|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok my mind is kind of mush after trying to read the info on www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org web site and keep up with the thread on this site over the last three days.
Of everything I have read the information about the 1982 Post, D.D. and W.H. LeGrande study bothers me the most. I have not read the study but if what the WMRT say is true, and the study clearly showed that the fish the WDNR where using for brood stock at both the hatcheries had the same Genetic traits as the Shoepac fish used in Mn., this is all the evidence I need to support this project. Mn took this information and used it to begin there current stocking program and look what they have now.
The reason I am starting this thread is I just don’t see any significant down side to implementing at least item #1 as proposed by the Team.
1.) Capture and select ONLY large males >45" and females >52" from Lac Court Oreilles, Grindstone or the Chippewa Flowage, to take the necessary (Neubich pers. comm.) 500,00 eggs (5 to 10 females) for the Spooner hatchery operation. A like event would be required for the Woodruff hatchery from an appropriate water body, such as perhaps an previously un-stocked section of the Wisconsin River or other suitable candidate.
Please don't beat me up for asking this question, but what are the possible negatives that could come from doing this if the money could be raised to offset the extra cost associated with collecting the eggs and milk?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I do not see any down side to doing this! The only negative factor is the extra time and money needed
to find the larger fish. They won't be able to collect all their eggs in a short time frame. I think if the
WDNR could net a number of large fish and use them as the base for the stocking, there would be far
less of an issue. The sad thing is that these big fish are in many cases the old Mississippi Strain that has
continued to exist. Bringing these fish in from outside would be faster and easier than trying to capture them
locally.
Why not bring in some stock that is proven to grow large? Once there are more large fish to pick from, the WDNR
could start taking eggs locally.
Sure would like to see this happen sooner than later.
Steve Sedesky | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Mike
I think that #1 is dead on. Probably all that really needs to happen. I really don't think fish should or need be brought in from outside Wisconsin. Just some effort put forth to gather up the right fish. | |
| | |
| and it might be relatively easy to convince the DNR to do so (vs. completely changing strains).
the counterpoint to this is...if the fish are genetically topping out at approx. 48", is taking "big" specimens going to have any impact on growing 50+" fish? the proposal to change strains is largely based on a belief that there's a better genetic range in the Leech fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 154
Location: Appleton, WI | I think getting the DNR to change strains is going to be very difficult. I do not believe the information that is there that proves the leech lake fish are superior. I would give that what has happened in MN has been successful. I think we need to identify some of the other growth factors, water productivity, prey species. Taking bigger fish to gather eggs does not guarantee the offspring will be large fish. I do think that diversifing the collection process is a good idea. | |
| | |
| I have no problem with Item #1, it seems natural to do | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | #1 would be better than what is currently being done, but I don't think it is a solution.
Reintroducing the Mississippi strain is the proper thing to do. We used to have these fish in our waters. It looks to me like our stocking program ruined our genetics here in Wisconsin, so we shouldn't use Wisconsin fish for this project. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | I honestly have not figured out a downside to do what the group wants. They took the time and did the research and I truly think they have the "puzzle" put together.
| |
| | |
| There is an inherent problem with the premise. The argument seems to be that stocking the "right strain" of muskie is going to be the cure all, when in fact the stocking mentality is what caused most of the problems we have here in Wisconsin. Don't get me wrong, muskie fishing in Wisconsin is still "world class", in terms of numbers of muskie caught each year and the amount of 3o pounders being caught each and every year. But it can be better. The problems that we have here are not necessarily visible but has to do more with the health of our fishery.
In order to improve our muskie fishery we need to abandon the concept of stocking pen raised muskies in waters that are natural to muskie. Since the state has started to the practice of stocking muskies in native muskie lakes, the number of lakes that can now sustain their population through natural reproduction is less than 20%. This is an alarming rate and it should be THE major concern for every muskie angler. I want to get the point accross that this is a "CRISIS"!!! If we don't bite the bullet now and stop all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes, then we will be just like the junkie who needs his fix, we will have to continue to stock and stock and stock because we would have displaced the naturally spawning muskie along with elininating their genetic diversity that exist in each and every lake forever. I hope that it is not too late for most of our natural muskie but I am sure there are some lakes that are too far gone for the us to reverse the damage that has been done.
It might sound to some that I have placed the blame on the WDNR and nothing could be farther from the truth. Over the years the pressures from fishing groups, business owners, and the average fisherman(myself included) have forced("force" might be too strong of a word for some so you can substitute "persuade" in its place) the WDNR to stock more and more fish without fully realizing the consequences.
I do believe that stocking muskie in lakes that don't have a natural population is OK. And that if you are going to stock such a lake it should be from the biggest specimens. I do favor the stocking of the Leech Lake strain in waters that are found in the southern part of Wisconsin, where there would be no way that those muskie could find their way in to the northern lakes that have muskie or are void of muskies.
The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical.
Thanks and you all have a great season and you enjoy your time on the water,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
| Tom
You say - The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical.
I'm afraid this is exactly what MN did to fix the same problem we have and it worked. They just made sure they did it with the right strain of muskie.
| |
| | |
| In my opinion, there are no downsides whatsoever. Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big.
Air | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I think, personally, it all comes down to this attitude:
"Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big."
Sure you can. Example: the Fox Chain of Lake in Northern Illinois. Spotted muskies "Leech Lake Strain" have been put in the system for years, yet no large spotted fish are being caught. To my knowledge, no spotted muskies are being caught over 32". I dont personally know why that is, but I know it didnt work. So, just to say "it worked in MN., it will work here" MIGHT be a bit short sighted.
The DNR spends ALOT of $$$ to maintain the muskie program in WI, and yes changes need to be made, but MASSIVE/FAST changes DO NOT necessarily mean that changing how that money is spent, will help. Does the DNR need to make changes? Yes, and they know this, and have communicated this to people. Are they going to make changes just because "arm chair biologists" (and no, there has NOT been a single fisheries biologist comment on a SINGLE thread running right now) think they should? No, and I agree they shouldnt. Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science. The DNR might not have made all the right choices in the past, but they have communicated a desire to do so in the future.
Communicating to the DNR our concerns, our hopes about and for the muskie fisheries is GREAT, telling them what should be done, will do nothing. We can yell in the wind all we want, but there is TOO MUCH MONEY at stake here to say that if we yell loud enough, changes will be made.
We ALL need to make strides to work TOGETHER. So much goes on in the muskie community to keep us apart; the tourney vs. non-tourney fights, C&R fanatics telling others how to HOLD a fish, sites like Musky.com and MuskyAmerica.com publishing information that is personal attacks on other industry pros, arguing on the internet.....that needs to end. COMPRIMISE and working WITH THE DNR is what is needed here....as well as comprimising together. The DNR is NOT going to make wholesale changes, right or wrong, in their muskie programs, and we need to work WITH THEM TO HELP THEM TO HELP THE PROGRAM.
And, I'm going fishing tomorrow! Yeah me. | |
| | |
Posts: 376
Location: Lake Vermilion Tower, MN | Wisconsin has more than just a stocking problem. The whole system needs to be changed. Take the self interest out of the process and let the WDNR use good science to fix the problems.
The attitudes of the resort community is a major problem.
I'd doubt MN would let groups of resort owners, make policy on size limits and stocking programs.
"Ace"
| |
| | |
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Adding to what Slamr said, are all the people that think the Leech lake fish are the answer aware of Project Green Gene in Illinios? The ILDNR recognized a few years ago that fish generally don't get over 50" and often have trouble getting to 50" depending on the lake in IL. They also recognize we have very different types of bodies of water from north to south. I may not be totally accurate on this because I'm not close to it but my understanding of the project is that it is an attempt to understand what species are most suitble for each type of lake in each region of the state. They divided the state into three regions and are evaluting the success of each strain in each region. The project is designed to take 10 years because it will take that long to develop enough data to be meaningful. In high school science and stats classes we all learned that you have to have enough data to make a hypothsis with any integrity. Simply saying Leech Lake fish are successful in MN and the water that is in MN is also in WI may not be enough. Perhaps the WI DNR should talk to the ILDNR at the Muskie Symposium about Project Green Gene? Maybe they can develop a similar study that would deliver some improvement? | |
| | |
| EJOHNSON,
Although you do bring up a good point, the muskie fishing has improved due to the changes made in the stocking of muskies by the MDNR, the history of muskie and muskie management in Wisconsin is very different and the two should never be compared. First off most of todays MN's muskie lakes didn't have a natural population and only have populations due to stocking and just the opposite is true for Wisconsin. And yes you are right E, at first the brood stock that was being used for MN was inferior and by the MDNR recognizing it and changing to the Leech Lake strain did make a drastic improvement and I do agree with the decisions made by the MDNR in implementing those changes.
It is my contention that the natural way is the best way. I think it must be the innate arrogance that are shared by all humans, "that we can improve on natures design". We have been moving in a dangerous direction that if we don't stop the stocking of pen raised muskie in Wisconsin native muskie waters, we will be dependant upon stocking and we will loose the diversity that in the long run could save our muskie fishery if some parasite or disease would sweep through the lakes of Wisconsin.
The most important consideration in muskie management in Wisconsin should be the health of the fishery and genetic diversity!
Thanks,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Tom I think the point is that it is very possible that the Mississippi River Musky is the natural Wisconsin fish at least in waters that are in the Mississippi drainage basin, which includes the Wisconsin river and it’s tributaries. By restocking the MR Musky into these waters they will reproduce just as they have done in the Miss. Drainage basin waters in Minn. It would help ensure natural diversity.
Wisconsin waters have been stocked for over, I think the number is, 104 years. If I am not mistaken the DNR doesn’t even know which lakes had natural populations or not. There is no Genetic integrity to be protected, because of the way the fish have been stocked over that time period. Add in lakes with pike that didn’t originally have pike and it makes the situation even more mixed up.
I can understand the point about maybe not taking all large fish, don’t know if I agree, but I am not a biologist. Maybe a better thing to do would be to start with Mn. Fish and harvest eggs the exact way the Mn biologist do it, eventually creating our own brood stock lakes here. The Wisconsin biologists know how to do it as I believe they did it on Long Lake and now will be doing it in Green Bay every year to keep that program going.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 3/24/2005 9:09 PM
| |
| | |
| Tom
First I would like to say that I believe that there are basically 2 species of muskies. A large growing strain that evolved to co-exist with northern pike in river systems. And a smaller strain that evolved in land locked lakes with no pike present. Beyond that both have adapted to local conditions somewhat over time. Larry or Bob are able to best handle this so I will not get into it too much. The differences between the two species have been discussed before on this site so I will not go into that. One thing that I dont think has been talked about though is the ovaries of these fish. Thats something Larry could best answer so maybe he can talk about that sometime. Its pretty interesting.
Anyway
I think the situations in both MN and WI were very similar before MN changed its brood stock in 1982.
Here is a partial list of the similarities between stocking practices along with similarities between Shoepac fish, Spooner hatchery, and Woodruff hatchery fish.
1) Stocking focused on numbers, not quality
2) They are easier to net
3) They spawn in shallower water
4) The egg survival was better than with eggs from larger fish (because the eggs they got from the larger fish were taken before the were ripe because they were taken too early in to cold of water temps)
5) They spawn in colder water temps
6) These fish rarely exceed 42 inches in length.
7) They mature at very small sizes
8) They mature at very early ages
9) They only spawn once
10) They do not do well in waters with northern pike
Mn has about 80 waters listed as musky waters today, although the number is actually closer to 100 due to fish entering into other waters through rivers, creeks etc.... Prior to MN changing its brood stock and expanding its musky waters there were at least 42 native musky waters according to the MDNR. I can name each and every one if you like. And, yes they increased the number of waters through introductions of muskie to new waters.
How many native musky waters were there in WI before man? I don't know. Even our DNR does not know. They believe that fish were being moved around before anyone started keeping records of this practice. So we can only speculate on that. My guess would be rivers and drainage waters associated with the mississippi river and the great lakes, but its anyones guess. Something that we most likely will never know for sure.
The pen raised theory is one that Bob and I have discussed on a few occasions ourselves. Does raising muskies in pens (hacheries) alter them in any way over long periods of time? Are we slowly but surely creating a new breed or strain of musky by doing this? Perhaps a strain that thrives in hatcheries but not in the real world? Very good point. I don't have the answers unfortunately. I doubt the DNR would either.
I agree the natural way is the best way but with all the human intervention that has taken place for the last 100 years or so with mixing fish, moving fish, building of dams and other obstructions, continously destroying lakes, lake shores, spawning areas, introducing pike into waters where they did not exist prior to us putting them there, and I'm sure this applies to other species as well, pollution, harvest, C & R, and the list goes on and on. I often wonder how just how well muskies survived before man came along. Obviously they did or they would not be here today.
I agree that genetic diversity is an important thing. However you can achieve that with a pure strain of musky. MN does it. They rotate thier broodstock fish (change them out with replacements) every 5 years I believe. They also use at least 7 brood stock lakes, I think it may be 8, that were puposely selected in 3 different regions in the state for good reasons. WI uses 2 brood stock lakes, with the exception of the green bay projects brood lake.
Both states had same situations going on 25 + years ago. Both were lacking large muskies. Both were stocking small strains of muskies. Both were stocking for numbers, not quality. in 1982 Mn changed, WI did not. MN now has large muskies, WI does not. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wisconsin does not?? Let's look at this:
Most of the Minnesoa experience is relatively new, since what, 1982? Thats a generational difference fo what, over 100 years between Wisconsin's programs and Minnesota's, for the most part?? Let's see what happens as Muskie angling grows in popularity over there, and harvest of the big fish increases. Down side?
Arm chair biologists are trying to create policy by forced audience. This group has by it's own admission studied this for months. Biologists I have spoken to in Wisconsin, scientists working within the field, have made many observations that refute some, but not all of the conclusions of this group. Slamr has it right, and I believe HUNTERMD does as well. There are already FIFTY lakes earmarked for NO MORE STOCKING in the area I fish as part of an ongoing program underway before this group surfaced. The introduction of Leech Lake fish was also in planning stages in at least three large bodies of water here in a planned experiment. This also was underway before this group surfaced. A muskie genetic study is underway in Stevens Point that has actually identified the genetic marker at the mitochondrial level, and are scheduled for continuation to conclusion; concrete genetic study that will result in a far greater understanding of the Muskies we have across the range of the fish today. One member of the restoration group called that study a waste of taxpayer's money. I have news, if those scientists were NOT studying the Muskie genetics, they would INDEED be studying the genetics of some other organism. I'd prefer they study the Muskie, but that's me.
Read my post in the other thread about the Cave Run fish. That's all evidence I pulled right from the documents that were shown to me today in the fisheries manager's office. The fish can and DO reach OVER 50 INCHES at just 9 years old.
Just one more detail I left out so far.
In Cave run and many of the rivers here in Kentucky, the Muskies die at an average age of 10. So many variables, so many details.... That's EXACTLY why it takes several years of College to get a fisheries biology degree, and even more to become a working scientist.
Waves on the water make the wind blow. Moderation and working within the already fast changing system of management in Wisconsin, adaptation of the ideas that do work, that's the key here.
| |
| | |
| Steve
You pointed out something to me. When I said "MN now has large muskies, WI does not" I see I was in error. I left out two words. Lots & few. Sorry.
What are the 3 lakes that were already slated for a study using leech lake fish? I would think that would have been pointed out to us during one of the many discussions we have had with DNR folks over the last 3 - 5 months or at least at the meeting in Madison or Stevens Point. | |
| | |
| Tom McInnis said: "There is an inherent problem with the premise. The argument seems to be that stocking the "right strain" of muskie is going to be the cure all, when in fact the stocking mentality is what caused most of the problems we have here in Wisconsin. Don't get me wrong, muskie fishing in Wisconsin is still "world class", in terms of numbers of muskie caught each year and the amount of 3o pounders being caught each and every year. But it can be better. The problems that we have here are not necessarily visible but has to do more with the health of our fishery."
My reply: Tom your statement is right on target, but it fails to consider the most important "why" in the mid 1900's. Yes, man stocked since 1874 for a myriad of reasons, in 1901 it was economic. Muskies had been fished down and they wanted more to draw tourism. It worked. They also expanded the range of the muskie, considered a "glamor" fish for the same reason. In the '50's and 60's and beyond, it was done "en-mass" to over come over harvest. In retrospect, and this is where you are right on target, it would have been better to simply close the endangered lakes to harvest. This is something that then and even now would not be well accepted, but it would have been the better course of action.
Tom continues: "In order to improve our muskie fishery we need to abandon the concept of stocking pen raised muskies in waters that are natural to muskie. Since the state has started to the practice of stocking muskies in native muskie lakes, the number of lakes that can now sustain their population through natural reproduction is less than 20%. This is an alarming rate and it should be THE major concern for every muskie angler. I want to get the point across that this is a "CRISIS"!!! If we don't bite the bullet now and stop all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes, then we will be just like the junkie who needs his fix, we will have to continue to stock and stock and stock because we would have displaced the naturally spawning muskie along with eliminating their genetic diversity that exist in each and every lake forever. I hope that it is not too late for most of our natural muskie but I am sure there are some lakes that are too far gone for the us to reverse the damage that has been done."
My reply: Tom this is basically what we have been saying. As you point out, unfortunately some of the native muskie lakes are too far gone to survive without re-stocking of the large strain fish. Selective egg taking would at least use the "local" gene pool if taken only from big fish, and still a crap shoot. As you also pointed out, AFTER the DNR began stocking many of the former trophy musky lakes, there was a decline in both large size fish AND natural reproduction. It is simply because of the FISH strain used. We know that the stocked fish from Bone Lake have very little reproductive success where ever stocked, but they continue to use them and indicated that they will again this year. This is WRONG, and yes, it most defiantly is a "CRISIS!!"
Tom continues: "It might sound to some that I have placed the blame on the WDNR and nothing could be farther from the truth. Over the years the pressures from fishing groups, business owners, and the average fisherman(myself included) have forced("force" might be too strong of a word for some so you can substitute "persuade" in its place) the WDNR to stock more and more fish without fully realizing the consequences."
My reply: We too have indicated right from the start of this Project that we are not trying to point fingers at what was done in the past WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS FROM WELL MEANING, HARD WORKING, DEDICATED DNR PERSONAL. When most of the mixing was done in the mid 1900's, they did not have the knowledge available to them that we have today. They did the best they could. Now we have better information and should/must use it.
Tom continues: "I do believe that stocking muskie in lakes that don't have a natural population is OK. And that if you are going to stock such a lake it should be from the biggest specimens. I do favor the stocking of the Leech Lake strain in waters that are found in the southern part of Wisconsin, where there would be no way that those muskie could find their way in to the northern lakes that have muskie or are void of muskies."
My reply: We believe that this is a no brainer, especially since "downstream" is the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers being restored by Minnesota. As for the northern lakes, please remember that the drainage lakes there had Mississippi River strain muskies prior to man's intervention. If the DNR cannot or will not do selective egg taking, for whatever reason, and a native lake MUST be stocked (beyond hope as you noted above), there is no reason not to use a known, native, pure strain for stocking and hopefully expect a return to a self-sustaining population.
Your final comment: "The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical."
My reply: We agree to disagree here. My previous statement above pretty much covers it.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| Slammer say: "I think, personally, it all comes down to this attitude:
"Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big."
Sure you can. Example: the Fox Chain of Lake in Northern Illinois. Spotted muskies "Leech Lake Strain" have been put in the system for years, yet no large spotted fish are being caught. To my knowledge, no spotted muskies are being caught over 32". I don't personally know why that is, but I know it didn't work. So, just to say "it worked in MN., it will work here" MIGHT be a bit short sighted."
My reply: Slammer, your facts are not correct. Leech Lake muskies were stocked in the chain in 1991 and 1992, in numbers that would have to be considered small for that size of water bodies. More recent stockings of Leech Lake took place in 1998 to 2004, again in relatively small quantities for water body size. Those have hardly been there long enough to contribute to the trophy fishery. There has been some large spots caught, obviously from the '91 and 92 stockings. Another thing to consider, and it has been discussed, is that just because they are Leech Lake fish, that is no guarantee that they will be spotted. Steve Sedesky said just yesterday that he catches spotted, barred and clear, for Leech Lake proper, which has NEVER been stocked.
Slammer continues: "The DNR spends A LOT of $$$ to maintain the muskie program in WI, and yes changes need to be made, but MASSIVE/FAST changes DO NOT necessarily mean that changing how that money is spent, will help. Does the DNR need to make changes? Yes, and they know this, and have communicated this to people. Are they going to make changes just because "arm chair biologists" (and no, there has NOT been a single fisheries biologist comment on a SINGLE thread running right now) think they should? No, and I agree they shouldn't. Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science. The DNR might not have made all the right choices in the past, but they have communicated a desire to do so in the future."
My reply: As we have repeatedly pointed out, if the choice to change were made to Mississippi River strain fish, the ONLY thing that would change is the "EGGS" placed in the hatchery jars. No additional cost! Apparently almost all agree that changes need to be made, but just what is it that has been "communicated?" So far, the only thing we have heard that they intend to do is yet another study, and then only in the southern, non-native waters. There has been NO addressing of the many other things we have pointed out, including continuing to stock mixed small strain fish into native waters and the Great Lakes.
Call me an armchair biologist if you wish, but I find your statement; "Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science." completely without fact and merit and we would appreciate an apology. We have read and included everything available that we could find, both pro and con. Quite simply, the material supporting our statements was overwhelming. That no biologists have chosen to participate here is unfortunate. I have made many queries of a nature that was directed at them, but only they can say why they don't participate. We welcome it!
You continue: "Communicating to the DNR our concerns, our hopes about and for the muskie fisheries is GREAT, telling them what should be done, will do nothing. We can yell in the wind all we want, but there is TOO MUCH MONEY at stake here to say that if we yell loud enough, changes will be made."
My reply: Various folks have been trying to get something done about this small strain stocking in Wisconsin for 30 years. All have been ignored. As Tom McInnis so ably pointed out, most of our trophy muskie lakes are in CRISIS. Something needs to be done NOW, not after 10 more years of study in southern, non-native muskie waters, while northern Wisconsin muskie tourism continues is rapid decline!
You finish: "We ALL need to make strides to work TOGETHER. So much goes on in the muskie community to keep us apart; the tourney vs. non-tourney fights, C&R fanatics telling others how to HOLD a fish, sites like Musky.com and MuskyAmerica.com publishing information that is personal attacks on other industry pros, arguing on the internet.....that needs to end. COMPROMISE and working WITH THE DNR is what is needed here....as well as compromising together. The DNR is NOT going to make wholesale changes, right or wrong, in their muskie programs, and we need to work WITH THEM TO HELP THEM TO HELP THE PROGRAM."
My reply: You are correct, and hopefully, despite all of the things you mention, muskie anglers can come together on this very important matter and get something done. Heck, I'm even communicating with Pete Maina because of this, and we haven't exactly seen eye to eye over the past several years!! Due to the current state of affairs, I don't see a lot of "compromise" from the options in our proposal to the DNR. If they are unwilling to move ahead rapidly, perhaps a stocking moratorium in native muskie lakes is in order. I know several folks who would think this would be a "good thing," rather than continuing on with "business as usual."
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| From Luke Chinewalker: "Adding to what Slamr said, are all the people that think the Leech lake fish are the answer aware of Project Green Gene in Illinois? The ILDNR recognized a few years ago that fish generally don't get over 50" and often have trouble getting to 50" depending on the lake in IL. They also recognize we have very different types of bodies of water from north to south. I may not be totally accurate on this because I'm not close to it but my understanding of the project is that it is an attempt to understand what species are most suitable for each type of lake in each region of the state. They divided the state into three regions and are evaluating the success of each strain in each region. The project is designed to take 10 years because it will take that long to develop enough data to be meaningful. In high school science and stats classes we all learned that you have to have enough data to make a hypothesis with any integrity. Simply saying Leech Lake fish are successful in MN and the water that is in MN is also in WI may not be enough. Perhaps the WI DNR should talk to the ILDNR at the Muskie Symposium about Project Green Gene? Maybe they can develop a similar study that would deliver some improvement?
My reply: Luke, we, and I am sure the DNR are aware of Project Green Gene in Illinois. Illinois is south of Wisconsin and is over 300 miles long. They have several different thermal regimes there and are wanting to know what strains perform best in each. Our native, and most of the non-native are similar to those in Minnesota, where "change" to the Mississippi River strain has shown phenomenal results. For you and Slammer to compare Illinois with Wisconsin is like comparing apples to oranges. I was involved for many years in getting the Illinois musky program started, and have kept abreast of what has developed there. They have a tremendous "mix" there as well. However, stocking of Leech Lakes muskies there in more recent times have yielded fantastic results, including a high forty inch class fish last year that was in its sixth year and a 53 incher from a 135 acre lake! Yes, LL fish work there too.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| Just "borrowed" the following from another board:
From: "kydave"
2. "RE: When the male muskies miss the spawn"
"I'm no biologist or anything but I can tell you what I've seen from personal experience. I live about 15 minutes from Cave run and each year in mid April you can see dozens upon dozens of muskies swimming up any of the creeks that feed the lake. Some people say that these fish do not actually spawn but I have seen it. The males and females together and countless baby muskies swimming around in the creeks shortly there after. There were muskies in the Licking River long before Cave Run even existed (the licking was dammed to form cave run). My great grandfather told me of stories of huge muskies running the creeks way back in the 20's and 30's. I saw a baby musky once that had gotten stuck in some chicken wire trying to get to some minnows that had taken up refuge between it and the tree roots that was tangled. When I was younger we used to wade one of these creeks a lot pan fishing and bass fishing, we would catch a lot of baby muskies 6-12 inches. We actually had one that stayed in this one pool that stayed there until he got to be 28-30 inches and finally moved on out to the lake. Now I don't know how many of these fish survive form the spawn or anything but these big fish are effective spawners. I don't know if this helps or not but I just thought I would share my experience with you."
MR. Worrall: From this Kentucky gentleman's first hand obversations, it would appear that perhaps there is natural reproduction in Cave Run, just not in the lake proper, but rather the native feeder streams. More food for thought.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I have stayed out of this for a long time, not to say I am not interested, in fact just the opposite is true.
I wholeheartedly agree, there is something missing in the WI musky management. We are not managing for big fish. My own "anecdotal" opionion is that we are killing to many small muskies before they have the chance to become big muskies. I agree that there may be some issues with the strain of fish used to stock WI waters, but the long and short of it is this; you will not grow bigger muskies if they are harvested before having the opportunity to become big. I really believe that we have the proverbial cart in front of the horse here. We need to first put our efforts into protecting the fish so they have the chance to get big. There is no strain of fish in existence that grows in the freezer.
Also, Larry Ramsell writes, "From this Kentucky gentleman's first hand obversations, it would appear that perhaps there is natural reproduction in Cave Run, just not in the lake proper, but rather the native feeder streams. More food for thought"
Purely anecdotal. | |
| | |
| Norm:
Appreciate your getting involed. The more input we get the better it is.
As we have repeatedly pointed out, high size limits will not allow small stain fish with limited growth potential to get big. They could change to catch and release only and it would make little difference with the stocks being used in the hatchery system.
As for the Kentucky observation, I sincerely disagree with you that it is "anecdotal." It is rather first hand observation of what was seen. Hardly anecdotal. It doesn't counter what Mr. Worrall learned from the KDNR, it merely shows that natural reproduction may be taking place in areas that weren't surveyed, nothing more. Just more "food for thought."
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| Mike, you are right, the WDNR's long history of managing muskie in Wisconsin. Also, one thing to consider that until fairly recent, the WDNR stocked primarily the hibredized muskie, or "tiger muskie", because it was cheaper and the technology wasn't there to pen raise the pure strain of muskie with any high degree of success. Yes there was some stocking of the pure strain of muskie before the 1980's but it wasn't wide spread and most of them were what is refered to as " wild cat stocking" and it had little to no effect on the population and the genetic diversity.
The problems that we face now in Wisconsin are relatively new. Can it be halted and reversed? YES!!! But now is the time we have to act and let the WDNR know that we want all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes to cease.
I for one am not convinced that the "Leech Lake strain" of muskie is superior to the "Wisconsin strain" of muskie. The Leech Lake strain has some good attributes to it's genetic makeup, such as it grows at a faster rate but this has only been due to the advent of catch and release that length now plays an important role in the success or lack of when it comes to measuring a person day, week or season of muskie fishing and I can foresee this trend to one day be an anachronism. It is true in the WDNR Research Report #175 concluded that the LL strain spends most of its energies in length where the WI strain spends most of its energies in gaining mass. This brings us to the point that a 50" Wisconsin muskie is going to weigh considerably more than a 50" Leech Lake strain muskie. And if someone is going to catch a new world record muskie, everyone will be concentrating on how much it weighed, and the length of the muskie will be a side note. I still believe that your best chance of catching a "world record muskie" is right hear in Wisconsin and the chances of that can increase with a new approach to our muskie management and I am hearing the right things coming from the WDNR.
As a side note, I talked to a very good freind who landed and released on the Minocqua Chain, a 57" plus muskie trough the ice before the walleye and pike season closed and it barely fit through the 10" hole. I do beleive that "PIE" is 3.14 which would give that fish a 31.4" girth. We will soon be having photos of this giant on the WMT's web site for all to see. I think if we concentrated more on obtaining a healthier fishery through a natural process instead of trying to artificialy boosting the numbers and tinkering with the genetics, we can have a greater chance of encountering more examples of the Minocqua Chain brute!
Thanks and you all have a great season and please don't be asking me where on the chain he caught the muskie, that you are going to have to find out for your self and if you do, what a story you are going to have,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | Norm, you believe that part of the problem is that we, in Wisconsin, kill too many small muskies before they have the chance to become big muskies."
In my opinion that simply isn't true. Since C&R has become the standard in serious muskie circles, Wisconsin anglers have always had the rap of being the "catch and club" anglers in our sport. I haven't seen that to exist. I do not know of a muskie angler who considers muskie to be their main pursuit who has killed a muskie in the last 10 years, be that in WI, MN, or anywhere. The stigma may have applied 15, 20, or 25 years ago, but I don't think it does now. As far as muskies caught and killed by people fishing for another species, it happens everywhere.
My third cent is something that I don't believe has been mentioned on this post yet. Though there may be a difference in the genetics between Leech and WI or MR fish that gives one a better opportunity to reach the magical number 50, and I don't think it exists, maybe we should look at the bodies of water these fish are inhabiting. Mille Lacs, Leech, Vermilion, all famed for producing huge fish in MN. All big bodies of water. The Chip, Turtle Flabeau, LCO, all famed for big fish in WI. Not on the scale as the MN lakes, but big in their own right. Point is, Minnesota produces MORE big fish, NOT BIGGER fish than Wisconsin becuase it has the water bodies which can support the multiple species of large forage to produce huge muskies. Bigger bodies of water also less affected by weather which produces a bad spawn, fluctations in prey popluations, and FISHING PRESSURE. WI smaller lakes do not have the capability of producing numbers of big muskies on the same scale as the MN lakes do.
And to agree with Mr. Ramsell, I believe natural reproduction occurs in many more waters than we realize. Sex is the number 2 drive in any animal. Muskies can adapt to get their groove on.
There, another guy with no expertise except for what he has observed telling you what you should believe. 
Elwood | |
| | |
| Tom,
For the record - ALL studies we have located that compare the LL and Wisconsin strains show that LL fish are longer AND heavier at each age than Wis strain. These studies were done by the experts. No bias here, just the facts from reports by Biologists. There is no available information that show Wisconsin fish weigh more than MS strain.
You will find that in RR 175 and IR 418 both are available on the WIS and MN DNR websites.
Everyone - repeat after me "Mississippi strain muskies are longer and heavier than Wisconsin strain Muskies".
This wasn't always true....
Up until the late 1970's the Muskies throughout the Mississippi River drainage
had the same length, girth and weight measurements. They appear to be the same
fish with the same ultimate size ranges.
Angler Water State Date Weight Length Girth
Kelner Leech MN May-73 51-1 59 29.5
Slack Jr Big Round WI Jun-73 51-0 56.75 27
Allen Flambeau lake WI Sep-75 51-0 53 25.25
Lapp Lac Vieux Desert WI Jun-51 50-4 56 26
Schaft Lake 26 WI Jun-59 48-0 52.5 26.5
Holsapple Big Winnie MN May-74 45-8 55 24
Slack Jr Big Round WI May-72 44-12 51 25.75
Banks Mississippi River MN Nov-76 44-1 53 26
Weller Chippewa Flowage WI Jun-75 43-0 57.5 23
Cotton Leech lake MN Sep-76 40-3 56.5 24.5
LeMay Chippewa Flowage WI Aug-73 39-11 53 5/16 22 3/8
Mcfaul North Twin WI Sept -53 53-12 57.5
Bob | |
| | |
| Woody,
Nice try but when you compare lakes of equal size MN wins by a landslide. It's not the lakes it's the fish.
Check out the Muskellunge data tab at this website for a summary from the largest Muskellunge catch database available - A source often used and referenced by the Wisconsin DNR.
http://www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | Fair enough, all I'm saying is that A LOT more goes into growing a big muskie than good genes. What lakes were the longer and heavier fish taken from. This is where we in WI can get the "grass is always greener" syndrom without looking for solutions within.
Look at the Twin Cities lakes for example, some have multiple strains of fish while others on the MN strain. Are the MN fish noticably larger in those lakes than the others. I haven't heard of or seen any difference.
This is a great discussion and I would encourage a fisheries boliogist or two to give a word, maybe as a chat guest?
Bob, you got in before me. I'm not trying anything, I'm just throwing ideas into the pool, right or wrong.
Edited by woody 3/25/2005 1:35 PM
| |
| | |
| Bob, with all due repect, your statement that MN muskies are longer and heavier is simple not the facts. Please examine WDNR Research Report #175. It states in a nut shell, if you compare the Leech Lake 40" muskie to the Wisconsin 40" muskie, the Wisconsin muskie is heavier then the Leech Lake strain. There is no room for interpretation in the report, those are the facts.
Also, one other observation that can be made from Wisconsin's Nancy Lake report of the LL strain being stocked in to the lake, is that Lake Nancy's LL muskie grew, on average, at a faster rate then the average muskie actually grows in Leech Lake. Which would indicate the early stages of the stunting of muskies in Leech Lake. Granted, there were no muskie present in Lake Nancy before the introduction of the LL strain ,but there were plenty of competing species, i.e. northern pike, walleye, and small & largemouth bass. My only conclusion is that if MN continues to stock muskie at the rates they have been, they too will experience the downside of over stocking that we have been experiencing here in Wisconsin over the last ten years or so. I would have to say that if MN follows in Wisconsin footsteps with over stocking, I don't think it will be as drastic as it has been for the muskie fishery in Wisconsin. But I could be wrong!!!
Again, my money is still on Wisconsin to produce the next world record muskie. We have a bunch of fatties here!
Thanks,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Could someone explain to me why from the retreat of the glaciers till the mid 80s Mn and Wi musky waters where about the same, then all of a sudden beginning in the late 80s they took off with better water chemistry and better forage base? Or could it simply be the fish being stocked?
If the Mn waters are that much better at producing large fish why with less pressure did they not always dominate the Musky kingdom? Not all Mn musky water is new musky water, right?
One more question how is it that Lake St. Clair fish are the proper fish to stock in all the Greats Lakes basin, when Lake St. Clair is hundreds of miles away from Green Bay and Duluth, but Mississippi River Fish from Leach Lake aren’t the proper fish to stock in Wisconsin’s Mississippi River drainage basin.
I think the only difference is that it has all ready been proven that the Great Lakes strain will work here by the Great Lakes project. Maybe we need to undertake a similar project with the MR strain on some major bodies of water. Like the entire Wisconsin River. Do a project like this only on southern Wi lakes and it is only giving people more reason not to drive to the Northwoods.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Tom,
The statement that LL fish are longer and heavier is only part of the statement that should have been made. The statement should be that LL muskies are longer and heavier at any given age then WI muskie. Meaning that both fish being 6 years old the LL fish should be longer and heavier than the WI fish. Comparing each fish at 36" the WI fish may very well be heavier than the LL fish because it should be older and it's sexual organs fully developed whereas LL fish are not sexauly mature with fully developed reproductive organs until around 40".
Fred | |
| | |
| Mike,
a factor that would contribute to the big up swing of large fish since the mid eightys is that before that time MN had considerably fewer lakes with muskies. Also it wasn't till around that time that MN switched to stocking only Leech Lake strain fish. The lakes that contained these LL fish years ago did always produce large fish...ie Leech, Cass, Big Winnie
Fred | |
| | |
| Tom
In every single study ever done comparing the mississippi strain with Wi strains, the Miss strain was found to be LONGER AND HEAVIER AT THE SAME AGE! For some reason the WI DNR would rather compare fish of the same length to see which is heavier. Why? This is very ignorant.
When you compare a 10 year old 40" wisconsin fish that has stopped growing or nearly stopped growing in length and is fully mature, to a 5 year old miss strain fish that is still growing rapidly in length and not yet mature, then obviously the 10 year old WI fish will most likely weigh more because all its growth goes to girth or weight at that point. Make sense?
If you compare a 12 year old boy that is 5'8" tall to a 45 year old man 5'8" tall, which one do you think will most likely be heavier? The 45 year old. Make sense? The 12 year old is still growing so he does not put on girth. The 45 year old stopped growing many years ago so he will put on girth. Make sense? At the same length the older person is heavier. Who do you think will be heavier when this boy is 45 years old and 6'2" tall? Make sense yet?
Comparing 2 strains of fish at the same length and not the same age is absolutely insane when determining which will ultimately be heavier.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Great post MRoberts. | |
| | |
| EJohnson, so in other words you do agree with the findings of the WDNR Research Report # 175 that comparing a 45" LL muskie is lighter than a 45" WI muskie. Also, I would like to have it known to everyone, that I am not trying to belittle the muskie of MN or some how attract more muskie anglers to prefer Wisconsin muskie fishing over MN or any other state or province. I am just stating there are genetic differences and in my book "there is no such thing as a bad muskie".
For those of you who still are in doubt of the differences between the LL strain and the Wisconsin strain I will relay the exact paragraph discussing the issue found in the WDNR Research Report #175 " Muskellunge from Leech Lake reportedly have a less robust body shape( leaner) than muskellunge from other populations (Younk & Strand 1992). When compared to the growth standard weight, Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the standard at 110.6%. However, Wr an index of condition, for muskellunge 42-50 inches in Nancy Lake was 86(N=16). Mean Wr for simalar size groups of muskellunge from eight Wisconsin lakes reported by Neumann AND WILLIS (1994) was 102 (range 89-122). Theses results suggest Nancy Lake muskellunge attained greater lengths at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length was reflected in heavier fish at a given age. However, Wr values compare fish of simalar length and do not take age into account. Hence, when compared to other Wisconsin muskellunge populations, Nancy Lake muskellunge of similar length weighed less".
One point that must be made in the study was that the muskies age in the eight Wisconsin lakes were determined by scale samples and the age determination was probably wrong.
And again, the Nancy Lake LL strain muskie out performed the grouth rate of the average muskie in Leech Lake.
I guess that I prefer to fish for the healthy robust muskie with "beer bellies" and other folks like to focus on a longer specimen. I think it will not be too long before the modern muskie angler adopts another standard in muskie fishing, and abandons the notion that length is the "end all".
Thanks and you all have a great season this year,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
| Tom
Could be, yes. A 15 year old 45 inch WI muskie might very well be heavier than a 7 year old 45 inch LL muskie which probably has about 10 inches left to grow before reaching 12-15 years of age, 55 inches and 50lbs +.
Its the mid to upper 50 inch, 50lb + fish being caught in MN every year that we are interested in restoring in WI. Not the 34-45 inch, 10-25lb fish we have settled for in WI for way too long.
You have yourself a great year fishing and best of luck to you.
EJohnson | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I feel this whole strain / stocking thing needs to be looked at in Wisconsin, but our biggest problems are size limits and indian spearing (winter and spring). | |
| | |
| Tom:
You said: "One point that must be made in the study was that the muskies age in the eight Wisconsin lakes were determined by scale samples and the age determination was probably wrong."
My reply: That is exactly correct. After age 4, aging by scale sample is not accurate, and "always" underestimates the age of the fish, and often considerably as they get older. SO, the comparisons used would have been with even OLDER Wisconsin fish at length vs. the Leech Lake fish. It really is quite simple; do you want to wait 15 to 20 years for a fish to "maybe" reach 40 inches and be a real "fattie" of 20 to 23 pounds, or would you rather have that same 15 to 20 year old fish be 50 to 55 inches long and 40 to 55 pounds?
You also said: "I guess that I prefer to fish for the healthy robust muskie with "beer bellies" and other folks like to focus on a longer specimen. I think it will not be too long before the modern muskie angler adopts another standard in muskie fishing, and abandons the notion that length is the "end all"."
My reply: I might be wrong, but the ONLY thing talked about these days is length, except when one of those long beauties has a "beer belly" and then it is really something special. That something special to the max is the "ONE" that Worrall, myself and many others is looking for. We would like to know that the fish being stocked at least have the "potential" to grow big. That is currently NOT the case! I don't really see many anglers looking for places to go that have a LOT of fat 36 to 40 inch fish with nearly no chance of getting one bigger.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I fish about 15 lakes in Oneida County every year. There is an EXCELLENT chance that I will catch fish in the mid to upper 40" class, and I do. There is a good chance I will catch a fish near 50, and sometimes, I do. There's a fair chance that I will get a Hog over 50, and sometimes, I do.
The mid 40" fish will weigh about 20 to 25 pounds. The upper 40" class fish will crowd 30 pounds. If I am lucky enough to boat a 50 or better she could go anywhere from 33# on the skinny end to 40#.
The sky isn't falling, here. Yes, I agree that some lakes follow the Restoration groups described model, and need to be adressed. Yes, I'd like to see more 50" class fish. Joe Musky has a good point, and the restoration committee continually dismisses it. I don't, and at this point with the information I have read, I can't. Harvest of fish in the 46 to 50" class is quite heavy here from the sources JM mentions.
Wabigoon has a unique and fertile fishery that supports an incredible biomass. We have a couple waters in this state that could rival her although the prey is completely different there, and our DNR has already long before this argument begun stocking the Lake St. Claire spots in those waters. Maybe someday I could vacation on Winnebago and have as good a chance at the One, but probably I will stick to the Goon because of the investment of 25 years learning that water.
Moderate to convincing folks that you have some really great ideas that warrant consideration.I think all three threads here indicate that there is more to this issue than should be dismissed, far more than simplicity suggests and less than might warrant sky-is-falling rhetoric. | |
| | |
| Mr. Worrall:
We are glad to hear that you still have some lakes that occasionally get some of the "lucky" stocking...the chance taking of eggs from a fish will at least intermediate genes and some growth potential. While your success is laudable, you are not the norm. Average anglers do not have anywhere near the same success, and that is the point...they can! We have never said that there aren't "some" large strain fish with the growth potential's you indicate, as yes, some very nice fish as well, but rarely anything approacing world class.
You say: "If I am lucky enough to boat a 50 or better she could go anywhere from 33# on the skinny end to 40#."
Skinny? Hmm. in Wisconsin? So far in these threads, all that has been mentioned is how "fat" the Wisconsin muskie is. Perhaps there are some skinny fish here as well, just as there are "fat" fish in Minnesota.
Your next statement: "The sky isn't falling, here. Yes, I agree that some lakes follow the Restoration groups described model, and need to be addressed. Yes, I'd like to see more 50" class fish. Joe Musky has a good point, and the restoration committee continually dismisses it. I don't, and at this point with the information I have read, I can't. Harvest of fish in the 46 to 50" class is quite heavy here from the sources JM mentions."
My response: You CAN have more 50" class fish. Why does this point get missed? You know what is going on in Minnesota. And no, we haven't "dismissed" harvest. We have always said it is a factor, but it is NOT the primary problem. The hatchery stocks, especially in western Wisconsin ARE the problem. Minnesota too, has a problem with indigenous harvest.
You further state: "Wabigoon has a unique and fertile fishery that supports an incredible biomass. We have a couple waters in this state that could rival her although the prey is completely different there, and our DNR has already long before this argument begun stocking the Lake St. Claire spots in those waters. Maybe someday I could vacation on Winnebago and have as good a chance at the One, but probably I will stick to the Goon because of the investment of 25 years learning that water."
My reply: From Kentucky to Canada and back. There are far more waters in Wisconsin than the Winnegabo chain that acre for acre, could rival the "goon," IF they had "the right fish!"
You continue: "I have a suggestion for the restoration group. Moderate to convincing folks that you have some really great ideas that warrant consideration. I think all three threads here indicate that there is more to this issue than should be totally dismissed, far more than simplicity suggests and less than might warrant sky-is-falling rhetoric. The sky isn't falling, here."
My reply: We continually find it strange that EVERYONE we talk to that isn't somehow connected with the DNR (or has a relative working there) agrees with our Project and gives us 100% support. We think most ARE convinced, and would like to see change.
Since you mention that "some" of our ideas warrant consideration, let's move on to current stocking practices. I find it interesting that this continually gets brushed aside. These are as follows:Currently the DNR is stocking lakes and streams in every muskellunge river drainage in the state with muskies raised at the Tommy Thompson State Fish Hatchery in Spooner, with known mixed, slow growing strain muskies with limited ultimate growth potential, from a single lake, Bone Lake in Polk County, and is doing likewise with a known, small growth strain of muskies from Squirrel Lake (and lakes with Squirrel Lake stock) from the Art Oehmcke State Fish Hatchery in Woodruff. This goes against all genetic principals of stock diversity and cross-drainage stocking. This practice has likely resulted in out breeding depression across our native and non-native Muskie waters which is shown in the documented lack of reproduction and lack of large Muskies in our waters. This "limited" use of brood stock could also be disastrous to all stocked state lakes should a disease unknowingly get into the brood stock lakes. This was "not" the practice used when Wisconsin's muskellunge fisheries were brought back from the brink of total collapse in the 1960's. In addition, "natural reproduction" from the use of Bone Lake stock is nearly "non-existent," requiring continual stocking.
The aforementioned stockings have serious management ramifications, both within and out of the state. All stockings in waters tributary to the Mississippi River could, over time, affect Minnesota's Upper Mississippi River native muskellunge populations, which have not been as dramatically altered as Wisconsin’s fisheries.
Currently the DNR is stocking mixed Bone Lake fish into the non-native muskellunge lakes in the St. Croix River and Red Cedar River drainages, confounding St. Croix River native muskellunge restoration there by the Minnesota DNR, and further contributing to the possibility over-time, affecting Minnesota's Upper Mississippi River drainage native muskellunge stocks. The DNR can easily change to a Muskie strain that is compatible with Minnesota’s efforts to restore the MS strain in these drainages, but refuse to out of habit.
Currently the DNR is stocking muskellunge in Great Lakes drainage waters (Lakes Superior and Michigan), with mixed strain stock from the Spooner and Woodruff hatchery's, endangering Great Lakes fisheries all across North America, including the Great Lakes Restoration Program now ongoing in Green Bay by the WDNR, which is being done with Great Lakes strain muskellunge reared at the Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery. The DNR can easily change to stocking Great lakes strain Muskies in great Lakes drainages, but refuse to out of habit.
Further, the DNR has an approved "state musky clubs stocking list" where "strain is not a concern" even though most of the waters on that list drain eventually into the Mississippi River or Great Lakes. This list should "require" Mississippi River or Great Lakes strain fish, depending on drainage to be stocked.
Another concern, expressed by a State biologist at the State Musky Committee meeting in Stevens Point on Feb. 22, 2005, was the stocking of muskellunge of unknown origin from fish farms into waters all across the entire state. When understanding that the DNR’s own term for Woodruff hatchery fish as "Oehmcke strain" (because they don’t know what they are) it becomes clear that the DNR has had and continues to have no concern for the genetic integrity for our Muskie stocks in this state or of the waters of neighboring states and countries. Their only concern comes up when fisherman want to stock muskies whose origin is known and their growth capabilities have been proven to exceed those of Wisconsin brood lakes.
The proposed and upcoming DNR "plan" does not address ANY of these points. WHY? The DNR folks at the State Musky Committee meeting in February agreed in basics and agreed things should be changed, but then indicated that they wouldn't and it hasn't been mentioned since, only a proposed "plan" that will only deal with non-native lakes in the southern part of the state. NOTHING for the bread and butter muskie country in the northern part of the state. WHY? And, no admission of correcting past errors nor intent to correct them. WHY?
No, "The sky isn't falling, here.", but as Mr. McInnis so ably pointed out, our muskie fisheries ARE in "CRISIS!" It is time to fix them, not do more studies in non-native muskie waters.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
| See the "Stunning new findings" thread for new information...more to come!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Kentucky DNR has NEVER captured a YOY muskie in Cave Run Lake. Never. The surveys with fin clip at stocking and recapture bear that out, to the letter. The fish do go through the motions, but no natural reproduction can be identified. This lake probably has more attention all by itself than most of the rest of the Muskie water in the South. If indeed the muskies are hatching in the feeder creeks, they are not making it very long.
Also, the biologist showed me the overall data for growth and maximum age. The fish die before Minnesota fish reach thier average mean.
He also stated his opinion about this debate. As I gather the opinions of biologists from Wisconsin and the rest of the country, they will be posted in another thread, in the Biology section.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell,
I see MANY fish in Minnesota that don't make 33# at 50". Most Wisconsin fish at 50 exceed that, by my experience.
I am not so sure as you that your formula will result in what you claim. If it is proven to work in experimental application as is planned, then I'm on board big time.
The effects of harvest on the large fish in some waters in Wisconsin is HUGE, sir. Minnesota is in the Golden Age NOW, and as harvest and pressure increases, the effects will be cataloged. That debate is still open, and you nor I have anything to add until the pressure over there, and the associated big fish harvest begin to parallel what we have had here. I fear that may happen if protective measures are not taken over there.
Wisconsin has been heavily speared since the early eighties, and I mean heavily, on many waters. Harvest by anglers has decreased, but still is too high on the 48" and up year classes, IMHO, and in the opinion of many of the biologists I have spoken to.
The statement that there are many more waters in Wisconsin that could rival the Goon is PURE speculation. It's cheerleading, and could be claimed to be patently misleading. There MAY be, but the devil is in the details, sir. The Goon is a very special place.
It's fairly easy to convince someone of your stance if you speak passionately and loudly from a 'cause celeb' stance, and support the ideas with the documents that support your ideas. I believe that this issue is WAY too complicated for the average layman to get his arms around; most have no real grasp of genetics, environmental factors and concerns, or even the most basic science of fisheries management. I only have what might be considered a rudimentary undestanding from a couple years of school and alot of reading. I could certainly study Largemouth Bass demanding that Florida Strain be planted here undertaking that study carefully for a few months, gather all sorts of documentation supporting my claims, and not even be close to having a grasp on the science involved with that management. I would classify myself as a layman, big time. I fail to see the horror of caution.
I am NOT resistant to improving the trophy management here cooperating with the DNR. That, sir, is the only way this is going to happen.
I for one am willing to see what the scientists here and across the country have to say, how many agree with you, and how many don't, and why. That's my position, and I will continue to move forward from there. I might add, it's not the first time I've approached a controversial subject that way, and will not be the last.
I personally like much of what I see from your group and hope you are right.
That many Lakes got 'lucky'????? Now that's just hard to believe.
As I have repeatedly said, please keep up the hard work sir, and we'll see how this shakes out! | |
| | |
| Steve,
If harvest is indeed the reason for the lack of big females and possibly the lack of natural reproduction than the DNR has the responsibility to stop the harvest of our large female fish - Period. THEY CAN DO IT - BUT CHOOSE NOT TO! They can stop the harvesting of sturgeon in one day if they feel too many large females are being harvested. Yet on our Muskie lakes across the state unlimited harvest of large Muskies is allowed by the DNR even thoug they state (as do you) that the number of large female Muskies in our lakes is not what it should be.
If this harvest of our large fish is significant as you say - and natural reproduction is limited in most of our water as the DNR tells us, SHOULDN"T THE DNR STAND UP AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT?
If we have native big fish in our waters that need to breed to sustain themselves- shouldn't they be protected instead of these "lab experiments" we have created at the hatcheries?
What is the safe harvest level of the large native fish that are near extinction?
With all due respect - I will accept no more excuses. It must be fixed. Another year of Doing Nothing Really is simply not acceptable. I do not believe harvest is the issue, but I am very tired of the DNR pointing out all the possible factors and doing nothing to address any of them.
Bob
| |
| | |
| Bob,
How will the DNR stop spearing? They can't, man. Talk to the Supreme Court on that one. There was a real strong attempt to pass a 50" limit on lots of the lakes and it was supported by many fisheries managers. That didn't get past the Conservation Congress. The Public voted it down in most places. The Public. Fishermen, women, business people, you get the idea.
That's the way this works here. You know that.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The DNR saw a tremendous danger to our deer herd in CWD, and acted immediately to reduce the spread of that disease. There was a feeding and baiting ban implemented the general public was very unhappy with, even though the experts warned of serious repercussion. The Legislature stepped in and the ban was removed.
Like it or not, we have the Conservation Congress and the people, the Legislature, and the people, and (did I mention the people?) to deal with. Complicated politics in this state. I'd LOVE to see a 50" limit imposed on about 15 lakes and rivers here. I really would. Maybe someday we can get the public's support and get that done. | |
| | |
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | Bob, I would like to start by saying YES, I think more could be done in the way of putting the right strains in the right lakes. That is a goal our Fisheries Biologist have. Having said that here are some issues for you to consider, #1 Demanding that the DNR does anything with out the proper funding is counter productive. Where do you think the needed funds for their research is going to come from?, and it does need to be" their"research for many reasons. Budgets have been cut and more of the pie is going to go to Wildlife issues and law enforcement than before. That spells less money for Musky management all around. #2, I am not sure if harvest of big Females is a issue in your neck of the woods..but it is in mine. I would think this varies greatly from County to County. #3, Your statement that "the DNR has the responsibility to stop the harvest of our large female fish,they can do it but choose not to". Just one man talking here Bob,but that statement will get you no where fast with the powers that be. The DNR can only enforce the rules,as it stands one legal fish a day if they like it or not. Take it from someone who has been working with the system, it may be flawed and change may come slow..but is bashing the DNR going to help you reach your goals?. If you want to see more funds for Musky stocking, research and habitat protection, vote for the Musky Stamp on 4/11. Maybe then the DNR will have the funds and tools to meet the demands of a pressured resource. Howie | |
| | |
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | "ditto" what jomusky says!!!!!!!!!!! and also norm brings up a great point. its odvious you guys are much smarter and more educated than i am, but for a simple uneducated moron like myself the answers are right there in black and white. if there were 7000 muskies harvested last year, how many less would have been harvested if there was a 40" staewide limit!. with a 40" limit you cant tell me there wouldnt be bigger fish growing also. regulate, not do away with spearing and how many less die? i agree there needs to be some checking into the biological end of this but, what will give faster results? yes i know.. i know.. im beating a dead horse but , its all right there!
Edited by muskihntr 3/27/2005 2:15 PM
| |
| | |
| Suggestion,
Dr. John Farrell, Mike Butler, Steve Kerr.
| |
| |
|
What are the Down Sides of Doing what the WMRT suggests?