a happy conclusion!
But like I have stated before, it is not going to happen unless we get the right people on both sides of the fence working together to come to a good plan to move us forward.
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Thank you for posting the info about the different strains Mr Ramsell.
Can you expand on this a little more? How many strains of muskies are there? Which ones are double spawners and which ones are not? What is the max growth rate/potential of each of the different strains? What strains do we have in WI today?
Thanks,
Grass, | |
| | |
| lambeau: Your welcome.
Mr. Worrall:
You state: "My point is that Pelican has been stocked for many years, heavily, and by both the DNR and many Muskie clubs. The strain that was stocked since 1972 has been primarily from Woodruff, I believe. There seems to be a healthy population of big fish, and in fact the lake is doing better IMHO than it was in 1973. Are the big fish there 53" n the average? No."
My reply: Please keep one thought in mind that may further help to explain why some big fish are/may coming from the Woodruff hatchery. The term "Oehmcke strain" was coined at Woodruff by DNR staff. That term is used, because as Art Oehmcke recently said, they are so mixed up that there is no way to know what they are. He stated after reading our Project document that if we can figure out a way to "sort it out, more power to us."!! They used then, occasionally, eggs from large strain muskies. Like the more commonly used small strains, especially after he learned that the small Squirrel Lake strain ("small" unknown to him at that time) provided the best eggs from a standpoint of egg and fry survival, and switched to them almost exclusively. The problem is/was, that the "mixing" that took place resulted in BOTH strains getting stocked EVERYWHERE, including brood stock lakes, and some of the remnants likely still survive. During especially fast warming springs in these small lakes, spawning of the two strains can overlap, just as with pike and muskie, and large strain eggs can get into the hatchery system. 10-12 years later, up pops a big fish from a lake not known to have big fish.
You state: "So now we want to introduce Mississippi strain to a lake that has reasonable natural reproduction and has been stocked with fish from the Woodruff hatchery for over 30 years. The premise that Mississippi strain will easily adapt without problem because they are basically native makes some sense, but what about the large population of muskies already there, and cross breeding concerns? Will not the fish now there interact, crossbreed, compete?
My reply: First of all, if stocking has been deemed no longer necessary there, this discussion is moot. Nothing should be stocked, including Mississippi River strain. Applying your question to a similar lake that does need/get stocking, my reply would be a definite yes, stock Mississippi River strain. If there are large strain fish in there already, and they truly are the larger strain, and not an upper end or hybrid mix of the two strains, they will likely spawn at the same time and should cause no problems, as BOTH those there by stocking as well as the MR strain will not have lake evolved genetics to be concerned with. All muskies compete, but if your meaning was will the MR strain out compete the current stocked fish, that is impossible to know. In Minnesota, when the MR strain was stock "over" the small strain that had been used for over 30 years, the MR strain did dominate, as was desired. I think what you would find in our hypothetical situation, is that if the fish already there weren't large strain fish, the MR strain fish would take over, again, as desired (remember, at the SAME AGE, Mississippi River strain fish are heavier at length than the two Wisconsin "hatchery strains.").
You state: "The Lake X example is, by design to this conversation, another Mississippi Watershed Drainage lake. Interestingly, I have fished this water very hard for over 30 years, and until the stocking I mentioned, a Muskie over 45" was an absolute HOG. Now there is a good population of good fish, and the year classes correspond with the stocking done."
My reply: Do the year classes really correspond with the "stocking done" or is it really the affect of natural reproduction as a result of a previous "lucky" stocking of large strain fish?
Your statement: "How do I know the fish were not the same one? The smaller of the two had several distinct scars, which the larger did not have, including a jaw deformity from a previous capture. How am I sure I am seeing more than one or two true trophies there? Because I have seen several in one day, different locations on the lake, within a 2 hour window. Is it possible this lake was stocked in the 60's? I don't have that answer yet, but will. What I do know is the year classes stocked there are doing very, very well. Would this lake be a candidate for the Mississippi strain? Maybe, but I'd hate to see that happen. The fish in that water are heavy, and exhibit excellent growth throughout their lifespan."
My reply: Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.
Your statement: "The other lake mentioned is NOT a drainage lake and was, to my knowledge, a lake where the current muskie population was established by stocking, again by design to this conversation. Stocking there continues. The year classes stocked in the very early (1972) time frame produced some very big fish there; I saw several harvested in the mid 80's there that were 52 to 54". As angling pressure increased, the number of large fish decreased. This lake is heavily speared including Winter spearing, and angling pressure is way heavier than on Lake X."
This Lake "Y" exactly parallels those non-native lakes in the western part of the state being stocked with Bone Lake fish with regard to reproduction and minimal growth. Spearing has to be factored in, but without the numbers an assessment cannot be made as to its impact. The "former" large fish that used to be harvested there in the mid 80's, again falls into that "lucky" stocking possibility, when some large strain fish got stocked there. Obviously they are now nearly extinct in that lake. On to Mike's questions:
MRoberts
Posted 3/22/2005 10:43 AM (#139971 - in reply to #139471)
Subject: RE: Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air....
Excellent discussion and very informative.
I have some follow up relating to Steve's questions hopefully Larry can offer an opinion.
Mike asks: "Still using Pelican as an example if Mississippi Strain where stocked there would they inter breed with the small strain if the small strain spawns more like pike and the Miss. Strain spawns in deeper warmer water. Wouldn't any genetic mixing only occur between already common fish which should be a plus."
Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.
Mike continues: "Also I thought it was stated earlier that the small strain being used as brood stock for Woodruff was basically a sterile breed, if so how is the natural reproduction occurring on Pelican and in Steve's Lake X explained. It can't all be from remnant natural fish, can it?"
My reply: Here we must be careful not to confuse our facts and subsequently spread incorrect information. Your "sterile breed" apparently is derived from my earlier post when I said that nearly all of the non-native lakes stocked with BONE LAKE fish from the SPOONER hatchery, have no natural reproduction. I cannot speak to the lakes stocked from the Woodruff hatchery, but it is likely that if a lake is "created" and perpetual stocking "must" take place, that natural reproduction is absent or insufficient. Pelican is a native or natural muskie lake that has "always" had muskies. Obviously the majority are large strain and natural reproduction is sufficient, a common thread among lakes stocked with MR strain fish, including Nancy Lake in Wisconsin! So to answer your question, YES, it can be from the native large strain fish still present in Pelican Lake, in, a considerable more quantity than "remnant" status.
You state and ask: "Rather than being totally radical, could brood stock be developed from Wisconsin River fish as opposed to Mississippi fish. I believe they could be genetically similar, but it would be much easier to convince the local people that the big fish in Pelican Lake, The Moen Chain, The Three Lakes Chain, Lac Vieux Desert, and the Eagle River Chain (Yes big fish are caught here every once and a while, they usually look like river fish), all have common ancestry with Wisconsin River fish. The truly big fish from all the above fisheries usually look very similar."
My reply: Unequivocally YES! And again, as I have mentioned previously, this was the first two options we presented in our Restoration document as presented at the State Musky Committee meeting in February. It was dismissed. "Hometown Pride" is a natural thing, and obviously we would rather see Wisconsin overtake Minnesota in the production of trophy fish by using Wisconsin fish, but if that won't or cannot happen for whatever reason, should we be content to sit idly by and purpurate more small muskies and waving to happy anglers as they drive THRU Wisconsin on their way to Minnesota, while our Tourism continues to suffer? I certainly hope not!
Your last: "One more question, are Mississippi Strain musky harder to capture for milking than the fish currently being used? Deeper, later, spawners I could see this being a concern of the WDNR, though it shouldn't be from a management perspective."
My reply: One of the main reasons it took Minnesota so long to make the switch from Shoepac small strain muskies to the Leech Lake large strain muskies is that very reason. They couldn't catch them. Once Bob Strand figured out where they were spawning, the 'ol ball game was over, and as they say, "the rest is history!" They can be caught, maybe not in a few days of egg taking as is the current practice, but do we want our DNR to manage for bucks or fish?? The "quick in, quick out" is merely a cost saving thing, and not in the best interest of getting the best eggs for hatchery production. Our sister state spends a month taking eggs to assure that they get the "best of the best." To do otherwise is "penny wise and pound foolish."
Another thoughtful exchange, thank you.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| Larry,
earlier it was proposed that a contributing factor to the loss of vigorous genetics in various strains of WI fish came about because of high harvest rates of trophy-sized fish. i believe the WMRP cites Muskies Inc. data to support this.
if WI began large-scale stocking of Leech strain fish, and they grew bigger faster as you propose (and as they've demonstrated themselves to do in MN and Nancy Lake), what would the impact be of higher trophy harvest rates in WI than found in MN? would this simply accelerate the maladaptive process of promoting reproduction by smaller/early reproducing fish in WI and return us to this same point in 20 years?
can a stocking project such as this be effective over the long-term without concurrent changes to regulations or voluntary harvest practices?
thanks! | |
| | |
| Its one thing if Minnesota is producing bigger fish than Wisconsin, but how will people react if Illinois moves ahead of Wisconsin as well?
According to this article: http://www.illinoisgameandfish.com/il_aa071603a/ they are having sucess. I believe they are stocking Leech Lake strain. | |
| | |
| From "Grass:" "Thank you for posting the info about the different strains Mr Ramsell.
Can you expand on this a little more? How many strains of muskies are there?
My reply: Your welcome. I'll do the best I can, but it can get a little complicated. As with "species", when it comes to "strains" there are scientists that are considered "lumpers" and some that are considered "splitters" (their terms, not mine). There is no defined number of "strains." The late Dr. E.J. Crossman, considered by most to have been the foremost esocid researcher in the world, often lamented to me about the vast amount of mixing of muskellunge stocks all over the north American muskie range. He often said that man has so mixed things up that it is impossible to know what is what. Wisconsin has been in the forefront in that department. Minnesota was very fortunate to have available to them the ONLY remaining pure-native stock of Mississippi River strain muskies left on the planet, and based on science, completely changed their stocking program to use them. We strongly feel that Wisconsin should do likewise in all Mississippi River drainage waters that require stocking. Since there are very few lakes left in muskiedom that haven't been tampered with, to give a number of different strains would be impossible. While the geneticists look to genetic conservation, which is fine if a stock hasn't been diluted by 130 years of stocking practices, in all practicality, it cannot be done in a broad scope. Current defined genetic areas (1997 published study) merely encompass what has been "created." While stocks that evolve in isolation do develop genetic adaptations to their respective water bodies, and are considered best if managed individually, in practicality, due to cost, this cannot be accomplished. If it were done, hatchery costs would be astronomical, as eggs would have to be taken from a system, isolated in the hatchery, reared and stocked back into that same system and no where else. Our proposal of using a known, pure, large growing strain of Mississippi River strain muskies (all waters in Wisconsin in the Mississippi River drainage, scientists agree, arrived from the Mississippi River with the melt back of the last glacier), is sound. I didn't exactly answer your question, but I hope you get the idea.
Your next question: "Which ones are double spawners and which ones are not?"
My reply: The "riverine" muskellunge, those sympatric stocks that have historically co-existed with pike, are the multiple spawners. It is an "evolutionary novelty" as one geneticist put it, that allowed this co-existence. Those lakes that historically did not have pike in them, are the allopatric strains that evolved "pike like." These spawn a single time.
Your next question: "What is the max growth rate/potential of each of the different strains?"
According to one scientist that I worked with indicated to me that the small strains have an "average" maximum potential of around 30 to 33 pounds, with an occasional "out of the norm" possibility of about 40 pounds max. The large strains are the ones with maximum growth potential, and the ones where we look for world class fish to come from. Even in the large strains, the "normal" maximum is around 55 pounds, with the rare individual exceeding 60 pounds.
Your last question: "What strains do we have in WI today?"
We have both, albeit the large strains being on the verge of extinction. This is due in part to past management practices and angler harvest of the "best of the best," even in this day of high percentage catch and release. It is these larger strains that we hope to save and enhance via our proposals.
From lambeau: "earlier it was proposed that a contributing factor to the loss of vigorous genetics in various strains of WI fish came about because of high harvest rates of trophy-sized fish. I believe the WMRP cites Muskies Inc. data to support this."
My reply: This too is an very important factor. With the continued harvest of the "top end" fish in any system, often due to high size limits, we can create "downsizing" in a population. Ideally, to preserve these genetic giants we would have "maximum" size limits rather than "minimum" size limits, but this idea would never "sell."
Your next: "if WI began large-scale stocking of Leech strain fish, and they grew bigger faster as you propose (and as they've demonstrated themselves to do in MN and Nancy Lake), what would the impact be of higher trophy harvest rates in WI than found in MN?
My reply: I'll break this down into two parts. Obviously, as noted above, this would have more of an impact in Wisconsin than Minnesota. However, when a strain of fish is used where ALL of them have the "potential" to attain the larger sizes vs. the "odd" giant that now occurs, this impact would be lessened, and immediate replacement of harvested fish would take place, assuring continuation of trophy fish production.
Your next: "would this simply accelerate the maladaptive process of promoting reproduction by smaller/early reproducing fish in WI and return us to this same point in 20 years?
I don't believe so, IF the stocking management program was designed around the known, pure, large strains. In waters that MUST be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, continuous introduction of more "replacements" should keep pace. Once in place, then would be the time to consider higher size limits to protect these fish while they are attaining their maximum growth potential. Size limits are merely a "management tool" to limit harvest.
Your last: "can a stocking project such as this be effective over the long-term without concurrent changes to regulations or voluntary harvest practices? thanks!"
My reply: Absolutely! Obviously, as is the case now, size limit re-assessment considerations will need to be made based on the potential of the fishery. In the case of the western Wisconsin brood lake, Bone Lake, the current 40 inch size limit is merely protecting the small strain fish there FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIFE, while any remaining remnant large strain fish are continually being harvested. In Lac Court Oreilles, the 50 inch size limit there is nearly assuring no harvest, without solving the problems of no viable reproduction and continued hatchery stocking of small strain fish that too cannot attain harvest able size. We have serious concerns regarding a planned transfer of 500 adult fish from Butternut Lake of the Chippewa River drainage into LCO. Since that stock, a riverine, large strain historically, has been "mixed" with the small strain fish from Minocqua Lake in the Wisconsin River drainage, we feel that this transfer will include fish from that mix and further confound the already distressed LCO fishery. Proposed genetic testing can not solve the problem without doing a genetic test on every fish to be transferred, an impossible task.
From Guest: "Its one thing if Minnesota is producing bigger fish than Wisconsin, but how will people react if Illinois moves ahead of Wisconsin as well?"
Interesting question, and a point we have made as a contributing factor for the continued decline in Tourism in Wisconsin. When I was first involved in getting muskies in Illinois, we had trouble finding lakes to put them in. Now they are everywhere! And they are getting BIG. My home lake, a 135 acres drainage "pond", badly polluted by golf course and farm fertilizer run off, has been putting out Leech Lake strain fish up to 53 inches, as recently as again last year!
Your comment: "According to this article: http://www.illinoisgameandfish.com/il_aa071603a/ they are having success. I believe they are stocking Leech Lake strain."
My reply: I haven't yet had time to read that reference, but Illinois has fish from all over the US, including Leech Lake strain. A current long term study under Project Green Gene, has been designed to determine which stocks best fit the thermal regimes in Illinois to provide the best options for Illinois hatchery production, and return on investment.
Fun and important stuff. I hope I have fully answered your questions.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mike, I like the photos you posted and would really love to believe that telling the difference between stocked fish and the 'WI River' strain is that simple. See, it just plain is not. I grew up on, and fish the WI River nearly every day of the open water season. I was lucky enough to be involved with the initial stocking program down here in Central WI in the early 80's which rehabilitated the river from having absolutely no muskies, to having a fishable population today. See, the Musky is an indicator species, and fortunately, with the Clean Water act of 1972, the river was cleaned up in WI and that indicator species was shown to be able to survive again.
Now, since the stocking began here in Petenwell flowage, we have gotten fish from Bone Lake(Spooner hatchery). We have also gotten some fish from different fish hatcheries, and we also raise fish here in town in our ponds. On any given season, I observe muskies that exhibit the same differentiation in patterns as the ones shown in your photos. Are these WI river strain fish? Gosh no...well most likely not.
I also enjoy spending alot of time on the WI river from Eagle river all the way down to Merril and below. In fact, fishing the WI river is a real passion of mine. It never ceases to amaze me, the different colorations, bar patterns, clear phases, and builds of the fish I am lucky enough to bring to my boat, though difficult as they are to catch in this system most of the time. One thing that occured to me years ago explaining much of this diversity, is the multitude of direct influences in each stretch of the river, from different lake systems. The Rainbow Flowage alone has a dozen or so small feeders, and large ones alike which lead directly to stocked lakes above. Ever check out the St. Germain Creek/River? The flow on that creek as well as Gilmore creek, is amazing at times. Many muskies make it into the river from these systems each and every season. Check out the Pelican river down in Rhinelander. That stream has a fishable population in and of itself, and the fish we see there sometimes look like ones we catch in Boom, sometimes look like the ones caught in Pelican Lake, and sometimes even look like the fish that I believe could have been a native WI River fish(neither of which were shown in your picture), which had shorter snouts, a lightly spotted body(we call them the pizza Muskies of the WI), and stubbier tails. They are very beefy for length, and are a joy to come in contact with on occasion. I have seen a couple of them in the Rhinlander stretch, a few in the stretch above the Eagle chain, and a few pictures of fish like these from archives in my uncles photo album(his family used to float the WI dating back to the 30's).
The fact is, sadly, there is really not enough of a true WI River strain left(if any) to try and brood from. If one were to try to take milt from fish in the WI River say in the Rainbow flowage, one is taking milt from the Eagle river chain, three lakes chain, St. Germain(and its associated watershed), Pike Lake, Gilmore Lake(and its associated watrershed), sugar camp chain, and the list goes on. Sadly these systems are what caused the strain native in the WI River to go by the wayside in the first place and brings me to my next point.
We are very lucky to have muskies down here in the Petenwell Flowage of the WI River. We have the largest inland Musky Lake with a fishable population at 23,000 acres, that contains more forage per acre than Green Bay itself. This is why the people around here are very puzzled as to the fact that the Muskies in the 50" range and up are not showing up. Not showing up in DNR surveys, not showing up in landing nets of some very astute musky anglers, and never showing up at a taxidermist or bait shop. Yes, we have some of the healthiest looking 44-47" Muskies on the planet, but they are simply topping out in that range, and our biologist concurs with this observation. And before I get a ton of hate mail, yes there have been one or two documented 49" and 50"ers(I was lucky enough to handle the prior) in the river here. Anomolies abound everywhere.
That said, it is quite obvious that the Petenwell Flowage is much closer to the Mississippi river than it is to the Eagle river chain, Gilmore Lake, or Squirrel Lake. It is a known fact that Mississippi River fish inhabited lower reaches of the WI River system at one time, and some claim to have seen them near the confluence in recent years. It would make my friends, local biologists, local clubs, and anglers very happy, if we were able to start raising the fish in our ponds, that belong in this system. They would have a chance to naturally reproduce where the current strain is known not to due to drastic water river fluctuations in the spring. The Miss. strain could in turn save our club alot of money in the future, which we could use to stock other waters in need.
I'll attatch a couple pictures of fish from stretches of the WI River that were void of fish before rehabilitative stocking. Notice the difference in markings. Which strain is which? Again, all of the fish have been stocked. Though nice fish do exist in the stocked populations, they are simply not reaching desired growth as expected. We have taken several scale smaples of fish over the years, and many fish in the 45-47" range vary from young to very old. The fish are attaining size quickly showing great forage, and room to grow, but are simply topping out before attaining max growth expected.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/22/2005 10:13 PM
Attachments
----------------
45 2000.jpg (105KB - 377 downloads)
46 2000.jpg (93KB - 350 downloads)
monicas462003.jpg (43KB - 325 downloads)
| |
| | |
| Everyone. Great discussion, questions, comments, concerns, answers by all. I think Larry deserves a lot of credit for taking the tremendous amount of time out of his personal life to come on this board and answer and address all the legitimate questions and concerns about this restoration project. It takes a great deal of time to sit a computer and type away answering questions 1 –2 – 3 at a time on a message board or two just as it did for Bob and Larry researching, studying, learning and piecing together a 100+ year history/puzzle of the WI muskie stocking practices and fishery.
I focused on the stats, mostly derived from the M.I. members only database of muskellunge catches. I am a very firm believer in these stats and what they can help us to understand and confirm about the situation we have today. Like it or not, it is by far, the largest source of actual muskellunge catch data to be found anywhere. This in itself earns a great deal of respect from myself and many others. There is no other source of muskellunge catch data that can provide a better overall view of the situation. The dnr has no problem using the M.I. catch data in their reports. Because of this we felt it must be a very good source of information if the dnr is using it, therefore we did too.
But I do think it would be best if everyone were to focus more on the findings that Larry and Bob have shared with us which includes information from a large number of WI and MN DNR research reports. It also includes reports from the MNR in Canada as well as other biologists. These findings reveal the real story here and the heart of the problem that must be addressed starting today. Not tomorrow, or next year. I think some of you are just starting to see how extensively the restoration project team has researched this matter and how well prepared it is to answer and address the legitimate questions and concerns some of you have. If you haven’t seen the information yet you can find it at:
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
It can answer a lot of your questions and save a lot of time.
One last thing. There is a very informative article detailing the MN Muskie stocking program that has created the finest trophy musky fishery found anywhere south of Canada. Its in the latest publication of M.H. magazine. I strongly urge everyone to read it and understand what it is saying.
EJohnson | |
| | |
| Earlier it was said that Wisconsin strain fish shouldnt be stocked in any water that gets into the Great Lakes because the interbreeding between that strain and the Mississippi strain threatens the trophy fish. Then this is said:
'Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.'
Which is right? Isn't there stocked fish in the St. louis River?
Another sentense says the the Big fish in Wisconsin are nearly extinct. Mr. Worral has listed an example of what seems to be large but stocked fish.Your explanation was that the 'big fish' strain was stocked there a long time ago. Mr. Worral said that a long time ago, there were very few big fish there in Lake X, but after the stocking program started, the big fish showed up in several year classes. If they were not there before, and the big fish showed up say 12 years after stocking, wouldnt that be the stocked fish? How else would they get in there? If they are from the same hatchery, and stocked the same year, and the big fish are present in good numbers in a lake with very little pressure and really good CPR (X), but not so much in a lake with LOTS of pressure and lots of harvest (Y), couldnt that show the affects of harvesting the big fish at 48" before they can get to 53"?
Mr. Worral, is that what you were getting to?
MRoberts,
I see the same thing on the river. I saw one very pretty barred 54" fish there a few years ago, and another that was clear and ugly just a couple years back. All I know is the Wisconsin River isn't producing 54" fish as often as I'd like to see, and I want to partly blame the kill rate there of fish around 48". Ask the taxidermists. Do you think alot are harvested there? It worries me, that's for sure.
Thanks to everyone for this post. Its a very good discussion. | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Larry, sworrell, and others keep up this thread. It has open my eyes (what little they see now) and I'm sure many others that never thought of posting. And it has been interesting and informative.
But Larry I also wanted to say that when I wrote that word "poison" only because I couldn't think of a better one that fit at that time. That is why I put it in " ". I also tried to explain to sworrell what I tried to remember from the meeting in Madison. I guess I didn't do that well either. Please let me tell you (& others) that I was not trying to mislead anybody and I didn't know if you would come back to this site to keep the discussion going.
Thanks
Gerard
| |
| | |
| An interesting little piece of information.
In the 1970's and after struggling for years, Bob Strand of the MN DNR had to finally put his biological knowledge aside and asked if he could just simply go fishing for muskies on Leech Lake to finally discover the secret of the Mississippi Strain of muskie and its spawning habits. Yes I said fishing. The same thing all of us love to do. This was the turning point in MN which eventually led to MN's huge success story of trophy muskie management.
As you can see, it does not always take science or a degree to reveal the answers. He had to resort to just good ol common sense to figure these fish out. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gerard,
No worries, sir. I wouldn't EVER question what your motives are, you're one of most staunch allies Muskie angling has ever had.
As some may already know (but perhaps not  ) I play 'devil's advocate' here quite a bit to encourage fair, open, and thoughtful conversation. I appreciate everyone's willingness to participate. To address a couple points:
Sven,
Yup.
other issues:
'My reply: Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.'
Is it not also plausible that the fish I am discussing in that lake are indeed stocked fish? If they were the result of spawning why were fish over 45" nearly non existent ( and for that matter, muskies were actually pretty rare in that lake) before the stocking program began there? Anecdotal, yes, but my experience none the less. The other lake was stocked at the same time, with the same strain, and has been to date. The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class.
What I'm trying to get at isn't necessarliy opposed to the Restoration group's summary claims. It's part and parcel to ANY effort to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie management program. I am saying this:
If given a chance, and environmental conditions are favorable, Muskies from the Wisconsin hatcheries can and DO get large and heavy. Not, obviously, as large as the GL strain or other spotted Muskies ( that's why I fish on Wabigoon on vacation!) but very large and respectable none the less. 52" and 35# to 40# class is fine by me. I've seen fish like that come from Boom on the WI River, several of the Vilas county lakes, a few from the Mississippi Watershed waters here in Oneida County every year, and even a few from Pelican now and again. Unfortunately, WAY too many of the fish capable of reaching true and absolute trophy catagory are harvested before they can. The DNR here identified several waters in the state that warranted protection of the larger fish, and suggested, with some rather boisterous help, that a 50" limit be imposed there. It wasn't.
If the spots are planted in waters here, I worry that without new regulations to protect the trophy fish here too many will be bonked (or speared, that reality has to be considered. Not admonished, this is a reality that is here to stay, just considered) at 45" or 48". We tried to get regulations passed, and for the most part, were only partly successful. I submit that it was that effort and DEFEAT that really kick started the movement to 'do something' about our trophy Muskie fishery here in Wisconsin. I also submit that MANY of the fisheries folks were very disappointed after that Spring, and would agree that a measured response to that defeat, careful planning and educational efforts coupled with a STRONG and a well planned and executed PR campaign are in order to begin down the road to realizing the goals expressed here. I think, if I am allowed to RANT, that he entire structure of the DNR needs to be changed so the DNR runs the DNR, and the State and public fund that effort well enough so those good folks can get the job done.
Look at it this way, we couldn't even get a lousy FEW lakes protected with the total SUPPORT of the DNR at almost NO cost and a DEFINITE and almost GUARANTEED benefit. What in blazes makes anyone think that a few loud demands will change the mindset of a largely uncaring and by the way, non muskie angling public, therefore paving the way for major changes in the management strategies for trophy Muskies? The DNR is running on a shoestring. That's sad. Cutbacks, budget shortfalls, and even worse.....We are darned lucky we have the dedicated professionals here working for us in what amounts to a very uncertain career environment.
Way more to this than simple 'change'.
OK, I've now made many of the points I was attempting to lead up to. Aldo Leopold's legacy aside, this state's Conservation Congress advisory style of public influence on DNR fish and game management in my opinion has stymied many of the DNR's best and brightest ideas for fish and game management in Wisconsin. LOOK at the CWD/Deer Baiting story as an example. Wow. We have many of the very best scientists working in the fisheries management field in the country here in Wisconsin. I would prefer to leave management to those qualified to manage. Unfortunately, it's not done that way here, IMHO.
Sorry for the rant....
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One more thing. As I understand things, muskie stocking on Pelican was halted by the Lake Association because some felt that there are too many muskies in Pelican already, and the panfish are suffering as a result. I had absolutely nothing to do with that effort. | |
| | |
| Reef Hawg and EJohnson, great posts. It should be noted here, that Muskie's, Inc. as an organization, has nothing to do with the Restoration Project. MANY MI members however and state MI Chapters DO "support the basis" of the Project. And now on to address the latest posts:
From Sven: "Earlier it was said that Wisconsin strain fish shouldn't be stocked in any water that gets into the Great Lakes because the interbreeding between that strain and the Mississippi strain threatens the trophy fish."
My reply: Sven, the concern has NOT been "interbreeding" in totem (can happen under the right circumstances), rather the possibility and the dangers posed of diluting the native stocks, or worse, as was the case in Minnesota (and the results did show up in genetic studies where native Mississippi River strain lakes had become basically Shoepac genetics due to continued "overstocking."). If self-sustaining populations get started in these non-native environments, they can become a factor and eventually the dominant strain. This must be prevented and is just plain good genetic preservation of native stocks that were once pure. Like Leech Lake, the Great Lakes strain is an almost pure entity, why risk messing it up? This realization has been made and stock mixing discontinued in Ontario, Quebec and New York from many years back. They learned, as science caught up with management, that these practices were simply wrong and stopped doing it. Why is/has Wisconsin been doing it as recently as the fall of 2004? This question begs an answer, and even though the DNR folks at the State Musky Committee meeting agreed that it should "be looked into," there has been no response that is has or would be, rather it was "stated" that stocking would continue as before. Simply unacceptable.
Sven continues: "Then this is said: 'Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.' Which is right? Isn't there stocked fish in the St. louis River?
My reply: The problem is, that there are times when the spawning "thermal regimes" DO overlap, and was so noted in the Minnesota study. If this "mixing" potential exists at all, why do it? To clarify, the MR strain has become dominant (again in native waters) because ALL stockings since the conversion has been with the MR strain fish, helping them to overcome the errors of the past. And yes, there are stocked fish in the St. Louis River, of Wisconsin strain fish, done by both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota did it at time prior to the availability of the Leech Lake strain and no longer stock WI strain fish there. The Minnesota stocking of the MR strain muskies into the St. Louis River, too is not the "proper" thing to do, but the MR strain does have the same reproductive strategy and growth as the Great Lakes strain and presents far less risk than does the Wisconsin "mixes." Wisconsin, as noted, still stocks St. Louis Bay (part of Lake Superior) with mixed Wisconsin strain fish. It is wrong. This WAS agreed to by the DNR. Nothing has changed! At least not publically.
Sven continues: "Another sentence says the Big fish in Wisconsin are nearly extinct. Mr. Worrall has listed an example of what seems to be large but stocked fish. Your explanation was that the 'big fish' strain was stocked there a long time ago. Mr. Worrall said that a long time ago, there were very few big fish there in Lake X, but after the stocking program started, the big fish showed up in several year classes. If they were not there before, and the big fish showed up say 12 years after stocking, wouldn't that be the stocked fish? How else would they get in there? If they are from the same hatchery, and stocked the same year, and the big fish are present in good numbers in a lake with very little pressure and really good CPR (X), but not so much in a lake with LOTS of pressure and lots of harvest (Y), couldn't that show the affects of harvesting the big fish at 48" before they can get to 53"?
My reply: Your comments fail to take in to account that there may have been remnant large strain fish extant in Lake X, albeit not in sufficient quantity to self-sustain. Hatchery introductions "could" have contained some large strain fish and/or hatchery "mixed" intermediates that produced the increase noted by Mr. Worrall. Problem is we just don't and cannot know. What we do know is that if a "Pure" stock is used, there is NO QUESTION that they will ALL have the potential to attain trophy sizes, while producing numbers of fish in all size ranges along the way.
From ROBERTS: "I see the same thing on the river. I saw one very pretty barred 54" fish there a few years ago, and another that was clear and ugly just a couple years back. All I know is the Wisconsin River isn't producing 54" fish as often as I'd like to see, and I want to partly blame the kill rate there of fish around 48". Ask the taxidermists. Do you think alot are harvested there? It worries me, that's for sure."
My reply: As previously noted, harvest in Wisconsin, even in these days of high percentage of catch and release, is indeed a factor, but it isn't the sole reason for the lack of bigger fish. Quite simply, it is the FISH. If the stocked fish do not have the genetic potential to attain the preferred larger size, and are topping out at the harvested sizes, protecting them with higher size limits will NOT increase the numbers of larger fish in any system.
From Muskie! nut: "Larry, sworrel, and others keep up this thread. It has open my eyes (what little they see now) and I'm sure many others that never thought of posting. And it has been interesting and informative. But Larry I also wanted to say that when I wrote that word "poison" only because I couldn't think of a better one that fit at that time. That is why I put it in " ". I also tried to explain to sorrel what I tried to remember from the meeting in Madison. I guess I didn't do that well either. Please let me tell you (& others) that I was not trying to mislead anybody and I didn't know if you would come back to this site to keep the discussion going."
My reply: Gerard I echo what Mr. Worrall said, and we know you are a staunch advocate for muskies. I took no offense to your "poisoning" comment, just thought it an unfortunate choice of words. At least you participate in the discussion, AND identify yourself. I applaud you!
From EJohnson: "An interesting little piece of information.
In the 1970's and after struggling for years, Bob Strand of the MN DNR had to finally put his biological knowledge aside and asked if he could just simply go fishing for muskies on Leech Lake to finally discover the secret of the Mississippi Strain of Muskie and its spawning habits. Yes I said fishing. The same thing all of us love to do. This was the turning point in MN which eventually led to MN's huge success story of trophy Muskie management.
As you can see, it does not always take science or a degree to reveal the answers. He had to resort to just good ol common sense to figure these fish out.
My reply: One glaring thing that "jumped out" at me when I was re-reviewing dozens of "scientific studies:" Hypotheses is and has been highly used in making "conclusions." When a scientific "peer reviewed" paper uses terminology's such as; "suggests;" "believed," "indicates," "probably," etc., etc. it is a true indication that while findings made were science based, they really didn't know and admitted as much. Properly conducted science IS the basis of most of muskellunge management, but it is not "perfect science." Management decision are sincerely made on the best science available (most of the time). If that science was "built" on previous work (most studies are) and THAT work was incomplete or worse yet, wrong....well, I think you get the idea. Unfortunately funding just isn't available to do a complete and thorough job. Consider too, that almost all of the studies done in the past on muskellunge have been done on the small strain populations, and as such are just not applicable to the large strain fish.
From sworrall: "Gerard, No worries, sir. I wouldn't EVER question what your motives are, you're one of most staunch allies Muskie angling has ever had.
As some may already know (but perhaps not ) I play 'devil's advocate' here quite a bit to encourage fair, open, and thoughtful conversation. I appreciate everyone's willingness to participate."
My reply: And I think this is a GOOD thing! From my perspective, it opens new avenues of discussion on points and topics not previously covered. As I have noted on many occasions, this is a "giant puzzle." It is extremely complex. These discussions help to put that puzzle together in a manner that most readers can understand. We welcome it.
Mr. Worrall continues: "To address a couple points: other issues:
'My reply (to a previous Worrall question): Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.'
Mr. Worrall's reply: "Is it not also plausible that the fish I am discussing in that lake are indeed stocked fish? If they were the result of spawning why were fish over 45" nearly non existent ( and for that matter, muskies were actually pretty rare in that lake) before the stocking program began there? Anecdotal, yes, but my experience none the less. The other lake was stocked at the same time, with the same strain, and has been to date. The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class."
Ramsell reply: Yes, as I mentioned above in my response to Sven, it is indeed possible that and probable that stocked fish is what you were discussing. We have been over the ground of the possible "why's" previously. I was not discounting your "experience," even though anecdotal. My point was simply that we do not know for sure what all of the factors were/are in that situation. Your comment: "The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class." would indicate to me at least, that those stocked fish have topped out in length, as would be expected.
Worrall continues: "What I'm trying to get at isn't necessarily opposed to the Restoration group's summary claims. It's part and parcel to ANY effort to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie management program. I am saying this:
If given a chance, and environmental conditions are favorable, Muskies from the Wisconsin hatcheries can and DO get large and heavy. Not, obviously, as large as the GL strain or other spotted Muskies ( that's why I fish on Wabigoon on vacation!) but very large and respectable none the less. 52" and 35# to 40# class is fine by me. I've seen fish like that come from Boom on the WI River, several of the Vilas county lakes, a few from the Mississippi Watershed waters here in Oneida County every year, and even a few from Pelican now and again. Unfortunately, WAY too many of the fish capable of reaching true and absolute trophy category are harvested before they can. The DNR here identified several waters in the state that warranted protection of the larger fish, and suggested, with some rather boisterous help, that a 50" limit be imposed there. It wasn't."
My reply: One the one hand your say it "is fine by me," and that you are satisfied with what has been produced, and on the other hand you state that you go to Canada to find BIGGER fish. Isn't that the whole point? WHY should the anglers of Wisconsin, and those who "used" to fish Wisconsin, have to now bypass Wisconsin? Wisconsin "used" to be the "go to destination" for the nations Muskie anglers. The schools and the tourism industry were built because of that! We CAN have it again. To paraphrase an old saying; "Build it AGAIN, and they will come!"
Mr Worrall continues: "If the spots are planted in waters here, I worry that without new regulations to protect the trophy fish here too many will be bonked (or speared, that reality has to be considered. Not admonished, this is a reality that is here to stay, just considered) at 45" or 48". We tried to get regulations passed, and for the most part, were only partly successful. I submit that it was that effort and DEFEAT that really kick started the movement to 'do something' about our trophy Muskie fishery here in Wisconsin. I also submit that MANY of the fisheries folks were very disappointed after that Spring, and would agree that a measured response to that defeat, careful planning and educational efforts coupled with a STRONG and a well planned and executed PR campaign are in order to begin down the road to realizing the goals expressed here. I think, if I am allowed to RANT, that he entire structure of the DNR needs to be changed so the DNR runs the DNR, and the State and public fund that effort well enough so those good folks can get the job done.
Look at it this way, we couldn't even get a lousy FEW lakes protected with the total SUPPORT of the DNR at almost NO cost and a DEFINITE and almost GUARANTEED benefit. What in blazes makes anyone think that a few loud demands will change the mind set of a largely uncaring and by the way, non Muskie angling public, therefore paving the way for major changes in the management strategies for trophy Muskies? The DNR is running on a shoestring. That's sad. Cutbacks, budget shortfalls, and even worse.....We are darned lucky we have the dedicated professionals here working for us in what amounts to a very uncertain career environment."
My reply: Your "RANT" aside, you make some very good points. Let me take from that and ask a question based on all of your noted shortcomings for the DNR's ability. Does not the DNR "SHUT DOWN" the Sturgeon spearing when they feel the stocks are in danger? They don't go to the Conservation Congress or get new laws passed, they just DO IT! They DO have management powers when they choose to use them! If they truly want to Restore Wisconsin's native Muskie fisheries, they have the wherewithal to do what is necessary. The responsibility lies directly with them to save our trophy Muskie fisheries. We have merely identified we strongly believe to be a serious problem that CAN be corrected NOW. There is no need for more studies while our remaining stocks of remnant large strain muskies further decline. Current stocking practices simply compound the problem. The "fix" can be simple and cheap...merely changing the eggs used in the hatcheries is all that is needed...period!
Mr. Worrall continues: "Way more to this than simple 'change'.
OK, I've now made many of the points I was attempting to lead up to. Aldo Leopold's legacy aside, this state's Conservation Congress advisory style of public influence on DNR fish and game management in my opinion has stymied many of the DNR's best and brightest ideas for fish and game management in Wisconsin. LOOK at the CWD/Deer Baiting story as an example. Wow. We have many of the very best scientists working in the fisheries management field in the country here in Wisconsin. I would prefer to leave management to those qualified to manage. Unfortunately, it's not done that way here, IMHO."
My reply: Many may agree with you and many will not. We have "trusted" the DNR to do the right thing in our hatchery system for 105 years. As we have learned, even though un-intentional, they have not, at least for production and preservation of our trophy Muskie fisheries. It can be corrected, and we believe it is the current administrations duty to do so. I believe I covered your other points.
This post has gotten long, so I will start another with some additional thoughts for consideration.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
| We like the fact that everyone seems to agree that there are some larger native fish out there that seem to have survived the overstocking of small strains. It has even been said that the "native fish" are larger - but the stocked fish "perform better" (short and fat). What one needs to understand is that a short fat 40 or 42 incher for instance, that will never grow larger because it may be 18 years old, IS NOT "PERFORMING BETTER!" This has been very adequately explained in an 1992 study of Wisconsin and Minnesota fish strains.
We've even been able to separate the spawning, allowing some native fish to survive all of man's meddling (DNR and fishermen). It is apparent that more and more folks are understanding the riverine vs. lacustrine (river vs. lake) fish thing. Some acknowledgment too, has been forthcoming that the Leech fish may be more like the true "native fish" than the stocked fish.
Here is where the genetics come in. We know almost nothing truly about the truly important Muskie genetics - including what the dominant traits are; what controls reproductive strategy and growth. It has been admitted that even if another genetic study is done-minimum 2-4 years, these most important factors will still not be known.
There is still a risk in selective breeding, without the assurance of knowing whether or not the brood fish are pure or mixed. It has never been proven with muskies to our knowledge. We should try it - but should we put all our eggs in an unproven basket? We say no. Should we wait another 10 or 20 years for the geneticists to try and find out? Again we say no. Please consider folks, scientists MUST "study" to survive. It is a self-perpetuating thing, and to date over the past 50 years, hasn't yielded many helpful results for Wisconsin's Muskie fisheries, and those that have, have been, for the most part, ignored!
While some of our remnant fish may be mostly riverine, it's very hard to believe they are "pure". Are we better off breeding even 7/8 riverine muskies that may have the smaller strain genes that could possibly be dominant, or should we revert to a known pure strain of riverine fish from Leech lake? That is the tough question. Collectively we see no way that stocking a pure Riverine strain anywhere is a "problem". This is where the drainage's make sense - using the large Riverine fish within their drainage's makes sense, but I'd have to say that even within the Chippewa and Wisconsin drainage's, we need to compare Leech strain vs. the native Riverine fish. That way we can study how selective breeding works. The St. Croix and Great lakes drainage's - It's a "no brainer" - do the right thing immediately no need to test that.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| The Conservation Congress process WI has to go through limits what can and will be done to help the situation here. We know that the higher protective size limits have very little chance of getting past this point. There are a lot of different things that to some degree each one can have some effect on the ability to produce trophy fish. A lot of these things have been beaten to death over the years on boards like this one. Size limits, spearing, lake size etc.... nearly all of which we simply have no control over and won't anytime soon if ever unfortunately. One thing we can have control of and I believe is the very first step needed and also the single most important part of the formula to produce desireable numbers of trophy muskies in WI, is the fish we use for stocking. Thats part of the beauty of this project. It can be done without going through the conservation congress process. It concerns me that it took a few anglers of WI rather than the dnr to come up with this rather simple approach to manage the entire state of WI for trophy muskies when the proof has been right next door in MN for about 25 years now and also in scattered areas elsewhere. I have to wonder why our dnr has not made a serious attempt if any to learn from whats happened in MN with thier muskie management program after this long. And now today there is the green bay project that further supports the fact that its the fish you stock that matters most when it comes to ultimate size. The single most important ingredient to produce trophy fish is the fish itself. After that, all the other factors such as protective size limits could help even more. Although I have to point out that in MN there is a statewide 40" minimum size limit with the exception of the brood stock lakes which are 48" and one that is C&R only and the trophy muskies are showing up everywhere. MN does not need protective size limits to produce a large number of trophy fisheries although it could possibly make things even better there. What they are doing is stocking a strain of fish that ALL are capable of growing to the larger trophy sizes desired by anglers. Thats why they decided to stock this strain over the Shoepac strain and WI strains! It works and has been proven to best produce the trophy fish that the anglers desired. The other benefit of the Miss strain is that it can and has helped to offset the cost and need to stock waters because of the reproductive habits and its ability to succesfully naturally reproduce especially in waters with northern pike. I would think this fact too would encourage the WI dnr to want to pursue this option with the budget cuts going on. Its a good "business" decision that could help offset the budget cuts which will have an impact on muskie management. Common sense would tell me that even if the harvest rate of larger muskies in WI were to remain constant and we change to stocking fish that are ALL capable of growing to the larger trophy sizes, there will be more trophy fish to catch for everyone than we have today. Right now only the very few remaining larger growing strain/strains (what ever they are) of muskies in WI are being harvested and the smaller strains live on forever and we continue to stock these smaller strains eventhough they don't grow to large sizes and have very little success in maintaining themselves through natural reproduction. This is crazy and a complete waste of (our) the tax payers money. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One point we will contiue to disagree on;
Some of the waters in Wisconsin truly do have very large fish. As I said, not dozens in the 53" class, but I feel that is due to more factors than just genetics and had quite a bit to do with angling harvest, environment, and many other factors that EVERY study I have read take into account. I fear that this entire issue is being oversimplified, which can create confusion.
I am certain the fish I speak of in a lake I am familiar with here ARE the stocked fish. In one case, I firmly believe I tracked a couple back through boomshock surveys. My point was, and still is, that YES, Leech Lake fish are known to grow larger then the Wisconsin strain in studies and in some applications. More on that later, I have to hit the road and don't have time to cut and paste much of the relevant data here. THE STRAINS WE HAVE HERE NOW can and do get to trophy size in a reasonable timeframe or THERE WOUDN'T BE THE NUMBER OF 50" FISH TERE ARE in the waters where they are allowed to get to that size. There are many guides and top sticks out there who have figured those fish out, and the 50" to 53" fish caught by them testifies that we have some good genetic potential here. If these fish were ALL anomolies, IMHO there would be even fewer big fish than there are. As pressure increases on the Great Lakes fish and Mississippi strain in Minnesota and harvest of the big fish increases as a result, we MAY see a comparable situation of slow decline develop over time if those fish are not protected. Several of the Restoration group folks strongly forwarded that concept for quite a while here on MuskieFIRST this winter, so it must have relevance, one might assume. I would like to see a 54" limit on Green Bay, for example.
In waters deemed acceptable by the DNR, I believe there WILL be spots stocked. Isn't that the original premise of this thread? I for one LIKE those big, ugly, 52 to 54" bronze fish we have here as well as the spots I pursue on Wabigoon and over in Green Bay. If the trophy waters here were protected better, perhaps the trip to the Goon would not be as attractive. I would like to see spots planted where they are deemed to have a great chance of doing very well, and would like the trophy waters we have protected by a 50" limit.
By the way, what strain are the Mille Lacs 'barred' fish (not the spots, those I have figured out), and where were they acquired? Just curious.
We are talking laudable but perhaps a bit elitist ideals when we DEMAND of a governmental agency that what we have immediately be changed to what a few folks want(Muskie anglers are, after all, a microcosm of American society, with most unwilling or unable to battle over the issues for change) in the timeframe demanded, without due consideration to the structure already in place or allowing for the folks in charge of that structure to begin what I am certain will be careful, well executed implementation of comparable ideas. In other words, this just plain isn't as simple a process as some want whether it's 'the best thing to do' or not. Some want this to be an event. If this is to be implemented as Cory's contact described, it will be a process. OK, that isn't good enough for some and frustation and anger result. I want universal Wisconsin health care, too. Reality is what it is!!! Alienate many of the folks you need to work with, and a fair number of the non muskie angling public as a result of the fallout, and you have, in my very humble opinion, a very strong possible recipe for failure for this group. Work WITH the system, accept that initial failures are part and parcel of any attempt at a minority driven major paradigm shift, cooperate with and gain support from those management folks in the system who agree with the principles of the proposal, if not the demands. Or not, I guess.
I think I've belabored that enough. | |
| | |
| I'm back from the Dale Carnegie Institute.
Hey, can someone post a picture of the Vilas Co. record - Myrl Mcfauls 53 pounder. There is a picture in the November 1995 Muskyhunter mag. page 62.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Nothing but Spots from the headwaters of the Wisconsin river.
What's been coming out of North Twin lately? Lake is the same size, forage is the same, what happened? | |
| | |
| Recreational development is a job not of building roads into lovely country but building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind. -Aldo Leopold
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | We all know what happened. The lake got pounded and too many big fish were harvested. North Twin, no question is a prime candidate to get spottys back in there. If I were on the North Twin Lake Association, I would be pleading with the WDNR to put spottys back in there and get what once was a trophy musky lake back.
In the end, the WDNR needs to make available spottys to lakes where there associations simply have no interest in waiting for the results of a long term genetic study. I would think that they would be happy to get started today and live with the results. To me , that is a win win.
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Larry,
Why doesn't the WDNR stop stocking mutts completely for a period of time, say 5 years? Would our musky waters be any worse off? There may even be some benefits, no? During this time, the WDNR could spend their time (and save their $) determining which lakes have natural reproduction, which lakes are candidates for spottys and which might benefit from riverine.
In the meantime, the WDNR provides spottys to those lakes where the Lake Associations have decided that they have no interest in waiting for DNR genetic testing results.
Also, during this time, the WDNR strongly recommends a No Kill above 40" for those 5yrs.
If all the above were to actually happen, think of what we will have learned over the 5 yr period! We would see the results of a greatly decreased 'big fish harvest' and the results of spotty stockings (from what I understand, spottys are on verge of a real growth spurt at 5 yrs of age). A plan like this, kind of gives everyone what they want, no?
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | SEan- I must respectfully say that giving lake associations fish for their lakes just because they don't want to wait and find out is nothing but lack of responsibility for the fishery to gain short term gain without understanding the long term implications.
We have fisheries experts for a reason...and I would bet none of them are on the Lake associations.
I think Steve put it quite well in his last post.
I think the DNR are going to ease into a revamping of the current stocking philosphy. But it WILL take time, period. Why ease? To make sure it IS the right thing to do. They have been stocking the current way for 100 years or so....if they slowly make progress to learn about the genetics state wide over a period of time, while working on projects to stock leechers/WI strain in certain lakes, the additional 5 years is not the end of the world. It is from our WE WANT IT NOW society...but in the BIg long term sceme of things its really not. And I am sure Larry will reply that it is.....but our fishery isn't THAT bad, even after a 100 years...so with some strategic short term changes (i.e. not stocking bone in Great lakes) and some studies (ie genetics, side by side leech/WI strain) and a little time we can do the right thing. I think this is going to be the more realistic chain of events.
Just my opinion.
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I have argued the same thing for years. Luckily the DNR did stop stocking a large number of lakes a couple years ago. These were lakes and rivers with known good natural reproduction. I applaud the DNR for this work. Waters like the Flambeau river, Chippewa river, upper Black river, Jump river, and numerous lakes really should have been left alone years ago. I feel that there is little left of the original strains that once inhabited these waters, and that is unfortunate. In my opinion far too many lakes in WI are being stocked that never should have been. Lots of local politics played a role in lakes getting stocked over the years, and it was not always the DNR's fault that things got screwed up. The squeeky wheel often gets the grease and it is the same way with stocking.
Many lakes in WI are prime for rehabilitating. This does not mean all lakes, as I fish alot of lakes up north as Steve has mentioned, that really don't need 'fixing'. Why screw up an already good thing. Many, though, especially those with direct watershed ties to historical populations of the Miss. fish, are prime for their return. It is not a WI vs. MN thing. Those fish did not know state boundaries, and did exist in WI waters that were once navigable for fish to the Mississippi river before man created barriers in the form of dams and spillways on our lakes and rivers. Prior to that, glaciation separated more lakes that once had ties to the Miss. as well.
It is heartwarming to know that we have DNR officials in guys like Scott Hassett, that are even considering this option. It is a big step, and I applaud them for it.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/23/2005 11:46 AM
| |
| | |
| Working on a "venting" but it can wait.
Mr. Worrall said: "By the way, what strain are the Mille Lacs 'barred' fish (not the spots, those I have figured out), and where were they acquired? Just curious."
My reply: If you are talking about the huge "semi-barred" fish that were caught from there last year, I am prepared to argue that they are Leech Lake strain fish...period. While Mille Lacs was stocked for a few years with Wisconsin fish, it has been stocked with Leech Lake strain for the past 15 years. Some over there have felt that they may have been crosses between Leech Lake strain and Wisconsin strain, but my personal opinion is that they are pure LL fish. Close examination of a poster size photo left little to doubt in my mind, but as with all other "guesses" it is all anecdotal.
Sean asks: "Why doesn't the WDNR stop stocking mutts completely for a period of time, say 5 years? Would our musky waters be any worse off? There may even be some benefits, no? During this time, the WDNR could spend their time (and save their $) determining which lakes have natural reproduction, which lakes are candidates for spottys and which might benefit from riverine."
My reply: Interesting suggestion. Just last night I spent some time talking to a long time, highly respected and well known Wisconsin guide about this. He said that he has been arguing with the DNR (three different regimes) about Woodruff hatchery strain practices for over 30 years! He always ended up with the same result...zip. When the DNR announced two years ago that they were reducing stocking by 50%, he cheered! When just last week he was told that they may cut stocking by another 25%, he was happy all over again!!
Sean, one of the things we mentioned to the DNR was just that. DON'T STOCK if there is not going to be change. Our lakes would be better off and the DNR would save money. The balance of your suggestion too has merit and could produce great results.
Sean continues: "In the meantime, the WDNR provides spottys to those lakes where the Lake Associations have decided that they have no interest in waiting for DNR genetic testing results.
Also, during this time, the WDNR strongly recommends a No Kill above 40" for those 5yrs."
My reply: Obviously, this won't happen. Thinking about this, I reviewed the stocking sheet for the Sooner hatchery for 2005. I took a quick count and might be off a bit, but of the only 41 waters slated for stocking from the Sooner hatchery this year, only about 14 are considered native Muskie waters in the sense that they once had viable self-sustaining populations. I can't yet do the same for the Woodruff hatchery, as the request information has not yet been provided. My point being, that from the Sooner hatchery alone, 27 waters could be stocked with Mississippi River strain fish THIS YEAR and it wouldn't affect a thing negatively and would be doing the RIGHT thing for the Mississippi River drainage! Note: this list of 41 lakes includes every major drainage in the state except the Great Lakes drainage's, which I assume will be found on the Woodruff hatchery list.
Sean continues: "If all the above were to actually happen, think of what we will have learned over the 5 yr period! We would see the results of a greatly decreased 'big fish harvest' and the results of spotty stockings (from what I understand, spottys are on verge of a real growth spurt at 5 yrs of age). A plan like this, kind of gives everyone what they want, no?"
My reply: Yes, we can learn more, but let's do it while something is being done vs. the continuation of the past errors. It is the right thing to do.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| Steve,
In an earlier post of yours from a day or two ago you said
"The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain."
From conversations we have had with the dnr we learned that scale samples are only accurate for aging fish up to about 4 years of age.
Just thought I should clarify this. The dnr has told us that aging muskies using scale samples does not work beyond age 4.
EJohnson
| |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Steve Worrall is on his way to Cave Run, limited access to a computer. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Cory,
Lake Associations deciding stocking practices isn't the solution that I think any of us is looking for. But It would be, in my opinion, better than doing nothing! What is more irresponsible, putting spottys back in trophy lakes that are crashing, or continuing to let them crash? Why did it need to be pointed out to our 'fisheries experts' that our musky fisheries were in decline? Why did it need to be pointed out that MN's musky fishery is booming? Why should we be content to leave this situation in the hands of the folks who get us here?
I have a ton of respect for any and all individuals that I have dealt with at the WDNR, but as an organization they have dropped the ball in a very big way with their stocking of mutts state wide! I don't understand why everyone is supposed to tip toe around the WDNR at this point. If there was ever a time to be demanding, this is it. This isn't about egos, this isn't about hurting anyone's feelings..we are all big boys here. Let's turn this thing around
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Sean-
You don't know that it would be better to put these fish in, you just assume it would.
"Continue to let them crash?"
4-5 more years on top of 100 plus years...I highly doubt would make that big of an impact. AND, this is not saying the DNR is going to sit on there hands till then as well. But they sure aren't going to run wild shutting down all stocking and stocking blindly Leech lake strain....as Larry said, it IS a big puzzle. ANd as well polished and laid out as they have their possition....it doesn't mean its ALL 100%RIGHT...it means it is a strong theory.
I am not, and I don't think Steve is saying, that we need to Tip toe around. BUT, some heavy walls have been built in certain parts of the state between clubs/fisherman/DNR individuals. You may say egos aren't involved, or its not personal or hurting feelings...but we are still dealing with humans (on both sides of the equation) and all those factors come into play when trying to work together.
"Why did it need to be pointed out to our 'fisheries experts' that our musky fisheries were in decline? Why did it need to be pointed out that MN's musky fishery is booming? Why should we be content to leave this situation in the hands of the folks who get us here? ....They have dropped the ball"
Frustration taken...understood, and not even fully disagreeing...but stomping our feet and pointing this out ISN'T going to get us to the next level with the DNR.
AND THAT is what needs to change on our end to cross over to working with them instead of holding it against them.
my opinion.
Cory
| |
| | |
| First a response to Cory. I did say it was a big puzzle. And I did say that the pieces of the puzzle in and of themselves were insignificant. I also said that when the puzzle had finally been put together it painted a very clear picture.
On to "venting."
Hope you don't mind, but it is time to "vent." I will try and keep it below Mr. Worrall's "RANT," but will likely get close.
First, a point of clarification of why I am involved in this. I have known for many years that there was a problem with the decline in trophy muskie fishing in Wisconsin. The "boom" in Minnesota began to cost me a great deal of my business, especially last year. I had one client tell me; "Larry we love ya, but just can't fish with you anymore. We are going where we can catch big fish, and lots of them." While I found this disheartening, it was certainly understandable, as I was well aware of what was going on in Minnesota.
When I started working on the Restoration Project this winter, the reasons for the continual decline in Wisconsin's trophy muskie fishing became clearer and clearer. Once it started to become clear that the past (and current) stocking practices were to blame, I became concerned. The more we dug into it, the madder I got. At every turn, nearly every day, additional pieces of information were found to add to the puzzle. It became horrendous! I/we got even madder. When we realized not only what had happened to our trophy fisheries, but our Tourism as well, which directly affected me personally, we became alarmed.. We knew that this information, if it got out, could further damage tourism. We decided to try and work with the DNR "behind the scenes" and see if something couldn't be done before it was too late. Things went well at first, and we even managed to keep it off of the Internet (for over 10 weeks). It was at the State Musky Committee where things went "south." There is no point in going into great detail at this point, but suffice it to say we left that meeting extremely mad, especially when the DNR agreed we had made valid points of concern, and then said they weren't going to do anything about them. The people of the State of Wisconsin should be mad as hell. We sure were and are. Did we overreact? Perhaps, but when over 2000 hours of work and research was ignored we felt we had a right to react. We would still love to work with the DNR and help with money and manpower where ever possible, but the ball is in their court.
The DNR seems to like to study things, in fact that is what they propose now. Let's talk about studies a bit and the results and what were done with them. In the 1950's a DNR Researcher discovered after "study" that one of the states premier musky lakes, and the western Wisconsin primary brood stock lake, Lac Court Orielles, had a reproduction problem. It was learned that there was insufficient natural reproduction to maintain a viable muskellunge fishery. Now I don't know about you folks, but I would certainly think that if a problem of that magnitude had been discovered, the next thing to "study" would be why and how to fix it. What "was" done? Certainly more studies (that is what researchers do), but the next studies were to find out how well hatchery stocked fish survived in LCO after stocking. Absolutely no attempt to get a the more serious problem of why there was insufficient natural reproduction to "continue" to sustain the fishery after doing so for over 10,000 years. It was known then that "official" stocking had taken place in LCO since at least 1933, and an unknown amount of "unofficial" stocking done prior to that for around 50 years. One logical hypothesis should have been that the intervention by man had caused a problem in one manner or another. Why, and how can we fix it should have been the next "study." It was not.
As for a more recent study, RR 175, which is covered in great detail on our web site (www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org), has been used by DNR personnel all over the state to indicated that Leech Lake fish did not "do well," or "work" in Wisconsin. Nothing could be further from the truth. They ask us to trust them to do what is best. They haven't.
And what about keeping up on studies done by other states and the Canadian provinces? I would think that this would be a normal part of the job, but apparently other than attending various scientific meetings, this isn't required or else they are too overworked and have too much area of responsibility to treat each species properly. During our very first meeting with any DNR personnel this winter, neither the area biologist or his supervisor had seen or heard of the two Minnesota Mississippi River strain studies, both of which involved Wisconsin strain muskies, until we gave them a copy of them!! In addition, they had not heard of or seen the 1982 genetic study that also involved Wisconsin muskies. SAD.
Enough, on to other things.
The "two strains" (large strain - small strain) thing still bothers me. When the "multiple spawning" of the large strain was discovered and published in the early and mid 1980's, it was basically ignored or not understood. It was made clear then that it had management ramifications, but little has been done in that regard.. Recently, the geneticists have come to an agreement that the muskellunge is a single species with great variability. Personally I believe this derives mostly due to "current" genetic status of muskellunge populations; mostly those "created" by stocking.
Some scientists still believe there are two distinct "evolved" species due to evolution over the past 10-12,000 years. Since even the scientists cannot all agree on a definite protocol as to what should determine a distinct species, far be it for me to try. I do know however, that work nearing completion prior to submission for peer review and subsequent publishing, is being done, and will bring the issue again to the forefront. What is most important, again, is the knowledge we now have that the large growing multiple spawners are the fish of choice, whether it be Great Lakes strain or Mississippi River strain.
I find it very interesting in light of the things I have learned, that our sister state to the east, Michigan, has managed their muskellunge fishery for the two strains for OVER 50 years! On our west side, Minnesota came to the proper realization of "two different animals" and in 1982, made the total switch to Mississippi River strain fish. Meanwhile, here Wisconsin sits in the middle, doing business as usual, totally ignoring all of the supporting studies and what our neighbors have been doing and are now doing, and watching the tourism "drain" to Minnesota's amazing turnaround without an obvious concern and total inaction. Interesting indeed!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I would like to start by thanking the powers behind this project; Bob Benson, Larry Ramsell and Eric Johnson.
These gentlemen have spent their entire winter season doinng research and trying to put the pieces together.
I have been in contact and offering any help I could to further their work. I have never fished in Wisconsin, but
I wanted to help, because the problem in Wisconsin, was starting to concern me. It brought two points up that I wanted
to clear up -- First was the concern that MN could find our fishery in the same condition down the road. I wanted to help
them fix Wisconsin, so MN could see what went wrong and what was done to fix it. The second concern stemmed from the first.
What if all these extra people coming to MN putting all this extra pressure on our Muskies, speeds up the failure of the MN
fishery? As things were found in their research about over harvest and poor stocking practices, it make me worried about
the people coming to MN for their "trophy" and how long MN could decorate dens, before we started to suffer. MN just changed one of their
brrod stock lakes to a RELEASE only lake. There were a few BIG fish killed out of Elk Lake and the DNR had enough. I am glad the MN DNR
had the guts to step up and close the lake to meat hunters. On the down side, that lake has lost a big chunk of its gene pool. How will the
future fish from the lake grow? Has this harvesting from a brood stock lake started the down hill slide in MN?
I have been fishing Muskies in MN for over twenty years. I have spent most of my time on Leech Lake and I have seen and caught the same
"semi-barred" fish on Leech that are seen on Mille Lacs, Vermilion and other lakes that are stocked with Leech fish. I would strongly agree with
Larry on the fact that these fish are pure Leech Lake Muskies and the color pattern does not mean they are crossed with anything. We also see a few
of the "clear" phased Muskies in MN lakes, I don't think color dictates a strain.
I commend Larry for his lifes work and the time he has spent on this board answering everyones questions and trying to fill in the blanks.
This is a very important issue for me, even if I never cross the boarder to fish. I want to help fix the problem in Wisconsin so I can help prevent the
same thing from happening in MN, or help to fix it if does.
MN has been very lucky -- most of the muskie fishermen have been great about CPR. We have been able to keep most of our big fish in our lakes.
I have seen an increase in the kill rate though as we start getting more new comers in our state, plus all the extra people from Wisconsin. I want the
Wisconsin fishery to get fixed to save the MN fishery. MN can't support the current level of harvest, without seeing some decline in our fishery.
MN is riding a high right now! We have many lakes that are at their PEAK and they have a number of very big fish in them. MN has 54 to 55" fish all over the
state right now. I want those fish to be allowed to spawn until they die of old age. We don't want those genes lost. I have seen fish in the Mid 50" range on a number of lakes
in MN, from Leech and Vermilion to Minnetonka, Forest and White Bear. MN offers a trophy fishery from north to south. These Leech Lake fish have proven
their abilty to grow in all types and sizes of lakes.
Please look at the Wisconsin Project with an open mind. Don't think about it as a group of guys that are trying to force the DNR to do something.
This group has tried to give the DNR every chance to make a change and play the part of the hero. The DNR turned their backs on all the work that was
done. Wisconsin needs to look at the research along with what MN, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and others have done. With more and more options for big fish, the
number of people going to Wisconsin will get less and less. The resorts and guides should be banging on the doors at the DNR demanding something changes.
Again thanks to Bob, Larry and Eric for all their hardwork. They knew back in October last year that they would
run into many that didn't understand or didn't want to admit there was a problem. They have forged ahead with a
passion that just won't die.
A concerned Muskie angler,
Steve Sedesky | |
| | |
| an observation...
the WMRP has been criticized more on the style/tone of how the information was presented once it went public than on the content. my initial reaction to pre-release glimpses i had of it was that the message might get lost in the rhetoric.
i believe it highly likely that this discussion has gone a long way to helping the people who are reading it understand what the message is and that the WMRP is able to present that message in a passionate yet respectful manner.
thank you to those involved for taking the time to do so in this forum. i think you're starting to catch more bears here with honey than with vinegar... | |
| | |
| Steve,
Thanks for your support and response here. You bring up some very legitimate concerns that we have thought about ourselves. You do not fish in WI but yet you are an angler that is concerned about what happens in WI because it could negatively impact your MN trophy fishery. This is a very legitimate concern. I would think more folks like you would feel the same way. We certainly agree with you. Over harvest of larger fish from MN is a real threat when its becoming the only option for a lot of anglers that are sadly seeking a wall mount. Also the stocking practices in some of the WI waters also threatens MN waters and the trophy fishing they offer right now from the possibility of the WI stocked fish making thier way into your waters and contaminating the only known pure strain of mississippi strain of muskellunge left on earth. We have the same concern for the great lakes muskie. The drainage waters that empty into the great Lakes that are stocked with the WI small growing mixed strains of muskellunge is a real threat as well. Could this contaminate the great lakes strain of muskie? Could this threaten the restoration of the great lakes strain of muskie in the green bay area that has been going on for several years now? Has the contamination already started? These are real concerns that are of great importance to us and should be to EVERYONE.
I also agree that you simply can not tell the strain of muskie by looking at it, especially larger ones. In some bodies of water they do seem to hold a particualr pattern or color better than in others but that is not real common. I have numerous photos of fish of both strains from both states from different lakes in each state that I would challenge anyone to try and tell me what strain of fish it is, Mississippi strain or a WI mixed strain, or even a strain from Ontario.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ, the premise has been right from the start that the introduction of spotted muskies won't be a problem where there are other strains, as the Spots will spawn at a different temp and in a different area and will become dominant. There are quotes to that effect in this thread. If that is true then no worries, because they won't interbreed.
I spent a fair amount of time over this last winter talking to scientists from all over the country about this issue. I read a ton, even more than usual. I came to some understandings, but couldn't and didn't personally draw all of the seemingly concrete conclusions the restoration group has. Some, yes, all no. Is it now a scientific principle that compiling evidence to support an opinion makes that opinion so? Now I'm not a scientist or geneticist or fisheries biologist. I'm not, so I figure if you're (collectively) not, then we can debate this as equals with mutual respect. If a biologist steps in to the discussion, I guarantee I'll give that person my undivided attention, for obvious reasons.
I will continue to question, talk with our fisheries folks here in Wisconsin and in other states, and keep an open mind. I'm leaning toward the idea that the actual facts of the situation are somewhere in the middle of this debate, as is many times the case. I'm keeping an open mind. How about you?
Ever hear my 'waves on the water make the wind blow' analogy?
I spoke with several folks in fisheries management and government today again while on the road to Kentucky. I wasn't disappointed a bit, and I bet most reasonable folks who take the time to listen wouldn't be, either. I learned that the genetics research underway has acquired more information than was ever available before, and continues. This research has been underway for quite a while, by the way. I learned also that there are plans to do much of what the restoration group wants, just not as fast or exactly as demanded and for good reason. And, I learned that my Lake X fish are definitely stocked fish. For sure. What does that mean? I asked that question today. In all probability the big fish there are not getting harvested, and are allowed to GET big. If the word gets out and the fish are hit hard, many will be harvested, and that story will come to an unhappy ending. I also found out this lake isn't going to be stocked for a very long time. If natural reproduction is stable it will be very interesting to see what happens down the road. There IS natural reproduction there, I actually caught a few YOY muskies this year fishing crappies.
One thing from the soapbox. 'Sledgehammer diplomacy' when dealing with an issue like this doesn't work well. Cory tried to say that in a nice way, I'm going to be more blunt.
'Thus far, the Doyle Administration has turned a deaf ear to our requests. We met with the top Madison officials and biologists of the DNR on multiple occasions. At those meetings, they admitted that there is a problem but for whatever reason, the Doyle Administration and Wisconsin DNR officials have turned a deaf ear to our solution. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel. Our solution to the problem has been done very successfully in Minnesota and it will not be costly - the solution is as simple as shifting where the Wisconsin DNR gets the eggs for it’s musky stocking program. We have made the WDNR aware that the musky clubs and organizations that we have spoken with have pledged manpower and funding to assist with any transition costs. 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. 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.'
There are at least two statements that are unwarranted and ill advised, an ill advised AND misinformed statement of rumor from 'cynical members', a series of threats contained in this and the following paragraph, and at least one probable misleading or flat inaccurate statement contained in this posting on the restoration website.
I bet the folks on the receiving end of this blast are just DYING to meet with this group again. Then again, I found those folks to be pretty reasonable today, so maybe I'm wrong.
This, of course, is my personal studied opinion, just like the posts by everyone else here; so no one has to take it any more seriously than that.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sheesh, double posts here in Kentucky! | |
| | |
| Setve
From WDNR Research Report 175 - The mixing of muskellunge from Nancy Lake with adjacent populations and a reduction in fitness resulting from outbreeding depression is possible(Philipp et al. 1993). Because of the potential negative consequences of introgression with native stocks, transfers such as the one accomplished in Nancy Lake should be closely scrutinized.
The problem with this statement is this. What native stock of muskellunge in WI was being threatened here? On several occasions when asking what strain is used for stocking in WI or if we even have a pure strain of musky left in WI, our DNR has said that they do not know what we have due to the mixing of muskellunge over the years. If the fish in Nancy lake were to make it into the St. Croix River basin which is indicated in this report as a concern, then what is the threat here? The St. Croix River basin is a drainage water of the mississippi? That IS thier native waters! Should we be more concerned about them threatening an introduced non-native strain of muskellunge of unknown origins that have been stocked there and that don't reproduce or grow large?
What this statement in RR-175 does indicate to me is that the stocking of mixed strains/stocks of muskellunge from our Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries into the drainage waters of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes could threaten these proven native pure strains of muskellunge known to exisist there. Shouldn't this be more of a concern than the possibility of mississippi strain fish making thier way into drainage waters of the mississippi river, thier native waters that have been stocked with non-native strains? If we are going to stock any fish anywhere, and there is any possibility of cross-breeding with other populations, would it not be best to stock known pure strains of muskellunge that we know all grow large and also offer the best chance of maintaining a fishable population through natural reproduction? Isn't this a better option than to continue to stock unknown mixed stocks/strains that have nearly no succesful natural reproduction and continue adding to the problem we have already created and are faced with today? If we have a choice, which we do, why would we elect to continue to stock mixed strains/stocks of muskellunge into our waters over a pure strain? Especially when the evidence from all previous DNR studies indicates superior growth and more sucessful natural reproduction with the mississippi strain over WI mixed strains?
EJohnson
| |
| | |
| Folks,
First of all I want to thank all the people who run Muskie first for both running the board in a responsible,positive manner and also for being willing to participate in what is clearly a touchy controversial issue. Over the past 4-5 months which is the extent of my Message Board posting, I have also found the readers of the MuskieFirst site to have an interest in these topics not shared by other sites. Despite my frustration at times, I have very much enjoyed the discussion.
I've been happy letting Eric and Larry lead the discussion the last few days, but feel I must come back and make a few points.
1. Steve - you continue to characterize these changes as "desired by a few people". I believe these changes are desired by a vast majority of the Muskie anglers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. These changes have the support of approximately 100% of the members of the MI chapter I belong to. (I say approximately because I have not talked to every single -member, but no one has stepped forward against it.) I believe this to be true for many other clubs, but I will not speak for them. Please stop characterizing us as a small group, unless you have data to back this up.
2. I've been watching the tendency to beat up the messenger rather than the message. Folks, We have been working on this with the DNR for months and other than one e-mail sent out of sheer frustration we have treated the DNR with courtesy and respect. That one e-mail is something we wish we could take back and are working on correcting. We worked a long time without going public, we did not want to do it in plain view. You must realize we are trying to get something done. It has become known to me that people around the state have been trying to get something changed here for TWENTY FIVE YEARS!!!! Some people tried 10 years ago, some of us 5 or 6, and many are jumping on board now. The results = no change.
3. FACTS. The WMRP has very diligently tried to base all of our research on facts. We do not use Lake X and Lake Y - we cite lake names and provide facts. This is at times very painful for us as fisherman but is the right thing to do. Steve, I ask that you do the same as personally I take all of the "Lake X has big fish" as pure speculation. I know of 20 lakes in this area that have virtually no harvest, are stocked with fish from Bone Lake and have no large fish.
While statements like that can be construed as facts, a much better argument is to name lakes in both states of equal size and compare the fisheries. Nancy Lake was stocked with Leech Lake Muskies on 3 occasions and was able to maintain a trophy fishery for 20 years without stocking in spite of heavy harvest. If the mixed strain fish from our brood lakes are not able to maintain trophy fisheries with some harvest, then I believe the DNR should stock pure large growing fish that can.
4. Harvest - The recurring theme on the Wisconsin fishery is that Harvest is the problem, while I used to believe this, I feel I was wrong and this is truly not the case. And yes, I have facts to back it up. Folks, Wisconsin was giving up more fish in the mid to upper 50 inch range when we were killing ALL of the Muskies we caught, then we do today. It's interesting that these fish had almost identical lengths and girth as the Minnesota fish caught in that time frame. I'll list a bunch of those fish in a second. Now I'll name Lakes again - Let's compare Lac Court Oreilles vs. Lake Miltona in Minnesota. LCO has a 50 inch sizelimit and has had virtually no harvest for the past 10 years, Meanwhile Lake Miltona (home of No More Muskies) while the same size has a 40 inch size limit and has the NMM group specifically targeting and harvesting Muskies. This past year there were more 50" Muskies registered in Muskies INC from Lake Miltona than the entire state of Wisconsin. The difference - THE FISH THAT ARE STOCKED!!! See item Number 3 above.
5. Responsibility. The DNR has the responsibility to manage the natural resources of this state. There should be no excuses - we either have big muskies or we don't. We should benchmark ourselves against our neighboring state with simialr waters on the same Mississsippi drainage, this is fair. The state Government runs the DNR with the Governor being responsible in the end. We'd like to work at the local level, but found out quickly that they cannot make the call, it comes from Madison. We still have not found the person who can make the call and do the right thing. No one will tell us who can make the call. They are hiding behind politics. As citizens of this state we have the responsibility to stand up and speak when things are being done wrong. People on this message board urged me months ago to do something about it if I didn't llike it. Thanks for encouraging me.
6. The thing that still get's me going is the need to take things slowly. My father and amy others of similar age are very hopeful that things get's changed and changed now. They know that taking it slow as Cory suggests will rob them of any chance that they will see pure large growing Muskies in our lakes during their life-time. I ask those that happen to live near one lake that may see immediate change to stay with us and not work against what the majority of Muskie anglers in this state desire. CHANGE. To not change based on what we know of our fisheries and our brood lakes would be irresponsible. (IMHO)
We start growing BIGGER MUSKIES THIS SPRING!!!!!
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
| Following Eric and Bob's posts doesn't leave much to say, but here are a couple of points that should be considered, one of which I covered yesterday.
1) The DNR DOES have the power to stop harvest of our big fish is they truly do believe that to be the problem (we do not). They stop sturgeon harvest when they think it is endangering the stocks, and they do it without any politics...they just do it. They can do the same thing for muskies. We find it hard to believe that they do not realize or believe that there is a difference in the two strains of muskies (I covered that yesterday as well).
2) Not directly muskie related, but a fair comparison of what powers they have: If you lived on the shore of a muskie lake, and your septic system was leaking raw sewage into that lake, they would insist that you fix it IMMEDIATELY. They wouldn't want to hear from you that you are going to have a couple of engineers come out to "study" the situation and problem and then you will later address how to fix it when funds become available! The problem had been identified by them and they want it fixed...NOW...period. Well, we have publically identified a problem that is endangering our remnant native large strain muskies, and ask that it too, be fixed...now, not after 10 more years of "study." This is only fair.
If they truly believe it cannot be fixed this year (we again disagree...eggs are available to switch), then they should discontinue stocking "as usual" until the right thing can be done. As I also pointed out yesterday, about 27 of the 41 lakes on the stocking schedule for the Spooner hatchery are non-native muskie waters. Switching at least those 27 lakes to Mississippi River strain fish, enhancing rather than confounding Minnesota's return to stocking Mississippi River strain muskies into the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers is the right thing to do. Cancel the approximately 14 other native muskie lakes on the list for this year while things get sorted out.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
I don't disagree with much of your ideas on some of the waters here in Wisconsin, but question your ideas as applied to others. We're talking a STATE WIDE change you're asking for, hundreds of lakes. I'm firmly in the camp that caution is advised, but that immediate changes can and should be made on some waters while leaving others to the current management stratagies which I understand is the case at present.
If the Group states as fact certain items about natural reproduction and the maxium size of stocked fish, and I know of glaring exceptions to that theory, should I NOT list them and ask what happened there? If the group says the stocked fish do not reproduce, but are dangerous to introduce where there is a Natural strain, (which is stated to be near extinct or non existant except one base population) because the strains will interbreed and weaken the overall genetic disposition toward large size, doesn't that beg a question or two?
If the facts used are applied to a Lake X or Lake Y and the success or failure of any one program there, would that not conversely encourage questions about Muskie populations in waters that seem to directly conflict?
I don't think anyone here is 'beating up' the messenger, that's certainly not my intent. However, one could say what you posted in that paragraph differently and still say the same thing without a controversial slant. Then, after apologising somewhat for a radical statement in the very same paragraph, you accuse someone you cannot even name of 'hiding behind politics'. I think I've been clear as a new picture window that it's also not necessarliy the message, it's the delivery at times which needs moderation. I have as much an individual voice as any one of you, and will use it to ask questions wherever I see one I would like ask. I appreciate your comments, and don't feel you or anyone else involved with the restoration group wants anything but good for us all. I am just plain far to questioning to blindly accept anything this complicated as simple stuff.
I didn't characterize anything or anyone, I tried to get some facts by asking questions and adding observations looking for clarifiaction. I agree that most muskie anglers would like to see more big fish in Wisconsin. I don't agree that all or even most of the muskie anglers in the state understand clearly what you are asking for, know all the details from the several perspectives that are in play, or fully understand the benefit/risk big picture. I was at the Board Meeting in Milwaukee when the resolution was passed to support your group. The discussion of the details, what you are asking or demanding, the possible repercussions, or for that matter ANY discussion of what was about to occur simply didn't hapen. No one asked a single question, the club officers simply voted to support whatever your group wanted.
The presentation by some here on MuskieFIRST could be, and HAS been by some perceived to be media based anti-DNR PR campaign by the restoration group. I'm fairly certain you are not actually trying to come off that way, but inexperience in handling the PR of this sort of issue breeds frustration, which can overflow and cause unreasonable behavior, in public, which further complicates. That scenario demands of any good media source strong attempts to balance the conversation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I think right now on this side of the state, eastern, as has been explained by Larry, we get at least some mixing of musky stock. I know they take spawn from a number of different lakes for Woodruff including Big Saint Germain, known to have some big fish still swimming. I believe it is a result of this that every once and awhile in lakes where stocked fish are given a chance to grow those big fish genes can and do show themselves. This would explain Steve’s Lake X and a number of other Lake Xs I know about.
But what if every fish stocked had that potential, wouldn’t that make more sense, especially considering more would have a better chance at becoming natural spawners?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 440
| This is a case where science muddies things up beyond good old common sense. The easiest and quickess solution (most logical) to this whole thing is being more selective when choosing females to harvest eggs from. Get a good cross section of females and let nature take its course. Maybe find out where those big fish in the Pastika's catalog are coming from and do some netting and egg harvesting there. I wouldn't waste the time or energy on some scientific study. Just a waste. Use the fish from Wisconsin water, the large ones, then you don't have to worry about mixing. The KISS theory comes to mind. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | This is an incredible thread. I agree with about 99% of what the restoration project wants to do. I agree 100% with Mr. Worral that some diplomacy needs to be used. I wish the WMR would change their front page on their website. Making political threats is not a very good way to get things changed.
To say that the introduction of the Wisconsin fish could destroy the Great Lakes Strain is a bit far fetched. On one hand you state there is very little chance of the two breeds crossing and on the other you have cross breeding happenning so much that it infiltrates the Great Lake spots. I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked. If we are worried about the integrity of the Great Lake spots, which we should be, the Mississippi strain that the MN DNR is putting into the St Louis river would pose a much bigger risk to the Great Lakes genetics than the fish the WDNR are putting in the St. Louis. Great Lakes spots should be the only strain that gets put in the St. Louis and the Mississippi strain should be the only strain that goes into the St. Croix.
It would be great if the WDNR would let their voice be heard here. I see this project as win/win for the entire state.
To those people that are saying to stop the current stocking, if you are saying to stop it where there is natural production(agree).
If you are staying to stop it everywhere(disagree). My local waters , Lakes Monona and Waubesa, would crash and burn without the stocking. I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all.
Edited by Bytor 3/24/2005 11:38 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bytor,
I would like, as well, to somehow see the DNR get invlolved here. There is too much time and energy being spent here on 'DNR Etiiquette'. Larry Ramsell is right when he says the the poeple of WI should be "mad as hell"...it is their right to be mad as hell. I would love to see the WDNR open up about the past practices and future plans of the musky fishery. The timing couldn't be better for them to do so. I think this represents a great opportunity for them.
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
| Just a quick Biography note here on my history with the DNR (I believe Larry and Eric are similar but will let them speak for themselves) :
I am not a DNR hater.
I personally up to this year have supported the DNR on nearly everything they have done.
I have and still do support EVERY increase in license hikes and funding. I believe a fishing license at even ten times the price is the biggest bargain available. If desired I can feed my family all year for $30.00. I can't get the family into the Movie theatre for that.
I show up to Conservation Congress meetings, actually listen to the DNR reasoning on matters and have voted with the DNR on every proposal I can recall. I can recall listening to Frank Pratt at my first meeting in Hayward and found his thoughts on our fisheries fascinating. I reccomend you all attend these meetings and actually LISTEN. (myself included)
I have found the local DNR people across the state to be extremely helpful and accomodating. Folks like Joe Kurz, Dave Neuswanger, Scot Stewart, Larry Damman, Frank Pratt and Steve Gilbert, the folks at the hatcheries have been just tremendous. It's not personal, it's not about them. It's about the FISH. MUSKIES! Big Muskies!
Steve - I know you think we may have done some things not the "best way". Even I would not dispute that. Sometimes the best way, will not get things done. When we decided to invest the time, effort and money into this project, we had to make a decision that we had to focus on getting things done and not tiptoe around. If we had done it the way that we and everyone else tried prviously, we would have gotten nowhere.
At this point we are asking that EVERYONE get involved and help get things done. Things are turning now to where Muskie clubs across the state need to be working with their local DNR to make the right changes, and to make their voices heard in Madison. If you are not a member of a muskie club - now is the time to join and help make a difference. If you are quiet - you will not be heard.
Bob Benson | |
| | |
| From Bytor: "This is an incredible thread. I agree with about 99% of what the restoration project wants to do. I agree 100% with Mr. Worral that some diplomacy needs to be used. I wish the WMR would change their front page on their website. Making political threats is not a very good way to get things changed."
My reply: Bytor and all: Earlier today, Bob offered and "olive branch" to the DNR (further details up to Bob). I will take it another step, and see that the front page of our web site is changed as you suggested...for awhile at least, pending response to Bob from the DNR.
Bytor continues: "To say that the introduction of the Wisconsin fish could destroy the Great Lakes Strain is a bit far fetched. On one hand you state there is very little chance of the two breeds crossing and on the other you have cross breeding happening so much that it infiltrates the Great Lake spots. I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked. If we are worried about the integrity of the Great Lake spots, which we should be, the Mississippi strain that the MN DNR is putting into the St Louis river would pose a much bigger risk to the Great Lakes genetics than the fish the WDNR are putting in the St. Louis. Great Lakes spots should be the only strain that gets put in the St. Louis and the Mississippi strain should be the only strain that goes into the St. Croix."
My reply: For the second time in as many days, there is confusion regarding "cross breeding." Your comments are more personal opinion than fact based. First, there is always a chance for cross breeding...if the two strains find each other during an overlap in preferred spawning thermal regimes (water temp.), it can/will happen. Despite this fact, our DNR continually mixes stocks within the state and in border waters, while at the same time saying they are trying to protect "genetic integrity." They can't have it both ways. There most certainly IS a real threat to our hatchery fish getting into the Great Lakes. When the Green Bay Restoration biologist heard this at the State Musky Committee, he wasn't happy about it...he evidently had no prior knowledge that this practice was going on. All there agreed that it was wrong and should be looked into. It follows the higher genetic principals of protecting native stocks. We have no native large strain stocks left in Wisconsin...lakes with some large strain left in them, yes, but in insufficient numbers to sustain themselves.
Your statement: "I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked." is just that, "your thought." Please consider that the muskellunge IS a river fish. To say they won't spawn there, without proof, is incorrect. It would take one or both of two things to prevent them spawning in rivers; One would be pollution. The second, and unproven but indicated, is that due to mixing, the fish now being used in the hatchery has minimum natural production at best, and none in worst case (most) scenarios. These small fish will eventually disappear is stocking is changed to the large strain, just as happened in Minnesota, and the large strain should reproduce, contribute toward more self=sustaining populations, even in non-native muskie lakes, and reduce hatchery burden.
Bytor's last: "To those people that are saying to stop the current stocking, if you are saying to stop it where there is natural production(agree). If you are staying to stop it everywhere(disagree). My local waters , Lakes Monona and Waubesa, would crash and burn without the stocking. I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all."
My reply: The "grey area" here is lakes where there is "some" natural reproduction and those that are self-sustaining and need no stocking. I have two points to make; If a "native" muskie lakes MUST be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, my first question would be why? Is it because of past stocking practices or is it some other factor that came into play before man came or after man came? The initial feeling is the former, past stocking practices. Note: As I have said before, we don't really KNOW for sure which of the state lakes were native muskie water pre-man, and which were created by man. If the latter, this too could help explain the lack of sufficient natural reproduction. At any rate, if a native lake is deemed to forever require stocking (as historical stocking records would indicate) and MUST be stocked, why not stock it with the only pure Mississippi River strain muskie left. One known to grow big and fast and reproduce naturally, and will pose no risk to the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers?
While a bit selfish (no offense intended) your last comment needn't cause you worry. Your statement infers that you don't care about down stream waters (in that case not as much as a concern as the northern lakes), you just want fish, and you shall have them. It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry.
Your comment: "I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all." is very understandable. But what if you can have small muskies, medium muskies and BIG muskies, and at the same cost? Sounds like a good deal to me!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Musky restorization Group you indicated that the DNR would not listen to any of your ideas when you met with them.
I'm wondering if the group of people on this board could start some type of petition to the WDNR to review the current spawn and milt collection processes? We could get the support of the WI musky club alliance I'm sure as well as the WI Guides asso. I would not support the petition unless it was worded in a diplomatic way.
What do you think of this idea? Would it help at all?
Grass, | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mr. Ramsell thanks for the responce, my posts here on Muskiefirst are always 100 % my opinion.I would appreciate your opinion on whether mississipi strain fish should be put in the St. Louis river?
It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry.
I think the first bodies of waters to do this on should be the larger river systems. The Chippewa Flowage would be an excellent choice.
Troy Schoonover
Edited by Bytor 3/24/2005 3:51 PM
| |
| | |
| Bytor,
I would think that the Great lakes Strain would be the proper choice for the St. Louis River. I think that the Missippi Strain are very close geniticly to the Great Lakes strain and would be a better choice than the fish from our current brrod stock but still think that Great Lakes Strain would be most preferable.
Fred J | |
| | |
| Troy
I think this would be a great question for our DNR to answer or provide an opinion on.
Please everyone, this is not meant to be taking a shot at our DNR, so please, don't take it that way.
It's just a great question.
EJohnson | |
| | |
| Actually, I think an even better question for our DNR would be:
What strain of muskie should be stocked in the St. Louis river being that it is a great lakes drainage water and the fact that it is stocked with the miss strain by MN?
Again, not a shot at our DNR here. Just a very good question. | |
| | |
| Mr Worrall,
You took a shot at the Milwaukee MI club above for supporting our project without any discussion. Please let them speak for themselves in the future.
I had provided the Milwaukee club with our documentation prior to the meeting you attended.
The Milwaukee club was gracious enough to invite me to their board meeting this past Tuesday and also invited me to speak to their club before their award ceremony. It was a great meeting and I really enjoyed being with them. Once again I did not find anyone who disagreed with our ideas. I'd look forward to going back down there in the future and spending more time with them if the opportunity arises(and if I am invited). I told them as I tell everyone, we do not ask for or want blind support. We want people to read and know the facts so that they can make up their own mind.
I'd like all to know - I have nothing to gain from this and ask for nothing in return. I just want better fishing for all the people of Wisconsin (Including myself and my family). I'd much rather be sharpening hooks or playing with my children than going through what I have been through the last few months. Someone must do it and I have appreciated the fantastic support from across the state. It is because of all the kind words and people that have told me they are counting on us that gives me the energy to see this through.
We are taking a hard look at how we are operating and are making every effort to find a solution that suits all parties. We shall see if that helps us move forward. Cooperation and working together is a two way street.
You may question my(our) methods, but please do not question my intent.
Thanks,
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Bob I don't think Steve was taking a shot at the Milwaukee club at all. My interpretation of what he said was the club was all in favor, wholeheartedly, of the overall theme of the group....Better top end fish.....The club, according to Steve, supported that theme...without really understanding fully what it all entailed. At least that was my take.
Cory
| |
| | |
| Troy (Bytor):
First, thank you for posting with your name. Far too many folks like to take shots anon. hiding behind a "board name."
You ask: I would appreciate your opinion on whether Mississippi strain fish should be put in the St. Louis river?
My reply: I tried to cover that a bit yesterday, but since most of my posts have been fairly long, things tend to get lost. My answer is no, I don't think the Mississippi River strain fish should be put into the St. Louis river, but it is a far better choice than Wisconsin's mixed small strain. The MR strain is at least compatible with the multiple spawning Great Lakes strain and has the same large growth capability. Minnesota stocked 304 Wisconsin strain fish into the St. Louis River in 1990, but every stocking since (1994; 1995; 1997; 2001 and 2002-latest record information available) has been Leech Lake (Mississippi River strain). Wisconsin stocked 2,500 small Wisconsin strain in St. Louis Harbor just last fall.
You then had: "It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry."
My reply: I believe this is merely a quote from my last post to you and am not sure what the intent of you putting it in your post was.
Your then wrote: "I think the first bodies of waters to do this on should be the larger river systems. The Chippewa Flowage would be an excellent choice."
My reply: We are not ready to go quite that far yet. While the Chip is on the regular stocking schedule (2500 scheduled for this fall) the question should be asked if it is really necessary. Certainly we want the current small strain stocking there discontinued, as does Chip Resorter's. We felt, and it was our first option presented to the DNR, that the Chip, LCO and Grindstone, in the Spooner hatchery district, would be great places to do some selective egg taking; i.e. from females over 52 inches and males over 45 inches. While still no guarantee that they would be "pure" larger native strain fish, the odds are in their favor. However, there still is the possibility of them not being pure; e.g. 7/8's, and could contain recessive small strain genes. The general consensus to date there is a stocking "moratorium," rather than continued stocking of small strain muskies!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory is correct. Bob is not. I'm a paid in full bonified for real member of that club. No one is suggesting Bob has anything to gain, either, other than a better future for muskies in Wisconsin if you are right. As I have said before, I hope you are. As I said before, I will question everything I see the need, and expect that you will answer, that's what debate is about, and I expect nothing less from you. I will also ask the same questions of the fisheries biologists from every muskie state in this country. I bet I find out exactly what I suspected; there's a middle ground of truth out there somewhere.
By the way, sir, I never have questioned your intent. I questioned your qualifications to determine what is best for our state Muskie management, that you should expect. I questioned your methodology, that you should expect. I questioned and continue to question your conclusions based on what you admit to be months, not years of study, you should expect that. I asked, and will continue to ask, questions that need to be injected into this discussion, and asked for explanations to actual circumstances, in Lakes in Wisconsin, that seem to refute your base line conclusions; you should expect that. Some folks getting all ruffled up because the expected actually occurs is something I should have expected. My mistake, but absolutely no apologies here; this is open and fair debate about an issue I'm JUST as passionante about as you or Larry, involving an industry I have worked within for my entire adult life. Don't you doubt MY intentions either, sir, what facts there are will stand, what is not will not. I have no personal problems with or objections to anyone here. None at all.
I spent a 1 hour and 45 minute conversation with the fisheries manager here at Cave Run today. Interesting stuff. All native fish, every one, all taken from native river stock from the river in which they are native since the Ice Age. I watched on as he Pointed out the rivers and streams the fish have inhabited siince the Ice Age ended, with great interest. All stockings here are from fish with excellent natural reproduction in the waters in which they live. The Cave is an impoundment, similar to some of the Mississippi river impoundments. Not a SINGLE young of the year muskie has ever been found in Cave Run, not one. NO natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow very quickly (UNBELIEVABLE!!), up to a maximum reported size of about 54". An estimated 10% ever reach that size, but they reach that size in 10 YEARS or less. I looked at the study data sheet from this gentleman's paper he's preparing for the Muskie Symposium this Fall.
I also talked to a very highly respected guide and Pro here today who is from Minnesota. He reports that many of the big fish caught in Mille Lacs this last fall were without any doubt in his mind Wisconsin strain fish. Again, anecdotal, but from this fellow, I have to lend serious consideration to his assessment. Interesting stuff! | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| Mr Ramsell,
This board does not require registration, and never will. MuskieFIRST provides a free information and news service to our user base, and is open to anyone willing to follow our protocol and stay within posting permissions. NO post will be allowed to remain here that breaks those permissions. Anonymous posts are perfectly OK; in fact the majority of the traffic here is from Guest users. | |
| | |
| From Mr. Worrall: "I spent a 1 hour and 45 minute conversation with the fisheries manager here at Cave Run today. Interesting stuff. All native fish, every one, all taken from native river stock from the river in which they are native since the Ice Age. I watched on as he Pointed out the rivers and streams the fish have inhabited since the Ice Age ended, with great interest. All stockings here are from fish with excellent natural reproduction in the waters in which they live. The Cave is an impoundment, similar to some of the Mississippi river impoundments. Not a SINGLE young of the year muskie has ever been found in Cave Run, not one. NO natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow very quickly (UNBELIEVABLE!!), up to a maximum reported size of about 54". An estimated 10% ever reach that size, but they reach that size in 10 YEARS or less. I looked at the study data sheet from this gentleman's paper he's preparing for the Muskie Symposium this Fall."
My reply: Was there any discussion as to "WHY" there was no natural reproduction in Cave Run? OBVIOUSLY there had to be natural reproduction in the Licking River and other rivers of KY before Cave Run was created and the Minor Clark hatchery was built. Was the stream poisoning of Kentucky discussed by the coal mines? Trying to compare an impoundment in KY to the ones here in Wisconsin, especially with the pollution situation, is a bit of a stretch.
Mr. Worrall continues: "I also talked to a very highly respected guide and Pro here today who is from Minnesota. He reports that many of the big fish caught in Mille Lacs this last fall were without any doubt in his mind Wisconsin strain fish. Again, anecdotal, but from this fellow, I have to lend serious consideration to his assessment. Interesting stuff!"
My reply: Very interesting indeed. We base almost all of our premises on science and logical conclusion, and you continue to put in "anecdotal" information that cannot be proven, including your continued use of Lake X, where you expect us to give you solid conclusion based on only what you want us to know. Hardly fair. I would again ask, if you are indeed satisfied with the availability of trophy size muskies in Wisconsin, why do you go to Canada? Have you caught anything even close in Wisconsin to the 56 incher you caught in Wabigoon? That is happening more and more frequently right now in Minnesota...it can happen in Wisconsin too.
From MuskieFIRST: "Mr Ramsell, This board does not require registration, and never will. MuskieFIRST provides a free information and news service to our user base, and is open to anyone willing to follow our protocol and stay within posting permissions. NO post will be allowed to remain here that breaks those permissions. Anonymous posts are perfectly OK; in fact the majority of the traffic here is from Guest users."
My reply: That is just fine, and I was not suggesting that registration be required. I only commented because it is nice to know you are talking to someone that has enough conviction to post his name. I have no problem with how you run your site. Mr. Worrall runs a tight but fair ship.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell,
I fish Wabigoon because I have seen (Anecdotal) the ONE there. I have fished Minnesota too, but do not vacation there. Right now, I feel the maximum potential has been reached in most of the waters there for the avrage top end fish except Mille Lacs. Just my opinion, but a 55# fish in Minnesota is a very very large fish indeed. On the Goon, I (just my opinion) after looking at all the available data, I think a heavier fish is quite possible, up to that ONE I seek.
As to the Kentucky issue, yes. We talked about the waters here too. The water that is in the Cave comes from and goes to waters where the fish reproduce, obviously. Water quality isn't the issue, it's probably habitat. Plenty of high quality food, no Pike, and a very comprehensive stocking program from fish grown and planted in a hatchery right there by the Cave. I posted that information because it was interesting in context to this discussion. Here is a body of water that is stocked with the muskies that have been here naturally since the very beginning, and there is no natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow to as much as 50" in 9 years.
Larry, I know what I have experienced. I spoke with the fisheries manager in charge of Lake X. He agreed with me that the netting and boomshock data gathered shows that some very big fish are present, and that he is certain these fish were stocked. I looked at every single piece of data available for the management of that water, and I caught a 40# fish there a year ago, and have seen others and caught them close to that size, as have friends of mine. Now this might be anecdotal to you because it's me typing when I should be fishing, but it certainly isn't to me. The point I was making is pretty important, and obvious. There are exceptions to the 'rules' you have established unilaterally, and I'd like to undestand the dynamic that creates those exceptions better.
Time to hit the water. Rain and cold, but better than snow!! | |
| | |
| Steve,
Glad you see it our way. Pure Large strain Muskies can and should reach 50 inches in 10 years. This happens in Ky with High densities and possibly the Highest harvest rate in the nation (anecdotal).
Let's remove Harvest and densities from the discussion. It's the fish!!!!
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lots to consider!! | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
I guess it's necessary to get the rest of the story:
The average lifespan of the Muskies here, every one a natural riverene pure strain fish, is 10 years. Very few live past 10. They don't reproduce in Cave Run Lake. At the oldest, a few MIGHT reach 13, the average age of a 52" fish on Pelican Lake in Wisconsin.
So now the anglers at the Cave are faced with a dilema. Many here want a 40" limit. According to what I saw yesterday, the average fish at 10 years old isn't much larger that that, although a percentage, just like ANY muskie population, reaches maximum size, which apperars to be in the low 50's. SO a 50" fish and for that matter most of the low 40" class fish here is in ALL probability dead in a year or there about, and doesn't spawn. That brings harvest centrally into this equasion, and will fuel a debate here about the 40" size limit proposal.
So many details. | |
| | |
| Steve,
Let's get back to Wisconsin. I sat down with a WISCONSIN biologist a while back. It seems that only 6 % of our adult muskies make it past age 10. And when they do it's not real pretty.
At age 15 they average 39.6 inches.
These are the numbers for NW wisconsin lakes circa 2002. I'm staring at it right now.
first individual lake I see has 78 fish sampled with only 2 over 41.5 inches. Want more? the lake has above average growth rates for 7 of the 12 year classes and cisco are available.
Lot's of issues - yes. One of them is the fish.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
To my point:
The same strain fish can perform completely differently in some systems or areas than in others. Argue that all you want, but you're dead wrong if you insist environmental factors and angler or traditional harvest have nothing to do with success of recruitment, growth rates, maximum potential, and about a thousand other variables. Leech strain in Ilinois, for example. We aren't sure what will happen with ANY stocking venture using a different strain, or what the interaction will be. The restoration group describes two interactions that directly conflict. You can postulate, you can guess, and you can hope, and that's what we'll be doing as we embark on the experimental stocking programs in the hopper right now. I'm all for that program, which will probably happen no matter what you or I do. I'm also all for an expansion of that program perhaps with some of the restoration groups agenda considered, but in a form that can be carefully monitored and totally accepted by our fisheries personnel. I think you are a great guy, I honestly do. I have heard nothing but good about your focus and desire.
That doesn't mean I have to accept the Restoration group as those best suited to manage the Muskie program in Wisconsin. At best, you represent a citizens advisory, and then only if you successfully present your work and get it accepted by the scientific community in it's entirety. I represent an opportunity to obtain strong editorial support, but when I do my job and ask for confirmation, explanation of facts that seem to refute your claims, or otherwise place portions of your material under scrutiny, I end up receiving a batch of barely disguised insults.
If things were so simple as 'It's The Fish!", and the claims this group has made across the board were entirely with merit, then the Kentucky model would be impossible, and the Muskies in wisconsin would be 39" and ancient. If our fish die at 10 on the average, and a 39" fish is 15 years old on the average, and the average carrying density of a Class A muskie lake in Wisconsin is 1 legal fish per acre, why are there so many 40 to 48" fish in many Wisconsin lakes and rivers? They are ALL anomolies?? Are you talking the whole state, or just generalizing?
Now, if recruitment to adult is 6% to 10% of the total stocking and or natural reproduction depending on what size fish were stocked, what fish were abvailable that would prey upon thos fish and how many YOY hatched from natural reproduction under those same circumstances, then that makes more sense. That's a well known factoid, that only a small percentage of YOY mukies make it to adult age. Say it the way you did, and it sounds like a disaster. Stock 2800, have 280 make to to adult maximum for each fish, that's not too bad.
In your example, what happens to the fish that don't make it to 10 years old?
In the Cave example for all practical purposes almost ALL the fish are DEAD at 13. Almost ALL.
Bob, I do NOT disagree with you some of our lakes and rivers have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. So do our fisheries folks, I believe. I do not disagree that a possible cure may be the Leech Lake strain or the like. I also do not blindly accept that the Leech Lake strain WILL be a cure all across the state. I don't agree that ALL the Muskie waters in the state are shot, no big muskies, the sky is falling and we must act NOW on the recommendation of a group of (even well intentioned) laymen, tossing aside the current plans and agenda of the scientific community in charge of management here today in favor of a resolution that might or might not even be, in it's current form, realistically applicable.
I've seen, over my thirty year career many 'We're right, look over there, we know what you don't, just believe it because we say it's so and can prove it' stuff before. Sometimes the claims are correct and are made up of breakthrough stuff. Sometimes not. What one looks for from my position is credibility, reasonable and respectful communication at all levels, presentation of the facts, corraboration by experts on all sides of the issues, acceptance of questions and challenges, and professionalism in the overall delivery of the platform or idea to the public and the agencies addressed. Let's continue this conversation, and see where it all heads!
Many thanks to everyone involved in this thread for keeping it civil!! | |
| |
|
